Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Men are now obsolete

  1. Oct 31, 2005 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 31, 2005 #2
    which is cheaper... sex .. or science funding.. hmm?
     
  4. Oct 31, 2005 #3

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    They still very much need them for protection: "you are the sex-object, I am the protector". Sorry guys, I don't make the rules.
     
  5. Nov 1, 2005 #4

    A World full of High Tech Amazon Women.

    When there's a World full of nothing but Women, Why does a Woman need a Mans protection? Woman are just as Dangerous as Men, Especially Warrior Women.

    Super Male Androids can fill a Mans position for a Woman, Especially Endowed Androids programmed with all a Womans needs.

    Besides, Geneticist say the Human Male species is going extinct in 25,000 years because of genetic flaws, Women will go extinct in 75,000 years because the genetics are more complex.
     
  6. Nov 1, 2005 #5

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ah darn it! I knew we were useless :frown:
     
  7. Nov 1, 2005 #6
    Oh, that's a good idea. Providing, I assume, that every man in the world consents to donate cells to avoid artificially-inseminated women's legacy from scraping the bottom of the gene pool within a few generations from all using sperm from the same source of stem cells. Thing is, that would render men necessary again. Hmmmm. No-one's thought this through very well, have they.

    And what would they do with male babies created in this way?
     
  8. Nov 1, 2005 #7
    there is a reason why men exist and let it be that way, waht if the manhood is extincted and then all of a sudden a desea so deadly that it kills you whit in a month and no antibiotica or anything effect it apphere and the only chromosone that contain the gene with immunity was the Y chromosone? then humanity have a big trouble, acctualy we can soon say that girls are obselet, maybe in 10 years they are it aswell. are we gonna live then like in vandread? one planet only mens and one other with only womans and both hate each other
     
  9. Nov 1, 2005 #8
    There isn't any degeneration of the gene mentioned within the article.

    Here is the Article.

    14, 2004 ยท Men's ability to produce sperm makes them an invaluable resource for the human species. But what if you could produce sperm without men? As NPR's Joe Palca reports in part two of his series The End of Men, that may soon be possible.

    Making Sperm in the Lab: A Primer

    The secret of producing sperm without men appears to lie in embryonic stem cells. Under the right conditions, these cells can replenish themselves indefinitely in the laboratory, and they can, in theory, turn into any type of cell in the body.

    But for a long time, many questioned whether embryonic stem cells could turn into sperm -- a highly specialized cell that's only formed after puberty. The smallest cells in the male body, sperm are programmed to find and fertilize an egg.

    Last year, scientists proved that they could not only create sperm in a petri dish, but also use that sperm to fertilize a mouse egg.

    Led by George Daley of Children's Hospital in Boston, the researchers began their process by culturing mouse embryonic stem cells to form globular clusters called embryoid bodies.

    Cells in these embryoid bodies differentiated into primitive germ cells (the precursors of eggs and sperm). The germ cells were tagged with a fluorescent chemical that allowed the scientists to isolate and track the germ cells as the body developed.

    Those embryoid bodies that were allowed to grow contained cells that became mature male sex cells similar to sperm, minus the tails. Those tail-less sperm were injected directly into mouse egg cells, essentially fertilizing them. The fertilized eggs then developed into early embryos called blastocysts.

    So What's This Mean for Men?

    Although embryonic stem cells can make primitive spermatids, it's not known yet whether these resulting tail-less sperm will be able to do all the things that regular sperm are supposed to do.

    Daley's team has not yet proved that eggs fertilized with sperm derived from embryonic stem cells will grow into a mouse pup when implanted in a mouse mom. But he's confident he'll be able to do that.

    Daley also believes that what works with mouse embryonic stem cells will also work with human embryonic stem cells. But he's not trying to put men out of business -- he simply wants to study sperm cell development and infertility.

    "The implications for being able to make sperm in a dish allows you to ask questions about normal sperm development, and abnormal sperm development," Daley says.

    Besides, Daley notes, there's still one thing that makes men indispensable: "It's clear to make a sperm cell, you do need the Y chromosome. So insofar as men are the only ones who harbor the Y chromosome, you still need a male cell."

    Note:
    Of course, ((once embryonic stem cells start producing sperm)), they can keep doing so forever.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2005
  10. Nov 1, 2005 #9
    This is what I was refering to. It is not only necessary to supply the Y chromosome, but lots of Y chromosomes.

    Imagine the same Y chromosome is used to create all the sperm used. Result? Every first generation human has the same genetic father - every member of that generation are genetic half-siblings. Dead end.

    To counter this, you need lots of Y chromosomes. The perfect amount will be one each from every male on the planet, hence even in this method of procreation men are still essential, for one generation at least.

    And what about after the first generation? You could ensure that the second generation are the product of women using sperm with different Y chromosomes. This will work for a few generations, but after then you'll have overlap. Having one store of Y chromosomes used for every generation limits how far the genes can spread.

    The logical solution to this is to to take Y chromosomes from all of the first generation males born by this process. Repeat ad infinitum. What you end up with is sex where the mother and father may not meet, but each are equally essential.
     
  11. Nov 1, 2005 #10

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    My eyes are bleeding from reading this
     
  12. Nov 1, 2005 #11
    You're one to talk.
     
  13. Nov 1, 2005 #12

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    They sure know how to take all the fun out of making babies. Don't worry, men, we'll still keep you around for entertainment. :tongue2:
     
  14. Nov 1, 2005 #13

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Protection from what?
     
  15. Nov 1, 2005 #14
    Spiders. :surprised
     
  16. Nov 1, 2005 #15

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Fair enough. :biggrin:
     
  17. Nov 1, 2005 #16

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    From other men of course especially if they have children and especially so if they have daughters. Hey, I don't make the rules, I'm just realistic.
     
  18. Nov 1, 2005 #17

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't think it is men specifically who protect women and girls from other predatory men. I think that used to be the case, but now it is the legal system that does this.
     
  19. Nov 1, 2005 #18
    We could go on with this for a while. One side says we can fertilize our own eggs and the other side builds artificial wombs (currently illegal in the U.S.), or maybe we could all turn ourselves into robots or maybe just redesign our dna so that we can each give birth to our own clones (or cloned ducks, for that matter). :bugeye:

    You know, it's nonsense like this that perpetuates the all too common belief that scientists are hard at work wasting everyones money. :grumpy:

    This is me finding something somewhat more sophisticated than a rerun of Johnny Knoxville. :uhh:
     
  20. Nov 1, 2005 #19
    I'm not giving my Y chromosome to anyone!
    I hope Al-Queda has enough sense to bomb that place where this research is going on!!
     
  21. Nov 1, 2005 #20
    Are you saying you'd participate in the harming of people over a Y Chromosome?

    Even an embryotic Stem Cell is so hard to see with the naked eye that it has no more value than the smallest red mite that you squish under your feet daily on the ground and the stem cell is even smaller and has no appendages, Its just a round little red ball.

    Doesn't the life of a child or an Adult have more value than a little red ball you can't see without a Magnifying glass.

    What about all the precious life of all those Sperm that usually gets tossed off, Sperm are living things too, Yet we no more care about them as to look into some magazine and fantasize them away into oblivian.

    I simply cannot understand your mentallity on any of this.

    End of thread.
     
  22. Nov 2, 2005 #21

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    MIH . . . wait, three more . . . how many women reading that think to themselves, "if I waited for the legal system to protect me, I'd be dead by now".

    I gave my daughter life twice: The other time was when she was 6 years old, came inside when I was in the shower and said, "someone outside wants me to go with them to find the campus office". I poked my head out and shouted, "don't you dare go anywhere with anyone". The legal system would have just kept on showering.:smile:
     
  23. Nov 2, 2005 #22

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Okay, I agree it's not the legal system that does the protecting, but women are perfectly capable of protecting themselves. Though, of course if we go with the premise that men are expendable, I guess it's better if we send them out to find out if the noise we heard is an intruder ready to shoot the first person to stumble upon them, but it doesn't mean men are any better at shaking in their slippers and bathrobe while weilding a golf club as they head down the dark hallway to investigate the source of the noise that woke them up.

    Besides, if we got rid of all men, we wouldn't need men to protect us from other men. :biggrin:

    Do you think if your wife was the one in the shower when your daughter came in saying there was someone asking her to leave with them that she'd have been any less effective at protecting your daughter? Would she have just said, "sure honey, do whatever you want?" If she's like most mothers, rather than just holler out the shower to not go anywhere, she'd have probably castrated the guy at the door with a curling iron for daring to hurt her child.
     
  24. Nov 2, 2005 #23

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think that the legal system does protect us, maybe not directly as a weapon or physical barrier to an attacker would, but the attacker knows that if the laws are broken, and he is caught, there will be consequences. This is a deterrent. If we lived in an anarchic environment, where there were no penalties for crimes against women, yes, men would certainly function as protectors. But this is not the way we live anymore. Lawbreakers answer to the group as a whole, and are punished by the group, not individual males.
    An intruder breaking into a home definitely fears finding an angry man inside, but he has just as much to fear from a well-armed woman. There are many reasons I seek out the company of men, but protection is not one of them. If I feel like I need physical protection, a big dog or a gun is a better choice.
     
  25. Nov 2, 2005 #24

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Now I know you independent women wish to assert your independence and wish not to perhaps acknowledge the benefits of a man (a good man) in a woman's life. And how a man offers more protection for her and her children then she herself. It's a marvelous Darwinian synergy of reproductive and survival success exquisitely crafted over 100,000 generations. And when it works, it works very well indeed.

    "If if was a skiff we'd go for a ride". That means of course, my wife WASN't there. I was. Soon after, we played a little skit: me in my car on the street, she on the sidewalk, where I was a stranger attempting to abduct her. She reminds me of that from time to time.:smile:
     
  26. Nov 2, 2005 #25

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually, all that really argues is that two adults in the household are better than one; one to guard the nest while the other hunts for food is one way of looking at it. Or, if you fight in a group, you're better off than fighting alone (most of the time anyway). But it doesn't mean men are better at protecting than women, or necessary for protection. Without men around, women can still form social groups that would serve the same purpose of taking turns guarding the offspring from predators.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook