Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - males will become obsolete?

- General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)

- - males will become obsolete? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/31855-males-will-become-obsolete.html)

males will become obsolete?

The other day on the radio--in the serious portion of the broadcast where they broadcast news (meaning that what is said during this time period should be at least slightly credible)-- they said that in another 125000 years males will no longer exist, because the Y-chromosome is so flawed that it will not stand the trial of evolution... or something like that. Anyone know how truthful this is? If it is true, it is really bumming me out. I mean, I know this is still in another 125000 years, but I mean, c'mon! What the hell? *shakes fist at mother nature*

I tried looking it up in google and other search engines... no dice.

:thumbs down:

Sexual reproduction is one of the driving forces of evolution. A random combining of genetic material has been nature's choice for several million years, and 125k seems too short of span of time for a replacement technique to emerge, survive and become dominant.
I'm not worried. In 125k years, I'll probably still be getting almost as much sex as I do right now (dammit).

You gotta love the male vulnerability( weaker sex) hypothesis. I hear a lot of that talk when I am in developmental psych classes but I really doubt it has much merit. The basis for the theory is that the x-chromosome carries more info than the y. And, in the event that something happens to a portion of the x-chromosome (such as fragile x syndrome) the other x-chromosome can compensate for the loss of info since it carries the same stuff. The Y chromosome cannot do this. Following this idea it appears that men are more likely to suffer from certain diseases. The problem with this theory is that the feminists have gotten a hold of it and have introduced an insane amount of bias into the research. In some cases the bias was strong enough to misguide the research completely which is just plain stupid. So for now I would just wait and see how far this goes before believing its valid.

Well... the groundwork for techniques in which two female DNA strands (or whatever) can be randomly mixed together to produce a new child already exists. What they said is that, basically, the means of reproduction will move from being a natural process of nature to a... woman-made? process involving machinery and what not. This is highly troubling. I talked it over with one of my best female friends, but she wasn't any help. She just said that men are fun to play around with. <sarcasm>Wow, gee-golly-whiz that makes me feel a whole lot better!</sarcasm>

She said a world of pure women would be the same, except better. True challenges would emerge: great women vs greater women. Arrg, ye mateys. I need to go sit in a corner now.

:thumbs down:

Quote:

Originally posted by zfleebin
You gotta love the male vulnerability( weaker sex) hypothesis. I hear a lot of that talk when I am in developmental psych classes but I really doubt it has much merit. The basis for the theory is that the x-chromosome carries more info than the y. And, in the event that something happens to a portion of the x-chromosome (such as fragile x syndrome) the other x-chromosome can compensate for the loss of info since it carries the same stuff. The Y chromosome cannot do this. Following this idea it appears that men are more likely to suffer from certain diseases. The problem with this theory is that the feminists have gotten a hold of it and have introduced an insane amount of bias into the research. In some cases the bias was strong enough to misguide the research completely which is just plain stupid. So for now I would just wait and see how far this goes before believing its valid.

Whew! Thank God you posted, man. I needed to read something like this by someone who knows what the hell he's talking about or she......... "zfleebin" isn't too gender-specific. Heh, neither is "Stiltzkin", but it is guessable that I am a dude. Anyways, Thanks!

:thumbsup:

Well, first off, not too long ago there was a study that showed the Y chromosome also has a fantastic ability to self-repair, unlike the X chromosome which relies on mixing to repair, which would explain how Y has survived this long in the first place. Not to mention that it was also found tat many of what we thought are "broken" genes are actually exactly as they should be and changing them has a negative impact.

The whole "males will die off" crap is just that: crap.

Zfleebin started out as a throw away name but I am man as well. Oh and if the article brings up how long men live compared to women you can rest assured the researcher is a feminist.

Yes.
I can imagine a world without males.
It would be a better world, in my opinion.

well congrats to you.

Pardon me if I don't agree :p

I can imagine a better world without man, sure. But that includes all humans since we are just messing this world up.
A world without males is a meaningless term. But I guess a theoretical idea is always fun to play with when you don't have to put it to practice

It doesn't matter really...

In that much time we will all either be destroyed or beings of pure energy. hopefully the latter. probably not.

gee i hope not, I sure like existing.

of course, it's all about testosterone.
that's the problem, as I see it.

Oh yea .. I can see a world where blood rags litter the streets because women don't want the "meanial" jobs. I can see a world where women are driven to extremes because of PMS. I can see a world where governments have cat fights as opposed to debates.

Not to be a complete ass .. but women need men to bring balance. Instead of hating eachother so much .. women can bitch together about how much they hate us _men_.

The Y chromosome is NOT flawed .. if it were, we would not be alive. People need to better appreciate the sheer magnitude of information that can be stored on the "small" Y chromosome. Keep in mind that the vast majority of the X chromosome (and all chromosomes for that matter) are "junk DNA" - we have managed to catalogue 30'000 genes out of 200 MILLION base pairs ... lots of room to move if you ask me. :D

This is quite a big philosophical question for someone who believes in reincarnation. I can't even begin to think of the implications of a world without males. The biggest 'problem' to consider is that the vast majority of people have an inherent tendency to be heterosexual.

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
of course, it's all about testosterone.
that's the problem, as I see it.

To a point...the main problem is females in history haven't been a part of running the world like they are slowly moving towards now. Women are nature's "check and balance" for testosterone. If men weren't the agressors and been fueled by testosterone, we wouldn't have the world as it is today. For all that is bad with the world there is still plenty good. I honestly do not think women would have had the "balls" so to speak to create the modern world as we have it. I hope that isn't taken as sexist or derogatory becuase it isn't meant to be. I think it took ruthlessness and agression that is naturally provided by testosterone. So I think testoserone's effects on the male animal are instrumental in the building of our world but the world is incomplete without the balancing influence of the female. You need both, you really do. Males just are capable of running the world on their own...you've seen how that works out. But the world does need the agressive conquering nature of the male to further our "progress". As Camille Paglia said,

Quote:

If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.

You need both; the agressive, conquering , testoserone-fueled male nature, coupled with the softer more peaceful female nature to make a perfect balance. The scary part of our society is many women, in an attempt to compete in the "man's" world are becoming more like men in their conpetitiveness and ruthlessness.

I'm not saying it's wrong for women to compete at all. I just think women abandon their role in the scheme of things to be something they aren't...a man. Again it's not wrong for women to have anything a man does, or to be anything a man can be in the world. But to suppress their more feminine aspects in order to do so is wrong IMO. And of course not all women are soft and feminine, but the majority still are and it's what has mostly kept us from destroying ourselves long long ago. The world needs a feminine influence in power and in general society as a catalyst for the male nature.

Man, is there a lot of female-directed animosity here. And a lot of biological determinism. I think it's undeniable that there are some basic physiological differences that have led to psychological differences between the sexes, but to assume that either sex "needs" the other to balance out certain tendencies is just ridiculous. To assume that the current state of the world is the way it "should" be is to ignore the infinite other possibilities for how the would could be, or could have been, in the absence of a number of formative characteristics, gender being only one of them. I love how all of you look into your crystal balls and say how the world would have been if women were in charge, or how it would evolve from here in the absence of men. The simple fact is that social forces are too complex to predict, and you have no idea how society would evolve if you removed a particular aspect of it. Nobody's talking about eradicating men on purpose, and as you've seen above there's no real certainty that this particular genetic event is going to come about, so you can stand down. Notice, also, how instantly some people start attacking women, as though this were somehow our fault, or even something we would want.

Wow, it seems like this statement in the radio show has succeded in doing what it was inteded to do. Anyone ever heard the saying "throwing in an Eris Apple" ?
This is nothing more than an attempt to create an argument by a clever agitator who knows that in the male genus it is programed that attack is the first line of defence.
You have been played (bigtime) and this (attacking feminism and women in general) is the reaction he/she were after from the verry beginning so that he/she can point at it and claim that men are primitive brutes.

We all know that there is no better nor weaker sex. The two sexes is simply a method of reproduction. Gender doesn't matter we are all one and the same speices.

Well it is still 125000 years away so I wouldn't worry about it too much.Besides the world will probably be doomed in 125 years let alone 125000.

wee you cleared up a mystery for me. maynard spoke once on how evolution would flush out straight people/sex.

i don't have faith in our science knowledge enough to see this happening.

it may.... who knows. i'll not be here . oh well

Lurkette: I just want to clarify my position. I have nothing against women or women researchers. When I spoke of the feminist researchers I was not labelling them feminist as a rude remark. The researchers clearly identify themselves as feminists.

A world without men hm? Well that would be interesting, until a spider came a long into the white house (formerly white, it's now fuscia, congress decided that it was "cute") and shut down the government because there wasn't a man around to kill it.

No way the human race is ever gonna to survive that long.

Yeah there's no way the world will last long enough to see that happen

The initial premise implied an evolutionary decline of the male of the species, as if an inherent defect in maleness would cause it to be selected out of the gene pool. Respondents to the thread have co-opted the argument to genetically engineer maleness out of the species and make it a male vs. female issue.

It's a shame that this thread has turned into a pissing contest between chauvinists of both genders.

From the original statement, the commentator suggested that the Y chromosome is fatally flawwed and is doomed. I suggest that the Y is different from the X and contains genetic information vital the the existence of the species. The onset of genetic manipulation effective ends evolution and starts the human race down a path of final destruction.

lurkette, you continue to be my heroine.

Stiltzkin: I notice a distinct LACK of evidence of the existence of this study on any search engine, but I'll proceed giving you the benefit of the doubt as to the veracity of your tale.

I think whomever put out this study meant to do it on April 1.

Mammals have had a male-female dichotomy for at least 150 million years. What makes anyone even suspect that it will disappear in 1/1000 of that time due to a "fatal flaw" on the Y chromosome? Something about the fact that almost exactly half of each succeeding generation of mammals (not just humans) has a Y-chromosome should lead anyone with two brain cells to rub together to conclude that it isn't disappearing anytime soon.

I suspect this study was brought to you by the same moron that claimed there wouldn't be any natural blondes in 200 years.

I remember reading this story a few days ago....and on fark no less....not exactly inconspicuous. :hmm:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...81^662,00.html

Quote:

Meek really will inherit the earth
By JUDY SKATSSOON
13oct03

WOMEN have just 125,000 years to learn how to change a tire and assemble furniture - because that's when the last bloke will disappear from earth, according to a new book.

Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, has caused a stir with his book Adam's Curse: A Future Without Men.
In Australia to launch the book here today, Professor Sykes said the male of the species would only last for another 5000 generations before dwindling fertility and a decrepit Y-chromosome consigned him to the history books along with neanderthals and trilobites.

Women, on the other hand, could look forward to plum jobs, tax-deductible child care, clean bathrooms and global peace.

"This . . . is a look into the future at how the Y chromosome will deteriorate, and I think it certainly will," he said.

"The time scale is debatable but I think it is inevitable.

"I predict the Y chromosome will be so damaged by that time that males will only be 1 per cent as fertile as they are now."

The Y-chromosome, which carries the genetic switch to turn babies into boys at six weeks of gestation, is doomed, Professor Sykes argues.

"The Y chromosome is a genetic ruin, littered with molecular wreckage . . . a graveyard of rotting genes," he writes.

"It is a dying chromosome and one day it will become extinct."

Professor Sykes said men could be rescued with "massive intervention" but it would be quite possible to survive without them

Which in turn led me to this....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...21/bosyk21.xml

Quote:

Emma Crichton-Miller reviews Adam's Curse: A Future Without Men by Bryan Sykes

This is a curious book: part complaint against the violence and devastation wrought on the world by men and part a series of extended forays into modern genetic science.

Bryan Sykes is Professor of Human Genetics at Oxford University and a specialist in deciphering the histories written in our genes. In his previous book, The Seven Daughters of Eve, his focus was a tiny piece of DNA called mitochondrial DNA, which we inherit solely from our mothers and which remains exempt from the general mixing of maternal and paternal genes that occurs at conception. Occasional mutations allow us to identify different strains of mtDNA and, by tracing these signatures through the populations of the world, geneticists can begin to reconstruct the movements of peoples over vast distances of time and space.

In The Seven Daughters Sykes was able to overturn long-held prejudices about the pre-history of Europe and Polynesia as well as laying to rest the long-running mystery of what happened to the family of Tsar Nicholas II. It was an upbeat book, full of picturesque anecdotes, but Sykes was aware that it told only half the story.

In Adam's Curse, Sykes turns his attention to the other piece of our human DNA which avoids recombination: the Y-chromosome. Here the story is darker. While mitochondrial DNA is inherited equally by sons and daughters - though passed on only by daughters - men alone have a Y-chromosome. In addition, not only is this piece of genetic material passed down solely from father to son, it actually holds the instructions for making a man.

Far more then than simply being a reliable marker of human history, Sykes argues that the Y-chromosome is also the maker of human history, the driving force behind the rape, pillage, conquest and expansion which have shaped our modern world. Ultimately, he believes, in its blind onward rush, the Y-chromosome may also have sown the seeds of its own extinction.

To unravel this apocalyptic thesis, Sykes takes us right back to the beginning. In chapters which are absorbing but which sometimes deviate from the central thrust of the book, Sykes gives us a potted history of the discovery of, first, chromosomes, and then of the sex chromosomes, X and Y. It is quite a shock to realise that this familiar, indeed iconic, understanding of our biological identity is barely 50 years old. The complexity of this evolutionary system then leads him to ask the most basic questions of all: why are there only two sexes and indeed why is there sex at all?

For as Sykes shows, once you have sex and then gender, all sorts of mayhem ensues. Whether it is European colonisers across the globe, Scottish clan chiefs in the Highlands, the Viking invaders in Europe, or Ghengis Khan on route across Eurasia, what Sykes identifies is the Y-chromosome at work, pushing for dominance wherever it can.

Even in his own family, whether through charm or brute force, the Y-chromosome of a 13th-century Henri del Sike from Flockton in Yorkshire has overwhelmingly outperformed those of all the other men bearing the name. Sykes even hazards that some Y-chromosomes may hold the secret of determining the sex of their offspring, ensuring more sons than daughters.

Ultimately however, the chromosome may have shot itself in the foot. By constantly replicating itself in millions of sperm (unlike mitochondrial DNA which stays snugly intact in a finite series of eggs) the Y-chromosome is increasingly becoming a chaotic assemblage of damaged and useless DNA. Whether as a result of natural exhaustion or as a consequence of the environmental pollution that trails men's efforts to impress and conquer, male infertility is rising rapidly.

Sykes calculates that men are already half way to extinction and that the only hope for our species is the discovery among women of some mechanism to bypass the Y-chromosome altogether. He sees in this possibility a potential salvation for the planet as well as for the human race. Having been to an all-girls school, I'm not sure I share his optimism.

Emma Crichton-Miller has produced science programmes for the BBC and Channel Four.

I'm reserving judgment while I search for more news articles, but I thought instead of blindly writing the fellow off without bothering to look for it, I'd post some articles for those of us interested in learning about it.

Unless you want to carry on with the finger pointing and flippant remarks????

Carry on.

yes, in 125k years if there was no males, that would mean i would be a female , and that would mean the only means of sex i would have is to have sex with a female! HLS omg lesbians!

Funny how even Professors can make premature conclusions. Hasn't he even considerd that within 125,000 years we will have found a way to stop the deterioation of the Y chromosome??
I mean, come on. Within the 50 years we have known about DNA we have mannaged to catalog almost the entire human genome, make genetic hybrids of pretty much any living thing even start to coustomake viruses to perform gene-therapy. What would hold us from, within maybe 10,000 years, stoping the deterioation of the Y cromosome?! Humans no longer follow the natrual path of evolution, we decide our own.

His claim that the male will die out is simply a publicity stunt to make people buy his book.

There will always be men....... who is gonna mow the lawn and change the oil in the car?????

You all need to see the movie, Roger Dodger. The very first few minutes there is a monologue of this same topic. I thought it very amusing and something to consider it's relevancy. Do I really care? Hell NO! I wish we could all get along! I think this world would be a much better place if we could stop bickering about gender inequality and who is making the most dough.....feminism sucks! I think women deserve as much of the fruits of their labour that men share......feminists are just seperating themselves into another distinct class of people who don't want to blend in with the rest of us. If there were no feminists, or male cheauvanists, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

God won't let that happen.

Eh i think it's a load of trash.

I have really don' t know that much about y chromosome and it's so called deterioration and stuff, but i would like to know how they were able to arrive at that conclusion.

Hehe this is probably propagated by the same guy who started the y2k doomsday trash.

I really like being a dude, and I really, really, reaaaaally like chicks... a lot. Kind of makes you wonder about God, doesn't it? I mean... if you think about it, having two genders is really a luxury. Some animal species only have one gender; they're asexual. Hmm... we ain't going anywhere.

What I find amazing is that NO ONE has flat-out said that it would suck if all males vanished. If someone asked me what I would think if all females vanished, I would respond with something like:

Hot damn, that would suck! I mean... they're so beautiful! What on God's green Earth would be heartless enough to make them vanish?!?! Life would no longer be life-- a man's purpose for living would go *POOF!*, and disappear. What the butt-sniff?!?!

/response

If someone started a thread about females vanishing in 125000, I would immediate talk about how much it would suck. None of the chicks have talked about how it would suck if we disappeared :(

I guess chicks really don't like us that much. Do you gals really think we're that bad? I mean... you do stuff to us too, you know. It's not like women aren't as evil as men... but I still love women! :D

Where's the love? :(

:thumbs down:

hahaha Stiltzkin is my new hero

How does sexual reproduction occur without males (apart from artificial techniques, which can also be developed for male/male interaction).

This is like the theories that XYY or XXY people were criminal. a theory later consigned to the same waste bin as phrenology (or better, reverse phrenology).

The idea that the Y Chromosome is a damaged and hateful thing does not stand up to my mind.

It's sad to think that men and women are willing to make sweeping sexist statements such as "It's all testosterone" or "Learn to change a car wheel". Lest ye forget, women are also "slaves" to testosterone; merely in smaller quantities.

Let's try and keep a debate such as this above this inherited guilt men appear to be expected to feel.

does that mean women will grow penises?

yeah Arcane is hitting on what I'm about to say.. sort of.

According to this theory, women will no longer exist either. Why? Guys have outties girls have innies. You need both to make offspring, no guys.. no offspring. Now if there are only WOMEN and they are reproducing... then um, you don't have women. You either will have a male group and a female group.. or you'll have a UniSex, If people want to term "unisex" as female, go on ahead, but thats a little too kinky for me.

So, seeing this... THoughts? ;)

Quote:

Originally posted by GakFace
According to this theory, women will no longer exist either. Why? Guys have outties girls have innies. You need both to make offspring, no guys.. no offspring.

Actually they could reproduce (in a lab at least) through ovular merging. It's been done in mice and they're working on it for humans. The offspring would, of course, be female because all there would be is X chromosomes. Not to suggest that we should do this, but the species could continue.

Consider how much has changed within 4000 years,
much less the past 100

In 125,000 there won't much that is the same, either social or genetic.

Also considering our abilities to alter the genetic code are increasing,
I doubt that by that time there will be any such things as humans.

However, there is a reason for male & females.
It has been shown that sexual creation is MUCH better in producing genes over time...and thus improving the species.
And that's all mother nature cares about.
The combination of sexual attraction, sperm/egg reproduction has developed over centuries
into one of the most diverse & powerful tools of nature to create stronger species.
Mixing improves the DNA, matching weakens it.

This doesn't even take into the account of the advantages of EITHER sex in society,
physically, emotionally or mentally.

And if you don't see this, you are blinding yourself to the possibilities.
We all have something to contribute.
And neither is better or unnecessary.

Remember, it is not always necessary to take down one group,
in order to support your own...diversity is MUCH more interesting.