Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Women may make their own sperm

Ellis wrote:
"we no longer have to make it easy for you!"

The sooner you ladies do the sooner we will eliminate many, if not most, of the planet's ills.

When we say "man made problems" oh do we mean it ... literally.

Female biology is still 50,000 years back reacting to big strong brutes the way male biology is still trying to deal with problem that have not existed for 10,000+ years.

The males won't wake up until the females motivate them to do so. Teenage girls need to be educated by their mothers to stop reacting positively to aggressive stupidity.

We can hope.

My respect for your point of view has been duly upgraded.

Even that may change. Is our species in the process of recreating itself? - Mutual independence via asexual reproduction? The end of sex wars, and a befitting evolution of a selfish nature?

i think that Blacknad has a point...what will happen to us men when and not if women start making their own sperm?
what will happen to us? i sense a dictatorship with men as slaves and nothing higher than dirt...
but the ball is rolling and u cant stop science (thank god 4 that)
but in this case i would like it to slow down...

"what will happen to us men when and not if women start making their own sperm?"

I think at this point the question is a bit premature. In the meantime I suggest you men take some sensitivity training and learn to put the toilet seat down. If you can't make yourselves indispensable at least quit being obnoxious.

One of my brothers suggested that the way to end wars is to exterminate every man from age 15 to 55. Not a savory choice, but it might work. BTW, that includes him.

this is true but i dont think its goin to happen in a flash but i do think its possible that it could happen in the next decade...or two (i personally hope 2)

but u r right...

Truly-Grim wrote:

"i sense a dictatorship with men as slaves and nothing higher than dirt..."

How would they get men without having sperm containing a Y-chromosome? Their slaves will have to be other women. I'm sure they'll manage that easily enough.

Rede- You will now look at my posts differently, which is why I usually do not reveal that I am female due to the "gosh that's OK for a woman factor" or even worse the "well that explains it" factor! It was ever thus. Think of Currer Bell, Georges Sand, George Elliott and more recently James Tiptree, P.D. James and J.K.Rowlings-women all of them and there have been many more. And personally I do not think that having women in charge will ensure world peace----there is always the Maggie Thatcher anology, she was as ruthless as any male.

Rose has a point when she urges you blokes to relax and be nice. Most of us like you and we would be lonely without you, (not as bereft as you would be without us, but a bit unhappy!) I would urge anyone a with girl child in their care to never, never, never to call her 'princess' and then, hopefully, she will not spend the rest of her life waiting for rescue and the handsome prince to turn up. Instead she will feel able to rescue herself and marry the prince if she wants, or she could win a Nobel Prize or join Doctors without Borders or breed labradors...whatever! Her choice -not her destiny!

I really dislike the direction of this research. I think that male and female complement each other, and I fail to see any advantage in substituting this bizarre arrangement.

I find the insecurity my fellow males have around this subject puzzling and perhaps explanatory as to why their behaviour is so often anachronistic.

Sexual reproduction, as a mechanism, seems to be a decent strategy for mixing genes and inducing variation ensuring survivability.

If that goal can be achieved more efficiently in the lab, and this is something not far into the future, then the natural method becomes a typewriter ribbon in a world of computers.

Ellis: "I think that male and female complement each other".

- Well, yes...what's new? . Although you do have a point - there seem to be some who aren't so sure.

Ellis: "You will now look at my posts differently, which is why I usually do not reveal that I am female"

- It's the nature of the complementarity (that you mentioned) that, with regard to certain aspects of life, sometimes makes it important to identify the masculine and feminine perspectives - to me, that's a fact almost too obvious to be worth stating. The male and female perspectives are often different. That doesn't mean that one is 'wrong' and the other 'right'. They are two sides of the same coin, and both have value.

Ellis: '"gosh that's OK for a woman factor" or even worse the "well that explains it" factor!"'

- Let's both hope that you find no evidence of such sarcasm and condescension from me.

Ellis: "I really dislike the direction of this research"

- Sooner or later, somewhere or other, the research would be done; we may like it or not, but there's no prospect of preventing it. As with so many lines of research, this one has potential for good and bad.

Unfortunately there is some research that should perhaps not be done. (Now that is a heracy to a scientist.) I know that advancing knowledge is all-important, but I am thinking of the unethical research of the likes of Mengele, and the moral dilemma posed by the seemingly useful results. Do you use the results obtained in such a disgusting way saying that the end justifies the means, or do you scrap them and start again?

Of course the research in question here is not so offensive, but it still poses tricky questions for the future that are not being fully explored.

Rede-So far I have steered clear of either condescension or sarcasm here. I like looking at the topics and often I have done further reading to help me understand what the heck you are all on about, which has to be good!

Ellis wrote:
"Unfortunately there is some research that should perhaps not be done. (Now that is a heracy to a scientist."

Actually it is a bit more difficult than that. There are certainly ethical issues related to some projects. But I don't think any knowledge should be off-limits.

The decisions as to what to do with the knowledge. For example knowing that hydrogen can be fused into helium, might be used to understand the sun or to build bombs. The implementation of the technology to destructive ends is not a matter of science but rather one where society needs to take control. Tens of thousands of gas centrifuges, for example, don't build themselves.

I don't find this research to involve any ethical issues. Though I will readily acknowledge that there may be ethical issues, in the future, with respect to implementation.

However if the end result of this research is that sperms are not required to create happy healthy babies in the arms of loving mothers who want them. The only ethical issue I can see is whether we can use duct tape on the mouths of the dinosaurs.

Yes, DA, I subscribe to those views.

Here's a new word for the forum lexicon - "Morganism". This is a Grade A example:

"The only ethical issue I can see is whether we can use duct tape on the mouths of the dinosaurs."

Has anyone mentioned that this is a load of bollox.

What is bollux Ed? DA ,or the sperm, or the dinosaur (which I must confess I don't understand!), or the lot?

Ellis, I did notice that you addressed your question to DA, but:

Definition of dinosaur:
"2. outmoded person or thing: somebody or something that is hopelessly out of date or incapable of adapting to change"
Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

DA made a point in a good humoured way. The point being that, in view of the potential for good that could result from this research, it might be beneficial to society if those 'dinosaurs' were, let's say, somewhat less vocal in their opposition!

The only bollox so far is that such a statement would be made and no link and not a shred of supporting information provided.

Scientific opinion is not swayed by posturing.

I know you can do far better Eduardo. How about stating the basis for your opinion with a reference?

I have five intelligent, independent, beautiful sisters. I am well aware of the pointless and arbitrary 'chest-pounding' that goes on among myself and my six brothers. However, if anyone is sincerely convinced that female domination would result in even a remotely more peacful existence, I am afraid that they are in a desperate need of a history lesson; been ther, tried that; same result ladies. Sorry. The heart of the problem is not with the sex that propagates it, it lies within the dark domain of ignorance...plain and simple.

Actually when the planet experienced Female dominance the patterns of society were a bit different. Typically the female dominant side of the brain is intuitive and sensitive, willing to work with the environment. When the female side is balanced with logic it doesn't run amok. The male side is somewhat different in that it uses logic to try and control or rule nature rather than to tune into it and as a result tries to dominate or manipulate it. When the logical urge is balanced with the intuitive side, the female half of the brain becomes the male sides muse.

There have been many times intuition reaches out to make sense of reality but at the present moment the ideology of male pride, greed, and motivation to control often squashes intuition and remains destructive. This influence has spread even to the female side of the human species. It would take some time to transmute the damage and influence even if women were to suddenly have the reigns to the wagon and were to steer humanity toward a goal that would eventually evolve into something different.

The role playing isn't the issue nor the solution. A balance has to occur in the human psyche before humanity can ascend its current state of ignorance to create not only enlightenment within the individual but in humanity itself.