# Will science render men unnecessary?



## Lifetimer (May 16, 2004)

I've just read an article (the same article someone here mentioned recently) about how science is progressing to making it to where women can have a baby without a man playing any role whatsoever in fathering it. The article talks about how scientists recently announced they had made artificial sperm from human bone marrow (thus, possibly in the future there will be no need for a man to help make a baby). The article suggests that science will possibly, "render men unnecessary'" to women. Maybe I'm reading between the lines TOO much, but the feeling I got from the article is that the only reason women want men is for reproduction purposes. The article practically came across to me that if women can have a baby without the need of a man, then they wouldn't want or have a need for a relationship with a man.

Ladies, is that true? Is the only reason for you being in a relationship with a man is for reproduction purposes? If tomorrow science perfected it to where you can have children without the need for a man in the least (and this includes without the need for a sperm bank as well), would you not have any interest in men anymore? That's the way I perceive the article. I'd like to hear your opinions on this subject. Here is the link to the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17937813/?GT1=10056

Lifetimer


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

Nope, my husband and I never planned to have kids together, we both had one each from our previous marraiges....reproduction was never in our plans...we married because we were/are in love.....pure and simple...


----------



## leppardess (Nov 8, 2003)

Actually, for my part, when I'm with a guy in a relationship... reproduction is the last thing on my mind :um


----------



## barnabas (Apr 24, 2007)

Yes, totally. The reason I had a crush on my seventh-grade classmate was that I wanted his sperm so badly. Not because I enjoyed his company or anything.


----------



## Drella (Dec 4, 2004)

No, I would have my tubes tied if I ever got into a long term relationship. I want nothing to do with children.


----------



## leppardess (Nov 8, 2003)

Lifetimer said:


> Maybe I'm reading between the lines TOO much, but the feeling I got from the article is that the only reason women want men is for reproduction purposes.


I think you are reading between the lines too much. Too, the way the article is written slants to the opinion of the writer quite a bit.


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

Pretty much. Sounds like a good alternative to moving the select few underground for reproduction purposes only and exterminating the rest.


----------



## mserychic (Oct 2, 2004)

Lifetimer said:


> Ladies, is that true? Is the only reason for you being in a relationship with a man is for reproduction purposes?


Is the only reason you want to be in a relationship with a woman for reproduction? What about the people who never want kids, can't have kids or are past child bearing age? There's tons of other reasons people want to be in relationships.


----------



## path0gen (Jun 28, 2006)

> Ladies, is that true? Is the only reason for you being in a relationship with a man is for reproduction purposes?


This makes for horrible reasoning against any woman that has ever used birth control.


----------



## Lifetimer (May 16, 2004)

*Re: re: Will science render men unnecessary?*



libbyberk83 said:


> Pretty much. Sounds like a good alternative to moving the select few underground for reproduction purposes only and exterminating the rest.


I hope I will be in the group meant for "reproduction purposes" and not in the group to be exterminated. 8)

Libby, either way, I still think you are greatness.

Lifetimer


----------



## Nae (Nov 10, 2003)

*Re: re: Will science render men unnecessary?*



path0gen said:


> > Ladies, is that true? Is the only reason for you being in a relationship with a man is for reproduction purposes?
> 
> 
> This makes for horrible reasoning against any woman that has ever used birth control.


Srsly. While reproduction is an outcome of sex, the fact that society uses birth control, going against the reason for sex in the first place (reproduction), shows that we seek out sex for more than its reproductive use.


----------



## Roberto (Aug 16, 2004)

> This is a real question for women, too. Eggs have been created in labs, and though we still need your wombs to make a baby, research into "exogenesis" - gestating a "baby in a bottle" - is in its infancy.


<_<


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: re: Will science render men unnecessary?*



Penny said:


> Nope, my husband and I never planned to have kids together, we both had one each from our previous marraiges....reproduction was never in our plans...we married because we were/are in love.....pure and simple...


aw cute, I dont plan on having any kids either if i get married


----------



## Airick10 (May 10, 2007)

We are here to reproduce. We all feel that biological instinct to do so. Obviously birth control is tricking nature to fulfill our urges and needs.

Personally, I don't want kids. But as a man, I have that need to 'spread the seed to as many females as possible'. No, I don't look at a woman as an egg carrier, but I am aware of my human instincts.


----------



## Mayflower 2000 (Nov 11, 2003)

*Re: re: Will science render men unnecessary?*



Airick10 said:


> We are here to reproduce. We all feel that biological instinct to do so.


We do? I went through puberty and all that but I've never felt that, nor have I seen any real scientific evidence that suggests this. What I have seen is that humans tend to like things like love, sex, and sometimes they end up wanting children (but for many various possible reasons, past and present). If we are here to reproduce then why doesn't nature kill off a human when they become impotent? Even population growth in itself isn't even simply about reproduction, let alone our primary biological instinct


----------



## Nae (Nov 10, 2003)

*Re: re: Will science render men unnecessary?*



Mayflower 2000 said:


> If we are here to reproduce then why doesn't nature kill off a human when they become impotent?


There are some theories about this, or more specifically menopause. Cutting off a woman's ability to reproduce while she is still healthy does seem silly. But:

1) By the time a woman reaches her 40's-50's, she most likely already has children that depend upon her, since us humans have such a long period of youth.
2) The older a woman is, the more danger to her and her baby _and_ her current children. If she dies during birth, her current children suffer economically as well. That also might answer the question of why men do not experience menopause? I dunno. For the most part, women invested more time in bringing up offspring. Which reminds me of a joke:

_12.OFFSPRING

Ah, children. A woman knows all about her children. She knows about dentist appointments and romances, best friends, favorite foods, secret fears and hopes and dreams.
A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house._

3) By devoting her resources to her current children and, due to our long age, her grandchildren, she is increasing her genetic advantage more so than if she were to risk having another child. I think Jared Diamond showed that on average grandmothers in hunter-gatherer societies spent more time gathering resources than any other age group and then giving those resources to her children and their children.


----------



## Inturmal (Jan 15, 2006)

If we are here to reproduce then explain homosexuals. Self-terminating gene line?


----------



## Airick10 (May 10, 2007)

*Re: re: Will science render men unnecessary?*



Nae said:


> _12.OFFSPRING
> 
> Ah, children. A woman knows all about her children. She knows about dentist appointments and romances, best friends, favorite foods, secret fears and hopes and dreams.
> A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house._
> ...


100% agree



Inturmal said:


> If we are here to reproduce then explain homosexuals. Self-terminating gene line?


Hmm, good point. Perhaps it is nature's way of trying to slow down the population? Nature's way of birth-control?


----------



## Mayflower 2000 (Nov 11, 2003)

*Re: re: Will science render men unnecessary?*



Nae said:


> Mayflower 2000 said:
> 
> 
> > If we are here to reproduce then why doesn't nature kill off a human when they become impotent?
> ...


If that is plenty of time to have children, then why don't we just age faster? Especially women. If 40s is enough time to have children, then why don't we all die off in our 40s? Doesn't sound like much 'theory' at all as it is just an idea. And does nothing to help prove the statement that humans are just alive for reproduction.



> 3) By devoting her resources to her current children and, due to our long age, her grandchildren, she is increasing her genetic advantage more so than if she were to risk having another child. I think Jared Diamond showed that on average grandmothers in hunter-gatherer societies spent more time gathering resources than any other age group and then giving those resources to her children and their children.


Aha, yes. And that has absolutely nothing to do with reproduction. That only has to do with parenting.

The idea that all humans are programmed to think they should reproduce is silly, simply by looking at birth rates in the western world. In some countries, the rate is lower than the death rate... and if these humans have this reproduction drive... it must not be a very good one, since it's not good enough to even sustain a population (a species becomes extinct when they dont sustain their population  )


----------



## Veggie1 (Jan 12, 2006)

I never wanted children. Okay, I had an occasional moment at times when a couple of my nieces were little girls that I thought it might be nice to have a daughter, but those feelings quickly passed. I tried to get sterilized in my early or mid 30s but was told by the healthcare person that I was probably too young and that I might change my mind. I never did change my mind.

I still wanted relationships with men, however. So in answer to your question, no.


----------



## justlistening (Dec 4, 2006)

Lifetimer said:


> made artificial sperm from human bone marrow


As if the strap-on dildo wasn't enough already!
Don't we have any copyrights? :stu


----------



## estse (Nov 18, 2003)

Goddess, I hope so.

There's always the cloning and infinite replenishing of the sperm banks. Oh, what a beautiful baby!


----------



## Nae (Nov 10, 2003)

*Re: re: Will science render men unnecessary?*



Mayflower 2000 said:


> Nae said:
> 
> 
> > Mayflower 2000":5373e]If we are here to reproduce then why doesn't nature kill off a human when they become impotent?[/quote]
> ...


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

^^ thats funny, I'm going to Massey University here in New Zealand in 2 weeks time. Lol maybe I could find him and discuss it in person?


----------



## Soul666 (Oct 29, 2006)

Eugenics


----------



## mserychic (Oct 2, 2004)

*Re: re: Will science render men unnecessary?*



Airick10 said:


> Inturmal said:
> 
> 
> > If we are here to reproduce then explain homosexuals. Self-terminating gene line?
> ...


Yay I'm a condom!!


----------



## Nae (Nov 10, 2003)

*Re: re: Will science render men unnecessary?*



mserychic said:


> Airick10 said:
> 
> 
> > Inturmal said:
> ...


 :lol


----------



## nothing_to_say (Nov 21, 2006)

*Re: re: Will science render men unnecessary?*



libbyberk83 said:


> Pretty much. Sounds like a good alternative to moving the select few underground for reproduction purposes only and exterminating the rest.


So that's why I have that barcode stamped on my head :afr


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

Quiet, you. Stay in line.


----------



## njodis (Nov 8, 2006)

Wait a minute. You're not even supposed to be here! :b :lol


----------



## nothing_to_say (Nov 21, 2006)

I don't want to be processed into Soylent Green :cry


----------



## Mayflower 2000 (Nov 11, 2003)

*Re: re: Will science render men unnecessary?*



Nae said:


> Again, I don't pretend to understand this subject fully, but at the basic level _every_ living thing's goal is to reproduce...or, rather, to pass on their genes. I'm not trying to argue that this is our personal goal, or that it should be, or whatever. Actually I think in the book ' The Selfish Gene' Dawkins twists this a bit and says the genes build us in order to pass themselves onto a new generation. We are sort of temporary vessels. Our own meaning in life is what we decide it should be.


Yeah I see what you mean. I was partially referring to a point that another poster was trying to make rather than yourself, relating to the question of a specific drive to reproduce. My point was just that the reproduction element isn't necessarily direct at all - it's just a blind, byproduct of our genetics. There isn't a supreme guide making us specifially designed to reproduce, and there especially isn't a mechanism directing all of us conciously to want to reproduce.
Like, to poorly illustrate what I'm saying, take diabetes for instance. Northern Europeans are 'programmed' to get diabetes in the same sense that they're 'programmed' to reproduce.



> The fact that birth rates have gone down considerably in some nations is a good example of how humans are able to use our ingenuity override and rebel against nature. In a good way, IMO. Earth is overcrowding as it is and if we continue on this path there are going to be a host of problems but that is another subject.


Personally I think it's a bad thing but I also find it neat! Almost amusing, that for instance I can get myself sterilized... on a biological level it's funny. "haha, take that, nature! I WIN YOU LOSE"
I think it's a bad thing because of dysgenic trends. But this is a controversial subject that most people are unable to comprehend rationally so we probably shouldn't speak of it  (I'd rather keep quiet and let humanity, or at least my country, **** itself over I guess)


----------



## Airick10 (May 10, 2007)

*Re: re: Will science render men unnecessary?*



mserychic said:


> Airick10 said:
> 
> 
> > Inturmal said:
> ...


 :lol


----------

