Saw this trending on twitter today and thought what a great idea for a story. Someone gets the twitter tag #LifeWithoutMenWouldBe going and then all the sudden all the men in the world disappear. That would be a really great intro to a story, would women start a civil war (assuming the tweet is what causes man's disappearence) or would they try to live on as is? How fast is societal collapse?
What if a one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater descended from the sky and ate all the purple people?
What if a one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater descended from the sky and ate all the purple people?
If one did attempt to land, the US government would shoot down or capture it, then transport it to Area51, which does not of course exist... But is probably where purple people are also detained. The US government would of course deny their role in running what amounts to a gourmet restaurant for visiting aliens.
Kind'a like Chernobyl.
Without men to absorb the blame, it would soon reach critical mass, and meltdown would occur.
Constant bitching that there was no-one to take out the trash, no-one to unscrew jars and bottles, and no-one to lie that their pneumatic asses made them more womanly ;-)
AJ
Brah... been nice knowin' ya. Not smart playing with matches, though, when the estrogen crowd is gonna be lobbing Molotov's at you.
But society would cease to exist before you could make a story out of it, unless you're going for a post-apoc... (and would you be bringing the men back at some point? Or sending them all off to a 'paradise' like in Atlas Shrugged?)
There's probably enough frozen sperm to keep the species viable, but you have to wonder how long it would take for things to calm down and stabilize and what the world would look like a few centuries down the road.
There's probably enough frozen sperm to keep the species viable
Since the entire premiss is that all the men suddenly disappear, on what basis would you assume that the male progeny of the frozen sperm wouldn't also disappear?
Since the entire premiss is that all the men suddenly disappear, on what basis would you assume that the male progeny of the frozen sperm wouldn't also disappear?
Or for that matter, that the frozen sperm itself didn't disappear along with the men.
Or for that matter, that the frozen sperm itself didn't disappear along with the men.
I rather doubt that it is possible to classify sperm as male, or female. Saying it is male because it comes (pun intended) from the male is as baseless as trying to claim blood type indicates gender.
I rather doubt that it is possible to classify sperm as male, or female.
Actually, it's easy. The sperm with a y chromosome that will produce male offspring are male. The sperm with x chromosomes that will produce female offspring are female. :)
On a serious not, from what I've read assisted fertility are capable of separating sperm cells this way for sex selection for invitro fertilization.
On a serious not, from what I've read assisted fertility are capable of separating sperm cells this way for sex selection for invitro fertilization.
With only 85% accuracy. Which isn't sufficient to ensure ONLY x hits the spot.
Humanity, the human race, would probably survive through cloning.
For a while, until they discover that you get small degradation in the quality of a copy of a copy of a copy...
Yes, but that's what happens now, it's called evolution.
The problem, if you will, is that up until very recently, fuzzy copies were discarded/eaten by wildlife. Now they live to reproduce even more faulty copies, who go on to graduate from Evergreen college and think they know what they're doing.
It would be the Infinity War snap, but based on gender. Losing roughly 50% of the world population would be devastating, regardless of the gender. Losing all of one gender would be even worse. Some industries are dominated by one gender over another, so those industries would collapse. There's a good possibility civilization would collapse.
Yes, but that's what happens now, it's called evolution.
Evolution has nothing to do with artificial cloning.
The problem with a clone only society is that the quality of the clones of clones of clones will continue to degrade until either someone realizes the problem and stops the cloning or the DNA degrades so far that the cloning process itself starts to fail.
Yes, but that's what happens now, it's called evolution.
Actually, it was irv that wrote that.
As you said, cloning will degrade human DNA, due to copying errors.
As I said, natural-born humans' DNA is also degrading.
Look it up, IQ is dropping, physical fitness is declining, capability to reason is pretty much gone. That's a result of there currently being no downside to being stupid, weak and irrational, so the stupid, weak and irrational live long enough to reproduce in vast quantities.
End result is the same. There's a reason the term isn't "survival of the fattest".
As I said, natural-born humans' DNA is also degrading.
Look it up, IQ is dropping, physical fitness is declining, capability to reason is pretty much gone. That's a result of there currently being no downside to being stupid, weak and irrational, so the stupid, weak and irrational live long enough to reproduce in vast quantities.
Politicians prefer stupid voters, despots prefer docile subjects. So both tend to coddle the weak and work against the stronger, smarter people who they (rightly) see as trouble.
Why else would they put warnings on car polish not to drink it?
Why else would they put warnings on car polish not to drink it?
Anytime you look at the warnings label on a product and think to yourself "No one would be stupid enough to do that" remember that the only reason the warning it there is because someone was.
Anytime you look at the warnings label on a product and think to yourself "No one would be stupid enough to do that" remember that the only reason the warning it there is because someone was.
That's not true any more. Nowadays warnings are placed just in case, regardless of whether someone has actually tried it or not. Better to be safe than sued.
AJ
That's not true any more.
No, it's still very true.
There are warnings you read and okay I can see someone trying that. Those they can be proactive with.
But the ones you read and think "no one could possibly be that stupid", those, no sane person could think up proactively.
It might not have happened to that specific company, but it happened to another company in the same industry.
But the ones you read and think "no one could possibly be that stupid", those, no sane person could think up proactively.
You are seriously underestimating idiots, but yes there is a lot of legal CYA involved too.
"Do not sit on the wall. You may fall off."
A real sign on a 3 feet high garden retaining wall. Turf level with the top on one side, smooth pavement on the other. A sign of the End Times.
Why else would they put warnings on car polish not to drink it?
Why, on the foil packet of peanuts you get on the plane, does it say, "may contain nuts"?
I agree with Douglas Adams.
:)
Why, on the foil packet of peanuts you get on the plane, does it say, "may contain nuts"?
Because some moron with a peanut allergy opened the packet Despite the fact that it said "Peanuts" on the label and almost died from an allergic reaction.
Because some moron with a peanut allergy opened the packet
What should have happened then is Niven's best line from all of his books: 'Think of it as evolution in action.'
Why, on the foil packet of peanuts you get on the plane, does it say, "may contain nuts"?
On a more serious note. Because while much more rare than a peanut allergy, there are people dangerously allergic to tree nuts (almonds, cashews...). and tree nuts and peanuts are sometimes processed on the same equipment so that a packet of peanuts could be contaminated with tree nut oils in sufficient quantity to trigger an allergic reaction if ingested by someone with a tree nut allergy.
Learn something new everyday. I was unaware of that little factoid.
You will sometimes see "May contain peanuts" on packages of tree nuts for the same basic reason. Not that they actually contain actual peanuts but they may be cross contaminated with peanut oil which can be enough to trigger a peanut allergy.
ETA: To completely eliminate the possibility of cross contamination with oils and avoid the "May contain nuts"/"May contain peanuts" warnings, they have to segregate the processing of peanuts and tree nuts into completely separate facilities.
Thanks for the information/tip. It's proven useful to potentially solve a question from a few years ago.
We (former firm) had an engineer nearly die on a flight from Romania back to the US. It was an allergic reaction but the investigation didn't turn up any evidence of tree nuts on her person or in the flight snacks. Yet that's what it was. If the flight hadn't been diverted, she would have died. No one at the time thought about that angle.
It's not likely anything can be done at this time, but it at least gives her another lead.
What I'm having a hard time understanding is the general lack of knowledge on the subject. One would think something like this would be general knowledge?
It's not likely anything can be done at this time, but it at least gives her another lead.
It's almost certain nothing could be don at this point. It's not like there would be any way to prove at this point that that particular packet of peanuts was contaminated with tree nut oils.
It's been known for a long time that peanut/tree nut oils can trigger allergic reactions.
Fortunately generally, skin contact is not enough to trigger a lethal reaction with food allergies, that takes ingestion. However, if a person with a peanut allergy touches a surface contaminated with peanut oil and then touches their lips, that can get the oil in their mouth and result in a potentially lethal allergic reaction.
What I'm having a hard time understanding is the general lack of knowledge on the subject. One would think something like this would be general knowledge?
General lack of knowledge on this doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is that more people with peanut and tree nut allergies aren't more aware of this issue.
I don't recall where I first read about this issue, but from what I do recall, it took a number of deaths, mostly people with peanut allergies eating packaged tree nuts before the cross contamination in processing was figured out.
In hind sight the problem seems obvious. There are no major national brands that sell either peanuts or tree nuts that don't sell both.
The equipment used for preparing, roasting and packaging nuts is more or less the same no matter what kind of nut you are dealing with. So it's efficient to share facilities, equipment and workers between the processing of different kinds of nuts, including peanuts.
What may have been less well known before the advent of the "may contain..." warnings on peanut and tree nut packages is how little peanut oil or tree nut oil it actually takes to trigger an allergic reaction.
Every form of mass transit (trains, buses, trolleys, planes) needs a sign saying may contain nuts.
I don't see the human race surviving the sudden dissappearence of either gender.
I don't see the human race surviving the sudden dissappearence of either gender.
The current living members surviving gender might manage to live out their lives, but that's it. Once they die off, it's game over.
Someone gets the twitter tag #LifeWithoutMenWouldBe going and then all the sudden all the men in the world disappear.
Well, unless they could quickly master the theoretical ability to combine the X chromosomes from 2 egg cells, likely extinction after about 50 years.
There are no other species on the planet we are compatible with for reproduction, so once the last female goes through menopause, it is only a matter of time before all humans are gone unless X-X combining is achieved.
Cloning, short term is possible, but long term the lack of genetic variations would also doom the species, it would just take longer.
Well, unless they could quickly master the theoretical ability to combine the X chromosomes from 2 egg cells, likely extinction after about 50 years.
There is a third possibility, aside from either artificial cloning or combining the x chromosomes from 2 egg cells.
Although it would be a long shot and after men disappear it would probably be too late to develop the necessary technology.
That third possibility would be inducing parthenogenesis in human females. This has the advantage of being something that does occur in nature.
That third possibility would be inducing parthenogenesis in human females. This has the advantage of being something that does occur in nature.
Which even if possible, would result in offspring that were either female or unviable.
Which even if possible, would result in offspring that were either female or unviable.
True, but viable female offspring produced by parthenogenesis could then produce further offspring by parthenogenesis.
If the odds of viable female offspring is high enough that any given female can be expected to produce at least one viable female in her lifetime the population can be sustained over time.
True, but viable female offspring produced by parthenogenesis could then produce further offspring by parthenogenesis.
Of course, the point being that no male offspring would result. Not sure about you guys but for myself that isn't a desirable outcome.
Of course, the point being that no male offspring would result. Not sure about you guys but for myself that isn't a desirable outcome.
I wasn't suggesting it would be a desirable outcome from our perspective in the real world.
However, imagine yourself for a moment in a world after some event destroyed all the men. Whatever destroyed the men also destroyed all stocks of frozen sperm.
Someone says they can induce parthenogenesis in humans.
Your choices are extinction or parthenogenesis.
However, imagine yourself for a moment in a world after some event destroyed all the men. Whatever destroyed the men also destroyed all stocks of frozen sperm.
Or another scenario that has been played with. Where all men were rendered sterile. Like "Children of Men"
There is a third possibility, aside from either artificial cloning or combining the x chromosomes from 2 egg cells.
That is exactly what I said.
The problems with cloning however are already known. Mostly, instead of genetic drift, they end up with replication errors.
This is not unlike the reason why a videotape copied form a videotape is degraded in quality. As we live, our cells are damaged by diseases, natural radiation, and other environmental factors. Which then means the clone is already "damaged" before it is even born.
This is seen in that lifespans tend to be shorter in cloned animals. Some have even suffered from premature ageing and drastically shortened lifespans.
Now take this forward 5-10 generations. Each one will be more "damaged" than the last. Find a 6th generation videotape copy, and this type of cumulative effect is obvious. And without "genetic drift", the entire race would stagnate.
Now, 2 eggs combined to make a new XX genome and does not suffer this problem. Genetic drift still occurs, and each new combination is a clean genome with no defects other than was created when they combined.
And yes, 2 eggs to create a single fertilized egg would only create other females. There are books and games that even discuss this very topic (the oldest I know of being "Virgin Planet" by Poul Anderson in 1977). But the child is not a clone, it is genetically unique. As would be their children.
Still even fertile conventionally, in the event someday they are able to "recreate" males.
The problems with cloning however are already known.
Yes, but that's artificial cloning. Parthenogenesis is not the same thing.
Take it a step further and make them egg laying. Deja Thoris for the win.
Y not leap further? Egg laying, nest building and aquatic.
Or does the size of the bill put you off?
does the size of the bill put you off
No, the ovipositor
-- reminds me of the artie story Rebuilding the Species
#LifeWithoutMenWouldBe a world where you would never sit on a toilet with the seat up.
I grew up with two sisters and never heard the end to that.
It uses much less energy to put a toilet seat down than it does to put a toilet seat up. So the question is, at what ratio of females to males does it become more energy-efficient to leave the toilet seat down? Ten to one?
AJ
A more realistic question would be;
How close do your testicles need to get to the liquidiser before you promise to always put the damn toilet seat down..??
:)
After moving to canada, I found it amazing how much women bitch about the toilet seat.
However, it's all about the attitude. I found a solution that is highly effective.
Every girlfriend that bitched about the toilet seat being left up got a fight from me and bitching about leaving the seat down. Once they see how ridiculous their attitude is, they stop bitching about it.
I vaguely recall a dead tree book where ALL of the women in the entire world decided to kill off all of the men. (30 ish years ago?) They developed some sort of parthenogenesis to make (female only) babies.
They had ONE male survivor who was a Naval officer. He was required to wear a skirt as part of his uniform. Oh, and his DAUGHTER was his new commanding officer.
They developed some sort of pathogenesis to make (female only) babies.
The correct term is parthenogenesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis
sorry, typo. I was actually thinking of one pronunciation in my head and totally misspelling it in my text.
