/sci/ - Science & Math

♦as a man I am against this because quite simply I like to fuck things

>>1684880
Eh, I'm not so into fucking things, so I have no problem with the idea except for the lack of it as an option to f+f couples as an alternative means of reproducing.

However, political opinions aside, what about the scientific view point?

>>1684926
I reserve my scientific view point for people who aren't faggots

>>1684950
You don't have a scientific viewpoint, as evident by your bullshit reason for not giving one.

It's called Artificial Insemination

>>1684975
No no no, that requires the use of sperm, which is male involvement.

>>1684880
Can they only reproduce women?

>>1684999
The end result of the procedure is always female.

Why would you even want to? I mean, it would be useful in principal for surviving disasters, but storing sperm would be far more effective. Eliminating sexual reproduction would have massive drawbacks, not least of which would be making it nearly impossible to genetically adapt to environmental changes.

>>1685003
>implying that it would eliminate evolution
No genetic manipulation is involved nor is any cloning. It's still reproduction, just with only one gender, it still requires 2 parents.

Where would one find legal information concerning this work?

i'll be concerned about diseases that may be causes by this, less self defences or genetivs flaws because of only one gender.

But sex selection means all women of the future will be manly lesbians if we do this! We can't freeze ourselves and go forward in time to a sexy lesbian orgy, it would be an ugly lesbian orgy!

>>1685063
Gender is determined by one chromosome (sp?) in a pair. XY for male, XX for female. How would having only one gender result in genetic flaws that can't be caused by normal reproduction?

The reason this will not be allowed is that stupid people are scared when you mess with the creation of people. It defeats the whole you need a man and a woman argument and then the religious will call it devil-worship. Your research will be protested. Politicians will enact laws. And it will be banned.

Eventually how would you suppress the natural urge for women to have relations with men if only women babies can be produced, eventually men might die out, if masses of women elect for this.

>>1685082
See
>>1685071

>>1685071
What makes you think we would become an all female population? Females are normally attracted to males, so this wouldn't be capable of eliminating heterosexuality from females.

Furthermore, what makes you think all humans of the future would be ugly or sex-obsessed?

>all women can reproduce by themselves, but they only make more women

STOP THAT NOW. MEN ARE FAR MORE LOGICAL THAN WOMEN, AND IF THIS SOMEHOW SPIRALS INTO HELL, ALL MEN MIGHT DIE.

>>1685082
It is not our goal to surpress any urges.

Look at it this way: If the supply of men goes down, won't the demand go up? Food for thought.

>>1685098
Get a hold of yourself, man! Think before you speak! You might sound sexist or something.

>>1685100
not if we legalize polygamy.
in this way, i think the mid east is culturally ahead.
why not multiple wives?

>>1685098
Also, some women try to act/be dumb as a way to attract guys. It's sad really...
Anyways, don't be fooled. The female brain is just as capable as the male brain. Guys can be dumbasses too.

>>1685134
yes, many many males are stupid. but ALL females are stupid.

The ratio is like 100 smart men to one smart female.

>>1685126
I forget, what are the laws there concerning f+f couples?

>>1684880
I remember doing a small research project on something similar to this in a developmental bio course. It was IVF treatments and chromosomal introduction though, and the subjects' survival rate were pretty low. I think we have yet to understand and master these techniques.

>>1685139
Bullshit, you only hang out with the dumb ones, so you assume they're all like that.
It's not my fault you're into dumb chicks.

>>1685145
What's IVF?

>>1685156
in vitro fertilization

>>1685159
Ah, well, that's similar to this, yet not.

>>1685145
Although, I wonder why the survival rate was low. I think experiments need to be done so that this information can be found out.

Oops, I forgot to include the official webpage for this in the original post. I don't know how to do any web design stuff and I never heard back from my friend about him helping me with it, so it's just a Facebook fan page, sorry.
www.facebook.com/One.Venus

>>1685164
>>1685179
Many experiments have been done. There are a lot of biochemical pathways that must happen with precision and in the correct order for a blastomere to form correctly.

Biologically speaking, genetic material is very similar with minor variations in different sexes of the same species, such as chromosomal varieties or SNP's. Also, with female + female, you can only really produce female offspring and the chance of genetic diseases increase. Just my opinion though.

>>1685245
But that doesn't explain -why- the chance of genetic diseases increase.

>>1685245
Btw, I think the minor variance you're reffering to is XX and XY.

>>1685111
Show me one example of a civilization built by females, and then you can claim that it's sexism.

>>1685257
Not him, but lack of genetic diversity always causes problems.

>>1685309
The genetic diversity between humans remains as it is even if one gender were removed.

>>1685323
You are proposing to remove half of the population from the gene pool. Do you honestly not expect this to affect genetic diversity? And that's not even touching on the issue of the X-gene stagnating.

>>1685323
You are proposing to remove half of the population from the gene pool. Do you honestly not expect this to affect genetic diversity?

>>1685257
There are some known sex chromosome-linked diseases. Imagine this: if two mothers with a dominant allele mutation of the X chromosome causes an undesirable disease, but decide to reproduce by whatever means, the chance that their offspring will carry that disease is 75% (25% if recessive).

Haemophilia developed from incestuous families, even through the X chromosome of males. Imagine the increase propensity of the disease if all that was passed down were X chromosomes.

>>1685263
Yes, in humans. There is also XXX

>>1685359
So then, the population will be just as diverse as it was when the population was only half of what it is. But that's only if half the population was removed, but this isn't the case. This is allowing for greater genetic diversity because females will have more potential mates.

>>1685372
If you want the real reason why your idea will never work, just re-read your post, and then realize that anyone working on such a project is just as stupid as you.

>>1685361
Isn't XXX considered a disorder, much like how YY, XXY, and XYY is?

>>1685386
I fail to see the stupidity you refer to, perhaps that's because there is none. Go troll /b/ instead of here, I heard it's full of your kind.

>>1685387
Disorders or disease, semantics of the same problem: genetic abnormalities. If you are interested so much in this, get a degree in biology.

>>1685398
>the population will be just as diverse as it was when the population was only half of what it is.
>This is allowing for greater genetic diversity because females will have more potential mates.
>But that's only if half the population was removed, but this isn't the case.

Is it not a problem that the woman have a smaller brain than a man? The government scientist Dr. Yamuka has proved it is size of squirrel.

>>1685434
Of course it's a problem, but women, being women, are unable to see that it's a problem.

>>1685424
You put it in the wrong order, it doesn't makes sense if you put it like that. Go troll somewhere else.

>>1685422
My point was that those types of disorders would occur at the same rate. Well, except there wouldn't be any involving Y in this case. But as for that disorder that runs in the X, well, people are very likely to be willing to run that risk. Many people with problems that are passable to offspring reproduce anyways. I once knew this girl who's son was dying of heart failure due to genetic abnormalities in the father.

>>1685434

>>1685463
>it doesn't makes sense if you put it like that.
>Fails to realize that it doesn't make sense in any order
And that, once again, is the reason this will never take off, regardless of the biological feasibility.

>>1685472
No no no, the last quote refers to only the first one, the way you put it makes it seem like it refers to both of them. Your dyslexia, ftl.

You let women use technology here? In my country we have a pen outside for the animals and womens!

This thread was pointless from the start. There is some complicated genetic problems with it but in general a society like this is too amoral/ against the church for any successful politician to back. So if the practice is not already addressed in laws it will be hampered by the public in a similar way abortion is looked upon now.

Hopefully I am the only man left standing.

So much sex awaits me...

Unless they force me to breed with old cunts as well... then I'll shoot myself.

>>1685499
You do realise Project One Venus is based in the US, right? Women have the same rights as men here (plus a few more, depending on which state you're in).

>>1685499
Furthermore, if the Church is against it, the screw them. They believe a bunch of bs about sex written by some guy named Paul anyways.

>>1685547
>>1685578

failure to see and opponents viewpoint makes for bad debate, the same could be said of me but then again I am trolling you anyway

>>1685611
By the time I'm old enough to get involved in politics where it makes a difference (35), hopefully the Church will have less political influence.

I wouldnt count on it, people are idiots. Just look at the glen beck rally and the tea party overall/>>1685642

>>1685681
I think 14 years is enough time for Glen Beck to stfu. lol

What your real trying to do is support being a fag and wiping men off the face of the earth.... go fuck your self.

>>1685735
You made 2 assumtions there.
1. You assumed that I'm female.
2. You assumed that I'm homosexual.

The first rule of science is to never assume anything.

>>1685750
It's funny, because you are assuming he assumed that ABOUT YOU.

>>1685758
No, I determined that he was assuming that because he disregarded earlier posts about NOT removing males from humanity.

Furthermore, I pointed out those assumptions merely because they're wrong.

>>1685775
So what do you want males to do die off or butt fuck each other or not be able to do this at all?

Pic related: its what the world would be like.

>>1685821
who is that meme?

>>1685804
>implying that things happen right away and there won't be a change in gender ratios by the time the Venus procedure is popular

Also, I don't see that as a pic of the average female player, rather the average noob. I bet she plays as a lvl 80 huntard and has several lvl 19 rogue twinks in pve boa gear too.

>>1685832
Oh, I get it, it's a mom.

>>1685775
>>1685838

So what do you want males to do die off or butt fuck each other or not be able to do this at all?

Pic related: its what the world would be like.

>>1685838
Oh, and she probably has an unholy dk tank too.
Damn fuckin noobs... that's not what unholy is for.

>>1685854
see
>>1685468

>>1685775
so then why is your name yuri bunny and why do you want to support this?

inb4: opisafailtrollthatwillsayimnotatroll

>>1685884
Put simply, Idgaf about other men and so I do it for the lulz.

>>1685927

It'd only lessen the genetic pool and make the fucktards think they're equal or greater to men.
Sexual reproduction is successful for a reason.

>>1685952
Agreed

Give it a couple of decades, we'll be able to grow children in-vitro from two men.

Then we can finally get rid of those lying whores.

>>1685952
see
>>1685372

There will be no reduction of the gene pool.

>>1685967
The sperm is incapable of supporting a zygote, unlike the egg, which is designed to. m+m reproduction would require genetic manipulation.

>>1685972
>m+m reproduction would require genetic manipulation.

Yep. Give it a couple of decades.

>>1685968
Lucky you will never breed. God does eugenics him self lol

>>1685972
What you would do is wipe men off earth or start a war and then lose.

>>1685977
What's eugenics?

>>1685991
Is a troll

>>1686002
I feel like I'd have to know what eugenics is in order to fully understand the humor of the post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

>>1686018
I now feel like I must facepalm at my self for not knowing that.

Wasn't there a Neil Gaiman short story about a guy who invents a gender switching pill to cure a disease? The pill is popular at first, but then it becomes taboo, and THEN the people who used it take over and kill and beat up the pill haters. The man who invented the pill kills himself at the end.

>>1686087
dude what

>>1686087

>>1686002
> >>1685991
>Is a troll

I concur
Not knowing what eugenics is and starting this stupid thread....

>>1686158
How does that make me a troll?
It just means I thought of something before nerds did using information you can get at nearly any grade in school.
Although, it did take me 'till after HS to realize that I'm the only person who thinks it's not only a good idea, but a BRILLIANT idea.

Oh, btw.
tinyurl.com/onevenus-donation

>they fucked with the genetics too and the subject died shortly after being born. (noobs)

If that were true I would have read about it in the daily maeil. I only see articles about homeopathy causing cancer vaccines because of immigrants.

If you want to be taken seriously, please don't fabricate.

>>1686273
Didn't fabricate.
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/families/a/Parthenogenesis.htm

>>1686273
Wait, what's maeil?

Ok now, people have given me political, social, and /b/tard reasons as to why this idea won't work, but no legit scientific reasons. I guess Project One Venus is indeed a good idea.
ttyl

>>1686322
yeah its a great idea to overcomplicate simple stuff.

>Project One Venus
Man that's hardcore.

First off, because its a huge pain in the ass to go to a lab to do this when you can just get a guy to hump away for a while. This would kill genetic diversity, as you would have less children because of the huge pain in the ass it becomes. Advanced countries are already decreasing in population.

Second, how the hell are you supposed to afford this? Artificial insemination costs $300-500 a shot, how much would this cost a shot? How would people who are less endowed supposed to afford this? Are you telling people who don't live in first world countries to give up their entire life lines just because they cant afford it? As much as we would all like humans to stop overpopulating the world, this would sink the human population faster than a rock.

Third by doing all the genetic manipulation, you run a high risk of fucking something up along the way. IE, reference Yamanaka's rat produced from reverted skin stem cells. They had cancer. Cloned sheep? Aged faster then normal and had a huge number of abnormalities.

Fourth, you have way to many moral fags in the way for this to succeed. Even asumsing religion dies, a shitstorm would be whipped up if you even mention human experimentation.

>>1686305
>derpa derp

>>1686350
First off, you whole post is derp.
Second, this would be far from mandatory, dumbass.
Third, it isn't genetic manipulation. It has about as much genetic manipulation as artificial insemination.
Fourth, I lol'd so hard at your fourth...

Seriously though, what kind of fucktard would say that enabling women to reproduce with either men or other women would reduce the genetic diversity and not be trolling?

welp, enough smartness stuff for one day, back to WoW

>>1686523
What realm do you play on?