/sci/ - Science & Math

forgot this:
one argument goes sort of like this:

There can be no species with only males. The sperm is just a bundle of DNA but the egg contains all that is needed to build a human being.

>>5780167
Stop the discussion immediately.
It is not worth your time or your concern.
She probably won't listen anyone, people who believe these things are often set in their beliefs and are unwilling to change.

It will probably be possible eventually but we don't have the technology yet. The world still needs sperm.

>>5780173
Should he just apply peer pressure to change her way to see the world?

>>5780167
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teiidae

>>5780176

Or start talking about the new Japenese sex gyndroid.

>>5780176
No.
He should realise that it is a pointless argument and move on with his life.

Several points here.

We could also get rid of women entirely, because we can recreate the womb.
guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/10/medicalscience.research
thesciencenews.info/2011/04/artificial-uterus.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus

Furthermore, all data decays over time. In order to survive with absolutely no men, they would have to have a complete understand of how to construct sperm.

Although it doesn't make much sense to eradicate the physically and mathematically dominant sex for whatever ethical reasons they can come up with.

>>5780183
She was just trolling me at first, saying that the world dont need men. but now I have 2 good arguments to show why she is wrong and/or right ;p
ty

>>5780183

But once again, an artificial uterus doesn't exist yet. And an artificial EGG is a much harder problem. The sperm, in contrast, doesn't really contribute anything except chromosomes, so you shouldn't have to actually construct one, you just have to have figure out how to fertilize an egg using chromosomes from a different egg.

None of that is possible yet, obviously, but two women will be able to reproduce before two men will.

>>5780195
>Scientists have created prototypes made out of cells extracted from women's bodies. Embryos successfully attached themselves to the walls of these laboratory wombs and began to grow.
What part of that are you having trouble with?

>>5780199

1) It requires a woman's body.
2) It hasn't produced a child yet.

We could probably eliminate the need for certain animals. We could probably eliminate genetically impure people. We don't.
Tell her that her ideas are sickeningly inhuman.

Is she a Bulldyke?

Well, seeing as the 3+ billion people in charge of everything in the world are male, how exactly does she propose removing them? On top of that, how exactly does she propose making sure no one has a male baby in the future ever.

This seems like something I'd see posted on /pol/ to get a troll thread.

>>5780219
>getting this upset

It's a hypothetical scenario. It's about could not should.

>>5780229
Those are hypothetical questions.
And you can tell I pressed caps twice. That's how upset I am.

this has already happened with whip-tailed lizards.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p006v48r

however, asexual reproduction isn't the greatest, biologically speaking. sexual reproduction mixes up genes to our benefit. basically, this argument is retarded.

look up the red queen hypothesis and see how sexual reproduction is beneficial.

>>5780167
Tell her that we aren't slugs and so long as we're human, we'll be male. Maybe she's alluding to the fact that the Y-chromosome is shrinking in size and losing genes as it has been over millions of years. But that doesn't mean that the Y-chromosome will disappear, only that the genes are already found in the X-chromosome and it would be redundant to have them.

>>5780238
>>5780219
>answering a question with a question
>not being defensive or evasive

>>5780288
>implications
>furthermore, implications

More importantly, when are humans going to get so competitive we need a third gender?

It's evolutionarily inevitable with enough competition, that more genders increases the uniqueness of the individuals, with either 2-parent 2-chromosome offspring or 3-parent 3-chromosome offspring.

>>5780324
I thought shemales were the third gender?

>>5780170
That is fucking retarded and not even worth refuting. If you fell for this, you´re almost as bad as she was.
Btw, animals that don´t have male don´t have a female. They´re asexual.

>>5780342
>implying asexual isn't a sexist form of female

>>5780342
>Btw, animals that don´t have male don´t have a female. They´re asexual.
False.
See >>5780174

They are all female.

>>5780219
If we got to a point where we could reproduce exclusively with females, we'd probably have the technology to make all the offspring female.

>>5780416
>If we got to a point where we could reproduce exclusively with females
>If
we are already at that point.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1431489.stm

"Scientists in Australia have found a way to fertilise eggs using genetic material from any cell in the body - and not just sperm.
The technique could potentially help infertile couples to have children.


Theoretically, we can use somatic cells from a female to produce the same embryo

Theoretically, it also could mean that lesbian couples could give birth to a baby girl without the need for a father. "

OP, your 'radical feminist friend' is correct that men are not necessary to create a child.

>>5780428
We can, but not on the scale neccessary to reproduce exclusively that way.

>>5780170
>There can be no species with only males
>Therefore, there can be a species with no males
Did she actually make this argument?

>>5780428
What the 'feminist friend' will probably not appreciate is that the fact that the male sex might not be necessary for reproduction does not entail any normative claims.

>>5780437
True.
The fact alone does not support the conclusion that it is a good idea to 'get rid of the male sex entirely.'

>>5780428
>we are already at that point.

I think we can't really say that until someone actually does it. (Which I'm assuming will be soon.)

There's no beneficial purpose in getting rid of men. It's totally not worth the effort. Only an idiot would devote any effort into doing that.

Even the famous 'all-female' lizards have pseudomales

pseudomales
bull dykes
Red Queen
shemales
artificial wombs
gyndroids

this may be my favorite thread ever

>>5780460
Yup, the same way we could cut every baby's nose when they are born and replace it with an artificial one.
It would work and yet be completely retarded.