 |
| |
|
|
Skywise
|
 |
Samara's best friend
Jan 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
http://www.elisesutton.homestead.com/articles8.html
quote:
Originally posted by Media mogul Ted Turner
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Media mogul Ted Turner has taken a small step to demonstrate his belief that women should run the world because men have "mucked it up" with too much warfare and military spending.
The United Nations Foundation he established six years ago to distribute the $1 billion he pledged to U.N. causes has a new female-dominated board of directors - and Turner said it's about time.
"I've said for years and I'm really serious about it, I think men should be barred from holding public office for a hundred years," Turner said in a recent interview. "The men have been running the world for the last thousands of years and they've mucked it up |
What if the world had been ruled by women all along? Would there have been as many wars, torture rooms, racism, neglect towards neighbors and country to country bullying?
Discuss.
Spec.
Last edited by Skywise on 30-03-2005 at 02:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
St Leo
|
 |
Member of the Apolyton Social Democratic Party
Jul 2005
time: 00:30
|
|
From my blog:
quote:
Males Considered Harmful (aka Where's My Medication, Nurse?)
I am increasingly of the opinion that human males ought to become literally extinct. Sex seems to be more divisive than race or culture. As far as I am concerned, one of the two (major?) sexes ought to take one for the team and males are it.
Why males? Well, have you ever met an interesting male? One who can carry on a conversation? One who's not myopically interested in a single field of inquiry? I haven't, and yet Janes-of-all-Trades abound.
By no means do I suggest that we be rounded and gassed. Not only is that barbaric and socially unhealthy, but it would also result in a massive collapse of world economy. Capitalism, as a rule, cannot handle non-growth situation. Genocide of males would halve the world's supply of labour. Capitalism can't handle that.
What I am proposing is that humanity ought to no longer replenish the pool of males. Instead of having 2.x kids, people ought to just have 2.x daughters. Us males can have a graceful dying off.
Current technology is imperfect for this rather noble goal. We could abort anything that looks like it is developing into a male child, but that is rather wasteful and perhaps slightly unethical.
One could postulate drugs that would favour the production of X sperm and suppress the production of Y sperm, but that is still rather inelegant. Also, this also requires the maintenance of large sperm banks for those women who desire to procreate.
No, what my plan requires is parthenogenesis. We need to be able to fertilize ova with ova. Technology ought to have that feat under its belt within a century. Certainly, parthenogenesis has many bland mainstream uses, but those are very much irrelevant.
As you all well know, a typical human cell has two pairs of 23 chromosomes. Every gene of one parent is paired with a companion gene from another parent and various dominance, codominance, and recession effects play out.
That isn't actually true for X and Y chromosomes. A mammalian female always has two X chromosomes and can only supply an X chromosome to their offspring. Otoh, a mammalian male always has both an X and a Y chromosome and can provide their offspring with either an X or a Y chromosome.
Therefore, a product of a sperm and an ovum has a 50% chance of belonging to either sex while a product of two ova has a 100% chance of being female and a 0% chance of being male.
Y chromosomes suck a lot. They are shrimpy and shrivelly compared to X chromosomes and lack a partner for many of the genes on their companion X chromosome. A deadly gene that would be recessive and ignored in a daugther could kill a son by being a dominant by default.
As I was saying, humanity would be better off without being hobbled by the parasitic worse half.
"But, Leo!" I hear you cry. "Surely males are good for more than making new males?"
I disagree. You could try making a very touch-and-go case for males being the biological warrior-caste of humanity. Even if I were to buy it, I don't see its relevance.
Are gibbons going to get uppity, develop a technological civilization, and kill ten million humans for every gibbon we murdered without there being human males to overcome? G'uh, no.
Are alien insectoids going to invade and enslave us? In that case, they are just as likely to physically outclass human males as they are human females. The differences in actual strength are miniscule and are only relevant within the species.
That's right. The differences are only relevant within the species. The only thing the human male warrior caste is good for is protecting human non-males from the aggression of other human males. They create their own demand and supply loop.
If we chuck out human males, we chuck out the whole problem -- alpha and omega included.
Division into sexes is an anachronism of evolution. It is time for humans to stop producing new members of the irrelevant sexes. The future is bright. |
I used to be so coherent once. What has happenned to me, I ask you. What?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-03-2005 02:13
|