Have human males past their biological "use-by" date?

[Michaelangelica]

What is the biological role of the human male?

 

 

One group of substances of particular concern is a ubiquitous family of hormone twisting compounds, known as endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). These substances are the focus of intense scrutiny because: 1) they're found in every home in America 2) they're increasingly linked to human disease 3) our exposure to them has risen in parallel with the surge in autism diagnoses and 4) they may theoretically affect the developing fetal brain.

 

In recent years, research has mounted against a virtual police lineup of EDCs, like BPA (in food cans, hard plastic water bottles), phthlates (in soft plastics, cosmetics) and fire retardants (in sofas, computers, flame-resistant clothing). Multiple animal and human studies have linked EDC exposure (during or after fetal development) with a host of hormone-related disorders, like low sperm count, cancer (breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular), congenital malformation of the genitals and even obesity.

. . .

The presence of EDCs in women of child-bearing age is especially worrisome. That is because there is evidence that even minuscule amounts of these chemicals -- levels commonly present in a woman's body -- may disturb fetal brain development during highly sensitive periods of neural development known as windows of vulnerability.

. . .

The US National Toxicology Program has stated that it is concerned about the "effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A."

 

Furthermore, since multiple different EDCs have the same effect on the developing body, exposure to a variety of EDCs may create a large cumulative stress to the body. (In the CDC study quoted above, 84% of adults tested had more than 6 different phthalates coursing through their bodies...and that study didn't even test for the presence of other EDC, e.g. pesticides, fire retardants, etc.)

. . .something changing a fetus' hormonal balance that then leads to over-masculinization of the developing brain.

 

Could that "something" be the slurry of hormone-altering chemicals we're exposed to every day?

. . .

The "extreme male theory" has been supported by two interesting bits of evidence: 1) fetuses with slightly elevated levels of testosterone grow up acting extra-male (more interested in things than people, slow language development, etc.); 2) children with autism -- boys and girls -- show extra-male characteristics (e.g. poor social ability, language delay).

Here is where the very interesting link to EDCs comes into play: EDCs often act as weak estrogens and estrogen feminizines the body, but in a fetus' developing brain estrogen actually has the opposite effect...it causes masculinization.

Harvey Karp: Cracking the Autism Riddle: Toxic Chemicals, A Serious Suspect in the Autism Outbreak

[Michaelangelica]

Fertility breakthrough Scientists create test-tube sperm

 

Scientists have created human sperm in the laboratory for the first time. The extraordinary development, which until a few years ago belonged in the realms of science fiction, raises hopes that infertile men may one day be able to father their own biological children.

 

The sperm were created in a test tube, from stem cells derived from a five-day-old male embryo. The advance raises ethical questions over the safety of the procedure and the threat it poses to the future role of men. It was also challenged by experts who claimed the sperm-like cells produced in the experiment were not genuine sperm.

 

If the finding is confirmed, a single male embryo could, in theory, yield a stem-cell line which when stored could provide an unlimited supply of sperm. Once the stem-cell line was established, there would be no further reproductive need for men. In a briefing on the research, the scientists at Newcastle University and the NorthEast England Stem Cell Institute, led by Professor Karim Nayernia, raise the question of whether their discovery means "the end of men".

B)

Scientists create test-tube sperm - Science, News - The Independent

 

 

 

John Harris: A world without men? That's not the real ethical issue here

 

I cannot see a downside to research that increases the range of human possibility and choice

Wednesday, 8 July 2009

The end of men has always been a possibility.

Women have many ways of trying to do without men. They don't need men – they just need their sperm. Sperm is a notoriously renewable resource and it is plentiful. There is always the turkey baster option for women who want to get pregnant but do not see the need to get a man.

 

Now, if this research is confirmed, all they will need is a very large supply of male stem cells. Might we see the George Clooney stem cell line (assuming he were to consent to it)? I can see no objection. It is no more wrong to choose the genes of your child than your reproductive partner.

Indeed, we have always sought to do both, choosing our partners on the basis of our – sometimes erroneous – belief about the sort of children likely to result.

I see nothing wrong with people exercising that choice using the technology as it becomes available.

B)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/john-harris-a-world-without-men-thats-not-the-real-ethical-issue-here-1736211.html

 

Be careful what you wish for? B)

[maddog]

The page cannot be found

 

404 Error

Would a woman programmer say something as useless and meaningless as "404 Error" Most upper-classes did. The middle classes and Protestantism changed that.

I found the link was mangled. Try this one.

 

Feminism, Evolutionary, What is? or What is Evolutionary Feminism?

 

[Note: need the "%20"]

 

maddog

 

ps: done by a "male" programmer. :thumbs_up

[Michaelangelica]

I found the link was mangled. Try this one.

 

Feminism, Evolutionary, What is? or What is Evolutionary Feminism?

 

[Note: need the "%20"]

 

maddog

 

ps: done by a "male" programmer. :thumbs_up

thanks very intersting link

Especially

Anne Campbell in her 2002 book, A Mind of Her Own: the evolutionary psychology of wome

 

"Women have been parodied as the gentle sex in convenient opposition to the belligerent male. Men compete, women do not. Men must compete for sex but what is there for women to compete for?...women must compete for all those requirements that ensure their reproductive success. Competitive reproductive success. When push comes to shove and there is not enough to go around, I am afraid that it must be my progeny, not yours in the next generation. But I will avoid outright violence if I can. Why? Because without me, the chances of my children surviving drop disastrously and offspring survival is the prize that is at stake. Female competition may look different from that of males, but that does not mean that it does not exist. We are competitors - and good ones." P. 310.

 

and

Always remember:

"Only two species of mammals have ever been observed to form aggressive coalitions against other members of their own species: Chimpanzees and humans. The male of our species has recurrently engaged in warfare over recorded human history, whereas, there is not a single documented case of women forming same-sex coalitions to go to war. " David Buss quoting Tooby and Cosmides (The evolution of war and its cognitive foundations. Institute for Evolutionary Studies, Technical Report #88-1, 1988)

this was cute

Since the female of our species created man because she needed assistance in child rearing,

I guess the female is the default model.

 

As a male human in a female household I am ashamed by the way many males treat women (Including myself at times). One in four women sexually attacked; one in three copping some violence from a male. Raping babies ?! What is that about-where did it come from? Pedophilia?? What is wrong with the male? These behaviours don't seem to me to be things that fit in with my perceived biological role of human males.

 

Wars are redundant, wasteful, unnecessary, yet they go on. Dictators let women and children die for power, prestige, ego and money. But the person with the most toys at the end does NOT win the game.

 

I don't agree that women are MORE aggressive than men. Women can be assertive or aggressive, especially defending their kids. I see men as being MORE aggressive than women. Support for my belief? Do I need it?

[pamela]

I don't agree that women are MORE aggressive than men. Women can be assertive or aggressive, especially defending their kids. I see men as being MORE aggressive than women. Support for my belief? Do I need it?

I imagine, that if hard pressed to it, women can and have been extremely aggressive. I believe that as a general rule, most women have a tendency to exhibit their nurturing side. Women either have forgotten or seem to overlook the animal within them. Accepting this, would somehow lower themselves in their mind. I cannot imagine not embracing my carnal nature and allowing myself to be that and all it entails. Why should the view one oneself be so chained to what is calm, caring and intelligent.Why does passion have to be about love, when infact, it is the raw energy of what drives us to procreate and insure the survival of our species. We intellectualize our existance and bring ourselves to such lofty extremes that we deem ourselves much better than the animals that we see. We are a human animal first and foremost, and the expressions of which, drive us in our needs and those things that would keep us alive and active.

would i fight if needed? sure, the ability to shred and maul is present within me.Shall i nurture my offspring? of course and when the time comes, will surely push the baby bird out of the nest, so that flight is possible. With all things there must be a balance.We must accept our nature and use our intelligence to avoid those things that would harm others.This is not gender specific, it applies to both the male and female of our species

[lemit]

The culture I grew up in required women to be tough as nails while pretending to be the weaker sex at all times. It required men to be as tough as nails while pretending to be even tougher than they were. It's as if the world were bathed in testosterone.

 

As a result, women did as much farm work as men did and then were expected to keep the house clean and meals hot. While the women were cooking meals and cleaning up after meals, the men mostly postured and talked about how strong they were. (My dad, who apparently really was stronger than any other man in the area, said long after we left the farm that he thought he might have thrown up if he had had to sit through another of those conversations.)

 

My take on women's ability to be tough and aggressive is warped by my upbringing. I think women can do more than men while pretending to do less, meaning they can run circles around men while claiming all the activity is because they're having trouble keeping up.

 

Culture and necessity make all of us do strange things. My guess is that our natural capabilities are roughly equivalent. But that's just a guess.

 

--lemit

[Michaelangelica]

The culture I grew up in required women to be tough as nails while pretending to be the weaker sex at all times. It required men to be as tough as nails while pretending to be even tougher than they were. It's as if the world were bathed in testosterone.

 

LOL

Has anything changed?

This reminds me of a family story. My wife's grand mother was apioneer in the Monaro area of NSW. Her husband at that time (wars killed a few) was a Bullock Team Driver bringing supplies into the area. (The bullocks were named after the 12 apostles. It is said his favorite was Judas :hihi:) He was often away for long stretches of time. She, heavily pregnant, ran the farm. One day a new 'poddy' calf got away. (I don't know if Yanks have that term it is a young cow whose mother has died or abandoned him and is brought-up/ hand reared by the farmer). This of course was a major blow to the family fortunes so young-girl-grandmar whent looking for him in the bush. About 5-10 miles from home she went into labor. She had the baby, cutting the umbilical cord with a sharp rock. She then continued on, found the lost calf, and went home. She cleaned herself and the baby, and put the child in her new 'cot' (baby-basket here). Late that night her husband came home as she was cooking his tea. "I have a surprise for you dear" said young-girl-granny, "Look in the cot"

He did; and fainted.

 

I was interested to hear during the week that the fragrance of a pregnant woman can reduce a male's testosterone levels.

I must track the source of that down.

 

I wonder if peace does " break out" (see thread I started on this)--what will happen to all that male testosterone?

Gee another dove in the White house- maybe an effective one this time.

and

Yank business beginning to realise that war is not really that good for profits-peace is better. Perhaps we will have more aggressive Yank Corporate acquisitions and takeovers?

But aren't the girls better at Corporate management too?:)

[DB2009]

I mean I don't about all that. Frankly I don't care if we have or have not. But I try to live you know what I mean. To give into temptation which might make me less but life is to short.

[Michaelangelica]

Are males necessary? Not in the natural world

What would happen if there were no men?

This planet has for thousands of years been controlled and run by men with devastating results that have brought us to the point where the very future is uncertain and insanity, poverty, fear, death and destruction have become a part and parcel of life in the world as we know it.

A male-run, or patriarchal society and culture, is based around domination, suppression and competitiveness and it is enforced by armies and police forces who use increasingly more dangerous weapons and technology.

 

So what is the solution to this nightmare? Leaving out the arrival of messianic deities, rescuing friendly aliens and non-existent superheros, it has been proposed that matriarchy is that answer, and not only will the world be run by women but that thousands of years in the future males as a gender will no longer exist here amongst the human species.

 

Many people find this hard to conceive or accept but we need to ask ourselves what are males for and what purpose do males serve? The simple answer is that they enable genetic diversity via sexual reproduction. But what a cost to the planet and its other life forms as well as the majority of the human species!

There are other species of life that manage with genetic variation but have done away with males. There are actually very many types of animals, both invertebrates and invertebrates, that reproduce without males and without sexual intercourse but there are none in which there are only males. This proves that it is the female that is the source of all life

Are males necessary? Not in the natural world

 

The title, "Are Men Necessary?," refers nominally to scientific speculation that the Y chromosome, which has been shedding genes over evolutionary time, may disappear entirely within the next ten million years, a hypothesis countered by newer studies showing that the Y of the human species has been stable for the past six million years.

. . .

on cosmetic surgery: "We no longer have natural selection. We have unnatural selection. Survival of the fittest has been replaced by survival of the fakest. Biology used to be destiny. Now biology's a masquerade party"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/books/review/13harrison.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

[nevaeh.aaric]

Males are visual animals and females are more verbal (on the average). The difference this creates is in terms of reality perception, is the male visual allows for better cause and effect perception and extrapolation in physical reality. The reason this is so, is because verbal images can be manipulated easier/faster than the visuals within physical reality. It will take time to set up a magic trick to manipulate visual reality. But one can lie in the blink of an eye. The male has more time for confirming reality.

[Buffy]

Shorter nevaeh.aaric: Women can be easily fooled because lies are so easy to convey....

 

Brilliant deduction, dude...

 

If men menstruated, they would brag about how much and for how long, :)

Buffy

[Boerseun]

But nevaeh, why bother with intricate lies when a club works so much better and way faster?

[Buffy]

But nevaeh, why bother with intricate lies when a club works so much better and way faster?

Because we've learned Tae Kwon Do.... :)

 

I seek not to know the answers, but to understand the questions,

Buffy

[Chacmool]

Males are visual animals and females are more verbal (on the average). The difference this creates is in terms of reality perception, is the male visual allows for better cause and effect perception and extrapolation in physical reality. The reason this is so, is because verbal images can be manipulated easier/faster than the visuals within physical reality. It will take time to set up a magic trick to manipulate visual reality. But one can lie in the blink of an eye. The male has more time for confirming reality.

This is an exact repetition of what Kayra has said earlier. Did you want to add anything?

[geko]

I gotta agree with some of it, men are real idiots sometimes; ugg ugg wooga wooga, i live in a cave with a big bat .... seriously, it's the 21st century, grow up.

 

.... which brings up the point of it being ingrained over millennia due to competition in mating. Women would choose the most successful and dominant, men became more dominant and successful, a nice feedback loop.... now 100k years in and we're shouting WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING!!??

 

The response, of course, is ugg...

 

However, this was good for females since they could then be led by someone dominant and trustworthy through the ongoing neurosis... at the end of which was the purpose of it all, a child for maintaining the gene line.

 

How primitive a world view....

 

We're now in a thread arguing an idea from that exact same viewpoint.

 

For me personally, having 2 genders is much more fun.... which increases moments of happiness.... which increases productivity.... which is much more important than trying to qualify a stance of pseudo-eugenics.

 

If you did want to qualify the idea, the first task is to prove that the species would be improved if there were no males, then to prove that males bring more harm than benefit.

[HydrogenBond]

Women are often the worse critics of other women. For example, women usually dress for each other, more than for the men. Guys are easy to please and few men notice all the subtle things and the great care a woman takes to prepare herself. If she adds curls, her man will look right at her and not see. But other woman notice such things and can turn anything that is a little thing out of sorts with their tastes, into a source of criticism. But women are sensitive to each others feelings, so their direct attacks will be subtle based on verbal duplicity. But they will often go all out, behind each others back. If a woman says to another woman" that dress looks nice on you", the woman with the dress is never really sure, until she listens to someone from the gossip grapevine to hear what is really being said.

 

If we add guys to the blend, guys are sort of linear, toward the members of the opposite sex. They don't see the clothes and the care, but try to visualize something else. This can be annoying, but it can also be an ego boost for any woman, if she learns to use male linearity to her advantage. The reaction is real and helps her know where she stands. If the male was not there, but she had only the subtle duplicity of other women, the sniping behind the scenes would get worse and worse, as the attack on each other's self esteem, is taken out on the next. Women would need to merge into an average, where nobody goes outside given perfection parameters, or risk being a target.

 

If a wife asked her husband does this dress look nice on me, he too wants to spare her feelings, if loves her, and will tell her what she wishes to hear. Or if he does not tell her enough supportive things, she can still get what she wants, such as jealousy dressing, to show her how he really does care. But either way, she is boosted. Sometimes the male offers support with a play on words, to be truthful, yet supportive. But he will not go to his friends and then gossip, since other males will bash him for being a wimp and not taking care of business on his own. But if another guy was to criticize his wife's dress, he will protect her, even if he agrees, since that is not the point, but respect. That can help a woman feel good about herself. The male helps to buffer women from other women and allows women not to have to merge into a common average. This perfection average takes away all the creative uniqueness needed for change and progress, with an all female culture, stuck in time. You add the males back, and things can't help but add change for both men and women.

[maikeru]

In my experience, even if our biological "use-by" date expired, they'd still cross it out and add a few more zeroes to extend our utility a little longer.