|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 12, @12:28PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I can't fucking stop laughing. Is it April 1st yet? No, this whole site must be a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On your first point I must agree with you. So far as I know, the human race knows far too little about the maturation process of the fetus to even come close to creating a viable artificial womb. The process of incubating fertilized egg until it grows into a viable baby is immensely complicated: biologically and chemically. I think that the Raelians are simply trying to see how silly and outrageous they can become before people start ignoring them. Apparently, they haven't yet found the limit.
Your conclusion, however, is steeped in prejudice. One stupid headline does not a useless site make. You sound like someone who was waiting with baited breath for that one ridiculous posting that would allow you to write off the whole place. Congratulations on finding it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So far as I know, the human race knows far too little about the maturation process of the fetus to even come close to creating a viable artificial womb.
Actually, we are very close. Check out these articles:
From the Guardian/Observer, this article describes the development of artificial wombs and the fact that they could make women redundant.
Also from the Guardian, this article talks about artificial wombs and the prospect for their mass use within a generation.
Also, here's a link to info on a conference held last year at Oklahoma State University and entitled "The End of Natural Motherhood? The Artificial Womb and Designer Babies."
From the New York Times, free registration required (browser must be set to cookies on), this article describes the possibility of growing human egg cells with human-mouse (mostly mouse) hybrids. The technology would render female humans unnecessary for the creation of human egg cells, which could then be used for cloning with artificial wombs or even, possibly, men mating with each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This still doesn't isolate us from the fact that it takes two parents to raise children. It's, of course, quite possible from a physiological perspective to raise healthy children in single-parent households, but we see from many sources that households where two parents, a mother and a father, are present and involved, there is a marked increase in the emotional and social success of those children. Just as we must stand our ground on the dismissal of father's from the home, we must take a position against the dismissal of mother's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This still doesn't isolate us from the fact that it takes two parents to raise children.
The problem is: The biological foundation, for the relations between men and women that we have known for many centuries, has largely been destroyed by technology (safe, inexpensive abortions and birth control). The nuclear family is mortally wounded, though not yet dead. We have to move beyond it and adjust society to deal with the reproductive future shock in which we live.
Yes, today two parents are better than one in most cases, but that doesn't mean it has to be that way. Perhaps (this is for men's side of the deal, women can do whatever they want) it would be best for men, who have a deep and longterm friendship, to decide to raise one or more children together. That way, if their friendship breaks down, they won't be thrown into the garbage for having committed the crime of being non-female. They can, if they are so inclined, continue to have sex with willing, adult, female Homo sapiens.
This whole mess known as feminized society came about because men, through technology, freed women from their biology. We're not going to turn back the clock on that technology. In fact, we are now in the process of freeing men from their dependence on women. Reproductive technology will continue to change society, and the mom and dad version of the family will continue to disappear. The thing to do is to acknowledge that and change society and personal relations to best deal with that fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 12, @02:54PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
> Yes, today two parents are better than one in most cases, but that doesn't mean it has to be that way. Perhaps (this is for men's side of the deal, women can do whatever they want) it would be best for men, who have a deep and longterm friendship, to decide to raise one or more children together. That way, if their friendship breaks down, they won't be thrown into the garbage for having committed the crime of being non-female.
There is also another matter to keep in mind. Are we sure that this technology would be put at both men and women's disposal ?
The only way to ensure men would have access to incubators are.....gay men. Yes. No taboo, please. Western governments will enable men to have full access to this breakthrough to please the all-powerful gay lobby.
Because, if we say that we are all heterosexual, officials would reply "you want children ? Find a woman". So you see, no freedom. And artificial wombs would be kept for women only, either heterosexual (single mother) or lesbian.
Keep that in mind. The access for men to the control of their reproductive rights and freedom would be achieved only if we supported gay men.
Rage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The biological foundation, for the relations between men and women that we have known for many centuries, has largely been destroyed by technology"
It has not. First of all, we still rely on DNA to determine the course of our individual growth. Our brain biology continues to be driven by our sex. The preferred method of reproduction remains sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, a nine-month gestation, and a successful delivery. Most men, whether or not they admit it, and even many of the men here, STILL are driven to protect the women in their lives, and the women are driven to protect their children.
"that doesn't mean it has to be that way. "
Here, Thomas, you're beginning to sound like the feminists who talk about the "changing gender roles." Yeah, if we embrace Hillary Clinton's Village approach, perhaps there's a way we can make this happen. But it's not something that's likely to succeed on a large scale or for very long. The natural propensity will be to "regress" to the nuclear family in times of national stress. The village approach worked in small tribes or communities when every adult knew every child by name, but when things got larger and less personal, it broke down because one loose cannon had less regard for someone they didn't know. You see this in today's gangs in the cities: in many ways, one gang member doesn't know don't know the members of the others, so they somehow become adversaries.
I may be unique here (though I suspect not) in that I DO buy into much of the traditional role definitions of man/father/provider and woman/mother/nurturer with some specific caveats, the strongest of which is the value of the father as a teacher and mentor, especially starting at the onset of adolescence (sp?).
Our species should remember their beginnings and pay heed to the plain fact that we survived these hundreds of thousands of years without technology, and we should avoid becoming so reliant on technology that we cannot live without it. One day, some cataclism will occur that will take it away from us. We should, as a species, be able to survive that.
The problem that we face, and that our wives and sons and daughters face, is socio-political. We need to solve it on that basis, not just run away and hide behind some technological wizardry that may only be temporary anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The biological foundation, for the relations between men and women that we have known for many centuries, has largely been destroyed by technology"
It has not. First of all, we still rely on DNA to determine the course of our individual growth.
I'm afraid that the relations between men and women that we have known for many centuries has largely been destroyed by technology. The science hasn't had the bugs worked out, but artificial insemination, cloning, and ovular merging have not only eliminated the need for conjugal relations for procreation to occur, they are also (through cloning and ovular merging) removing the need for the existance of males.
The evil of contemporary feminism has arisen largely as a result of this. These technological "advances" have given many women the idea that they can have absolute power. It's often said that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I would add that the delusion of absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Here, Thomas, you're beginning to sound like the feminists who talk about the "changing gender roles."
Actually there's a big difference between them and me. They actively want to promote the change. I say that, whether or not we want the change, we are living in the middle of it. We'd do best to recognize that fact and make the best of it.
we should avoid becoming so reliant on technology that we cannot live without it. One day, some cataclism will occur that will take it away from us.
I agree, and for the foreseeable future, the nuclear family will continue to exist, and we will be able to fall back on it. It's becoming far less common, though, because we are in the process of removing the biological foundation for it.
It used to be that men and women enjoyed sex and a baby happened. Men and women enjoyed sex again, and another baby happened. Men and women worked out the nuclear family and division of labor to deal with that fact. Today, to a large extent, a baby happens if and only if a woman wants it to. Heterosexual relations are not needed to have babies, and soon men won't be needed either. In fact, with artificial wombs and mice-created human eggs, women soon won't be needed. The effect of those technological changes has been profound, and, whether we like it or not, those changes are not going away.
The problem that we face, and that our wives and sons and daughters face, is socio-political. We need to solve it on that basis, not just run away and hide behind some technological wizardry that may only be temporary anyway.
I certainly haven't advocated, or even mentioned, hiding behind technological wizardry. My point is that technological change is driving socio-political change.
We'd best realize it and deal with the fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The evil of contemporary feminism has arisen largely as a result of this (artificial insemination, cloning, and ovular merging).
And, of course, as a result of safe, inexpensive abortions and birth control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, go ahead and look at the studies, though, Frank. Children from single parent families that are headed by men tend to be way less screwed up (Drugs, drop-outs, runaways, etc.) than those headed by women.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Children from single parent families that are headed by men tend to be way less screwed up (Drugs, drop-outs, runaways, etc.) than those headed by women.
I wonder how the welfare of children raised by single men compares to the welfare of children raised by heterosexual couples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would caution you that the calibration on this has yet to be qualified. It's true, yes, that single father households are holding up well, but in order to become a single father, you have to be highly motivated and/or be "blessed" with a certifiably incompetent wife for a mother of your children. I submit that, as single-fatherhood grows, we will see a decline in the collective "competence" of such households.
I remind you guys also of another thing. In order to provide the means for housing, clothing, and food, one parent needs to provide some sort of income, whether in the form of money or some other goods (like wheat, as in the case of the farmer, or game as in the case of the hunter). Children really can't really participate in this until they are of some age of maturity. In the meantime, who takes care of them? The state? Of course, with government-subsidized child care and mandatory schooling, this happens now, but it's regarded by most parents (correctly, in my opinion) to be a less than desirable situation. So even if we manage to successfuly build an incubation system that alleviates the need for the natural means of reproduction, the next eighteen years of a childs life (after birth) need to be seen to in terms of the means to support and the means to care for directly. The average single parent, regardless of sex, cannot do both effectively.
In agrarian and hunter-gatherer societies, children were introduced to the family "work" early, younger children assisting with the more domestic activities and older children with the work requiring more maturity/strength/experience or whatever. Most of the time, this meant being with mom for some activities and dad for others. Right now, it's not possible (with rare exceptions) to concurrently see to obtaining your means and care for your children. Given the design of industrialized society, I do not see this changing.
So maybe technology takes care of the first nine months of a childs existence, but what great chainges are going to take place to eliminate parenting for the next eighteen years? Collective child care is not likely to be the answer. Already there are credible studies indicating diminished academic performance among day-care graduates. Further, the poor quality of our public school systems is triggering significant growth in home-schooling (just look at how the state of California is responding to that, or more to the point, the California teachers unions). The trend right now is toward collective child care, and it's being driven mostly by the great social experiment called feminism, as is the divorce rate and therefore the rate of single-parent homes. But I sincerely think we are reaching the knee of the curve and soon these trends will reverse themselves. But the fallout will more than likely be a reduced birth rate, so low as to be inadequate for economic growth. I submit that, ultimately, we will need to find a way to establish an effective economy in the face of falling population and negative growth prospects. THAT, my friends will be the real challenge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the fallout will more than likely be a reduced birth rate, so low as to be inadequate for economic growth. I submit that, ultimately, we will need to find a way to establish an effective economy in the face of falling population and negative growth prospects. THAT, my friends will be the real challenge.
I'm inclined to agree with you there, Frank.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Artificial wombs offer tremendous promise for men. They may ultimately equalize the power of men and women. A number of serious research efforts are underway to create artificial wombs, which might be used on a large scale withing a generation. However, I'd keep in mind that fact that the Raelians might all be bonkers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 12, @02:44PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
> However, I'd keep in mind that fact that the Raelians might all be bonkers.
Absolutely. However, even if the Raëlians are fakers, this news shows that incubators are underway...this kind of Cult is always looking for as most advertising as possible, so I'm pretty sure that they choose to communicate on this topic because they are well informed and know what is happening in the labs throughout the world.
Artificial wombs are the ultimate weapon for men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 12, @03:01PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"Artificial wombs are the ultimate weapon for men."
You're forgetting about the sex part. Heterosexual men need women not so much for reproduction than for sex and companionship. In fact, I see men's need for approval and sexual satisfaction from women as men's greatest weakness, and a major reason why men won't stand up for themselves. They're afraid it would alienate them from women. I think a socially acceptable substitute for women, such as sex-bots (robots that act like women and men can have sex with) would be the greatest weapon men could have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Artificial wombs ... may ultimately equalize
> the power of men and women.
I think a male pill would go farther in this endeavor, but until we have either it's only my intuition speaking.
Don't forget, we'd still need eggs, and I'd suppose that those will always be more difficult to come by than sperm.
* MB
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 12, @03:25PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
The eggs of a cow could be sufficient, you don't need human eggs to make an embryo.
Anyway I admit it sounds a bit shocking....
But in the labs now, they have managed to make heart, brain, skin tissue grow, so be sure that one day we will be able to produce eggs in the lab from scratch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The eggs of a cow could be sufficient, you don't need human eggs to make an embryo.
I don't normally respond to anonymous users, but I've seen claims like this made by AUs in the past, and I want to respond in case it's wrong and people are believing it. (Someone recently wrote that any type of cell could be used, not just any type of egg.)
Perhaps any type of egg can be used. Perhaps any type of cell can be used. But as far as I know, every case of cloning has been done with eggs, and, as far as I know, every case of cloning has been done with the eggs of the species being cloned. If someone has a link to evidence to the contrary, please post it.
Regarding not needing women to produce eggs, however, mice (our closest genetic relatives) can now be genetically modified so that the females produce human eggs. (MANN linked to a New York Times article on this breakthrough a few weeks ago.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 12, @03:49PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for replying.
I'm Rage.
I'm French and I love American men, and support them as much as I can.
> Regarding not needing women to produce eggs, however, mice (our closest genetic relatives) can now be genetically modified so that the females produce human eggs. (MANN linked to a New York Times article on this breakthrough a few weeks ago.)
Exactly. That's right, that's what I meant, but I lack in technical words when it comes to scientific matters.
Is the link you're talking about in the archive section ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the link you're talking about in the archive section ?
Hello Rage,
I posted the link on genetically modified mice producing human eggs, but, if I remember correctly, it was in a thread about another subject. I can't find it at the moment. Sorry. Maybe a search on the New York Times site would track it down. Does anyone else remember where the link might be?
Sorry I can't be more help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 12, @04:12PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
No problem.
Thanks, anyway.
Rage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rage,
For that link, see my post #22.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...this could be the way to resolve most of the confict over abortion. Extract fetus from the uterus, put it in a tank and grow it to term. Then give it up for adoption like any other baby.
It sounds silly now, but who knows what they'll be able to do in another 5-10 years, assuming the religious right doens't manage to get anything remotely related to cloning humans banned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't feminists just cut their uterus out altogether?
I fear for the human race. I used to think they were fucked in the past. Now I can see the future is just short of idiotic. I think I should get some more topping for my popcorn its going to get interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I should get some more topping for my popcorn its going to get interesting.
I like garlic butter and dill weed with a sprinkling of yeast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee, I read threads that give me visions of seperate states, male/female. Perhaps if this were to come to pass future wars would be waged exclusively between the genders. There would have to be a state where people that were attracted to the opposite sex could try to lead normal lives, and try and raise normal children; all within the bellcurve of course. I am glad that I am middle aged!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point is not to create separate male/female worlds. The point is to enable men to have children any time they want, without being compelled to have found a girl before.
I remind you that this ability is already at women's disposal with artificial insemination. And up to now, it hasn't led to separating the genders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When left alone people raise children maintaining a certain balance, at least Anthropoligical studies have a tendency to show us that this is true. Society at its' present is bent on pitting men, and women against each other, pick your reasons, fore there are many. I shudder to see a world whereby men and women don't need each other, because that will truely be the beginning of the end. Men having children with other men, women having children with other women, natural selection being kicked right out the window, and eventually I can see free will erroding from the progeny due to selfish reasons for procreation. That is not a world in which I would like to live, so if it comes to pass I will load up my belongings and head for the mountains, and hope that the strife that is caused by such a society will be to busy cleaning up its' messes to bother with people like me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remind you that this ability is already at women's disposal with artificial insemination. And up to now, it hasn't led to separating the genders.
Well, the cynic in me would doubt that. For example, note the comments in askmen thread where sarah brooks spews some rabid man hating to that guy who needed some help, no doubt if things were reversed she'd be screaming at the top of her lungs. If some folks here would be decent enough to get down there and show her the error of her ways, I bet she would back very down fast, the last thing misandrists expect is a counter attack.
Now, comments like hers are quite the norm I've noticed, and men in general have to put with (and still do) that crap for 30+ years, so why the hell should our half of humanity not use artifical wombs? Women like her make it a moral imperative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remind you that this ability is already at women's disposal with artificial insemination. And up to now, it hasn't led to separating the genders.
Well, the cynic in me would doubt that.
Safe, inexpensive abortion, birth control, artificial insemination, and other reproductive technologies have led to a large and growing rift between the genders.
These technological advances made an evolution in male-female relations unavoidable. Feminists, under the delusion that they would soon possess absolute reproductive power, choose to poison that evolution with their hatred. As evidenced by the elimination of men from the family (an extreme separation of the genders) as well as a huge number of other phenomena (such as the driving of males out of the nation's educational institutions), feminist hate-mongering is causing that rift to develop into a chasm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why the hell should our half of humanity not use artifical wombs?
One of the reasons I expect the use of artificial wombs to become common, at least among the middle class and wealthy, is because many women find child bearing to be an unpleasant experience (to put it mildly). As the technology becomes dependable and less expensive, more and more women (as well as men) will opt to have children using this technology.
It could even come to pass that a woman being pregnant will be seen as a sign of low social status. God knows, a lot of people spend a lot of time trying to cook up reasons to feel superior to others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
