The End of the Y Chromosome (i.e. Men)

[Arctic Firefox]

There's been much debate lately about the future of the male sex. You might have heard of Maureen Dowd's new book "Are Men Necessary?" wherein she points out that men will be extinct in perhaps as soon as 10,000 years (assuming no nuclear wars or anything stupid like that) due to genetic faults, etc. As a male who doesn't plan on living that long (or producing offspring, for that matter), I don't find this all very disconcerting, mainly because I don't see the human race surviving another 10,000 years anyway, but I thought Dowd overlooked one point: men may not be necessary in terms of reproduction, but how many women here only want boyfriends to have kids with? I thought that there was some kind of mutual attraction, but the way she presents it, women don't seem to want men for emotional reasons either. While I can understand there will be some, quite a few of the girls I've seen walking around in the street since returning here from Europe dress rather provocatively (more so than in Europe - loose the flip-flops, please!) - surely this is proof that while men may no longer be entirely relevant genetically, emotionally speaking, there's still some way to go before we're completely useless!

Any thoughts on this?

[Talmina]

I think that men are still definately useful. While due to future expected advances in cloning technology men may be theoretically useless reproductively they are still definately emotionally required. It is true that more and more women are turning to lesbian relationships, however I put this more down to such relationships becoming more acceptable, therefore these women are feeling more comfortable about their sexuality, and it is happening with men too. Anyway, who else is going to be blunt with us when the girls are trying to skirt around the truth.

[Arctic Firefox]

Ah well, there's an answer to your last sentence - some girls will inevitably exhibit more masculine behaviour! It'll come with the power they'll suddenly have - it definitely corrupts.

[Min]

I think whoever wrote the book is looking at this a bit pessimistically. What genetic faults does she speak of incidentally? Does she have any scientific accreditation or is this just her opinion?

If anything changes, I think we'll ALL just evolve emotionally, rather than men become extinct entirely. How many species of mammals have you ever heard of that don't have both males & females, despite whether they're matriarchal or patriarchal societies?

And if anything disappears, it'll be the lines that characterise roles suited for men, and roles suited for women. Work, relationships, etc will be based on how competant a person is, not what sex they are.

Personally, if it wasn't for Paul, I wouldn't feel complete. And I most certainly am not in a relationship just to have kids. I think it's about balance.

Let's just hope it never comes to an all-women society. Women on their own are ok - but most of the time, women in masses are totally b!tchy and silly.

[Squirt]

I definately need men, I won't be around in 10,000 years obviously, but if men ever become extinct I pity the poor women who have to live with all those other women, as Min said...b!tchy and silly!

[shadowoutcast]

talmina said:

While due to future expected advances in cloning technology men may be theoretically useless reproductively...

May I say that human cloning has to many side effect in its theory to even become advanced in a way to clone someone without the degeneration factor, which can be seen by burning a brunt CD over and over again the qulity of the sample slow degrates itself over time.

Plus as a Male with a girlfriend for over two years I would be emotionally broken if she said something in that direction of thinking... (ie topic at hand)

[Roland]

ummm....the assumption that men will be extinct in 10,000 years is frankly a false one, based on an incomplete understanding of the data.

Human beings have adapted to only require one functional X chromosome most of the time. In females this means that one chromosome is inactivated at all times, apart from very early in development. Although previously the Y chromosome would have had many of the same genes as the X, because they were unneeded, over time they accumulated errors and they were lost. This loss of genetic material has led to the degeneration of the Y chromosome over time, and there is a belief that in about one thousand years it will disappear entirely.

Basically, there is only one important gene on the Ychromosome, called the Testes Determing Factor. During early development, the female pattern is the default option, and if the Y chromosome and TDF are present, then a male embryo will form. However, TDF is only one gene in a very long cascade of other genes on other chromosomes, inactive in the female genome.

There are examples of animals (forgive me, I don't know of the top of my head I'll have to check my notes), that have a one X, two X sex determination system, because their Y has degenerated. In this case it has become the absence of an extra X that determines maleness. In my work on sex determination in other places we found that there are all sorts of other important genes all over the genome.

The long and the short of it is, two sexes are an important evolutionary development, even without the Y chromosome, other ways will be found.

Sorry, don't mean to lecture, but I spent six months in a comparative genomics group working on sex determination in platypi compared to humans.

[Swallow]

And can i say, the Asgard. They decided to forsake reproduction for cloning, and while they might theoretically live forever, the genetic basis of their clones are degrading.

If there is one thing stargate has taught us, it is that reproduction via non-androgenous means is good.


man that was a stupid arguement.... *notes she has watched too much stargate*

[Dameon]

*applauds*

I thought your argument was the best, Flit!!!

[Arctic Firefox]

I think a lot of the theory on this also links up to recent sociologist ideas of how human relationships will change in the future. So far, the progression has gone something like this (this is a very rough approximation):

1) For most of the last two thousand years (Western culture): virtually everyone married, no divorce (or, at least, very little) - traditional male/female roles.

2) After mid-19th century: some divorce, less marriage, early feminists (suffragettes). This continued along into the 20th century with the feminist movement, easier to divorce, loss of faith in marriage, until:

3) Today: different forms of marriage (civil unions, gay marriage, registered partnerships), less marriage in general - women approaching equal status to men in socio-economic terms.

5) Future: instead of marriage / remaining faithful to one person, some predict that people will instead move in larger groups of close friends, so that we remain more independent. There's a term for this in Dutch: "lat-relatie", and it refers to couples who live apart and only meet up over the weekend, evenings, etc.

I'm not sure if I agree with the last one, sometimes I think we may be reaching back to the supposed stability of marriage instead. (Though on a personal note, I feel there may be more stability in the types of relationships mentioned in 5.)

[Rushton]

Indeed Flit you have watched too much stargate

I have to agree that relationships will evolve, and even if the Y chromosome degrades further it won't be the end of men.

My brother and I used to have huge arguments about the usefulness of men in a catastrphic world ending event. If you ever saw the moofie where the asteroid was due to crash into the earth 'Deep Impact' they built huge underground shelters and planned to move 1 million of the best and brightest there for the future of humankind.

I argued that it was silly to split that 1 million into a 50/50 male female ratio, and they should take young females capable of reproducing and just set up a giant spermbank. I mean it was supposed to be 'survival of the species' hehe

[Talmina]

shadowoutcast said:

talmina said:

While due to future expected advances in cloning technology men may be theoretically useless reproductively...

May I say that human cloning has to many side effect in its theory to even become advanced in a way to clone someone without the degeneration factor, which can be seen by burning a brunt CD over and over again the qulity of the sample slow degrates itself over time.

Plus as a Male with a girlfriend for over two years I would be emotionally broken if she said something in that direction of thinking... (ie topic at hand)

I don't believe it will actually happen, if these genetic faults do exist, then the race will evolve to eliminate them rather than the gender. I was just saying that men somehow became obsolete reproductively, that there would still be reasons women would want to keep them around. And as others have said, girls are great, but not having any guys around would suck. Think the whole world being an all girls school... I know I couldn't live in such a world considering the majority of my female friends are on here.

Personally I think theories such as this is taking feminisim too far. However I am seeing a lot of this at the moment, now that women generally have equality, there are many who want to be superior and expect that men should have to take on all the tasks that were previously considered womens work. I believe the point should be that there is no such thing as womens and mens work, just who is physically or mentally best able to take on the task at hand.

[MajiKat]

i think its all about balance, as someone pointed out earlier. what needs to happen, and it is slowly occuring, is an evolution of social thinking and social order. Its necessary for basic human relations to have both men and women in the world- i know that i could not live in a world that only consisted of women. i need men, not in a sexual way, but in a social sense. alot of my friends are men. men offer something, they bring something to the table during social interaction that women do not possess. i don't know what this is, but it feels more like a social roles thing - i am more comfortable sitting with a bunch of guys talking about crap than i am with most girls gossiping about crap. (not that all girls gossip - its an example). it is still okay for men to be crass and crude, to share their opinions more honestly and be allowed to do so. i have never experienced sexism based on opinion and conversation, but i know girls who have. the whole "but you're a girl, what do you know" way of thinking is still about. most of my male friends would never ever say that - i choose them carefully ;D ididn't express all that very well, but hopefully you will know what i mean

i don't think science should play with reproduction, ie, cloning, in order to keep the species going. i'm totally against the idea. if we, as a species, are meant to die out than we will. its nature saying its time to go. we are too scared of death and dying to realise that.

[Min]

arcticfirefox said:

5) Future: instead of marriage / remaining faithful to one person, some predict that people will instead move in larger groups of close friends, so that we remain more independent. There's a term for this in Dutch: "lat-relatie", and it refers to couples who live apart and only meet up over the weekend, evenings, etc.

Is it just me, or is this a de-evolution? Yes, we're there to populate the world, but one thing that seperates us from most mammals is that we choose have the responsibilities and committment of one partner. Yes, people can choose to live any way they like, but for the most part, the human race practises monogamy.
With the amount of diseases out there, I can't imagine what it'd be like if society degraded to a state similar to that of zoo animals.

*sigh* maybe this is what the future generations are in store for, I guess none of us will be around to worry about it...

[MajiKat]

yeah Min, i'm with you on that! one of the best things about being in a relationship is that you get to come home to that person, because you choose to! you want to be with them. i don't think seeing your partner on the weekends and doing what you want with whoever during the week is a relationship. its a convienience!

[Min]

Precisely!
I was in a relationship with a guy who practically refused to speak to me during the week, then would call on friday night and want to know what I was up to talk about making someone feel cheap!! It wasn't a relationship at all - it was a convenience thing for him only.
Needless to say, it didn't last long.

I guess relationships aren't just about procreation, and convenient sex. They're about sharing something special with one person (one at a time, anyway).
If that #5 is going to be a reality, I guess they won't be calling it a 'relationship' in the conventional sense...because it's not. It's just a way to let people sleep with whoever they want and not have to take responsibility for their actions, and to make people with low self-esteem feel cheap and worthless.

[Swallow]

Maybe it's all to do with pack. Yeah, you seek out a mate for procreation means, but you also seek out a pack, a family. People who will be there for you. Sex doesn't have to be the it and end all of everything, family is what counts. And it doesn't have to be by marriage or blood, just the people you surround yourself with.
I think that's more important. Any fool can have kids, but a family is something else. Maybe that, in the end, is what all our looking is about.

[Arctic Firefox]

I don't think I meant to imply that people would do whatever they wanted during the week, and then meet up with their main bf/gf over the weekend - though I can see I said as much. What I really meant was that people will live more independently and less people will choose to live together for a variety of different reasons ... one of which might be that once you have full control over the TV, furniture arrangement, wall colours, etc., you don't really want to give it up! I lived with someone for a year, and it drove me nuts because she basically forced me to accept her tastes in all aspects of life. Now I know that not everyone is like that, but it certainly left a bitter taste in my mouth about living with someone. (For the record, the relationship ended in a messy break-up I initiated.)

[Min]

Awww, AF! Not good.

I think like Flit said it's to do with personal 'family'. You live with your parents for however many years (by the way, did you know that it's later and later every generation that children are leaving their parents house? I think the average age is 25 now or something!), and you don't like a lot of the stuff they do - but they're family, so you have no choice.

Living with a partner isn't half as bad as living with a group of friends, or living in a hostel-situation with strangers. You have no sense of personal space whatsoever. At least a partner respects something if you tell them about it (or is supposed to) and doesn't just laugh it off like friends usually do, or ignore you because they're just passing through, like backpackers do.

I guess the key is to define your boundaries though from the start, whether with partners, friends, or strangers. It sounds awful having a partner around that makes you accept their way, with no compromise.

[Arctic Firefox]

It was awful. I literally had regular nightmares for a few months after I broke up with her - kept on dreaming I would wake up and still be with her in the flat.

But again, I guess it depends on your partner. Family I have less problems with, because I find disagreements / arguments with them have less of an impact on me ... and I guess a lot has to do with my personality in general - we won't go into that here.

[Lix]

i like keeping a male around the house. theyre amusing

i work with men all day long. i put up with their bullying and their silliness and b!tch and moan about how my crap they carry on with, but i still think the world is a better place with them in it

[Dark One]

It's nice to know that you need us..

[Arctic Firefox]

Sorry to drag this back, but did anyone see Maureen Dowd on Insight last night (Tuesday, ABC)? It certainly was an interesting discussion, but the problem with these issues are that they're too easily generalised. Either way, it seems Dowd shares the concerns some of us expressed on the Rant Thread against raunch culture.

[catwhisperer]

I think that the future would be soooooo bright without men (no offence to male members of this wonderful site)... and it kinda doen't make me like them any less (especially one or two i WON'T mention)

[Min]

No, I didn't see that, AF. What did they discuss specifically?