It has amused me how in the science fiction worlds where anybody can change into a fully-functional body of the opposite sex and back again as they choose, such as Iain Bank's Culture or John Varley's Eight Worlds, the sex ratio has remained 50/50. Of course the authors are also silent about which sex has the best orgasms ... something that I would love to settle as a question. :)
Love these speculations! I have also thought about a future when women are irrelevant as reproductive machines. I suppose there will be morphological freedom with a persons lifespan as well, meaning biological males and females will be able to switch genders. Presuming men are still heterosexual, I think they’ll want us to be around, or some subset of men will turn themselves into women.
🙂 Some merit in that idea, women as a civilizing influence. Lysistrata and company.
Reminds me of a bit of Canadiana, Red Lights on the Prairies. Winnipeg in 1910 had 3 schools, 16 churches, 21 pool rooms, and 50 "disorderly houses." ...
"Brave New World", indeed. Though your ChatGPT4 image of "The Garden" seems to be missing a snake. Further biases from ChatGPT? 😉🙂
But speaking of such snakes, I'm reminded of the aphorism that "against boredom the gods themselves struggle in vain". Reminds me too of a very old sci-fi story called "The Involuntary Immortals" -- "A Golden Age science fiction masterpiece from a Hugo Award nominee writer! Rog Phillips":
However, not to be overly critical, your "But stem cells still have sex" really isn't accurate, though rather too common -- even NCBI and Yale University labour under the same "cognitive distortion":
Cells generally have chromosomes -- red blood cells being an exception -- but only bodies have a sex. By standard biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. For examples, see the Glossary definitions in this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction [MHR]:
Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes
Fascinating article though I can't say that I've more than skimmed it, but just the Abstract and Intro are worth the price of admission:
MHR: "The ancestral divergence and maintenance of gamete sizes subsequently led to many other differences we now observe between the two sexes, sowing the seeds for what we have become."
Arguably every last bit of sexual dimorphism on the planet -- physiological and psychological -- derives from that fundamental dichotomy.
Primate cloning through this method of producing artificial gametes has not yet worked. There is however a more substantial problem.
In ordinary human reproduction if the man and woman are related (siblings, or parent child), the chance of harmful recessive traits emerging is higher than otherwise. If an artificial gamete were produced as described for a male, expressing any damagiing recessive trait is almost guaranteed.
It would be an extreme form of inbreeding. I may have received defective DNA from my father but my mother's DNA worked fine so I have no harm. In this scenario, any defective genes I have would not be paired with functioning genes from a different parent, and fully expressed.
In human populations which were isolated and did not have sufficient genetic variety, children of siblings or parent child had issues with intellectual impaorment, immune system issues, cardiac, body size, fertility and so on.
The concentration of defects may prevent viable offspring withing a generation or two.
Yes, but this is generally understood to be a response to economic incentives rather than a belief that life as a female (in any society) is inherently much worse than life as a male
“Drugs are changing. Even men and women are changing. In a thousand years, there will be no men and women, just wankers, and that's fine by me.” - Trainspotting
I don't think this would help the fertility crisis. Chronologically, most women have a plenty long window to have several kids but couples choose not to for a range of reasons. Also, in older age fertility is not the only limiting factor. Say you could have a healthy pregnancy at 50. Then what? Looking after little kids can tire you to the bone for years (great though it is!) even in the prime of your life, God only knows what that's like when you are hitting 60!
yes, but that's why I said "if it's paired with life and health span extension"! And I don't think this would have a massive effect on overall fertility but I think it would be positive (hard to see how making having babies easier would not lead to some more babies). A lot of women I know are busy getting their careers in order and finding a guy who wants to settle down with them and are not ready to have kids until early or mid 30s. Add to that potential for C-sections or other things that require spacing between pregnancies and I think it's easy to see how some women get timed out of having a third baby.
I think the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) of guys to have kids is a more important limiting factor than longevity of fertility in women. As you say, some gains in that window will certainly help, but looking back I look to my own reluctance to start trying for a family as the reason we have two and not three. Had the fertility window been pushed out further, it is possible that that would have delayed the decision as there was now 'more time', and that extra time would have been used up by dithering on my part. I imagine I am fairly typical of men in that regard. If I was able to give my younger self one piece of advice it would be 'start having kids earlier'. Seems unfair to load artificial reproductive procedures on women because men can't get their act together!
I agree, and think that's a great message for men. But I also think many women, especially those who go back to school, spend a lot of time dithering as well and could also benefit from having a reproductive window more like men's!
Very true! Although, I left the conference I was at quite a bit more positive about the future of healthcare than I entered it. I feel there's just so much uncertainty right now and I really don't know where things are going!
I know, it was depressing (and imo dramatic)! Meanwhile Diana Fleischman and Simone Collins are chatting about how pregnancy isn’t that bad actually lol
I think she was right albeit exaggerated. She definitely articulated things I think about. I think also a missing component is pride. If I think about it, it annoys me that men are stronger. They also seem more energetic. If you are an ambitious woman, the limits of femaleness is more likely to sting. Its best not to dwell on it though. On pregnancy, it probs can be not that bad, it just depends on luck and genetics.
It has amused me how in the science fiction worlds where anybody can change into a fully-functional body of the opposite sex and back again as they choose, such as Iain Bank's Culture or John Varley's Eight Worlds, the sex ratio has remained 50/50. Of course the authors are also silent about which sex has the best orgasms ... something that I would love to settle as a question. :)
Love these speculations! I have also thought about a future when women are irrelevant as reproductive machines. I suppose there will be morphological freedom with a persons lifespan as well, meaning biological males and females will be able to switch genders. Presuming men are still heterosexual, I think they’ll want us to be around, or some subset of men will turn themselves into women.
If we start a man only future, I'm gonna invest in Kleenex and 3-in-1 shampoos big time
lol ! But don't forget, gay men tend to be able to find more partners than heteros
Damn, gotta rethink the investment strategy
Shampoos?
I'd invest in caves, video games and sports cars.
LoL. Reminds me of a quote of Camille Paglia that Claire Lehmann, of Quillette fame, had tweeted some time ago:
"If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts." 😉🙂
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia
Though maybe we would have been further ahead ...
I heard it as follows: "If men really ran the world, we'd still be living in caves."
🙂 Some merit in that idea, women as a civilizing influence. Lysistrata and company.
Reminds me of a bit of Canadiana, Red Lights on the Prairies. Winnipeg in 1910 had 3 schools, 16 churches, 21 pool rooms, and 50 "disorderly houses." ...
"Brave New World", indeed. Though your ChatGPT4 image of "The Garden" seems to be missing a snake. Further biases from ChatGPT? 😉🙂
But speaking of such snakes, I'm reminded of the aphorism that "against boredom the gods themselves struggle in vain". Reminds me too of a very old sci-fi story called "The Involuntary Immortals" -- "A Golden Age science fiction masterpiece from a Hugo Award nominee writer! Rog Phillips":
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7811794-the-involuntary-immortals
However, not to be overly critical, your "But stem cells still have sex" really isn't accurate, though rather too common -- even NCBI and Yale University labour under the same "cognitive distortion":
https://medicine.yale.edu/ycci/news-article/every-cell-has-a-sex-x-and-y-and-the-future-of-health-care/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222291/
Cells generally have chromosomes -- red blood cells being an exception -- but only bodies have a sex. By standard biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. For examples, see the Glossary definitions in this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction [MHR]:
Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Fascinating article though I can't say that I've more than skimmed it, but just the Abstract and Intro are worth the price of admission:
MHR: "The ancestral divergence and maintenance of gamete sizes subsequently led to many other differences we now observe between the two sexes, sowing the seeds for what we have become."
Arguably every last bit of sexual dimorphism on the planet -- physiological and psychological -- derives from that fundamental dichotomy.
Always fun to speculate.
Primate cloning through this method of producing artificial gametes has not yet worked. There is however a more substantial problem.
In ordinary human reproduction if the man and woman are related (siblings, or parent child), the chance of harmful recessive traits emerging is higher than otherwise. If an artificial gamete were produced as described for a male, expressing any damagiing recessive trait is almost guaranteed.
It would be an extreme form of inbreeding. I may have received defective DNA from my father but my mother's DNA worked fine so I have no harm. In this scenario, any defective genes I have would not be paired with functioning genes from a different parent, and fully expressed.
In human populations which were isolated and did not have sufficient genetic variety, children of siblings or parent child had issues with intellectual impaorment, immune system issues, cardiac, body size, fertility and so on.
The concentration of defects may prevent viable offspring withing a generation or two.
It will always happen due to entropic change.
Sex is good.
In societies such as India, selective abortion of female babies is already not uncommon.
Yes, but this is generally understood to be a response to economic incentives rather than a belief that life as a female (in any society) is inherently much worse than life as a male
Have you asked why those economic incentives exist?
Couldn’t it be both? Indian society tend to be patriarchal.
Never mind, re-read your response.
Ta for the Like. But, en passant, how are things over in the ISF? Weighed-in there recently? 😉🙂
ISF?
International Skeptics Forum. Though maybe I'm mistaken -- your cat avatar seems identical to a forum member I've had exchanges with before.
The avatar is a recent selfie.
Never been on ISF.
My mistake, mea culpa, shoot me at dawn. 🙂
Though it's not really a forum I would strongly recommend -- bears too many similarities to the late and entirely unlamented Atheism Plus.
With artificial wombs, why have parents at all? This technology is likely to turn humanity into a eusocial species.
“Drugs are changing. Even men and women are changing. In a thousand years, there will be no men and women, just wankers, and that's fine by me.” - Trainspotting
I don't think this would help the fertility crisis. Chronologically, most women have a plenty long window to have several kids but couples choose not to for a range of reasons. Also, in older age fertility is not the only limiting factor. Say you could have a healthy pregnancy at 50. Then what? Looking after little kids can tire you to the bone for years (great though it is!) even in the prime of your life, God only knows what that's like when you are hitting 60!
yes, but that's why I said "if it's paired with life and health span extension"! And I don't think this would have a massive effect on overall fertility but I think it would be positive (hard to see how making having babies easier would not lead to some more babies). A lot of women I know are busy getting their careers in order and finding a guy who wants to settle down with them and are not ready to have kids until early or mid 30s. Add to that potential for C-sections or other things that require spacing between pregnancies and I think it's easy to see how some women get timed out of having a third baby.
I think the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) of guys to have kids is a more important limiting factor than longevity of fertility in women. As you say, some gains in that window will certainly help, but looking back I look to my own reluctance to start trying for a family as the reason we have two and not three. Had the fertility window been pushed out further, it is possible that that would have delayed the decision as there was now 'more time', and that extra time would have been used up by dithering on my part. I imagine I am fairly typical of men in that regard. If I was able to give my younger self one piece of advice it would be 'start having kids earlier'. Seems unfair to load artificial reproductive procedures on women because men can't get their act together!
I agree, and think that's a great message for men. But I also think many women, especially those who go back to school, spend a lot of time dithering as well and could also benefit from having a reproductive window more like men's!
Good point re. having two but just missing out on a third. Although I'd say the 'if' in 'if it's paired with...' is doing a lot of heavy lifting!
Very true! Although, I left the conference I was at quite a bit more positive about the future of healthcare than I entered it. I feel there's just so much uncertainty right now and I really don't know where things are going!
The ideal ratio is that everyone is a heterosexual female except me. Then, maybe, I'll have a chance.
lol
This is so fascinating! Btw Ginevra’s piece was very depressing .
I know, it was depressing (and imo dramatic)! Meanwhile Diana Fleischman and Simone Collins are chatting about how pregnancy isn’t that bad actually lol
I think she was right albeit exaggerated. She definitely articulated things I think about. I think also a missing component is pride. If I think about it, it annoys me that men are stronger. They also seem more energetic. If you are an ambitious woman, the limits of femaleness is more likely to sting. Its best not to dwell on it though. On pregnancy, it probs can be not that bad, it just depends on luck and genetics.