Homo Erectus Extinctus: do we really need men any more?

[sally]

Originally Posted by shadha

jinnzaman: Polygamy + concubines = problem solved!

Well, if the male infertility rate continues to increase, how does that solve the problem?

I know you said it jokingly, but many believe that.


shadha-

obviously male infertility would become non existant with the few fertile males and unlimited women capable of bearing children

but the kids who are born as a result might have a really hard time finding someone in their community to marry..bc theyd be related to so many kids..so those of us who currently complain about having to find spouses in other states...well...stuff it.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

homo erectus became extinct hundreds of thousands of years ago

Originally Posted by sally

righttttt, i swear when i read it i was like, wait, we're really not considered homo erectus..we're homo sapiens but i was talking on the phone when i posted so i forgot
but i think what it means that we're homo erectus' closest relative or most alike or whatever. and because i think the diff between the humans before erectus and erectus was a lot drastic than the difference between erectus and us..so we're still a type of erecuts, i think

anyways just recalling this from a couple chapter worth of anthro lessons in my life..too lazy to google so might be off..or way off

Well, the article is talking about the possibility of a world where men have "evolved" themselves out, not women. So the homo sapien species would still exist but only in female form.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by sally

obviously male infertility would become non existant with the few fertile males and unlimited women capable of bearing children

but the kids who are born as a result might have a really hard time finding someone in their community to marry..bc theyd be related to so many kids..so those of us who currently complain about having to find spouses in other states...well...stuff it.

Well, if you read the rest of the article, not just the title and the first few lines, it talks about how scientists are working on firstly, creating artificial sperm, and from there creating artificial sperm from female stem cells.

It also puts forward the theory that, only 10% of people are truly homo, and only 10% are truly hetero, and everyone else is on a sliding scale in between. I guess potentially that means that 80% of us will become more and more gay as time progresses.

[sally]

well basically, the bottom line is that like it or not, we're all homos.

(esp jamroll for creating this thread)

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Bluestar

Jammy, the Times?

Whaaat?

Just because I post an article from the Times, doesn't mean I support its views. I'm more of a Guardian type personally, but its always good to see what the whole spectrum of media reporting is saying.

Plus once you put the sensationalist headline and jibes about the redundancy of males in our society to one side, it's an interesting article. It kind of reminded me of that hadith where the Prophet (saw) said the ratio of women to men would become huge as time goes on.

[sally]

lol gotfive is probably gonna be like..i knew this...i knew this all along..this study was funded by my feminist fob cousins who lvied with me, without a green card, because they were so cheap to go thru the applicaton process, but still had money to fund a crappy study, this kind of nonssense never ceases to amaze me

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by sally

lol gotfive is probably gonna be like..i knew this...i knew this all along..this study was funded by my feminist fob cousins who lvied with me, without a green card, because they were so cheap to go thru the applicaton process, but still had money to fund a crappy study, this kind of nonssense never ceases to amaze me

lol, i actually read this article in the Times magazine supplement while I was waiting for a table in a restaurant, and when I saw the headline I thought of Got5, but when I read the rest of the article I thought, "hmm, Islamica might find this interesting". Well, Islamica and gays.

[shadha]

jinnzaman: Infertile males = don't breed
Fertile males = breed with more mates = more offspring more likely to be fertile = offset the harm from infertile males

That's assuming many things. Such as Muslims even being in that situation or being the majority.


shadha-

[Aryan_]

I don't know what's more stupid - the absurd unscientific premise of the article or the phallic pun in the title of the article. Bryan Sykes' theories, found from his studies on mollusc sexuality, have long been discredited and show only the desperation of a man who spend the majority of his academic life watching slugs hump each other.

Popular science literature is the inflatable sex doll of the academic world. All air and no substance.