Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Women will become unnecessary and will lose their reproductive value in the future


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
23 replies to this topic

#1
CyberMisterBeauty

CyberMisterBeauty

    The most beautiful male in the universe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  • LocationThe largest city of the year 2192,celebrating my 200th birthday

If new reproductive technologies like In Vitro Gametogenesis(IVG) and artifitial wombs(ectogenesis) become possible and acessible in the future single men or/and gay male couples could reproduce alone without any woman involved. men could make eggs and sperm with their stem cells through In Vitro Gametogenesis and the fetus could grow in an artifitial womb. Motherless babies will become possible. So men could have also more reproductive rights (the same or even more reproductive rights than women). Men could begin to think that women will lose their reproductive value and become unnecessary in a reproductive point of view. In the more distant future all male society may exist. And also all female societies.

 

Sterile women who cannot get pregnant at all( like women with CAIS) could also use the technology to reproduce. In fact anyone could reproduce with these things. Even old women.

 

These technologies may also help to decrease the social differences between men and women and make women do things that didn`t do in most of humanity`s history like for exemple fight and die in wars like men do.

Realize that I don`t want to be sexist and I`m not against women at all, it`s just a curiosity and I want to see other people`s opinions.

 

https://metro.co.uk/...-claim-6126319/

 

https://www.telegrap...ve-offspring-w/

 

https://www.nhs.uk/n...ith-no-mothers/



#2
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,316 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Men could begin to think that women will lose their reproductive value and become unnecessary in a reproductive point of view. In the more distant future all male society may exist. And also all female societies.

Within this very century, we're going to see the complete dissolution of sex in some fashion, as well as an explosion of new sexes. It's one reason why I prescribe to a technist worldview that is not entirely friendly to egalitarianism— we keep getting upset over things that cause imbalances in society or suggest that there may be imbalances, so imagine how fucked it'll all be when there will actually be imbalances and they won't be from nationalist-friendly traditional areas.
Already, male reproductive value is greatly reduced thanks to sperm banks, but it's not entirely eliminated since we don't have an easy way to create artificial sperm. As for artificial wombs, there's been far too much hesitation to try it out for humans but we do have the technology and even birthed a sheep that way. 
 
Artificial sperm and wombs offer new means of reproduction

Really, we are probably less than ten years out from someone growing human fetuses completely without a mother or father. My money's on China. So a better title would've been "Everyone will lose their reproductive value in the future." 


  • Erowind, Alislaws and funkervogt like this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#3
Jakob

Jakob

    Groveling Goblin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,080 posts

Something about the OP's post history makes me question if he's ever actually met a woman in person.


  • Outlook and Alislaws like this

#4
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,025 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands

In the future, we're all gonna marry traps


  • joe00uk, Ewolf20, Erowind and 1 other like this

Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/6S20mJvr4vs


#5
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,178 posts

Women would have simply want extinct along time ago if it wasn't for reproduction and the evolutionary processes around it, so men defended them and set up a system of shared responsibility we call the family out of the need to sustain the species.

 

There's no way in hell women will make it very long if there's machines dong the baby making...Men are far stronger, far better thinkers and simply will remove them from the planet  as we're quite capable of doing so when we starting seeing them as our foe. The greatest misake women can make at this time is to break up the family and attempt to attack us as they're.

 

It is a joke to think that the most innovative and warrior class of our species won't continue long past the weak with the right technology that they're likely the ones to make. You do know that men create most of such innovations,



#6
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,316 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

You are the very definition of a paranoid beta male.


  • wjfox, zEVerzan, joe00uk and 3 others like this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#7
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,025 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands

Women would have simply want extinct along time ago if it wasn't for reproduction and the evolutionary processes around it, so men defended them and set up a system of shared responsibility we call the family out of the need to sustain the species.

 

There's no way in hell women will make it very long if there's machines dong the baby making...Men are far stronger, far better thinkers and simply will remove them from the planet  as we're quite capable of doing so when we starting seeing them as our foe. The greatest misake women can make at this time is to break up the family and attempt to attack us as they're.

 

It is a joke to think that the most innovative and warrior class of our species won't continue long past the weak with the right technology that they're likely the ones to make. You do know that men create most of such innovations,

 

PUNY WOMAN STAY IN KITCHEN.

 

PUNY WOMAN MAKE NOM NOM FOR ME, BIG SMART MAN.

 

ME HUNT AND EAT AND PUT STICK IN BAJANGA AGAIN AND AGAIN.

 

VERY SMART THING.


  • Zaphod, zEVerzan, joe00uk and 2 others like this

Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/6S20mJvr4vs


#8
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,146 posts
  • LocationLondon

Women would have simply want extinct along time ago if it wasn't for reproduction and the evolutionary processes around it, so men defended them and set up a system of shared responsibility we call the family out of the need to sustain the species.

 

There's no way in hell women will make it very long if there's machines dong the baby making...Men are far stronger, far better thinkers and simply will remove them from the planet  as we're quite capable of doing so when we starting seeing them as our foe. The greatest misake women can make at this time is to break up the family and attempt to attack us as they're.

 

It is a joke to think that the most innovative and warrior class of our species won't continue long past the weak with the right technology that they're likely the ones to make. You do know that men create most of such innovations,

 

lolwut.


  • zEVerzan, joe00uk and Erowind like this

#9
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 935 posts

 

Women would have simply want extinct along time ago if it wasn't for reproduction and the evolutionary processes around it, so men defended them and set up a system of shared responsibility we call the family out of the need to sustain the species.

 

There's no way in hell women will make it very long if there's machines dong the baby making...Men are far stronger, far better thinkers and simply will remove them from the planet  as we're quite capable of doing so when we starting seeing them as our foe. The greatest misake women can make at this time is to break up the family and attempt to attack us as they're.

 

It is a joke to think that the most innovative and warrior class of our species won't continue long past the weak with the right technology that they're likely the ones to make. You do know that men create most of such innovations,

 

PUNY WOMAN STAY IN KITCHEN.

 

PUNY WOMAN MAKE NOM NOM FOR ME, BIG SMART MAN.

 

ME HUNT AND EAT AND PUT STICK IN BAJANGA AGAIN AND AGAIN.

 

VERY SMART THING.

 

 

ImKNwpH.jpg

 

 

Normally don't shitpost and go for the low hanging fruit, but that made me laugh way too much. 


  • zEVerzan, joe00uk, Outlook and 1 other like this

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#10
Omosoap

Omosoap

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 185 posts

Why do I suddenly feel like I'm in preschool again, where "girls" have cooties? Also, you know, women are only important for reproduction and have no other value in society. *rolls eyes* As a woman, I would never say that about a man, so why are men saying that about me? So frustrating. Women aren't less intelligent, because they are the ones throughout history that have had to lay the foundation for men and women from the age of babyhood to about five years old. That is a very, very important role, and in a way, they were responsible for the development of that child's intelligence by laying those foundations. My mother was the one who read to us, and laid the foundation for my passion for reading. My grandmother was a kindergarten teacher, laying the foundation for many, many kids in furthur development down the road. She was also a pastor's wife and therefore, a key supporter of my grandfather in his work and in making the home warm and welcoming for many, many people. Her loss in my family is still felt very badly. I also know a woman I grew up with that mastered in physics and has worked in the field of physics as far as I know. She was really, really smart. I always admired her. I also admired men who were smart. Just because someone is a "woman" or a "man" does not mean that you can then fit them only in the boxes your mind sets up. There are bad men and bad women. There are smart men and smart women. Etc. Etc. 



#11
funkervogt

funkervogt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 631 posts

I agree with the predictions here, but I don't understand why females are singled out for losing their reproductive value. Males will also lose their reproductive value. 



#12
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,025 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands

Why do I suddenly feel like I'm in preschool again, where "girls" have cooties? Also, you know, women are only important for reproduction and have no other value in society. *rolls eyes* As a woman, I would never say that about a man, so why are men saying that about me? So frustrating. Women aren't less intelligent, because they are the ones throughout history that have had to lay the foundation for men and women from the age of babyhood to about five years old. That is a very, very important role, and in a way, they were responsible for the development of that child's intelligence by laying those foundations. My mother was the one who read to us, and laid the foundation for my passion for reading. My grandmother was a kindergarten teacher, laying the foundation for many, many kids in furthur development down the road. She was also a pastor's wife and therefore, a key supporter of my grandfather in his work and in making the home warm and welcoming for many, many people. Her loss in my family is still felt very badly. I also know a woman I grew up with that mastered in physics and has worked in the field of physics as far as I know. She was really, really smart. I always admired her. I also admired men who were smart. Just because someone is a "woman" or a "man" does not mean that you can then fit them only in the boxes your mind sets up. There are bad men and bad women. There are smart men and smart women. Etc. Etc. 

 

Don't you understand, Omosoap, that after centuries of systemic oppression, where women were excluded from academic and artistic institutions and told that their value was in their children, the fact they did not innovate enough is proof of their intellectual inferiority.


  • joe00uk, Omosoap and Ewolf20 like this

Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/6S20mJvr4vs


#13
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,978 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

 

 

PUNY WOMAN STAY IN KITCHEN.

 

PUNY WOMAN MAKE NOM NOM FOR ME, BIG SMART MAN.

 

ME HUNT AND EAT AND PUT STICK IN BAJANGA AGAIN AND AGAIN.

 

VERY SMART THING.

 

 

Try to read this in President Trump's voice. :D


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#14
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,316 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Speak of the devil, here's an article on this.
 

Transhumanist science will free women from their biological clocks

Women’s biological clocks drive human conception—and, in turn, human history.
Biology’s inflexible window of female fertility is generally agreed to be between the ages 18 and 35. Any older, and the risk of miscarrying, not getting pregnant at all, or bearing unhealthy children skyrockets. When the average lifespan for a woman in the Western world now hovers at around 80 years old, this means that less than 25% of her life can be spent easily (and safely) procreating.
Men have the luxury of being able sow their seed for most of their lives with few health ramifications (which is why someone like 72-year-old US president Donald Trump has a 12-year-old child). By comparison, the average woman will only ovulate 300 to 400 eggs in her lifetime, which means she only has the same amount of menstrual cycles to ever pursue procreation.
 
This seemingly unfair accident of human biology is all about to change, thanks to transhumanist science. Genetic editing combined with stem-cell technology will likely make it safer for a 50-year-old woman to have a baby in 2028 than for a 25-year-old woman in 2018. In two decades’ time, healthy 75-year-old women could be starting new families once more.
 
Scientists are working on this by converting skin cells into stem cells, which are cells that can turn into other types of cells. They can then turn these stem cells into women’s eggs. This technology could allow a woman to have tens of thousands of eggs instead of just that 300 to 500, all from a cotton swab swiped inside the cheek. These stem-cell-conceived eggs can then be mixed with sperm of one’s choosing to create viable embryos, which then are implanted back into the uterus. This process—already trialed in mice—has become known as “in vitro gametogenesis,” or IVG.
But if you thought turning skin flakes into ova was controversial, here’s the kicker: Skin cells can also be turned into sperm. In this way, a single human may soon be able to create its own offspring without a partner. This could eventually lead to a society where relationships, sexual or otherwise, are not functionally necessary to continue the human species.


  • Alislaws likes this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#15
Omosoap

Omosoap

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 185 posts

@ Outlook Yeah, because a lot of women's innovation was actually in their children. And that went entirely unnoticed in society until more recently. An innovator is nothing without the foundation their parents laid for them, including their mothers (if they have them). Psychologists have been finding that the window between babyhood and the age of five sets the stage for the rest of the child's life, whether good or bad. One negative example of this is that they have studied many German women (maybe men too, not sure) whose mother's and grandmother's bought into the diatribe of the Third Reich. One German woman, I forget her name at the moment, published a book on how to create Germany's next army through the children. In this book, they told mothers to ignore their child completely except for basic needs, feeding and the like. No picking them up or comforting them when they are crying etc. Basically, forbidding them from establishing an emotional connection with their children. Millions of women in Germany followed this advice, and this has had a negative effect on generations of Germans. The emotionally stunted adults produce emotionally stunted children and so on. Who knew women were so important, even the ones that are housewives? 



#16
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,852 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

Everyone will lose their reproductive value in the future

 

 

I agree with the predictions here, but I don't understand why females are singled out for losing their reproductive value. Males will also lose their reproductive value. 

 

Men will likely lose their reproductive value first as well (creating artificial/cloned/whatever sperm will probably be much easier than creating Eggs along with the entire female reproductive apparatus, able to grow a baby for 9 months, simulating all the biological changes a woman's body goes through during that time.)

 

Then again because one man can biologically father large numbers of children, men have always had very low reproductive value, unless they are really exceptional/irreplaceable in some way (in which case their reproductive value would be derived from their social utility or something?).  There may be some societal upheaval when women are equally replaceable in procreation but I think it will probably allow everyone to just relax a bit and take a lot of the pressure to reproduce off everyone allowing them to make careful long term decisions, like finding an ideal partner, and getting themselves set financially before having children, which should lead to fewer children raised by unprepared or unsuitable parents.

 

The downside to this technology will be that you mass production of people (in highly brain washable baby/child form) will be possible. With artificial Wombs it would probably be possible to build full on star wars clone armies. (Although they would take 18ish  years to mature).



#17
Nora1986

Nora1986

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
I think that the exclusion of a woman from the process of childbearing can fundamentally change the essence of human psychology and morality. As a mother, I believe that maternal child care is invaluable and no artificial technology will replace this.
Even there will be possible to produce children without the participation of a woman, it will be very difficult to educate a morally healthy person and develop an adequate social position of this human.
And for infertile women and women of non-reproductive age, IVF and surrogacy will always be relevant.
I want to emphasize - my position is not feminist, rather it is the position of the mother. :cool:


#18
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,852 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

I think that the exclusion of a woman from the process of childbearing can fundamentally change the essence of human psychology and morality. As a mother, I believe that maternal child care is invaluable and no artificial technology will replace this.
Even there will be possible to produce children without the participation of a woman, it will be very difficult to educate a morally healthy person and develop an adequate social position of this human.
And for infertile women and women of non-reproductive age, IVF and surrogacy will always be relevant.
I want to emphasize - my position is not feminist, rather it is the position of the mother. :cool:

 

I wouldn't agree that two gay men couldn't raise a child to be morally healthy, If they're raising a girl they may need to read some books or ideally have grandmas/aunties/female friends available in a support role for situations the dads would have no experience of (like entering puberty as a girl) 

 

Certainly in western society women are trained from an early age (look a t a girl's toy aisle vs a boys toy aisle in Toys R' Us*) to be mothers and to look after children, while male children are steered away from any interest in children or child rearing. So in society today the average woman is going to be a better parent than the average man, but there are plenty of women who would make awful mothers and plenty of amazing Dads out there showing that this childhood indoctrination can be ignored or overcome.

 

I think parents are going to be required for any sort of ethical child raising (which doesn't include star wars style clone armies), at least until we get to the point where AGI can do anything humans can do. And When we have AGI that can do anything we can do, we would have no need to produce people, except that humans like having children, so the only children who might have to have a robot nanny would be orphans, which would be pretty rare and so we would probably have enough people willing to adopt that we wouldn't need to go so far.

 

*forgot it is dead, so you can still do that if you live in Canada, but my point is you get craploads of dolls etc. for girls for them to basically practise looking after a baby, while boys are mostly given guns and sport stuff. I kinda hope its not as extreme these days as it was when I was a kid, but not sure, and now I cant check. 


  • CyberMisterBeauty and rennerpetey like this

#19
CyberMisterBeauty

CyberMisterBeauty

    The most beautiful male in the universe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  • LocationThe largest city of the year 2192,celebrating my 200th birthday

 

 

I think that the exclusion of a woman from the process of childbearing can fundamentally change the essence of human psychology and morality. As a mother, I believe that maternal child care is invaluable and no artificial technology will replace this.
Even there will be possible to produce children without the participation of a woman, it will be very difficult to educate a morally healthy person and develop an adequate social position of this human.
And for infertile women and women of non-reproductive age, IVF and surrogacy will always be relevant.
I want to emphasize - my position is not feminist, rather it is the position of the mother. :cool:

 

I wouldn't agree that two gay men couldn't raise a child to be morally healthy, If they're raising a girl they may need to read some books or ideally have grandmas/aunties/female friends available in a support role for situations the dads would have no experience of (like entering puberty as a girl) 

 

Certainly in western society women are trained from an early age (look a t a girl's toy aisle vs a boys toy aisle in Toys R' Us*) to be mothers and to look after children, while male children are steered away from any interest in children or child rearing. So in society today the average woman is going to be a better parent than the average man, but there are plenty of women who would make awful mothers and plenty of amazing Dads out there showing that this childhood indoctrination can be ignored or overcome.

 

I think parents are going to be required for any sort of ethical child raising (which doesn't include star wars style clone armies), at least until we get to the point where AGI can do anything humans can do. And When we have AGI that can do anything we can do, we would have no need to produce people, except that humans like having children, so the only children who might have to have a robot nanny would be orphans, which would be pretty rare and so we would probably have enough people willing to adopt that we wouldn't need to go so far.

 

*forgot it is dead, so you can still do that if you live in Canada, but my point is you get craploads of dolls etc. for girls for them to basically practise looking after a baby, while boys are mostly given guns and sport stuff. I kinda hope its not as extreme these days as it was when I was a kid, but not sure, and now I cant check. 

 

 

You mean that AGI will create robots and synthetic humans to grow the population so humans would no longer need to reproduce in order to keep the population from dropping dramatically? That could be solved with immortality and/or aigng reversal.



#20
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,852 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

 

 

You mean that AGI will create robots and synthetic humans to grow the population so humans would no longer need to reproduce in order to keep the population from dropping dramatically? That could be solved with immortality and/or aigng reversal.

 

There are only a few reasons people have children (in no particular order):

 

1. By mistake 

2. Because they like children and want one or more of them around. 

3. Because they are expected/socially pressured into doing it.

4. As some sort of retirement plan.

5. Because they think they might want children in future and their biological clock is winding down so they have to have them now. 

 

In the future when we have mastered our biology, Anti aging is solved, and infertility is not an issue:

 

1. Won't happen.

2. Still will happen as before.

3. Anti aging will make population control a big issue, and the fact that there is no time limit will hopefully lower this sort of thing.

4. Anti aging means no retirement, or old age to be looked after in. 

5. No time limit on having kids. 

 

AGI means the number of people is no longer relevant to prosperity or success of the society. There will be no pressure to produce children, except social pressure, which hopefully will be lower.

 

The ideal situation is every child being born simply because their parents really wanted a child, and have prepared and planned carefully.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users