Creating Babies Without Men

[Blackwing Coast]

The Japanese have actually fixed the issue with genetic degradation over multiple generations of cloning - they created 25 successive generations of mice without ill effects i.e. they had a normal lifespan.

As for genetic diversity, there has been research in creating sperm from stem cells.

Interesting. Do you have a link to that article?

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/scientists-perfect-mouse-re-cloning-to-the-25th-generation
and
http://www.nature.com/news/rudimentary-egg-and-sperm-cells-made-from-stem-cells-1.16636

Enjoy

[Blackwing Coast]

Imo developing ways to reproduce without either gender is something very useful to our species, especially when combined with genetic engineering to improve our genome as a whole.
The only thing we need to prevent are patents on the human genome and patents on improvements thereof. This is too important for the development of our species to let it be corroded and corrupted by economic interests.

As for the reactionaries that are currently against it, and pushing anti-cloning laws, they will be on the losing side of history, as will be any nation that does not eventually abolish these laws.

Last but not least these technologies are vital for space colonies - we do not need to worry about genetic damage and sterility from cosmic radiation when we simply store the genetic information on more durable means, and clone new colonists upon arrival.

[Imperializt Russia]

More, the article also says that at the extreme end it "could lead to the science fiction nightmare of a female-dominated society where men have little or no role."

What do you think, NS?

I think it's the Daily Mail so you can tell that opinion to shove it.

[Imperializt Russia]

Imo developing ways to reproduce without either gender is something very useful to our species, especially when combined with genetic engineering to improve our genome as a whole.
The only thing we need to prevent are patents on the human genome and patents on improvements thereof. This is too important for the development of our species to let it be corroded and corrupted by economic interests.

You've got that backwards, mate.

Forbidding patents will force organisations to compete, since the IP can't be bought and sold.

[Alvecia]

More, the article also says that at the extreme end it "could lead to the science fiction nightmare of a female-dominated society where men have little or no role."

What do you think, NS?

I think it's the Daily Mail so you can tell that opinion to shove it.

I'm not even convinced the article is recent.
There are no clarifying dates on the webpage that I can see, and the research done by the two scientists quoted was done, as far as I can tell, in 2001.
Sure the tech might have been studied a bit more since then, but I'm pretty sure it's not the study the article is about.

[Imperializt Russia]

I think it's the Daily Mail so you can tell that opinion to shove it.

I'm not even convinced the article is recent.
There are no clarifying dates on the webpage that I can see, and the research done by the two scientists quoted was done, as far as I can tell, in 2001.
Sure the tech might have been studied a bit more since then, but I'm pretty sure it's not the study the article is about.

Besides, anyone who doesn't think a female dominated future will be kinky is probably boring in bed.

[Alvecia]

I'm not even convinced the article is recent.
There are no clarifying dates on the webpage that I can see, and the research done by the two scientists quoted was done, as far as I can tell, in 2001.
Sure the tech might have been studied a bit more since then, but I'm pretty sure it's not the study the article is about.

Besides, anyone who doesn't think a female dominated future will be kinky is probably boring in bed.

I certainly wouldn't be complaining

[Blackwing Coast]

Forbidding patents will force organisations to compete, since the IP can't be bought and sold.

That is the entire point - you can only in win in competition by reducing prices or increasing quality - unless you buy the patent to keep the technology out of greater circulation on the producer side. Thus buying it out to create a monopoly must be prevented. As a compromise the patents on genetics could simply expire quicker, and only be renewed for a maximum total of say 25 years, after which it mandatorily becomes public domain - albeit only within participating states, and for companies based therein, else it would be exploited too much by extranational competitors.
If that leads to problems in funding, subsidize it by the states.

[Imperializt Russia]

Forbidding patents will force organisations to compete, since the IP can't be bought and sold.

That is the entire point - you can only in win in competition by reducing prices or increasing quality - unless you buy the patent to keep the technology out of greater circulation on the producer side. Thus buying it out to create a monopoly must be prevented. As a compromise the patents on genetics could simply expire quicker, and only be renewed for a maximum total of say 25 years, after which it mandatorily becomes public domain - albeit only within participating states, and for companies based therein, else it would be exploited too much by extranational competitors.
If that leads to problems in funding, subsidize it by the states.

No, no...

If there is no patent, the technology can't be locked away, because it can be used by anyone.
You've misunderstood what patents do.

The things you worry would happen are exactly what would happen if the technology were patented.

[The Alexanderians]

I think it's the Daily Mail so you can tell that opinion to shove it.

I'm not even convinced the article is recent.
There are no clarifying dates on the webpage that I can see, and the research done by the two scientists quoted was done, as far as I can tell, in 2001.
Sure the tech might have been studied a bit more since then, but I'm pretty sure it's not the study the article is about.

I remember there was a thread like this a few years back that used Daily Mail as a source so either they've run out of stuff to write about and started over or it's the same source. Making it outdated.

[Aeyariss]

What do you think, NS?

Hmm, where's the fun in that? I prefer transferring the sperm to those in the L group in the traditional conventional sense.

[Alvecia]

I'm not even convinced the article is recent.
There are no clarifying dates on the webpage that I can see, and the research done by the two scientists quoted was done, as far as I can tell, in 2001.
Sure the tech might have been studied a bit more since then, but I'm pretty sure it's not the study the article is about.

I remember there was a thread like this a few years back that used Daily Mail as a source so either they've run out of stuff to write about and started over or it's the same source. Making it outdated.

It's silly that the article doesn't even have a date.
If it's recent, how will people know?
If it's archived how will people know?
I work with databases, so poor archiving makes me want to pull my hair out.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm not even convinced the article is recent.
There are no clarifying dates on the webpage that I can see, and the research done by the two scientists quoted was done, as far as I can tell, in 2001.
Sure the tech might have been studied a bit more since then, but I'm pretty sure it's not the study the article is about.

I remember there was a thread like this a few years back that used Daily Mail as a source so either they've run out of stuff to write about and started over or it's the same source. Making it outdated.

DM Online is piecework so it wouldn't surprise me.

[The Alexanderians]

I remember there was a thread like this a few years back that used Daily Mail as a source so either they've run out of stuff to write about and started over or it's the same source. Making it outdated.

DM Online is piecework so it wouldn't surprise me.

The funny part is that the old thread was a RadFem one with undertones of misandry so I guess it's funny it's a repost but done completely differently.

[Chessmistress]

Besides, anyone who doesn't think a female dominated future will be kinky is probably boring in bed.

Oh, it'll be kinky, for sure...but...meh...the most interesting question is...kinky for who?

[The Alexanderians]

Besides, anyone who doesn't think a female dominated future will be kinky is probably boring in bed.

Oh, it'll be kinky, for sure...but...meh...the most interesting question is...kinky for who?

I thought you weren't about that

[Archembalt]

The Japanese have already begun to develop methods of birthing infants without the use of women. You can go ahead and look it up, but, from what I've gathered, it has only been successful with goat embryos; however, they still managed to raise them from embryo to full grown infant, so that's definitely progress.

[Chessmistress]

Oh, it'll be kinky, for sure...but...meh...the most interesting question is...kinky for who?

I thought you weren't about that

According translator "kinky" means "sexually arousing".
So I'll reword my thought, in order to avoid misunderstandings:

A female dominated future would be sexually arousing, for sure...but...meh...the most interesting question is...sexually arousing for who?

I don't agree with "female domination": Feminism is about equality.
I know there are plenty "feminist" males who are dreaming about such things: they just do not understand that a "female dominated" society would be, very likely, "sexually arousing" for males just like old times patriarchy was "sexually arousing" for women...indeed, quite the opposite of "sexually arousing" for males, exactly as old times patriarchy wasn't "sexually arousing" for women.
Men and women are not so different: who thinks a matriarchy would be better for men than patriarchy is for women, well, is just a fool.
A "female dominated" society would be "sexually arousing" for men just like actually Iran and Saudi Arabia are "sexually arousing" for women.
The fact that there are so many "feminist" males who fail to understand such very simple concept makes me VERY suspectful about them even as worthy allies, given that, of course, I don't think they should call themselves "feminists".

[Chessmistress]

The Japanese have already begun to develop methods of birthing infants without the use of women. You can go ahead and look it up, but, from what I've gathered, it has only been successful with goat embryos; however, they still managed to raise them from embryo to full grown infant, so that's definitely progress.

Source?

[Ifreann]

I thought you weren't about that

According translator "kinky" means "sexually arousing".
So I'll reword my thought, in order to avoid misunderstandings:

A female dominated future would be sexually arousing, for sure...but...meh...the most interesting question is...sexually arousing for who?

'Kinky' means sex that is in some way unusual, as in, not your standard penis-in-vagina, missionary position sex. This being a PG-13 forum I'll refrain from giving examples.

[Alvecia]

According translator "kinky" means "sexually arousing".
So I'll reword my thought, in order to avoid misunderstandings:

A female dominated future would be sexually arousing, for sure...but...meh...the most interesting question is...sexually arousing for who?

'Kinky' means sex that is in some way unusual, as in, not your standard penis-in-vagina, missionary position sex. This being a PG-13 forum I'll refrain from giving examples.

More's the pity.

[Archembalt]

The Japanese have already begun to develop methods of birthing infants without the use of women. You can go ahead and look it up, but, from what I've gathered, it has only been successful with goat embryos; however, they still managed to raise them from embryo to full grown infant, so that's definitely progress.

Source?

Here you are!
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ ... ss-births/

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

According translator "kinky" means "sexually arousing".
So I'll reword my thought, in order to avoid misunderstandings:

A female dominated future would be sexually arousing, for sure...but...meh...the most interesting question is...sexually arousing for who?

'Kinky' means sex that is in some way unusual, as in, not your standard penis-in-vagina, missionary position sex. This being a PG-13 forum I'll refrain from giving examples.

Usually used to mean "whips and chains."

[The Alexanderians]

'Kinky' means sex that is in some way unusual, as in, not your standard penis-in-vagina, missionary position sex. This being a PG-13 forum I'll refrain from giving examples.

Usually used to mean "whips and chains."

Among other unmentionable things

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Usually used to mean "whips and chains."

Among other unmentionable things

Oh so fun unmentionable things.