Easier doesn't translate to "It won't happen."
I'm not sure where artificial wombs are in comparison to artificial sperm, but they're pretty far along.
Advertisement
by Jinos » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:33 pm
by Eldritch Love » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:33 pm
Conformal Veal Theory wrote:The God-Realm wrote:My girlfriend is serious, and if you don't take her seriously you are going to end up with a big hospital bill.
The reason girls are not taken seriously is because most have annoying speaking tones and they make no effort to want to be serious and instead swoon over 1D
I'd say it has more to do with the fact that we're socialized not to take women seriously in such subtle ways that we don't even notice it.
by Forsher » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:42 pm
Conformal Veal Theory wrote:Gah, this thread is boring. Everyone agrees to much. Where are all the crazy people asserting that males are obsolete and that we should engineer a future utopia of genetically superior asexual female overlords?
by Grandstate » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:42 pm
by PapaJacky » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:46 pm
Forsher wrote:Conformal Veal Theory wrote:Gah, this thread is boring. Everyone agrees to much. Where are all the crazy people asserting that males are obsolete and that we should engineer a future utopia of genetically superior asexual female overlords?
Generally they were nuts and were banned for trolling/flaming/assorted other offences. Alternatively, you've chosen a bad time of year.PapaJacky wrote:
Teen pregnancies have dropped steadily for decades now.
You don't mean births, do you? Because here, at least, they've climbed but abortions mean that there have been fewer births. This article is an interesting perspective.
by Conformal Veal Theory » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:47 pm
Forsher wrote:Generally they were nuts and were banned for trolling/flaming/assorted other offences. Alternatively, you've chosen a bad time of year.
by Samuraikoku » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:50 pm
Conformal Veal Theory wrote:Forsher wrote:Generally they were nuts and were banned for trolling/flaming/assorted other offences. Alternatively, you've chosen a bad time of year.
I saw on other threads that there used to be this guy named FS-something or other and he used to advocate insane positions. What happened to him?
by Conformal Veal Theory » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:52 pm
by Samuraikoku » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:53 pm
by Conformal Veal Theory » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:55 pm
by Samuraikoku » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:56 pm
Conformal Veal Theory wrote:Oh. What happened? Was he that bad? Anything like this "XGP" guy on the blog I posted?
by Eldritch Love » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:56 pm
by Gauntleted Fist » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:57 pm
Conformal Veal Theory wrote:Gauntleted Fist wrote:Gee I don't know. What was it you were describing in the post I was responding to?
See that's why I was confused. Did you mean non-zero chance of people advocating Nazism or a non-zero chance of Nazism being true. The reason I'm confused is that you seem to think that the probability of people advocating Nazism is extremely small. I disagree. You can find lots of people supporting it.
by Conformal Veal Theory » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:58 pm
Samuraikoku wrote:His opinions tended to be unpopular, but that's not why he was banned. He was banned for trolling Christians.
He, however, was my friend. He deserved my respect.
by Conformal Veal Theory » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:58 pm
Gauntleted Fist wrote:No, I mean the non-zero chance of people advocating removing men from existence. it is very small.
by Forsher » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:59 pm
Conformal Veal Theory wrote:Forsher wrote:Generally they were nuts and were banned for trolling/flaming/assorted other offences. Alternatively, you've chosen a bad time of year.
I saw on other threads that there used to be this guy named FS-something or other and he used to advocate insane positions. What happened to him?
PapaJacky wrote:Forsher wrote:
Generally they were nuts and were banned for trolling/flaming/assorted other offences. Alternatively, you've chosen a bad time of year.
You don't mean births, do you? Because here, at least, they've climbed but abortions mean that there have been fewer births. This article is an interesting perspective.
Teen birthrates have gone down as well, but I was referring to pregnancies, which has fallen in a similar fashion: http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/reso ... cyinUS.pdf
by Samuraikoku » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:59 pm
Conformal Veal Theory wrote:Samuraikoku wrote:His opinions tended to be unpopular, but that's not why he was banned. He was banned for trolling Christians.
He, however, was my friend. He deserved my respect.
Okay. You know, we hate on trolls, but honestly, they sure as hell make forum life more interesting.
by Socialdemokraterne » Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:01 pm
Conformal Veal Theory wrote:On a related note, will improvements in reproductive technology make men obsolete, or is this a paranoid fantasy?
by Conformal Veal Theory » Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:02 pm
Forsher wrote:Four-Sided-Triangles was deleted for posting a troll-pic due to an extensive history of crossing the line. It was then revealed that he was actually Unhealthy Truthseeker who was DoSed, so he's gone. However, some reckon he's clever enough to find a way back just too rash to avoid regressing.
by Forsher » Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:08 pm
Forsher wrote:PapaJacky wrote:
Teen birthrates have gone down as well, but I was referring to pregnancies, which has fallen in a similar fashion: http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/reso ... cyinUS.pdf
Interesting. I'll just find a source for the rise here in NZ.
New Zealand has one of the highest rates in the developed world - with around 60 in every 1000 young women getting pregnant in 2009. That's up from around 50 in every 1000 girls 20 years ago.
by Socialdemokraterne » Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:13 pm
Conformal Veal Theory wrote:Let's discuss more the idea that men are becoming obsolete because reproduction no longer requires them. Does anyone wish to defend this thesis so we can at least have fun arguing with a devil's advocate?
by Forsher » Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:17 pm
by PapaJacky » Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Forsher wrote:Forsher wrote:
Interesting. I'll just find a source for the rise here in NZ.
I had to find a whole lot of stuff on teen pregnancy recently but I didn't record the sources (rather silly and short-sighted of me) so thiswill do.New Zealand has one of the highest rates in the developed world - with around 60 in every 1000 young women getting pregnant in 2009. That's up from around 50 in every 1000 girls 20 years ago.
Obviously fairly limited, maybe there's something more like yours out there...
by Grandstate » Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:18 pm
Socialdemokraterne wrote:Oh, alright. Just don't expect me to be a very enthusiastic devil's advocate.
A person's value is measured by the sum of their biological utility. If we have the capacity to engineer the human reproductive process to operate independently of male input, we're perfectly capable of engineering every other significant advantage males might bring to society to be replicable in their absence, perhaps through mechanization.
Is that enough to start?
by Conformal Veal Theory » Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:19 pm
Grandstate wrote:Doesn't just extend to men, though. If we built an artificial womb, all we would need from women would be their ova. It's basically just which sex we get to eliminating first.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Cerespasia, Cerula, Cyptopir, The Selkie
Advertisement