Are we heading to become a single(male) gender

what is better, to be good to someone today, or to do something bad for the greater good of millions. the world today is run by self obsessed scum that are just interested in lining there pockets.
this world today that we live in has probably more pain and suffering than it ever has. so how has the world really become kinder.

"What is more important, to be kind to others or to be smarter than others?"

to be kind today has no real meaning for tomorrows people. but people becoming smarter will make changes and invent to make tomorrows world hopefully a better place.

what i have got from this discussion is that man has an obsession with keeping the animal instincts in him. whether you agree or not, our evolution is supposed to be leading us away from beings animals.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then why do you keep struggling to keep your opinion if you are truly interested in evolution?
What you may think is for the greater good might not at all be that. It is simply your opinion made up from your experiences. Other people with other experiences to form opinions from may have very different views than yours on what is for the greater good.
You have no idea what tomorrows people will apprechiate more.
But I'm sure that if you have kids, they will value your kindness above anything else, and they are tomorrows people. Material and intellectual progress has nothing to do with happiness, which is a necessary feeling to perceive the world as a better place. Love and kindness has everything to do with that. To realize that is evolution.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Intellectual progress has a lot to do with happiness. Do you think the slaves were very happy in that technologically backward time? This is not opinion, this is fact. Technology and intellectual progress will always destroy the opposition. Nobody who is being destroyed will be happy. And afterwards, people will see that greater happiness is caused by technology.

The convergence to one gender is quite necessary for people to think more in terms of technology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh I've been on this particular crusade for years (along with countess other ones, heh heh). Falling in love with a girl just complicated it, but I still think this is the future.

 

Oh Fen, the slaves were unhappy because they were slaves, not because of lack of technology. Their misery derived from the greed and search for material welth of those who kept them as slaves, who were willing to walk over dead bodies to get it, it was their lack of compassion and kindness that caused the slaves unhappiness.
And are you seriously saying that this lead to some greater good? What is that greater good? Look around in the world and see what your backwards thinking have led up to.
What if the slaves were offered to work for a salary instead, and still had their freedom, where would we be today then? A better place perhaps.

 

Have you heard of wage slavery? That's exactly where we are today. People work when they don't need to. How is the thinking of the thread starter and me "backwards"? Technology is about progressing forwards. I'm going a bit far from the original point, but we are all slaves today in that we do work that is easily automated by technology.

Converging to one gender is just one step to make so we can start thinking logically about these things.

 

"james r -Mankind has many possible futures. Yours is simplistic and naive."

so who can say that my way is not the perfect way for man to evolve, and who is to say it is.

"Whilst we are in part responsible for the future (e.g. we have an obligation to preserve the environment), we have direct control over how we treat today's people."

so breeding like rabbits has no influence on tomorrows world, does it. your civilization is just run by chaos. you let people do what they want with no concern of what will happen tomorrow. whether you agree or not with me, your society is just making more problems for itself. these are problems your children will have to address, so why not address the problems today.

as far as im concerned you people just think about ME,ME, and ME. the world that man has created is just plain stupid, i can guarentee your society that the world is running into big problems, that man should be addressing today, and you may say give me an example.

1)you breed like bloody rabbits, with no concern what that actually means. the world is already over poplulated. so what does the world today say about this. oh we don't care about the future, let's create as many problems as we can so the future of mankind is hindered solving problems that should be addressed today. but for some reason man does not think like that. you think the world you have created is great and it is the best man can do.

i look at the world and the only thing that i like about the society you have created is DEMOCRACY. i like this concept and i think it will work in the future. but society has a problem about this concept. it is called the free market. this will never ever work into a world of the future. it is just built on what man is good at today. GREED, ME, and more GREED.

"I hate to break this to you, but we are animals"

mankind will never evolve to it's potential if man thinks this way. PERIOD.

 

andy1033 why dont you get rid of disabled, mentally retarded and female gender for your 'super-race'? [total sarcasm on my part]. Man, you are a total hitler wanna-be. people with such fuc*ed up ideas should'nt be allowed out into the world.

take a chill-pill dude.
hey, if i did'nt care about the future i would be a capitalist pig.

i dont understand your logic, you cant get rid of the free market right? so you want to get rid of the female gender?

and on the last note:

more importantly, we are all equals.

vote communist.

 

"Captain-Crunch , Man, you are a total hitler wanna-be" lol

"I hate to break this to you, but we are animals" i did not write this, it was james r.

"Captain-Crunch - andy1033 why dont you get rid of disabled, mentally retarded and female gender for your 'super-race'? [total sarcasm on my part]."

this is where we are heading whether you like it or not.

"Captain-Crunch - i dont understand your logic, you cant get rid of the free market right?"

you are probaby right there, i just want the system changed. all i was really saying was it was not the final solution, that it won't really work, like it exists today in the future.

MY LAST POINT, IS THAT THE FURTHER MANKIND EVOLVES THEY WILL BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT OF THE IDEAS THAT HITLER BROUGHT INTO THE WORLD, ARE FACTAUL. YOUR WORLD WILL JUST END UP DOING WHAT HITLER WANTED BUT IN A DIFFERENT WAY. THIS IS BECAUSE SCIENTIFIC FACT IS FACT. IT IS JUST YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE THAT WILL CHANGE. I'LL GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE.

1)you practice a form of eugenics everyday of your lifes. whenever you choose a partner to start a family with, you are practicing a form of eugenics. FACT.

and your future will be littered with instances with things that hitler thought, it is that we think about things in different ways. hitlers only real fault was that he tried to push to much science fact onto the world to quickly, where as it would have been better to sow the seeds of what he wanted to do.

"Captain-Crunch - Man, you are a total hitler wanna-be. people with such fuc*ed up ideas should'nt be allowed out into the world."

it is new ideas that come into this world that move our world forward. so you people can either live in the past or choose to move forward. that is where science will lead you to the truth. so therefore there can only be one real direction that you are moving, and that is the scientific way. PERIOD

 

The FEMALE is the DEFAULT HUMAN!

Starting from the top ....

That would be why the female is the default human being. The mere presence of the Y chromosome does not a male make. I actually got that from TLC the other night when they interviewed a woman whose genetic makeup included XY. But that would be the reason why people might think males have "far greater potential" than females: they don't know what they're talking about.

I don't know. If that was true as such, why do we put such effort into denying women legal equality?

Marie Curie and Emma Goldman come to mind right off. We could try looking at it proportionately, too. How many women, for instance, have ravaged nations as a head of state bent on warfare?

Simone de Beauvier once said something along the lines of, "Women are criticized for acting like women, but when a woman tries to act like a man, she is criticized for not acting like a human being." It's been years since I read the quote, but it's quite true.

For instance, eighty years after Goldman wrote about prison labor, the issues scorned in her day are still relevant. In Washington state, business owners recently had a minor uproar over job training and prison labor, to the point that one person (male) even lamented, "If I had known this would be my competition, I never would have opened business." Great, guy ... in other words, you didn't do your research ....

In the US there is an old rule called Title IX, which still isn't followed properly. Its application largely has to do with schools and athletics. Men and women must be given equal opportunities. Sure, it might be anatomical that a woman has a harder time throwing a curveball because of her breasts (I've never seen this validated, but the position of the heart accounts for the weak southpaw curveball) but Title IX came about at a time when there were almost no athletic opportunities available in the communities for women. And then came Billie-Jean King, who showed that with equal training, a woman can defeat a man in athletic competition.

Just because men think of it as f--king and not as reproduction doesn't mean that's not what it's about.

And Einstein was well-known for his ability to work and play well with others. It's why he was such a good husband.

That's not even funny. It's rather kind of sick. Studies in the 1980s demonstrated that schools were weighted toward males even to the point of teachers discouraging female participation. That playing field is still leveling. Genius can go to waste if it is not presented with opportunity. Plain and simple.

If, for instance, Joyce Carol Oates is not thinking outside the box, it is because as the best living writer in the United States° she is building the box. And she does not seem to want to build a box per se, but rather something more suited for thinking.

We have to remember that one of the reasons men build and wreck societies the way they do is that, lacking the power of life-creation, they need to find some use for themselves in the world.

I have to admit, it sounds a lot simpler than eliminating supremacist ideologies from the world; analogously, we could end racism if all the black people and hispanics and arabs turned white. To the other, we will see a one-color world long before we see a one-gender world. Oh, that color will be what is commonly referred to as "caramel" or "peanut butter".

Yep. That's why they're the default setting for the human species.

Grey Seal ... there are hermaphrodites, but I've never heard of one reproducing with itself. The need for genetic diversity is another consideration. Without the second party in human reproduction, we'd end up cloning ourselves.

Fen ... there are hundreds of genes in a sperm cell, but thousands in the ovum.

Andy1033 ... back to you. I agree that the thread itself is not anti-female. You, however, show such an attribute.

By proxy of having that much time on their hands. I suppose that division to the point of elective warfare is a positive accomplishment of men?

Oh, please do ... actually, I'm covering this topic in posting order, so maybe you already have.

Scientific fact according to what standard? If the standard is sexist or misogynist ...? After all, look at the "accomplishments" of men. Wars, weapons, even nuclear bombs. Sure, we can point out landing on the moon, but that was part of the same competition. It was a real-estate race. The accessible frontier: get there first and plant your flag. So in addition to their "accomplishments", men also invited cholera, various plagues, and so forth into the communities.

I've found that people often reflect their own fears about themselves in their projections onto other people. For instance, the conservative people associated with the Republican party in the US frequently talk about Democrats, big government, and how they're taking away your freedom. This is a deflection. After all, it has in my lifetime been the conservatives who strive to revoke free speech, due process, and equal protection under the law. See how that works? The conservatives, working to strip fundamental freedoms, pick a side issue and accuse their opponents of attacking freedom. I also recall a study of Oregon's 1992 "Measure 9" debate (gay rights) in which the author noted a predisposition among conservatives (in this case anti-gay) to be overly concerned with their children's sexuality. While working to "protect the children" from the influence of others in sexuality, the parents are obsessing on their children's sexuality.

Heck, even I can't avoid it. But, being aware of it, I at least get to try.

Well, the first thing you need to do, then, is figure out how to increase the social skills of males. It is documented that calculating emotional responses is harder for men. This could be important in the end. After all, men invented and deployed nuclear weapons.

I'll remind once again that the female is the default blueprint for the human being. The male is the modified version. One can bear the XY genetic makeup and still be female.

Here's something I just learned. Measure your index and ring fingers on your right hand from tip to base knuckle. A man's ring finger should be definitively longer than the index finger. I actually watched a guy correctly predict a 100-meter dash based solely on finger lengths. The Y chromosome does not specifically make you a male. Rather, it triggers testosterone production which affects the development of the fetus. If that testosterone process does not occur, is stunted, or otherwise goes awry, the result is a female human being carrying the XY chromosome.

I tend to think of some wise male sages and some long traditions in history. The Buddha had women, it is known, but many Buddhist sects have gone celibate.

Less interested? You've got to be kidding. Take a look around at the sex industry. I came up drinking in the sex industry in Oregon, some 8 years ago. In that short period, the sex industry has flourished almost beyond my imagination. What was against the law to pay for 8 years ago I can now get delivered to my desk at no charge. I live in Seattle, which has an apparent but unspoken desire to become the internet porn capital of the US, if not the world. We may have a ways to go, but we're working on it.

I still haven't figured out in what way they will lose interest. You may have explained it in there somewhere, but if you did, the explanation didn't make sense, and, furthermore, flies in the face of observable circumstances.

I like to phrase it that we're finally trying to be useful.

Thousands of years? You wouldn't care to document that, would you?

What's funny about that is that Marx may have been right; but that's a point to check in on at the end of the century. More to the immediate issues, perhaps you'd like to explain to us the idea of genetic diversity among a single gender. Does humanity rely on mutations to prevent cloning? What happens if the gene pool becomes more prone to mutation?

Bebelina ... just think of it as that superior male intellect. It's the best he can come up with, hence the paramount of argumentative logic and form.

Or something.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Andy1033 ... This is a really interesting line. Someone ... that's one person, right? Millions, that's ... millions of people, right? Okay ... now ... what is that bad thing that you do for the greater good of millions? Dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima? The Dresden firestorm? Give me any example that doesn't leave a standard of right and wrong that includes "right" to the detriment of the human species.

I see a fixing of good and bad, a concretizing of moral propriety. If you've just done something to the greater good of millions, I'm having a difficult time figuring out how it's bad. If you've done the right thing, you've done the right thing.

Which I find interesting. Will the "new male" of the future also rely on concretized moral standards? You know, moral absolutes such as those which men have invented in, say, religions, that have served us oh so well, especially in the last century?

And the clear majority of those scum are males.

Matter of scale. It hit me, for instance, how an oil disaster can play such havoc in the US markets when a supertanker was put into comparative perspective. I believe it was something like, "The oil in this ship will be enough to power every car in the US for a day." Crap, lose one of those .... How, for instance, can we claim progress in society when a boat sinking can cause so much more havoc on economic outcomes? It seems analogously similar.

Life, according to the big picture, looks a lot like an experiment. Look at postwar (WWII) industrial and commercial development in the US. As much as I criticize "big business", I would have hopped on the bandwagon back then, as well, I think. And yes, our economy became more cruel. But as a communitarian, I am also capable of acknowledging that certain of the structures I despise are necessary. Without them, my personal vision of what life should be would become impossible. So what if we haven't time for kindness these days? Men ushered in that standard on the backs of their ambitions.

JamesR ... I think it would wipe out more than 50%. A large part of human diversity comes from the union of two organisms. Converting to one gender and then reproducing sexually seems a waste of time except for its possibilites as relates to diversity. But with only one gender, sexual reproduction becomes ... unnecessary. In the end, we merely clone ourselves either biologically or in the lab.

Andy1033 ... Consider the gene pool for a second. Because there's an obvious flaw in the ointment. So much for perfect.

Why introduce such factors into the argument? Can you not respond to the issues you elect to cite?

Survey time. The following is merely to determine your opinion:

Which do you expect to happen first?

(A) Human beings will become completely honest, intelligent, and aware of their place in the social organism.
(B) Humans will evolve the brain capacity to accommodate and assimilate enough factors at one time that they can, indeed, concern themselves directly with the goings on of how many billions.
(C) Pigs will fly.

Perhaps we should have left women at the reins.

Let us all know when you devise a practical method for stopping this.

Step 1: Reduce your caffeine intake.
Step 2: Breathe deeply; I recommend breathing in fours.
Step 3: Try that one again.

While I do agree that overpopulation is a problem, your generalization of the thought process is only offensive in that it assumes that enough of the population is capable of answering the question, much less perceiving it. That's generally not offensive, either. In the meantime, talk to the men in charge of the money and the wars.

So is the future male psychic, or are you just blowing furious smoke out of your furious ass?

The funny thing is that democracy doesn't work. Now, maybe the all-superior future male can figure that out, but which do you think will happen first?

(A) Humans will become intelligent enough to understand their role in society and therefore not vote merely based on their pocketbooks and bank balances
(B) Pigs will fly

I disagree. Honesty is a virtue both to the individual and to the species. We must look honestly at our history if we are to learn the lessons that will carry us to the utopiate future.

 

From: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/

 

Tiassa

I would add that it is ridiculous to talk to "greatest living authors" such as Salinger and all and genders. When discussing the arts, there is no "standard" for determing who is "the greatest", as it is an entirely subjective field.

 

o.k, so we got a nazi here people. So basically you think humanity should destroy anybody that you see unfit to keep living?

you believe this stuff?
doing what hitler wanted.....does this mean, have the world ruled by one race, free of all other ethnic minoritys and free of anything that was deemed unfit by a total phycopathic maniac? Have all the citizens brain washed into believing everything the dictator tells them? You should read up on hitler's ideas, quite clearly you have not and have no idea what you are commenting on.
.Hitler's Plans is any of his 'good' ideas on that site?

FICTION

ehm, when i choose a partner i dont think to myself: 'now, will this partner make the human race any better if we decide to have offspring?'. I would be attracted to her due to personal qualitys not if it will benefit man-kind. FACT.

so, you dont think, his half-baked theories and the fact he was a total phycopathic killing machine were faults?

no, your ideas are not new, discriminating against the female gender has been done before, you want to move the world backwards. I'm interested to see why you choose scientific way to describe your ideas, you have not backed up anything you have said with scientific fact - science is'nt on your side.
____________________________________________________

thank you tiassa,
Although, i dont fully understand your question but i would be happy to give somesort of insight if you get a topic up and running.

i would have to agree with this. Just as i think it is stupid to judge any band or music peice as being "the greatest", i simply think there is no such thing

*edited in link*

 

hey tiassa

I just noted you said that the ova carries thousands more genes than the sperm, and realized why the rest of what you said is pure drivel.

Oh, and andy. Nazism tends to have a bad rap. Yeah, they tried to improve things, but they focused on race instead of gender. Very innovative methods for improving the world, but wrong goals.

 

they tryed to cure all of Germanys problems through war and the holocaust, very innovative.

 

Fen

Actually, Fen, you may be correct. I may be comparing the genetic ratios of the X and Y chromosomes. The Y chromosome is tiny by comparison.

You'll have to fill the rest of us in, Fen. I'm sure a genius like you has a better argumentative basis than that.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Simply because I'm the kind of person who has to have my say in this kind of stupidity...........

Nazism was about a superior race. However, not based on evolution. Or strong genes. Or eugenics. Based purely on race. Hitler looked around and said; "hmmmm, the Germans make the best art (er, this argueable at best). The Germans are the strongest (um, they're up there but not always the best). The Germans are the smartest (uh, yeah, sure whatever you say Aldy). The Germans are obviously the greatest race there is. We will just eliminate everyone else - especially jews as they are the most inferior of all human beings - and the world will be a much better place!"

If you suggest that Nazism can be good because of the financial turn around it produced - facism did that, not the Nazi aspect.

 

Adam

Adam

On the one hand, who said anything about "greatest"? I said "best". The difference is subtle.

But in a sense, you're kind of right. It's kind of like measuring the best anything; it's hard to do. However, in the case of Joyce Carol Oates, it's a fairly conventional answer among writers in the US that Ms Oates is the best. Who was, for instance, the best military leader in history? On what basis? In either case, Oates or Salinger, you'll find that writers do hold a certain number of our own as standard-bearers. Salinger's standard has never been directly met. Oates' standards have left her contemporaries somewhere in the dusty distance.

You have to understand, Adam, writers do pay attention to who's doing what, and how well they're doing it. We could merely pay attention to sales or Q ratings, of course. But then the greatest would be Stephen King.

But the criteria for the standard? It's tough. But when we look at, say, popular music, we can say that Brian Wilson was and is the best. Why? Because the current generation of educated musicians in the pop culture are still, 30 years later, astounded. Absolutely nobody has been able to do what Mr Wilson did. Word is that he intends to finish Smile, which should, generally, put the question to rest. If anyone could have matched him in this time, they would have. And someone eventually will.

But nobody can reproduce what he does yet. The Wondermints did well, but they can't compose at the level they perform. I've read a lot of good writers in Joyce Carol Oates' wake, but the general consensus among writers is that if any of us can do what she does, we haven't told anyone else about it.

Writing tells stories, and communicates. That's why Bret Easton Ellis sucks so badly. For all the times I've tried to read him, there's nothing there that he's really communicating on any deep level; a pageant of depravity to be sure, but little or no insight into the nature of depravity.

But I agree that the standard for "greatest" is harder to determine. I just don't know why you brought it up.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

from what i could gather, andy was saying nazism would have benefited man-kind.
:bugeye: