Post: #1

Some cool stuff indeed, to block the female feminazis

Quote:A wild new technology could one day allow two men to reproduce via stem cells and an artificial womb—and could help infertile women have their own babies, rendering IVF and egg freezing obsolete.
In a 2012 New York Times op-ed, biologist Greg Hampikian declared that “women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither.” The provocative title: “Men, Who Needs Them?” But in light of a new discovery from Cambridge researchers that sperm and eggs could potentially be created from skin cells, there’s no telling what human reproduction will look like by the end of the century or how gender will matter, if at all. Forget everything you know about making babies. In the far future, gay male couples could be having biological offspring without a surrogate and women could be having children in old age.

As the Guardian reports, a team of researchers led by Azim Surani at the Gurdon Institute in Cambridge developed “primitive forms of artificial sperm and eggs” known as primordial germ cells (PGCS) out of skin tissue. These PGCs are “genetically matched” to the tissue donor, which would hypothetically allow couples suffering from fertility issues to have their own biological offspring instead of resorting to the use of a sperm or egg donor. Men and women who become infertile as a result of chemotherapy could also regain their reproductive capabilities. And because the cells are also “wiped clean” of the epigenetic mutations that occur in our bodies over time, they could provide important insights into age-linked diseases like diabetes or cancer.

But while the reporting on the Cambridge discovery in late December focused on immediate practical applications of this research for both fertility treatments and diseases, the ability to create germ cells from skin tissue has even more far-reaching implications for the future of human reproduction—ones that haven’t yet been fully considered. The possible consequences of this research, ripped straight from the pages of a sci-fi novel, would upend almost all of our traditional cultural understandings of gender and reproduction. By the end of the 21st century, the birds and the bees won’t just be different, they’ll be unrecognizable.

For one, Hampikian’s declaration that men are irrelevant to reproduction may have been decidedly premature. Surani tells the Guardian that women’s skin cells can only produce eggs because they typically lack a Y chromosome—but that skin tissue from men (who have both X and Y chromosomes) could hypothetically produce both eggs and sperm, although such an outcome seems “unlikely” at present.

As Surani wrote in an e-mail to The Daily Beast, “This is technically very difficult. It would require changing normal XY male cells into XO cells, that is removing the Y chromosome to make it possible to make eggs from these cells.”

But in the rare event that human men turn out to be reproductively ambidextrous, as it were, they could gain access to an unprecedented level of reproductive independence. Reports of the “end of men,”turns out, have been greatly exaggerated.

Complete male reproductive independence would also hinge on artificial womb technology, which also made headlines in 2014. Ectogenesis—the technical term for the artificial womb—has been in development for over 10 years and futurist Zoltan Istvan predicts that it will be available and used widely within 30 years.

In an e-mail to the Daily Beast, Istvan added that “it’s very possible that natural birthing will start disappearing over the next 25 to 50 years because of advancing technology.”

So far, goat embryos have been carried to term in these artificial wombs but human embryos have only been grown for 10 days due to current restrictions on human cloning. If it turns out that viable sperm and eggs can be produced from male skin tissue, the existence of artificial wombs could hypothetically allow two men to create both kinds of sex cells from their skin, fertilize the egg with the sperm in vitro, and grow the the resulting embryo outside of a human womb. No women would have to be involved at any point. For the first time in human history, reproduction could become a boy’s club. But while we can dream of this possibility, Surani cautions that it’s far too early to imagine it happening anytime soon.

“I should stress that this work is at a very stage and there is much basic work needed first, before even contemplating [that] possibility,” Surani told The Daily Beast.

Still, such an outcome would not be unprecedented in mammals—male and female mice with two biological fathers have already been produced. The process will not work the same with humans, of course, but Surani’s team may have just taken a very early step toward allowing gay men to reproduce without having to rely on a donor or a surrogate. Women—who needs them?

But every action has an equal and opposite reaction and this new reproductive technology will almost certainly change the future for women, too. If the combination of PGC research and artificial womb technology allows men to achieve the same level of reproductive independence as women, it could theoretically allow women to achieve the same reproductive flexibility as men. A fair trade, perhaps.

For men, lifelong reproductive viability is a near certainty but for women, reproduction is a complex process that must be carefully timed. Eggs, after all, are a finite and depletable resource. A woman typically starts her life with millions of eggs but only 400 or so will ever undergo ovulation. To freeze these eggs, a woman must take a regimen of fertility medications and have her eggs harvested through a vaginal probe. The whole process is not only convoluted, it’s expensive, too—one round of treatment can cost up to $15,000 And even if a woman freezes her eggs, she still puts both her body and her baby at risk if she delays childbirth too long. Advanced maternal age dramatically increases the risk of maternal mortality as well as birth defects like Down Syndrome.

Creating PGCs from skin tissue, on the other hand, seems like a walk in the park compared to egg freezing. As Surani told the Guardian: “It’s remarkably fast. We can now take any embryonic stem cell line and once we have them in the proper conditions, we can make these primordial cells in five to six days.” Turning these PGCs into viable sex cells, as Surani is careful to note, will require further research but if we do eventually succeed in producing eggs from PGCs, skin tissue would almost certainly be easier to collect than eggs. Ovaries—who needs them?

What this would mean is nothing short of the shattering of the notion of the biological clock. At present, not every woman is young enough, fertile enough, or healthy enough to have a baby using her own eggs or her own womb. But in a world where eggs can be created from skin and babies can be grown in artificial wombs, women would theoretically have the option to distance themselves from the nuts and bolts of human reproduction and have babies at virtually any age with no bodily toll. Sound familiar? That’s exactly how men can participate in reproduction right now.

Judging from current figures, there would be a substantial demand for this option, too. The CDC (PDF) reports that the average age of first-time mothers in the U.S. increased from 21.4 years in 1970 to 25 years in 2006. Over that time period, the number of women giving birth at age 35 or over increased nearly eight times, from 1 out of every 100 first births to 1 out of every 12 first births. The trend is particularly concentrated in the coastal states where women are wealthier, more educated, and more liberal. But if women could behave like, well, men when it comes to reproduction, they would no longer have to face the familiar devil’s bargain between career and childbirth. The quandary of whether to freeze eggs or not could become irrelevant overnight.

But while this technology would physically allow women to bear children with little interruption to their career or education, what happens after childbirth would still be determined by social attitudes. The pesky thing about babies is that someone has to take care of them once they’re born. Gender roles exceed the biological circumstances of childbirth and they are, perhaps, much less likely to change. Women in the U.S., for example, still bear the brunt of housework and childrearing even though they are now also primary breadwinners in nearly half of all households. In the absence of cultural shifts, then, new reproductive technology might not matter as much for women as it would for men. For the first time, the potential for men and women to play flexible and equal roles in reproduction seems possible in the future but that possibility hinges on the gendered distribution of labor within American households.

In the two years since Hampikian’s New York Times op-ed about men’s reproductive irrelevance, the distant future of human reproduction has undergone a monumental shift. If sex cells come from skin and babies come from tanks, so much of our gendered reproductive vocabulary becomes irrelevant: pregnancy, copulation, surrogate, fertility, donor.

All of these far future speculations, of course, depend on a series of “ifs.” It will be years before we know if PGCs can indeed be turned into viable sex cells, if male skin tissue can be used to create an egg, and if human babies can safely be carried to term in an artificial womb. But as reproductive technology becomes more sophisticated and more removed from the human body, one thing’s for certain: the rulebook for reproduction will need to be completely rewritten. The end of conventional childbirth might only be a matter of time.

Post: #2

Only queers and permanent spinsters with shrivelled up wombs will use this new technology, therefore I do not give one solitary fuck about this. 99% of kids born this way will be born into fucked up, dysfunctional 'families'.

Put the funding towards a male contraceptive pill- that will even the playing field.

Post: #3

I'm against all this biotech. Two women weren't meant to reproduce. Two men weren't meant to reproduce. Infertile couples weren't meant to reproduce. Young healthy heterosexual couples were meant to reproduce.

Let people die of old age. Let people die from STDs. Let people die from not looking both ways before crossing the street. Survival of the fittest.

Post: #4

(01-03-2015 04:30 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  I'm against all this biotech. Two women weren't meant to reproduce. Two men weren't meant to reproduce. Infertile couples weren't meant to reproduce. Young healthy heterosexual couples were meant to reproduce.

Let people die of old age. Let people die from STDs. Let people die from not looking both ways before crossing the street. Survival of the fittest.

Two women or two men weren't meant to move faster than 20mph, fly, or communicate instatly with people half way across the globe either.

Post: #5

(01-03-2015 04:53 PM)IvanDrago Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 04:30 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  I'm against all this biotech. Two women weren't meant to reproduce. Two men weren't meant to reproduce. Infertile couples weren't meant to reproduce. Young healthy heterosexual couples were meant to reproduce.

Let people die of old age. Let people die from STDs. Let people die from not looking both ways before crossing the street. Survival of the fittest.

Two women or two men weren't meant to move faster than 20mph, fly, or communicate instatly with people half way across the globe either.

Says who? That's just mechanics. There's no moral implications to flying around the world. What happens when one of these test tube babies reproduces and introduces some unforeseen genetic defects into the gene pool? I think we've gotten too arrogant with medical technology. We can't even cure the common cold yet we're tinkering with the basic structure of genetics without thinking about the morality or long term effects.

We need population control not designer 3 DNA children.

Post: #6

This sounds terrible why would you celebrate it

Post: #7

(01-03-2015 05:06 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  Says who? That's just mechanics. There's no moral implications to flying around the world. What happens when one of these test tube babies reproduces and introduces some unforeseen genetic defects into the gene pool? I think we've gotten too arrogant with medical technology. We can't even cure the common cold yet we're tinkering with the basic structure of genetics without thinking about the morality or long term effects.

We need population control not designer 3 DNA children.

I don't agree with it either but some of the technologies I listed can have adverse effects too, it's not just mechanics. Think of how things like Facebook and Tinder on smartphones has ramped female hypergamy and narcissism through the roof over the last handful of years. I know it is a reach comparing a smartphone to designer children but I hope you get where I'm coming from. (I started partying early tonight and might not be making much sense )

As far as morality, I am not going to call it moral or immoral since everyone on the planet has a different definition on what morality is.

Post: #8

Of course not all women deserve to be edged or ruled out by this method I suppose.
But concerning those many men-haters females, I'd say this method trumps them out easily

Post: #9

I don't know where to put it, and this thread seems as good as any.


Was looking up the bio of some hot model and saw this:

Quote:Josephine Skriver
Skriver was born in Copenhagen, Denmark to a lesbian mother who is an IT analyst and a gay father who is a marine biologist.

Conflicted since she is nuts and from Denmark, yet also hot...






Verdict: would sportfuck





NSFW Link
http://www.nowearland.com/josephine-skri...mber-2013/

Post: #10

It's very sad to know the tools allowing humans to act as God are in the hands of our social fringe groups.

The boundaries of morals, nature, and science will continue to be pushed until women and gays can create children from the comfort of their retirement homes.

Post: #11

The future is going to be strange.

Biggest issue is these technologies will become cheap and available to all. Nothing could stop some spinster from having 5 kids all supported by wellfare

Men need to wrap their heads around these ideas even if they don't like them because they will
massively impact society and your wallet more than the current feminism or jihadists ever will (genetic modifications, anti-aging, couple free child birth...). People need to be informed and have solid stances on these before things get out of hand.

Post: #12

When men no longer need women to have children, that is the day they lose any importance or freedom in society. This is horrible news for women, but great news for men.

Think carefully: Men are naturally superior to women in all respects except reproduction. The only reason men even have to put up with women is for children. If men could reproduce on their own, women would be regulated to sex slavery and nothing else. This would have occurred a long time ago. But since it's biologically impossible, it has never happened.

This technology changes that. "The End of Women," coming to a Western Civilization near you?

Pretty soon men will get everything they need from technology: Sexual pleasure, money, and children. Why deal with a narcissistic bitch? This technology allows a man to be the absolute dictator of his home, just like he was in the old days.

100% guarantee women will move to heavily regulate or ban this tech. But bans can only last so long. If this technology comes true, then women's days are numbered. Everyone will choose to be men or have sons, because why make your child inferior (i.e. make it a woman)? The only women created will be for sexual slavery entertainment.

Post: #13

I hope we populate Mars before this technology goes mainstream.

Post: #14

(01-03-2015 06:25 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  I hope we populate Mars before this technology goes mainstream.

We are already in a new space race; Granted it is mainly with the private industry (Spacex, Blue Origin, Bigelow Aerospace, Virgin Galactic, etc) All of these companies and more are working to make humanity a space faring species. I hope to see more pioneers rise.

Post: #15

The genie is out of the bottle. Just like with nuclear energy (and weaponry) once someone figures it out, there is no coming back. No knowledge will remain forbidden or forgotten forever.

Post: #16

Some things can't be grown in a petri dish or created in a lab.
We are more than our DNA. Heart, courage, determination make a man just as much if not more.






/above clip is from Gattaca, a great movie that some of the younger forum members might not be familiar with.

Post: #17

All you guys thinking we don't need women to raise kids are delusional. Call me on Skype if you want to know how difficult that would be. Fathers are needed towards the end, before that small children need their mothers.

Try calming down a screaming child without a pair of tits. Babies even smell the difference between mom and dad easily.

We need them and they need us. Playing with God hasn't worked so far, why make it worse.

Post: #18

(01-03-2015 08:40 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  All you guys thinking we don't need women to raise kids are delusional. Call me on Skype if you want to know how difficult that would be. Fathers are needed towards the end, before that small children need their mothers.

Try calming down a screaming child without a pair of tits. Babies even smell the difference between mom and dad easily.

We need them and they need us. Playing with God hasn't worked so far, why make it worse.

Nonsense!! My son and i would become demons and walk the earth assassinating misandry on our way to hell.

Post: #19

(01-03-2015 10:53 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 08:40 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  All you guys thinking we don't need women to raise kids are delusional. Call me on Skype if you want to know how difficult that would be. Fathers are needed towards the end, before that small children need their mothers.

Try calming down a screaming child without a pair of tits. Babies even smell the difference between mom and dad easily.

We need them and they need us. Playing with God hasn't worked so far, why make it worse.

Nonsense!! My son and i would become demons and walk the earth assassinating misandry on our way to hell.

When he is crying for his momma's titty, we will see how tough he is. Until he is old enough to walk with you, you are shit out of luck. Little ones gotta crawl before they can march

Post: #20

(01-03-2015 06:23 PM)Samseau Wrote:  100% guarantee women will move to heavily regulate or ban this tech. But bans can only last so long. If this technology comes true, then women's days are numbered. Everyone will choose to be men or have sons, because why make your child inferior (i.e. make it a woman)? The only women created will be for sexual slavery entertainment.

But won't this only heavily skew the sexual market place in favour of women ?

This sounds similar to what happens in Asain countries where the parents abort the baby if it is a girl...hence women in china have more sexual power and choice due to the high surplus of men.

Post: #21

This isn't cool at all. Why would a guy want to have a baby without fucking a woman? This is extremely gay.

Ban the OP for being so excited about this.

Post: #22

(01-04-2015 03:53 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  This isn't cool at all. Why would a guy want to have a baby without fucking a woman? This is extremely gay.

Ban the OP for being so excited about this.

Its the MGTOW dream. Having children and not having to deal with bitches in the process and hence not be beholden to them.

Whether that is good or bad is up for discussion. And personally I agree with you.

Post: #23

I don't like developments like this. One phrase keeps popping into my head. "It's just so weird." I just have a gut feeling that this is very, very bad, because gender roles developed over thousands of years of hunter-gatherer society, and despite being far more technologically advanced, our biology is the same. Old women don't have children, two men don't have children together, just because scientifically we can change this doesn't mean we should. Hopefully it doesn't ever go mainstream, but knowing the human race, once technology has been created, it's hard to keep it from proliferating. It's sad, really.

Post: #24

(01-04-2015 04:24 AM)Switch Wrote:  I don't like developments like this. One phrase keeps popping into my head. "It's just so weird." I just have a gut feeling that this is very, very bad, because gender roles developed over thousands of years of hunter-gatherer society, and despite being far more technologically advanced, our biology is the same. Old women don't have children, two men don't have children together, just because scientifically we can change this doesn't mean we should. Hopefully it doesn't ever go mainstream, but knowing the human race, once technology has been created, it's hard to keep it from proliferating. It's sad, really.

Transhumanism my friend is quite the dangerous philosophy. The hubris that the power of technology gives us may destroy us.

Post: #25

Any form of single parenthood by choice is irresponsible and harmful to the child. Nature deemed that it took two people to create a baby, therefore two people should raise it.

One of my friends who just died was a single mother by choice and left behind her son, a recent high school graduate and now an orphan. How responsible was it for her to have a kid, knowing this was a possibility? The kid is now 18 and alone in the world with no money.

Anyone who has tried to navigate the world using one arm or one eye knows how tough it is. When you bring a kid into the world by yourself, you're essentially hamstringing the kid and yourself in the same way. This goes for men and women.