Who needs men ?

[SerendipityJane]

Not humans, it seems 😀

Here's some musings from an LLM I'm messing around with at the moment. Obviously you can get an equally compelling diametrically opposed and correct view if you like (tonights homework, maybe).

Interesting to picture this as a continuum and lay it alongside we are and where we are headed though. Especially if you imagine that there are other people out there who do believe this and may want it not to happen. I mean "increased female cooperation" for crying out loud. Who on earth want's that ? Well we know who doesn't want it ....

1. Resource Intensity of Human Existence

• Current State: Humans are highly resource-intensive compared to other species due to technological advancement, population growth, and complex social systems.
• Evolutionary Pressure: As global resources become scarcer, species that are less resource-demanding or more resource-efficient may have a survival advantage

1. Selection Pressure Favours Efficiency

• Environmental Constraints: Overpopulation, climate change, and diminishing resources could exert selective pressure on humans to evolve more efficient ways of living. Societies or populations that can manage resources effectively will thrive.
• Gender Roles Shift: Over time, the reproductive and social roles of males and females could shift in response to these pressures. Since females are biologically responsible for reproduction, they might evolve to have more central roles in resource management and decision-making within communities.

1. Reduction in Male Population for Reproduction

• Reproductive Redundancy: Biologically, a relatively small number of males are needed for reproduction. If resource competition continues to escalate, evolution might favour a system where fewer males are maintained primarily for reproductive purposes.
• Parallel to Insect Societies: Similar to eusocial insects (e.g., bees or ants), the bulk of societal tasks, including reproduction and resource allocation, could be performed by females, while only a select few males are responsible for propagating the species(

1. Increased Female Dominance in Society

• Centralized Female Leadership: If females are more directly responsible for reproduction and societal management, natural selection might drive an increase in female leadership roles. This could create a system where females manage the majority of tasks necessary for the survival and propagation of the species.
• Female Cooperation: Evolution may select for increased female cooperation and altruism to ensure the survival of offspring and the group, especially under resource scarcity

1. Minimized Male Role Beyond Reproduction

• Infertile Males Performing Physical Labour: Non-reproductive males might evolve to take on supportive roles in maintaining infrastructure, defense, or other tasks that require physical labour. This would optimize the allocation of resources, as reproductive energy could be conserved for females, further enhancing efficiency(

• Reduced Conflict: A system with fewer males may lead to less competition and conflict, including war and violence, which could be seen as an advantage for group survival under resource constraints(

1. Possible End Point: Female-Led, Resource-Efficient Society

• Outcome: Over hundreds of millennia, humans might evolve into a society where the majority of the population consists of females, who both reproduce and manage societal functions. Only a handful of males are necessary for the continuation of the species, and their roles are minimized outside of reproduction. Such a system could be more resource-efficient and stable under certain evolutionary pressures, particularly if human conflict decreases due to reduced male competition

Sounds like Skynet has a plan for genocide

Well you would have to put your own bins out

Or a long running movie franchise.

Has Skynet heard of inbreeding?

So basically the Handmaids Tale but reversed.

What is an LLM?

Large Learning Model. Currently completely missold to a gullible public (and even more credulous corporate world) as "AI".

Just got it to do the grunt work of putting into words some basic prompts that it identified from all human intelligence so far (well yesterday, really ...today, Nigel Farage, Elon Musk, Donald Trump and Liz Truss will produce some output and the sum total of human knowledge will - once again - increase.)

However the spider silk strand remains. What if other (obviously stupid) people believe this could be a possible future, and don't like it ? How would they behave ? Especially if they have some sort of political or social power ?

So, human beings as Black Widows?

Maybe the men could be cooked and eaten once their best reproductive years were over? Very resource efficient.

And I guess sex for pleasure would be out the window except for lesbian sex, as Steve the Stallion would be pretty exhausted just covering the brood women as quickly as possible?

But what happens if the machines fail? Who will be left to do the heavy lifting?

possibly based on nearly anything by James Tiptree, Jr/Raccoona Sheldon/Alice Sheldon

I listened to a biology podcast recently that talked about testicle size in apes being correlated with colony structure and mating behaviours. Mountain gorillas have a single dominant male who has predominance in pairings, small testicles. Bonobos are v promiscuous, massive gonads. Steve the Stallion would need a wheelbarrow for his ‘nads like Viz’s Buster Gonads.

@BettyFilous ,

😂

Interestingly, men are evolving to have lower testosterone and lower sex drives (and probably smaller testes) due to probability of infant survival and physical strength being less and less relevant to success.

I don't think that's evolution.

Mens sperm counts are going down but that's likely environmental, not evolutionary - evolution doesn't happen in 3 generations unless there are extreme pressures (like 90% of the population dying). If you spend too long in the hot tub or get German measles or your body is full of forever chemicals and microplastics that ain't evolution. (and it's not women's birth control before people start. There is oestrogen in the water now but we'll over 90% of thst comes from cattle farming. So even if that was the issue, you would need to change agriculture to make any impact. But plastic is probably a bigger problem)

The end point by the way sounds more like a male sexual fantasy (just a handful of men, forced to satisfy a horde of women in a female dominant society. Does the head matriarch have a scary headdress and wear leather perchance?) than a serious proposition.

Anyway, these argument that ask what the point of certain people is are circular, because the only point of people is that they are people
Otherwise you can say "the point of women is to ensure that there is a next generation of people" or "the point of men is to provide resources/shelter/protection whatever for people." But then what is the point of those people. And on and on.

There would be half as much rubbish though so... Meh

This is attractive, though, male violence in all its forms being such a global catastrophe:
Reduced Conflict: A system with fewer males may lead to less competition and conflict, including war and violence, which could be seen as an advantage for group survival under resource constraints

And some of us have always put our own bins out so no change there

@JohnofWessex and yet lesbian couples seemingly manage this difficult life task.

"Maybe the men could be cooked and eaten once their best reproductive years were over? Very resource efficient."

Indeed, solving both nutrition requirements and the whole male violence thing at the same time, perhaps a product could be synthesised and call it "Soylent Grrrr!"

Ewww. I'd rather eat insects TBH

No one said it was original ...😎

Male violence at some point becomes evolutionary disadvantageous - it consumes more resources than it produces.

https://www.progress.org.uk/sperm-from-female-stem-cells/

I'm placing my bets on this. Once perfected we won't even need males for gamete production.

Best of all the sperm is X chromosomed, so all progeny will be daughters. We could in theory witness the eradication of the Y chromosome, and all the problems it brings to world, within just a few generations.

It's fun to imagine (and wind up passing MRAs) but I think the reality of that sort of science is more likely to lead to a distopian hellhole. From the article:

"
There is also potential to use 'induced pluripotent stem cells', stem cells derived from human skin cells, as a starting point for the process. This could enable gay men to donate skin cells that would be used to create stem cells from which eggs could be formed. The eggs could then be fertilised using sperm from his partner, and placed in a surrogatemother.

Greg Aharonian, a patent analyst in the US, is trying to patent the technology behind 'female' sperm and 'male' eggs. A self-proclaimed 'troublemaker', he wants to undermine the argument that marriage should remain heterosexual because its main purpose is procreation"

Note that regardless of where the sperm and egg come from (2 males or 2 females) a woman's body will still be needed to do the actually difficult bit. I think all this really does is further break the connection between that body, and who the baby "belongs" to. Distopian shit trust me.

But then what will happen to all of you SAHMs?

That contains a lot of misunderstandings of biology, evolution, and societal change.

(As an LLM it obviously 'understands' nothing it produces, so perhaps 'misrepresents' is more accurate.)

I refer you to the short story "Consider her ways" by John Wyndham