Men are extincting

**Rodri** · 03-19-2012, 03:49 AM

Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher

Without even touching the rest, though I'm sure what I'm about to say can apply reasonably well toward it as well...

I'd like to draw your attention to an interesting lurking variable: The capability of the human race to diagnose cancer. Thirty or forty years ago, a large number of cases of cancer would not have been detected that we now possess the capability to find.

It's like if I were to stumble around in the woods at night looking for bears. I probably won't find any, except for maybe, if I'm lucky, one that was as oblivious as I. But say I go back sometime later with considerably more care, knowledge, and possibly a flashlight. Suddenly, I might spot a dozen in a single night. Does this mean anything changed to make more bears since the last time I was there?

I'm not saying that I know that cancer rates are the same today as they used to be. What I'm saying is we can't know. Any statistics you may be finding are, unfortunately, inherently flawed, and there's nothing we can do to improve their quality.

So please, do a little source analysis before making any claims.

What twaddle. I am only refering back to the 1970's and 80's. Cancer was well known and diagnostic methods may have improved slightly but not by that much. When it comes to statistical analysis there is only one thing you need to know:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Leonard Huxley

[EDIT] You don't have to take my word for it (in regard to increasing cancer rates). Even the World Health Organisation states it here.
And I quote:

"Q: Are the number of cancer cases increasing or decreasing in the world?

A: Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide and the total number of cases globally is increasing.

The number of global cancer deaths is projected to increase 45% from 2007 to 2030 (from 7.9 million to 11.5 million deaths), influenced in part by an increasing and aging global population. The estimated rise takes into account expected slight declines in death rates for some cancers in high resource countries. New cases of cancer in the same period are estimated to jump from 11.3 million in 2007 to 15.5 million in 2030."

And I quote again:

"A number of common risk factors have been linked to the development of cancer: an unhealthy lifestyle (including tobacco and alcohol use, inadequate diet, physical inactivity), and exposure to occupational (e.g. asbestos) or environmental carcinogens, (e.g. indoor air pollution), radiation (e.g. ultraviolet and ionizing radiation), and some infections (such as hepatitis B or human papilloma virus infection)."

So what else you got Bree? If you happen to find bear scat in the woods, it doesn't neccessarily mean that a bear

in the woods? [/EDIT]

**Alusair** · 03-19-2012, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by Rodri

My own hypothesis on why the Y chromosome is showing signs of deterioration is that we are poisoning ourselves with hormone laden foods and beverages. (PVE plastic, which is used to make plastic bottles and many other products,is known to release (small) doses of oestrogen) (many of our foods also contain doses of oestrogen)

Drug use, drinking, and exposure to all sorts of radiation (the computer monitor you are reading this on is giving off some radiation right now!) and exposure to a cocktail of other chemicals in our food, air and water are all contributing factors to genetic deterioration. This is, in my opinion, why cancers of all types are far more prevalent than they were 30 or 40 years ago as well.

Without going back and reading the Y chromosome bit, I thought that the deterioration was a gradual thing over tens to hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, and that, as far as studies can tell, there's been extremely little (if any) deterioration in known human history.

Not to say that those things you mentioned aren't detrimental to genetic health, however- I agree with you entirely that they do affect us. But the Y chromosome wouldn't be alone in being harmed by those things.

Alusair, I would just like to clear up a few things about Y2K (or the millennium bug) as well. This was never going to be a major cause of human deaths because all it was about was the FACT that early computers only had a 2 digit year counter (to reduce memory use) and if you still had a computer or any device with a chip in it that performed certain functions that required time and date functionality then there was a chance that it may fail when the year ticked over to 00. Media beat ups and folkloric hysteria blew it up into something like a doomsday scenario. Most old computers that were still in use were easily updated well before the event anyway, so it was always going to be a non-event.

That is all true, yes. Though I also vaguely remember people claiming that what is supposed to happen on December 21st, 2012, was supposed to happen on January 1st, 2000 since it was the "turn of the century". Such as alien invasions, the rapture, spontaneous world implosion from astral alignment or something, etc. I think they got much less media attention than the computer scare, but they were there. Of course it was ridiculous, but then again so is every doomsday claim, especially in hindsight.

EDIT:

Of course, cloning from clones causes very rapid genetic deterioration, so good luck with that ladies.

If you're referring to the extinction of male humans causing an issue for human survival, I'd disagree. As I alluded to (albeit briefly) in a previous post, there's a few species of animals that have suggestively evolved from a dual-sexual existence into a uni-sexual one. One species I remember (though not its name) is a type of lizard- they reproduce asexually in lack of a mate. While I think the asexual offspring suffer genetic stagnancy, due to essentially being a natural clone of the parent, I don't think they suffer from genetic deterioration.

Given that biological life's modus operandi is pretty much to procreate and survive, I suspect that, should the human Y chromosome eventually dissolve into nothingness, human genetics would have already adapted and compensated for this change, and would continue on without much issue.

**BigNorr** · 03-19-2012, 02:45 PM

Well on the off chance I find a way to survive that long and make it to this strange future of all women at least my odds of gettin laid skyrocket astronomically

**~~Abdiel~~** · 03-19-2012, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by BigNorr

Well on the off chance I find a way to survive that long and make it to this strange future of all women at least my odds of gettin laid skyrocket astronomically

Ehh idk. If genes change enough to totally exclude the male from human reproduction, probably all women will evolve into lesbians.

**~~Nishinta~~** · 03-23-2012, 12:56 AM

lol a world with women in control sounds fantastic apart from the cost on men becoming extinct and women becoming lesbians.. men have at least one use.

Reaching jars on the top shelf

**~~Cosmic Fury~~** · 03-24-2012, 10:01 PM

Even though I sincerely believe the notion is pretty preposterous, let's just say in the off chance that it were actually true. If that is the case, something like the following will happen in say, fifty thousand years:

First off, if humans have not already gone extinct, found a way to curb this seemingly disturbing problem through science, and have not travelled to other planets and corrected the problem via other means:

There will be fewer men, and more women in comparison, let's just say one man to about ten women. In the need to reproduce, society will alter accordingly in the following ways:

1. A man will have quite a lot more than one wife, which will not be very fun.

2. There will be far less boys, so those will be valuable, and perhaps killed by older men, like the lions do.

3. There will be groups -- like again, a pride of lions -- where one man will be the head of anywhere from a few to many women of varying ages, where only the strongest/most intelligent will be able to reproduce.

4. Society will not exist as we know it. With humans being incredibly selfish creatures, there will be no viable government, nor world-spanning dominating forces over society in general. There won't even be tribes of men, as each will be out to get a share of "the good stuff."

You see, with the absence of one sex, the balance will merely shift towards correcting it, so that there will indeed be fewer and fewer of one so that it will be in healthy numbers with the other, or that species will eventually go extinct.

I really doubt that there will be men in such few numbers, as humans generally only take one (in some societies no more than four) women to a man. As such, people are born that way, and pretty much always have since the dawn of time...

Same goes for women, and that's mostly why I think that this sort of thing will not happen.

**King Alboin** · 03-25-2012, 12:05 AM

or,

Society becomes more like Ant colonies and Bee hives. Whereas females do all the work and provide for the common defence. Female geneticists figure out a way to splice in the Y chromosome after conception, triggering the growth of testis, and rear the males as however is their want. Use them for reproduction, basically like the ancient stories of the Amazonian females, and then kill them once their use is fullfilled, after a new set of males has been reared.

or...

I could see a future to where males after so many artificial or natural inseminations are castrated, making them stronger and more docile, there - by being able to become eunic slaves for heavy labor and mowing the lawn, and killing spiders. ~tks clara=)~{shoot me now, that future bites, imho}

Economic cottage industries would be the eunic slave trade, the production of Midol, genetic engineering, adult toy production and shoes