Sperm Made From Female Bone Marrow, Men Obsolete?

Shaitan Apistos writes "British scientists have discovered a way to turn female bone marrow into sperm, allowing women to reproduce without the need of male companionship. All children born of this method would be female, due the lack Y chromosomes, and there is high chance of birth defects. Eggs also can be created from male bone marrow, but men looking to reproduce would still need to find a surrogate mother to handle the gestation period. I'd like to take a moment to welcome our new amazonian overlords and remind them that men are still very good at mowing lawns and fixing cars."

dont forget

[User 956 (568564)]

I'd like to take a moment to welcome our new amazonian overlords and remind them that men are still very good at mowing lawns and fixing cars.

Also, SNOO SNOO!

Re:dont forget

[cayenne8 (626475)]

"I'd like to take a moment to welcome our new amazonian overlords and remind them that men are still very good at mowing lawns and fixing cars. "

That and you can't take a vibrator home to meet your parents....

Re:dont forget

[CastrTroy (595695)]

Or, if this catches on, your parent.

We discussed males and females, so....

[DanMelks (1108493)]

...so where do transsexuals fit in here?

Re:We discussed males and females, so....

[tacocat (527354)]

I guess after being told to "Go Fuck Yourself" for so many years, these scientists finally found a way to do it.

There will be some interesting debates raging about this one for a long time. I'm of the opinion that on the whole, we are better off with the process of gene mixing than practicing self-eugenics.

More seriously...

[DrYak (748999)]

This could be genuine good news for :
- Homosexual couples (2 lesbians, or 2 gay men + 1 surrogate mother)
- Couples where 1 is trans gender (and lack the correct type of gonads)
One day such technology would enable both parents in such couples to be the biological parents.

Now back to humour :
Yes, we *DO* welcome our new Amazon overlords.
Specially since, if as a consequence of this the percentage of women increases in the general population, this new girls:boys ratio (men are rare) when added to eons-old instinct (sex drive) will finally increases the chances for the average /. to get laid.

Re:More seriously...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Have you _SEEN_ the average /.er? It's more likely that that's the reason why women would seek this.

Re:More seriously...

[superwiz (655733)]

Since when is human reproduction about strengthening the gene pool, and since when are your "gay friends" inherently unable to reproduce naturally?

Better question is "since when is natural a good thing"? History of human progress is the history of defying mother nature to make life more convenient than she would have it.

In other news...

[Tsar (536185)]

British scientists have discovered a way to move around by walking, making wheeled transportation obsolete. All trips made with this method would be short or very slow due the lack of speed, and there is high chance of being late. I'd like to take a moment to welcome our new ambling overlords and remind them that airplanes are still pretty handy for the really long trips.

Re:

[znode (647753)]

No funny tag, and the source is a tabloid?

Where is the... anything??

Of course men not obsolete just yet

[syousef (465911)]

From a sexual point of view, most women are still part conditioned and part pre-programmed to want male ahem companionship. (I could put this much more crudely but I won't). Without these urges our species wouldn't exist. You can't suddenly replace that in a generation. If you had many generations that could survive just as well (ie elliminate high birth defects etc) perhaps you'd see human sex drive die off. I like sex, so let's hope not.

From a social and evolutionary point of view, while men and women can replace each other for most things it is still true that the male tends to be physically bigger and buliker, and prefer science and math while women tend to be smaller and have more interests in social bonds, fashion and nest-making. We'd need to change both society and biology to change that. (Note that I'm not saying a man can't be a splendid nest-maker or that a woman can't do heavy work, or even that this should be discouraged - nothing sexier than a woman with a brain, or one that can kick arse - I'm just stating what the trend is currently and that it takes time to change such trends.)

So while a few scornful women may wish to bomb men out of existence but we ain't going anywhere anytime soon. Let's all be friends, instead.

Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet

[damburger (981828)]

But many women like the, ahem, companionship of other women. If this has a genetic basis (almost certain) then the genetic offspring of two such women is very likely to feel the same way. A female-only subculture is almost certainly on the way.

The depressing thing is, as a man I can't really think of why we should be allowed to stick around.

Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet

[Jamu (852752)]

Doesn't this also allow women to reproduce without the need of female companionship? Just make sperm from your own marrow and use this to fertilise your own eggs. Of course the daughter would then be a clone of the mother. But she would only inherit birth defeats, not engender new ones.

Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet

[Haeleth (414428)]

The depressing thing is, as a man I can't really think of why we should be allowed to stick around.

Come to that, why should people with disabilities be allowed to stick around, when a fully able-bodied society would be perfectly viable? Why should people with dark skin be allowed to stick around, when a fully-white society would be perfectly viable? Why should Jews be allowed to stick around, when a fully Jew-free society would be perfectly viable?

Most people view such questions as shocking, revolting, taboo. We have collectively decided that such questions simply have no place in our lives. We do not need any explanations or justifications: the idea that all these groups have a fundamental and irrevocable right to exist is taken as axiomatic. It's one of the foundations of our modern western civilisation, period, and there is simply no further room for debate.

The question of whether men should be "allowed" to exist is the same question, asked in a different way. Therefore the answer, to people in our society, will be the same: of course men must be allowed to exist. No justification will be required.

(Not to invoke Godwin or anything, but there's a reason some people refer to extremist feminists as "feminazis". Their views are unlikely to become mainstream any time soon.)

Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet

[thesandtiger (819476)]

Don't fall into the trap that "biological" means "genetic." There is almost certainly a biological basis to homosexuality, but it may be epigenetic rather than "genetic" as most people mean the term. It seems to be more complicated than most - including myself - think.

Men will win in the end (sort of)

[mithras invictus (1084169)]

While feminists like to exaggerate the bad properties and general uselessness of men and the superior characteristics of women, they fail to realize that those properties have been genetically selected by their sexual counterpart. If men are really that useless, this must mean that women really suck at selecting a sexual partner.
If womens "stupid useless macho" partner preference is left unchecked by a mitigating male preference, everybody in the future will pretty much be a man with different sexual organs.

Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet

[ydrol (626558)]

The depressing thing is, as a man I can't really think of why we should be allowed to stick around.

I saw this linked on /. before. Here it is again. A good time to wheel it out ...

Is there Anything Good About Men? [fsu.edu]

Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

They've pretty much proven that both gender and sexual preference are hardwired into the brain (lots of studies, some quite good, one or two quite unethical (I read a story about one where they cut a babies penis off at birth and raised him as a girl.. of course as soon as he got the chance he reverted to being male - he 'knew' he was male despite nobody ever telling him)).

If course there's two ways that a 'reverse' preference could happen... either it's genetic, or something happens during the development of the foetus.

I seem to remember a pair of identical twins, one gay one straight, though (can't provide a link as it's too vague for even google to help) which would count against the genetic theory.

Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

Here's at least one link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer [wikipedia.org]

Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet

[SCHecklerX (229973)]

Yeah, but women already have functional 'robotic companions'. That's a little more difficult a problem to solve for men.

Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet

[value_added (719364)]

From a sexual point of view, most women are still part conditioned and part pre-programmed to want male ahem companionship.

I take it you haven't fathered any offspring. That "want" you're referring to is at its height during the brief courtship phase. Past that, it's replaced with something very different.

Here's how it works. The girl gets pregnant and your "companionship" privileges are revoked with occasional but increasingly rare exceptions using rules that only a woman could understand.

The child is born. Companionship has been replaced by sharing of duties. A year or two passes, and the privileges return occasionally, but only if you've met your workload. That continues for several years (in an ideal environment) until lust and love are relegated to "remember when?" memories. The bond between the mother and child is strong and unbreakable. The bond between the two of you is weak. You're now living the life of someone who's entered into a series of complex, interwined legal and financial agreements. Satisfy all those agreements and you may reach the 6-7 year mark. Fail, or complain about the loss of companionship, you'll discover what misery really means.

If you've come this far, and you're unhappy, then it's hookers and blackjack for you (she's busy and has "her" kids to think about). On the other hand, if she's unhappy, she will consider you as unimportant, and leave. The legal and financial agreements stay, so she gets the kids and house, and you get the bills. The world will be supportive of her decision, and you end up like a stray dog wandering the streets.

Let's all be friends, instead.

Only if you were friends to begins with. Good friends are sufficiently motivated to work things out. But then, ask yourself often people marry their friends?

Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet

[VanessaE (970834)]

I can see that you've forgotten that there are actually a few women on this website (or you've chose to ignore the feelings of those of us who are present).

Yes, we want financial security - name me just one person in this world, of either sex, who doesn't. Yes, most (but not all) of us want to raise families. Yes, we want you to share the workload of raising the kids - it's a damned hard job, as I'm sure you are aware, on top of whatever other 'duties' the woman of the house takes on (e.g. the stereotypical cook/clean/sew routine).

Yes, the mother-child bond is strong - damned strong - but the bond between the two partners is only as weak as the weakest member of that partnership. Period.

The simple fact is, we're not all the way you've described, and if you've been "lucky" enough to find only that subset of women that are, then you are surely looking in the wrong place(s), and/or you just don't know jack shit about women.

Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet

[value_added (719364)]

The simple fact is ...

You're absolutely right. I'm wrong on all counts.

• Men are not attracted to "big boobs and ass" to the exclusion of all else because those qualities are universally associated with the ability to carry on the gene line by bearing and raising children, but because they've watched too much porn.
• Women are not attracted to "strong and handsome" (especially at ovulation time), or alternatively, rich and powerful, because those qualities are indicative of someone who can provide and protect, but because they read about it in a magazine.
• The object of dating is to make more friends.
• Women never ever have relations with a man solely because they want to get pregnant. This is particularly true for girls in their teens, and women in their forties.
• Both a mother and father are absolutely required to raise a normal, healthy child. It is untrue to suggest that it's in any way acceptable acceptable to be a single parent. Recent medical advances don't disprove this, and are mere curiousities that have no effect on the actions or mores of society as a whole. Who cares what gays and lesbians think. It's a fact they're all going to hell.
• Everyone wants security but it's a lie to say that women absolutely need it and will demand it first among all things. Men and women are not animals, and any similarity to the behaviour of animals on the NatGeo channel is a mere coincidence.
• It's a myth that men will seek a great number of sex partners. See above. What men really want is long-term companionship.
• Woman really prefer dogs to cats.
• Marriage is not a legal contract that involves bargaining and an exchange of money and property. Marriage is a union of love, and the historical nature of it should be dismissed as an unfortunate error. The reason why the rich continue to insist that their lawyers handle it is simply because their lawyers need the work. The main cause of arguments and divorce is never money
• It's a myth that a woman's sex drive decreases during pregnancy. It does not disappear for an extended time after childbirth. In fact, the woman regards the man in the same manner as when they were dating, and the man regards the woman's changed attitudes and weight gain as enhancing her attractiveness and desirability.
• Love conquers all.
• Women who choose to leave or divorce are routinely criticised on Oprah, and it is false to suggest they have near universal sympathy from everyone, or free access to the local district attorney to pursue financial claims.
• Men who choose to leave or divorce are never regarded as irresponsible or deadbeats.
• It is not true that men have few rights with respect to custody, other than the freedom to hire a lawyer of their own choosing to pursue a protracted and expensive legal case in a court system that vastly prefers the rights of the mother. Women never deny or otherwise interfere with visitation rights for capricious reasons. That simply doesn't happen.
• Writing ascerbic posts on Slashdot on the subject of mating is proof of a history of bad relationships, bad choices, and/or failed marriages. It is "unpossible" that the poster is simply having fun reiterating fairly mundane observations made by him and countless others for longer than most care to remember.

Smooch! My apologies, of course, for presuming Slashdot is primarily a male audience. ;-) No offense meant.

damn.

[theheadlessrabbit (1022587)]

as soon as scientists develop a machine that automatically opens pickle jars, men are fscked.

I don't want to be obsolete.
now I know how Windows feels. :(

Inbreeding?

[ultracool (883965)]

Wouldn't that be like having a child with your twin, rather than something like cloning?

Re:

[BirdDoggy (886894)]

I think you're right, I don't think the intention is for women to impregnate themselves with sperm created from their own bone marrow. The idea is that a woman can impregnate another woman.

Infertility Applications

[amilham (737749)]

I think something people seem to be missing from this is that it could be great for couples (of whatever orientation) with men who are infertile. If sperm can be produced artificially from their bone marrow, they could still father children biologically.

Fixed it

[eebra82 (907996)]

Isn't Will Smith starring in some movie with tagline "the last man on earth"? Did the women kill the rest of them?

Re:Fixed it

[timmarhy (659436)]

no the women just nagged them till all they could do is hide in the dark and bite anything that comes near them.

Women of the world, I entreat thee!

[Junior J. Junior III (192702)]

Before you go throwing out the male gender, stop for a moment and consider this:

Sperm extracted from my bone is a lot less painful to obtain than from your bones. Think about it!

Re:Women of the world, I entreat thee!

[swarsron (612788)]

great, now they're going to rip our bones out to make sperm. Way to go, traitor!

Re:Women of the world, I entreat thee!

[dfghjk (711126)]

Except that, considering your name is "Junior J Junior III", that hardly sounds appealing.

Knowing the use of your sperm would condemn future generations of males to "juniordom" is tantamount to child abuse.

Silly Scientists... This aint nothing new...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745)]

Hell, I be making sperm every time i bone a female.

Flat Pack Furniture

[turgid (580780)]

This won't be allowed to happen. IKEA will go out of business.

Yes

[eclectro (227083)]

But my sperm is Organic(TM). No telling what you're gonna get with the fake stuff.

Old news - I'm a Slashdotter

[Hogwash McFly (678207)]

I've been obsolete from a reproductive point of view for some time now.

A couple of comments on this:

[Upaut (670171)]

1.) This is an argument against all those advocating to ban same sex marriage, because they "cannot reproduce". Quite the common argument recently. Despite my second point.

2.) THEY DID THIS FIVE YEARS AGO. Really. While I was still in high school I cheered the first time someone pulled this off. I used it in a debate with someone on the case of gay marriage. Its in my old Science News... I mean this might be a team doing it again, or doing it better, but they are still not the first.

Just my 2 cents.

Replacing Men is not a good idea.

[jellomizer (103300)]

This could be a great way towards extinction.
1. Phase out men.
2. When there are no men you can only breed through a procedure.
3. Wait for a major war or some major problem where a lot of people die and a good chance many with the knowledge of the procedure will die to. (Just because the world is run by woman don't think for a second that they will solve all the problems that we have)
4. Then a slow extinction.

Generally it is a bad idea. There is also the issue rejecting half of the genetic code and the biological and psyological difference that men have give a major advantage to the specie.

Please don't cite The Daily Mail

[Critical_ (25211)]

The Daily Mail is considered a tabloid rag by many of us who have lived in the UK because they cater to people with a palate for sensationalist headlines and content. The referenced New Scientist article [newscientist.com] talking about Karim Nayernia's research was published in April of 2007 but The Daily Mail chose to report it many months later. Regardless, since last year there have been few tangible gains in this field. The problem rests in the fact that converted stem cells can achieve the first 2 of 3 stages towards mature sperm development. Even once this is done there is no guarantee the sperm can actually be used in IVF to create a viable/implantable fertilized egg.

The implications of this research are great but rags like The Daily Mail focus on the most provocative uses such as gay/lesbian couples conceiving and auto-reproduction. Before we can approve this research for use in the public we must ascertain whether the manipulations necessary to force conversion of bone marrow stem cells into spermatogonium or the products of these cells potentially introduce undetectable abnormalities within the genetic code. Next, during the process of spermatogenesis chromosomal crossover introduces genetic variability. Without more details in the original article I wonder if one of the failing stages of development involves this important process. Lastly, auto-reproduction is nearly impossible. Every person carries a set of lethal recessive alleles which manifest themselves in incestuous reproductive pairings--hence why most societies have shunned this sort of relationship. This would almost certainly guarantee the fetus would spontaneously abort.

The real application of this research is injecting spermatogonium eggs in women or men who are infertile. This would revolutionize reproductive medicine because it would allow couples to conceive naturally. However, being in the medical field, there are very valid natural reasons why couples may not be able to reproduce (i.e. certain genetic abnormalities) or why fetuses spontaneously abort that we need to decide as a society whether its prudent to interfere. I don't claim to have the answers but I would welcome discussion in this direction so we can make informed choices in the medical breakthroughs we're bound to see in the next few decades.

Incidentally, the New Scientist published a new article [newscientist.com] today on the matter discussing the implications of this research. Without having a subscription I can't read more but I certainly wouldn't count out fathers just yet. Having a child is only the first part of the equation. Raising an emotionally and psychologically well-adjusted child still necessitates their role--although many single-parents or LGBT couples may argue this point. Anyway, as a community I hope we're a bit more careful of citing sensationalist publications.

Downgraded?

[dtml-try MyNick (453562)]

So men are now downgraded to just a lustobject?

Ofcourse that's very sad and tragic. But I can live with it.

This will be a challenge for female legislation

[Tanuki64 (989726)]

I mean, what is reproduction without men good for, when there is no way to make a man pay for the children?

Wow

[g0bshiTe (596213)]

Talk about inbreeding.

yea, right.

[jgarra23 (1109651)]

Somehow a civilization of bone-marrow specialist dykes does not seem all that likely...

Re:

[CommunistHamster (949406)]

What happens when we have the technology to grow babies from a sperm + egg to birth without the use of a female host? Will girls be obsolete then, as well as men?

Re:Too bad....

[Znork (31774)]

If men had been the ones carrying the babies I'd betcha good money that we'd have had artificial wombs perfected in the 1930's.

Re:Too bad....

[Nullav (1053766)]

That, or babies would be a lot...thinner. (Damn, just thinking about it hurts.)

Re:Too bad....

[kestasjk (933987)]

Surprise surprise, a male (Karim Nayernia) invented the technique. I guess that's how superfluous we are?

But hey it's alright to be sexist; you're female.

Also a James Tiptree novel...

[Stanislav_J (947290)]

...on a similar theme (maleless society after a plague -- women reproduce via cloning).

"Houston, Houston, Do You Read?" [wikipedia.org]

Re:Czech SciFi movie

[Maljin Jolt (746064)]

I remember there is an old Czech SciFi movie about an utopian society where men are obselete and women procastrinate by cloning. Anyone remember then name?

That movie is not Czech, but Polish, original title is "Sexmisja" (Sexmise in Czech dabing). Some early 80', I guess. In after-nuclear war epoch, women consolidated a society in underground bunkers-mines system, ruled by two opposing organizations, Genetix and Archeo, struggling each other with different ideologies... until they found a hybernation chamber with two frozen men in excavations.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088083/?___412 [imdb.com]

Well, seems a story writer is a Czech :)

Re:Also well

[AgentPaper (968688)]

The Y chromosome has very little on it, in terms of functioning gene packages - it carries SRY (the sex-determining region that codes for male primary and secondary sex characteristics) and that's about it. X, on the other hand, carries quite a bit of important information - genes pertaining to blood clotting, muscle tissue formation, neuron and myelin sheath formation, androgen receptor formation, white blood cell formation and color photoreceptor formation, just to name a few.

In an XY individual, you only have one chance to get working copies of those genes, which is why certain disorders pertinent to those systems show up much more often in males than in females (hemophilia and other hematologic disorders, various muscular dystrophies, myopathies and neuropathies, a few immune disorders, pattern baldness, color blindness et al). Without any X at all, as you'd have in a YY, all those genes are gone completely. Hopefully you can see why an individual with non-functional muscles and nerves, no ability to clot and no immune function wouldn't be viable. :-)

Hope this helps!