Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Science

Sperm Made From Female Bone Marrow, Men Obsolete? 459

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the what-some-women-have-been-saying-for-years dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sperm Made From Female Bone Marrow, Men Obsolete?

Comments Filter:
  • dont forget (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 (568564) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @07:26AM (#22271838) Homepage
    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!
  • by DanMelks (1108493) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @07:28AM (#22271846)
    ...so where do transsexuals fit in here?
    • by tacocat (527354) <[tallison1] [at] [twmi.rr.com]> on Saturday February 02, 2008 @09:02AM (#22272262)

      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.

  • by Tsar (536185) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @07:33AM (#22271868) Homepage Journal
    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by znode (647753) *
      No funny tag, and the source is a tabloid?

      Where is the... anything??
  • by syousef (465911) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @07:40AM (#22271890) Journal
    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.
    • by damburger (981828) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @07:46AM (#22271914)

      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.

      • by Jamu (852752) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @08:13AM (#22272034)
        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.
        • It wouldn't be a clone of the mother, as genes that existed in the mother may not be in the offspring, and genes that there was only one of in the mother could have 2 in the offspring.
          • by MBGMorden (803437)
            Which bring up an interesting point about why the birth defects are so likely: with cloning you end up with an individual who is identical.

            With this, essentially combining two seperate strands of DNA, if a woman uses sperm generated from herself, you basically have the most extreme case of inbreeding imaginable. Birth defects between siblings or parent/children pairings are so high because they share roughly 50% of their genetic code. Sharing 100% and "mating" would be VERY likely to cause problems.
      • If this [homosexuality] has a genetic basis (almost certain)

        (empahsis mine)
        Are there any actual properly controlled studies on this? I'm not being facetious, I'm geniuinely interested.
        • by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Saturday February 02, 2008 @08:32AM (#22272120) Homepage
          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.
          • by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Saturday February 02, 2008 @08:35AM (#22272130) Homepage
            Here's at least one link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer [wikipedia.org]

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by timmarhy (659436)
            err what does gender have to do with proving sexual preference? all your example proves is that GENDER is hardwired, not sexual preference.

            i personally think sexual preference is NOT hardwired though it does stem from prepubescent experiences. your just confusing 2 issues here.

            I don't think enough emphasis is put on the fact this method produces birth defects. I find it INCREDIBLY selfish that anyone would risk their babies health just so that a man isn't involved in anyway. but that's just the kind of no

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by duguk (589689)
            It's not *too* vague! :)

            "Studies of identical twin brothers show that in 52% of cases where one twin is gay the other twin is also gay. This is a much higher concordance than the 2% to 10% distribution of gay people in the general population, as recorded by various sex surveys." from Gene Genie [petertatchell.net]

            originally from a very interesting article: in the Guardian. [guardian.co.uk]

            Disclaimer: I am a gay man, last born and I'm not sure if its environmental, genetic or a combination. The thing about gay men having a bigger cock i
            • by mqduck (232646)

              The thing about gay men having a bigger cock is true though. Honest.
              Would it turn me gay?
            • Noo, correlation does not imply causation!

              Twins are more likely to be subject to the same or similar environmental factors, at least until the age of puberty. It's just as much a vote for nurture as for nature.

              As for the bigger cock argument, I reckon that's rubbish. I'm not gay, but I've got enough gay friends to have a reasonable grasp (pun absolutely intended) of the field. If bigger cocks are classed as desirable, then those people with bigger cocks who may be gay are more likely to be approached and br
            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Rabbit Time! (807699)

              The thing about gay men having a bigger cock is true though.
              As a woman, that would make me very sad. You guys are already have an average hotness value much above straight men, do you have to take the big cocks away from us too? Have you no decency? :-D
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Dhalka226 (559740)

            They've pretty much proven that both gender and sexual preference are hardwired into the brain

            I read the article you linked, but it dealt primarily with gender rather than sexual preference. So, for starters, do you have any more links to sources?

            Also, by "hardwired," I assume you mean genetic? I know there are cases in which brains essentially re-wire themselves. I wonder if, regardless of whether or not sexual preference is hard-wired to begin with, psychological issues could play a strong enough r

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by raddan (519638)
            I think it's likely that 'gay' behavior is a mix of both inherited traits and learned behavior. This makes sense when you consider the sheer number of 'gay' people, all of whom act very differently. You have homosexual men and women, transgendered people, transvestites, and I'm sure a whole spectrum of people in between with different conceptions of gender and sexual preference.

            One of the reasons I am skeptical of claims that a genetic basis is 'almost certain' is that we know now that genetic expressi
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by dfghjk (711126)
              "Being gay" itself is an arbitrary distinction. That majority of people are, in fact, bisexual yet the overwhelming majority of them identify (arbitrarily) as straight. The whole misguided belief that there is "choice" comes from the experience that those people have it so everyone else must also have. None of this should matter and wouldn't if people didn't harbor such misguided hatred for sexual preferences other than their own.

              Homophobia stems from the fear by those who have made this "choice" that th
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by 0xdeadbeef (28836)
                Get over it, they're not all floor-tapping Republicans. The origin of homophobia is the same as that of sexism, it is rooted in dominance-submission hierarchies, status insecurity and traditional roles for women. Just look at how less sophisticated cultures practice homosexuality and it is obvious.

                Gays are like the cylons of masculinity. Homophobes have contempt for men who take the roles women, but the knowledge that these men are often superior to them, blend in with them, and therefore often have power o
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by KermodeBear (738243)
            I know exactly the story of which you speak. It is detailed in the book, "As Nature Made Him". The man's penis was badly mangled during a circumcision accident. The parents eventually ran into Dr. Money, who convinced them to give the child a sex change operation. You see, Dr. Money had the idea that is was nurture, not nature, that determined gender and sexual preferences and this little boy had a twin brother. So for him, this was the 'perfect' experiment.

            Too bad it didn't work out for the kid. 'She' knew
        • Genetic:
          You can find the same behaviour in animals (from fruit flies, where it can be controlled through gene manipulation, to the big apes, our nearest relatives). There's also been studies which confirm that male homosexuals' brains respond differently to the testosterone (http://www.livescience.com/health/ap_050510_pheremones.html)

          Psychological/Physiological debate:
          This article makes some interesting points and has references, didn't read it completely though. http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.ht [allpsych.com]
        • by jmichaelg (148257)
          Are there any actual properly controlled studies on this?

          Seymour Benzer's group at Caltech demonstrated that male homosexual fruitflys (must ignore obvious pun...) have genetically different brains from male heterosexual flys. Benzer's group isolated the key difference down to some six cells in the portion of the fly's brain that is responsible for sexual attraction. They found that in the case of the homosexual fly, the cells had inherited two x chromosomes in lieu of the ordinary x-y pair. They attribute

      • by Haeleth (414428) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @08:25AM (#22272074) Journal

        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.)
      • by thesandtiger (819476) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @08:43AM (#22272172)
        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.

      • by syousef (465911)
        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.

        Such changes:
        1. Take time. Generations, literally. A sub-culture already exists but it's not prevalent.
        2. aren't necessary a good thing just because they're possible.

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

        For
      • by mithras invictus (1084169) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @09:43AM (#22272442)
        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.
      • Actually, it isn't clear it's genetic. Might be partially developmental - possibly prenatal, but not entirely genetic. A lot of the high-profile studies claiming to have found something concrete don't seem to have held up well.

        In terms of why we should stick around, have you ever seen how a workplace consisting of entirely women can get really unpleasant? A lot of women hate it. My wife's worked at a couple of places like that, and she comments that it's like they never left high school - cliques, gossip, b

      • by ydrol (626558) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @11:39AM (#22273132)
        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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by umghhh (965931)
      who is going to make vibrators if man is going extinct?
    • by Tim Browse (9263)

      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).

      "Joey, we always know what you mean."

    • by SCHecklerX (229973) <thecaptain@captaincodo.net> on Saturday February 02, 2008 @09:47AM (#22272470) Homepage
      Yeah, but women already have functional 'robotic companions'. That's a little more difficult a problem to solve for men.

    • by value_added (719364) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @11:36AM (#22273104)
      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?
      • by VanessaE (970834) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @04:15PM (#22275378) Homepage
        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.

        • by value_added (719364) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @08:38PM (#22277796)
          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. (Score:5, Funny)

    by theheadlessrabbit (1022587) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @07:46AM (#22271906) Homepage Journal
    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? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ultracool (883965) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @07:47AM (#22271918)
    Wouldn't that be like having a child with your twin, rather than something like cloning?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jamesh (87723)
      I don't think you'd fertilize your egg with sperm from your _own_ bone marrow.
  • by amilham (737749) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @07:59AM (#22271962)
    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 (Score:4, Funny)

    by eebra82 (907996) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @08:00AM (#22271966) Homepage
    Isn't Will Smith starring in some movie with tagline "the last man on earth"? Did the women kill the rest of them?
  • by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @08:00AM (#22271968) Homepage
    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!

  • 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?
  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @08:14AM (#22272038)
    Hell, I be making sperm every time i bone a female.
  • by turgid (580780) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @08:25AM (#22272072) Journal

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

  • Yes (Score:5, Funny)

    by eclectro (227083) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @08:25AM (#22272078)
    But my sperm is Organic(TM). No telling what you're gonna get with the fake stuff.
  • by Hogwash McFly (678207) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @08:26AM (#22272082)
    I've been obsolete from a reproductive point of view for some time now.
  • by Upaut (670171) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @08:26AM (#22272084) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by jellomizer (103300) * on Saturday February 02, 2008 @08:37AM (#22272138)
    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.
  • That's the craziest thing I ever heard of. As soon women get any rights, the first thing they do is stop having babies. The old 1980's battle of the sexes is a two way street. If men may be obsolete sperm providers, then it follows that a woman is useless unless she is pregnant!
  • by Critical_ (25211) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @08:59AM (#22272242) Homepage
    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.
  • men obsolete --- all children would be men

    What is wrong here?
  • I wouldn't say obsolete, just a lot cheaper.
  • Downgraded? (Score:4, Funny)

    by dtml-try MyNick (453562) <{litheran} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday February 02, 2008 @09:23AM (#22272334)
    So men are now downgraded to just a lustobject?

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

    But parking aside, this sounds like the kind of thing that would have us in genetic hot water in only a few generations. It would be much more encouraging to hear about research into the "shrinkage" [wikipedia.org] of the y-chromosome that seems to be occurring in humans and some other mammals. It would be nice to be able to "fix" this if it ever becomes a real problem.

  • The late Valerie Solanas [wikipedia.org] would have been thrilled [sbc.edu] to hear this news.
  • The summary states all children conceived this way would have a high risk of birth defects. But the article only states that there is a high risk of birth defects if the same woman is both the mother and father. It does not say anything about a high risk of birth defects if two people make a child that way.
  • by Tanuki64 (989726) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @10:26AM (#22272706)
    I mean, what is reproduction without men good for, when there is no way to make a man pay for the children?
  • Wow (Score:4, Funny)

    by g0bshiTe (596213) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @10:33AM (#22272730)
    Talk about inbreeding.
  • yea, right. (Score:4, Funny)

    by jgarra23 (1109651) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @10:50AM (#22272836)
    Somehow a civilization of bone-marrow specialist dykes does not seem all that likely...
  • by TransEurope (889206) <eniac.uni-koblenz@de> on Saturday February 02, 2008 @10:54AM (#22272856)
    Does that mean the artifical womb makes women obsolete? No men, no women. What will be there?
  • Perhaps the fetus can gestate in a box?

    END COMMUNICATION
  • by whoda (569082) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @11:34AM (#22273090) Homepage
    Sounds like Al Qaeda will have a large supply of remote detonated 'suicide' bombers.
  • wow.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by c6gunner (950153) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @11:58AM (#22273256)
    Gives a whole new meaning to "getting boned"!

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Working...