digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at environmentalgraffiti.com

Males irrelevant to the survival of the human race

environmentalgraffiti.com — Scientists at the University of Newcastle successfully created human sperm cells using a female embryonic stem cell.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rtknox00, on 02/01/2008, -22/+223lesbians ftw!
    • sotopheavy, on 02/01/2008, -7/+112Oh yea! Scissor me, stem cells!
      • known, on 02/01/2008, -6/+4I think these scientists are solving the **wrong** problems...
    • lOvOl, on 02/01/2008, -53/+14Yah it is funny to laugh about lesbians but this news is nothing in the whole scheme of things and only touches upon much larger issues involved.

      Human cloning and lots of genetic tinkering is just around the corner. If the United States bans this practice, well then some other country will allow it either explicitly or implicitly by not enforcing any laws they may have signed. Unless there is a threat of being bombed or being invaded for artificially creating human life, then nothing is going to stop a cabal of wealthy megalomaniacs with a god complex from going off to some other country and cloning themselves or even artificially engineering themselves to effectively become a totally new species of human being.

      These kinds of issues of course intersect with the issues of abortion and radical life-extension that threaten humanity as we know it and it doesn't take the Pope making a proclamation about all of this, or a really bad Saturday Night SciFi channel movie for an individual to imagine where all of this would end up in the end. I will give you a hint. There is no point in having children if your children will be rendered extinct in a few generations by those with a supremacist mentality that have no qualms about turning themselves into supermen and then deciding your children or grandchildren are no longer relevant anymore. In other words, we human beings who would like to see human beings stay human who likely will be labeled as Luddites in the near future by the corporate controlled media, need to organize and make decisions soon about preventing the slippery slope of allowing people to tinker with human life (it is bad enough what we do with other life on this planet).

      The same propaganda techniques will be used that made IVF a socially acceptable procedure in many western nations, especially among homosexual couples where you start off with people who didn't get the greatest hand dealt in the genetics department and then use human compassion against humanity itself until people have been socially conditioned to not see human genetic and reproductive tinkering as being a grave threat to us all.

      Eventually, enough people will say enough is enough and you will have a full blown culture war where the paradox of protecting human life will mean killing off artificially created human life and/or artificially engineered life that may be a hybrid of humans and genetic code borrowed from other animals or else created from scratch like a piece of software. The logical conclusion of not winning this culture war of those who respect human life outright, will mean that in order to compete with those people who have mutated themselves and/or their surrogates into becoming superhuman, those on the side of protecting human life as we know it will be forced to adapt themselves or else face inevitable extinction.

      A question every person on this planet should be asking themselves right now is whether or not genocide is an acceptable practice in the extreme scenario that a group people (mad scientists, elitists who want to live forever, etc.) want to create their own species of sentient beings that are powerful enough to threaten the existence of all other human life on earth? The only rational way of dealing with these sentient animals once the cat is out of the bag, is to treat them like you would treat small pox, that is to contain and annihilate it. Of course, since "superhmans" will likely initially look as human as you and I, the moral dillemma of whether or not to treat them as human or else as a hostile alien species will inevitably arise and either human beings will choose to deal with the new "superhuman" threat immediately or else eventually the "superhumans" will deal with them when their numbers and power are great enough to displace humanity itself.

      Probably about 5% of the world's population, perhaps even larger are what you would call psychopaths. They only care about themselves and would be more than happy if given the opportunity to eliminate the rest of the "redundant" human lives on this planet to slavery or extinction if mutating themselves or creating a clone army of intelligent supersoldiers was what it took to achieve total dominion over the world. Yes I know this all sounds absolutely insane, but the technology for a group of individuals with enough cash and gumption to pull this off is likely only a decade or two off. Unfortunately, but then it will be too late.

      It is only a matter of time before this kind of technology reaches the point where very rich and powerful and evil people will be able to render the rest of humanity to the rubbish heap and there will be nothing anyone can do about it if our laws and enforcement against creating artificial human life are not as severe as our laws against ending human life.

      Laugh about lesbians all you want, but if I were you, I would not be laughing about these scientific developments. We already have new age eugenicists rearing their ugly head again with their amoral beliefs in applying "survival of the fittest" in the same ways Nazi propaganda used to with respect to Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and other "undesirables", and these people (I won't name names) even make the New York Times Bestseller list. The last thing we need is apathy to the very real threat of transhumanism to humanity itself.
      • Sino, on 02/01/2008, -9/+71i buried you cuz i got bored after the first paragraph
        • masterm1nd, on 02/01/2008, -4/+19What??? That comment is a lot of things... but not boring.
        • GliTCH82, on 02/01/2008, -6/+14Holy ***** you actually read some of that? Here's a tip to all of you: if you're going to write a ***** essay, don't start it with "Yah."
          • popfrogs, on 02/01/2008, -3/+11...and don't put it on Digg where nobody will appreciate it or even read it. Diatribes like this belong on Slashdot.
      • merper, on 02/01/2008, -2/+21Cybernetic implants are on their way in the next two decades, too. Strength boosting arms, HUD contact lenses, power suits have all had early prototypes show up on this site recently.

        Then there's also a strong potential for inorganic intelligence. IBMs already been able to simulate part of a mouse brain. With more computing power and time, they'll eventually get to a human. Brute force processing has a strong chance of getting us AI in the next few decades.

        You're looking at the issue in far to much isolation. The truth is, this first half of the 21st century will, one way or another, bring out some astonishing changes, and trying to predict it is as pointless as trying to stop it,
        • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -2/+16They can do whatever the ***** they want as long as I get my flying car!
        • edwartica, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1Surely it will launch a race of super villains. I just hope Spiderman can help us.
      • nhd4me, on 02/01/2008, -21/+4Laugh at Lesbians ... Hell no .. Im a Lesbian and so are the rest of my softball team (thats like baseball for our American friends ... oppss, thats bound to get me buried)
        • OverlordXenu, on 02/01/2008, -1/+27Believe it or not, the US does have softball...
        • Eivo, on 02/01/2008, -1/+17You do know that we have softball here also, right?
        • capiCrimm, on 02/01/2008, -1/+27so you agree softball is a gay-ass ***** sport then?
        • BigBallistix, on 02/01/2008, -4/+1A team of lesbians? Can I coach?!
          • PopcornDave, on 02/01/2008, -1/+4Why? You think you can teach them to slide in to home plate?
          • PirateFSM, on 02/01/2008, -0/+9I think their pitching and catching is a bit different.
      • testcase, on 02/01/2008, -0/+5Damn... Now what was the name of that law that said that all internet discussions eventually degenerate to a reference to Nazis...?
        • BigBallistix, on 02/01/2008, -2/+3Godwin's
        • masterm1nd, on 02/01/2008, -2/+4I don't think this falls under goodwin's law. This isn't comparing an actual person(s) to nazi's, and it is quite relevant and necessary to the nature of the topic...
      • h4mx0r, on 02/01/2008, -5/+1Attack of the Text Wall
      • svander, on 02/01/2008, -4/+1Checka, checka, check it out
        They load the clip in omnicolour
        Said they pack the 9, they fire it at prime time
        Sleeping gas, every home was like Alcatraz
        And mutha ***** lost their minds
      • TopherT, on 02/01/2008, -1/+7-A question every person on this planet should be asking themselves right now is whether or not genocide is an acceptable practice in the extreme scenario that a group people (mad scientists, elitists who want to live forever, etc.) want to create their own species of sentient beings that are powerful enough to threaten the existence of all other human life on earth?-

        Nuclear weapons threaten the existence of all other human life on earth. People engineered to be smarter or live longer don't. In fact most of the problems we seem to have these days as a society are due to an ignorant and fearful population. All this neo-luddite scaremongering is only going to make the transition more difficult and turbulent.

        Oh, and how the hell can you advocate genocide with a straight face. Freaking psychopath.
        • 80hd, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2When has technology NOT created social divisions?
      • HairyFotr, on 02/01/2008, -2/+4I don't agree with you at all... Humanity should strive to do its best and it can do that with the emerging technologies such as genetics, nanotech and advanced AI, and like it has in the past with every new discovery (fire, clothing, wheel, architecture, writing, ... machines, medicine, computers). None of these made us any less human, but they did make their mark on our way of living. The people that didn't make the transition to the latest tech were ofcourse in a disadvantage, but there wasn't any "hey, let's kill those who refuse to use the " moments. Smart people have generaly been more open and tolerant than those who refuse to learn/try new things, so you can expect the so called "superhumans" to be just as benevolent. There already are people that are a lot smarter than the majority of people, and they are in part the ones that design things that are "foolproof"... It's an interesting theory that the smarter engineers that design something are, the dumber people that use it can be. If this holds, you can believe that the quality of life for the people that choose to remain unchanged will increase as well.
        I still dugg you up because I respect anyone who can think things through, even if I don't agree. Please continue to participate in the debate but also keep your mind open for the good such technologies might bring. And I'll keep mine open for the bad.. Technology can't be held back, but we can all work together to think of all the problems and try to make good solutions - banning a tech or killing people that use it solves nothing.
      • etnlIcarus, on 02/01/2008, -1/+3I was going to bury your post but it occurred to me that it was easily the most paranoid, miss-informed, delusional and downright hilarious thing I've read all day. Reading it, I knew you'd bring vocal atheists/certain evolutionary biologists into it at some point and you did not disappoint. The only thing your post lacked was any noticeable mention of our old red friend; the socialist devil.
      • LeRenard, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3"especially among homosexual couples where you start off with people who didn't get the greatest hand dealt in the genetics department" I hope you have nothing but gay children so you can get a look at your own "hand dealt".
    • Syphon8, on 02/01/2008, -8/+24Scissor me timbers!
    • rpebble, on 02/01/2008, -10/+1Here's to the new world order of shockingly wealthy lesbian couples who can afford to spermify their stem cells!
      • cdahlkvist, on 02/01/2008, -2/+7It will never happen. The article misses the mark completely.

        It neglects to point out that women cannot carry out the human race without males because if there were no males women would have no one to complain to or complain about.

        Have you ever seen a group of women go out together? It's real fun until just one of them gets within 5 feet of an alcoholic drink. Then it turns into a huge problem:

        "That bitch is wearing the same thing as me"
        "That bitch is such a slut"

        Then the catfight ensues (which is how lesbianism was started).

        Without men women would all kill each other.
        • MacEnvy, on 02/01/2008, -2/+3Lesbianism began because of catfights? You need to watch less porn.
          • cdahlkvist, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Wow. You really need to refill the fluid on your sarcasm detector. It's obviously not working.
          • MacEnvy, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2@cdahlkvist
            Oh crap, you're right. The damn thing's on 'E'.
    • voomfoo, on 02/01/2008, -9/+3SILLY PENIS might actually have significance in this post!
    • Davoucci13, on 02/01/2008, -5/+55So, whose going to make the money while she's pregnant?
      • xdra, on 02/01/2008, -12/+9i suppose the woman's partner will contribute more money in the relationship at the time of the pregnancy.
        • cdahlkvist, on 02/01/2008, -2/+20So really women don't need men...they just need women that look like men?
          • jjesusfreak01, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2FTA, so far, this has not been successfully carried out using only female cells. Half the time, they have to use embryonic cells (how do you make those again?), and when have tried it using female cells, all the babies have birth defects...
    • jdavid, on 02/01/2008, -16/+8lol, anyone ever notice that "FTW" is the reverse of "WTF", there is a certain sort of ironic symmetry there.
      • cdahlkvist, on 02/01/2008, -1/+9It can also be TFW which describes your comment and mine. Totally ***** Worthless.
        • KYLIEISNEET0, on 02/01/2008, -2/+1what does ftw actually mean? im curious.
          • unfinity, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3For The Win
          • cdahlkvist, on 02/01/2008, -3/+3For The Win or ***** The World
          • flip360, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1You must be new here.
          • edwartica, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1FTW is something myna birds say when they have no original thoughts of their own, but still want to contribute to the discussion.
    • Carteelith, on 02/01/2008, -10/+16Men and their silly penises
    • MarkusGarvey, on 02/01/2008, -10/+2I've bee a lesbian all my life...
      • AsSubtleAsABrik, on 02/01/2008, -1/+13you've also been an attention whore apparently..
        • MarkusGarvey, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1on what do you base this opinion...
        • MackenzieArbour, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1The fact that nobody gives a *****.
        • MarkusGarvey, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1well...i guess it's better than being a little bitch....if you don"t like my comments, don't read them, or at least make a timely retort...who the ***** are you to judge me?...
    • rocket2dmn, on 02/01/2008, -2/+4I feel as if a huge weight has been lifted off my shoulders
    • bluezinc, on 02/01/2008, -1/+14Thats gay.
    • quomen, on 02/01/2008, -10/+5It was the entire premise of "children of men"
    • VegaObscura3, on 02/01/2008, -2/+13"I ***** your mom"

      "Which one?"
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2Who's going to kill the spiders, open the jars, and change the batteries in the smoke detectors?
  • inghamb87, on 02/01/2008, -9/+91I feel so emasculated.
    • Hobolord, on 02/01/2008, -3/+66Nothing but women drivers.

      Car pileups reach epic proportions, none of them would know how to work machines/ computers.

      "What's an ethernet?"

      The planet would implode within a matter of minutes.
      • ecidnac, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Until all of the women who supposedly aren't on Digg or the internet in general swoop in to bail them out. I'm the woman AND the man in my relationship. I do most of the cooking, the cleaning, the fixing of broken machines, the rewiring of A/V equipment, the accounting, the earning of income, hell... even the jar opening. I don't do much heavy lifting, because I weight about 12 pounds, but I'm sure I could construct some sort of lever/pulley/caster system if necessary. I don't keep men around because I NEED them, that's for sure.
    • eclectro, on 02/01/2008, -0/+7For me the thing that proves this story wrong is road construction.
      • Jray087, on 02/01/2008, -1/+0Construction would be done by robots.
        • Scynet, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Who would build the robots then?
          • HairyFotr, on 02/01/2008, -1/+15"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's robot building robots all the way down!"
          • avgeneral, on 02/01/2008, -3/+2who would build those robots building other robots then?
          • ostracize, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1avgeneral missed the joke.

            This is pure genius! One digg for you HaryFotr!
    • TastyLamp, on 02/01/2008, -0/+19Was it a male scientist that made this discovery?
      • WildTang3nt, on 02/01/2008, -0/+21Yes. He must be found, killed, and have all his research burned. We can't let this take off, it'll be the end of us!
      • elbonito665, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3male anon ftw
    • thomtomw, on 02/01/2008, -5/+12I've said it before and ill say it again, WOMEN ARE EVIL.
      • goeatsmsht, on 02/01/2008, -2/+10Anything that bleeds for a week and still lives, must be evil......
    • PoliceAtaque, on 02/01/2008, -1/+3I buried this article purely in fear.
    • Bodhinature, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1So, this article is saying that we don't need men, but we do need extremely proficient scientists and high tech equipment.
  • taketheleap, on 02/01/2008, -6/+279just like my marriage: i'm irrelevant again.
    • scallon, on 02/01/2008, -4/+26Self depreciation is the best
    • CTK14A, on 02/01/2008, -2/+54...Donnie?
    • ClockworksNine, on 02/01/2008, -1/+44You should show us how to use Photoshop, I heard that program can remove bitter and painful memories.
      • lazyfisherman, on 02/01/2008, -10/+0I'm a certified expert and I've seen just about every menu, panel and easter egg in the program -- it can't.
    • scotticus, on 02/01/2008, -3/+37nah... she'll need you open a jar or fix something. We're good for a while.
    • CaliCutin, on 02/01/2008, -1/+11We can still unclog the toilet right?
      • goeatsmsht, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4With us not around, who's gonna clog it in the first place?
    • rheaume, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2How's the next photoshop tutorial coming along?
    • deadseksy, on 02/01/2008, -2/+3I personally will petition to keep myself around in the case the experiments go awry and the women need repopulating.
    • Joab, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Article says its not good enough to produce offspring. We're still needed!!!!
  • Winoria, on 02/01/2008, -42/+77Muahahaha, now we're set to take over the world!
    • sotopheavy, on 02/01/2008, -23/+321Yea, maybe if you can back out of the driveway without hitting something or doing a 29-point turn.
      • SonicRush, on 02/01/2008, -6/+125OH SNAP
      • Zalyster, on 02/01/2008, -2/+74Oh lawdy
      • xdra, on 02/01/2008, -32/+25oh, yes, because backing out of the driveway is required in taking over the world...
        • SigmaDraconis, on 02/01/2008, -2/+85It's not required, but neither is a sense of humor, so you would fare just fine.
        • TopherT, on 02/01/2008, -2/+34It seems like a logical first step.
      • Ender008, on 02/01/2008, -0/+5I just want you to know that I cracked up when I read that.
      • roosterjm2k2, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1You just made me swallow a whole jelly bean....
    • Uranium118, on 02/01/2008, -11/+165How do you plan to do that from a kitchen?
    • johnnykalma, on 02/01/2008, -4/+84enjoy your lies
      there are no women on the internet
    • KMartSheriff, on 02/01/2008, -6/+66Sure thing honey. Hey, why isn't the house vacuumed?
    • leodavinci, on 02/01/2008, -4/+28Yeah right, who will drive you to the hospital when your giving birth? (Little Rascals reference)
    • skyshock1, on 02/01/2008, -0/+29Arm-wrestle you for it.
    • tenchi71, on 02/01/2008, -5/+35Sure baby, you go do that. Now get me a beer.
    • h4mx0r, on 02/01/2008, -2/+21You have no chance to survive.
      Make your time.
    • GliTCH82, on 02/01/2008, -14/+2Why don't you try something smaller first? Like, Digg for example. *points to this thread*

      Yes, I have a small penis. No, you can't try that.
    • TopherT, on 02/01/2008, -28/+6Ok guys, the first misogynistic comment was funny, after that it gets kinda sexist.
      • STARTSOMETHING, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Oh no guys, we better stop were offending someone.
    • Harbinger67, on 02/01/2008, -3/+14How will you take over anything after you've blown all your money on shoes and there is no cash flow into the house anymore?
    • orion2013, on 02/01/2008, -21/+2your male egos are so pathetic. You males aren't superior, Stop DISCRIMINATION!
      Human Rights! Equal Rights! Equality!
      • sotopheavy, on 02/01/2008, -0/+15We would call men stupid too if they did the ***** you girls do sometimes... we do treat you equally. For better or worse. You might not want a post to start out with "You males" our "your male egos" on digg... by the way.
      • Ender008, on 02/01/2008, -2/+10Speaking in terms of survivability, males actually are superior. Deny it and call me sexist as much as you want, it's true.
        • crunchyeyeball, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4Surely it's more important to any society that the females survive. After all, even a single male can produce enough sperm to repopulate the world, but if we start running low on females, it's game over for everyone.
          • Ender008, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that males are better at surviving than females are. (ex: we're naturally stronger.)
        • crazyhorse13, on 02/01/2008, -1/+6Eh, if we can make sperm from females, we can make eggs from males. And then plant them in the ground or something...
    • VegaObscura3, on 02/01/2008, -2/+9I thought women already ruled the world. A woman can get a man to do anything she wants already.
      • orlyfactor, on 02/01/2008, -1/+17Well, a woman who's not a fatty can...
  • brooklynzoo, on 02/01/2008, -84/+23thats playing god. Not cool!!
    • kingsaliva, on 02/01/2008, -39/+82God doesn't exist. get over it.
      • xsuite, on 02/01/2008, -17/+61Its philosophically foolish to say he does or doesn't exist. God's existence or nonexistence is irrelevant. Get over it.
        • SuckMyDigg, on 02/01/2008, -7/+18It's more foolish to throw your life at either idea.
          • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -3/+9It's more foolish to eat boogers.
        • Willy0Panhandle, on 02/01/2008, -11/+23Is it also philosophically foolish to say magical pink bunny rabbits do not exist?
          • MadOtaku, on 02/01/2008, -2/+10I SWEAR THEY'RE REAL!
          • cdahlkvist, on 02/01/2008, -4/+2Daddy drinks because you cry so he needs to go to a safe spot with magical pink bunny rabbits.

            My kid actually believes that.
        • testcase, on 02/01/2008, -5/+4I wish I could digg you twice.
        • TopherT, on 02/01/2008, -9/+6You're telling me you wouldn't live you life differently if you believed in heaven, reincarnation or eternal damnation? Pu lease...
          • HairyFotr, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4He's telling you there is no proof for one or the other, so it makes no sense to believe one side or the other. In one word: agnosticism.
          • cdahlkvist, on 02/01/2008, -0/+8That's an interesting and very frightening point.

            I would not live my life differently because I don't live a bad life. I don't need the promise of harps and wings and eternal bliss to be a good person that cares about others.

            That has always been a point of contention with me and people of religion. Why do you need a promise of a gift to be a good person?

            Maybe we should ask you the same question (and fear the answer). If you knew there was no God or Heaven or eternal damnation would you live your life differently? Would you murder people since you seem to think Atheists and Agnostics have no moral fiber and do not fear Heavenly retribution?

            Do you whackjobs that only live your "good ways" out of fear? Scary thought.
          • bonjovisucks, on 02/01/2008, -4/+0cdahlkvist: living your life differently doesn't necessarily mean living a 'good life' or 'bad life'. The way I see it is if you did believe in heaven or eternal damnation would you not do what needs to be done to gain the first and avoid the latter? In the case of Christianity it is believed that good works will get you nowhere, but faith and acceptance will get you eternal life.

            Just sayin'
          • cdahlkvist, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2@bonjovisucks But the original poster makes it sound as if people only do good (and not becoming murderers or something of that nature) purely out of the fear of damnation.

            I was just posing the same question to him.

            This seems a common question that Christians and the like always ask and it frightens me to think that they need a promise of a gift or punishment to do the right thing as opposed to just doing the right thing regardless of what happens when you die.
          • TopherT, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Nonono, Bonjoviesucks caught my gist. I'm not religious, I think the people who go for agnosticism, while technically correct, are overlooking the fact that religious people's belief in fantastical stories and silly ideas has an impact in the real world. Many people have died because of it. xsuite seems to claim that the question isn't even a big deal, I think it is, and I think the truth and morality lies on the side of atheism.
      • gmprunner, on 02/01/2008, -13/+24Nobody knows if God exists or not, and therefore theists and atheists are equal in their views and opinions. Get over it.
        • TopherT, on 02/01/2008, -6/+6Yes, but many of the people who believe in this god character are writing policy, and they're doing it badly.
        • MadOtaku, on 02/01/2008, -2/+2And you're as crazy as hobos who think they're god; why don't you believe them?
      • Mustard911, on 02/01/2008, -16/+6+14 plus people think we come from rocks.
        • sgtbutterscotch, on 02/01/2008, -1/+30Jerk, my mother was a rock.
        • bluezinc, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4It's a good thing you decided to warn us all of your mental handicap by putting "tard" in your name, although, I thought your people found that term to be offensive?
      • ZeRux, on 02/01/2008, -5/+6Global warming doesn't exist. get over it.
      • Skyfire, on 02/01/2008, -2/+4That is such a well laid out and concise argument.
    • Mustard911, on 02/01/2008, -42/+3Agree, they are tinkering with the perfect design. People that are evil usually do this as they find it easier to go the road of bad, then to do good.

      Lesbianism and homosexuality is usually contributed to the factor that the person can't associate with the opposite sex, it's a mental condition, not a fact or predisposition. A learnt failure.
      • mattyoi, on 02/01/2008, -4/+28You are more stupid than the god guy
      • Mustard911, on 02/01/2008, -25/+5I should point out that some people, a very small number are born with hormone and brain damage and conduct their lives in a effeminate way, or women being masculine.

        We need to promote people not hating others of the opiste sex as this is the cure for homosexuality/lesbianism.
        • mattyoi, on 02/01/2008, -5/+19you are pathetic
          • Mustard911, on 02/01/2008, -17/+3But you ahve disproved the logic?
        • nullenigma, on 02/01/2008, -2/+25I'm sorry you were born with brain damage.
        • CaliCutin, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2Opiste sex?? What do IRC operators have that turns you on?
          • Mustard911, on 02/01/2008, -7/+3It's called slow java scripts on web pages. hinders fast typing and therefore mistakes.
      • PurpleSfinx, on 02/01/2008, -3/+14That's one of the stupidest comments I've heard in the last... ever.
      • bluezinc, on 02/01/2008, -6/+4Reported. We don't need any more ignorant assholes here on digg, thanks.
      • sonoran, on 02/01/2008, -3/+2Why should anyone bother to denigrate religion when you all do such a good job of it on your own
      • atezun, on 02/01/2008, -2/+2Perfect design? Please explain the appendix then.
  • wildfire, on 02/01/2008, -4/+518Maury, it's not my baby! Bitch did it to herself!
  • Cerialthriller, on 02/01/2008, -7/+184so wait if you get yourself pregnant isnt that incest?
    • madsci, on 02/01/2008, -2/+28well the point is to have 2 females. One serves as the egg donor. the other female serves as the sperm donor ( via stem-cell redirection). but you brought up an interesting point if one female served as both the egg and sperm donor, I'm wondering if this could be some form of cloning. since the re-directed sperm should more or less have the identical genome of the egg (+/- a Y chromosome). hmm.....
      • Renork, on 02/01/2008, -2/+60It would not work the same as cloning, every egg and every sperm are not identical. If they were than couples that had more than one child would make identical children every time.
      • 25mL, on 02/01/2008, -0/+9DNA recombination ftw. It's not possible to clone via fertilization of yourself due to genes crossing over, etc.
      • JoeCool1986, on 02/01/2008, -7/+1Not true, Renork, when you have two people supplying genes then each child they have has a (somewhat) random chance between each pair of genes. That's how you can have more and more kids and you'll never get the same one twice. However, if it's just you supplying the genes, who's supplying the other half of the pair that should be randomly chosen from? It may not be cloning, but it sure is not the same as a couple having children.
      • sewerraccoon, on 02/01/2008, -1/+8It would technically have the same effects of incest (or what ever you want to call it in this case). It would limit the gene pool to the genes that the woman is already carrying thus increasing the chance of problems.
        • dnk668, on 02/01/2008, -4/+1Not exactly, BC she would have no other set of genes to combine with hers, whatever recessive genetic diseases she has will carry over to the fetus. Especially diseases on the X cromosome.
        • DeathfireD, on 02/01/2008, -8/+5I feel bad for any kid thats made by two women or one women. Imagen trying to explain that to your friends lol. I can also image all the medical complications that would results from being made unnaturally.
    • Zalyster, on 02/01/2008, -15/+5"If you clone yourself and then have gay sex(hopefully you are a chik as this will be hot), is it mastrbation, incest, or normal sex?"(sic)
      • virtualball, on 02/01/2008, -1/+24I believe we'll need to see pictures to fully judge...
      • linagee, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Can't it be all three?
    • KaneDragon, on 02/01/2008, -2/+7It certainly would be from the perspective of resulting genetic defects...
      • koko775, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4Why are you digging him down? The resultant redundancy would cause previously recessive traits to express themselves more strongly, i.e. genetic defects (we all have them) would become more pronounced.
    • Willy0Panhandle, on 02/01/2008, -3/+7I get myself pregnant all the time and nobody seems to care :(
    • hellokittyownsu, on 02/01/2008, -1/+49So it's possible for women to 'Go ***** themselves'?
    • Hobbes24, on 02/01/2008, -2/+17hmm, i'm sceptical about this ever being practical.

      because to maintain the population, assuming every man in the world was killed by angry lesbians-

      *nervously loosens collar*

      assuming that.... EVERY reproductive age woman would HAVE to get pregnant just to sustain the species,

      (3rd wold nations would not have tons of children in this new lesbian utopia, the process would likely cost too much),

      not to mention the cost of doing this procedure for EVERY reproductive aged woman
    • ohsin, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4i bit my tongue few times in past.does that make me cannibal? :(
    • bluezinc, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2It just means you're sexually identical to a slug.
    • TheMidnight, on 02/01/2008, -6/+1My boy once had my picture on his shelf, but now when I see him he tells me to ***** myself...

      BLAME CANADA!
    • XZanatos, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Dugg you up because its funny. Dugg you down because you are wrong. Getting yourSELF pregnant isn't incest, it is CLONING, technically speaking. Still very cool though.
  • Orb9, on 02/01/2008, -11/+155I have a feeling Rosie Odonnel funded this study..
    • itsradBrad, on 02/01/2008, -1/+23Even Rosie's own sperm won't fertilize her!

      Burn!
  • midoritsuru, on 02/01/2008, -30/+138Males have always been more "expendable" than females; that's why every culture up until very recent times sent men off to war rather than women; the future resides with and within women. Sorry fellas, that's just how it is. When scientists discover a way to artificially incubate fetuses, that's when women should start worrying!
    • sotopheavy, on 02/01/2008, -9/+58Men would do anything to create a way to incubate fetuses artificially. There is no reason to get women out of the picture or for women to worry. Instead they can be happy knowing they won't resemble a piece of pulled taffy afterwards. If we could prevent good looking women from getting fat and stretched out we would. This kind of thing is just around the corner hopefully.
      • Zarokima, on 02/01/2008, -29/+4I hope you're wrong about that being just around the corner. I like fat chicks.
        • Zalyster, on 02/01/2008, -2/+19Zarokima, meet my sister. My sister, meet Zarokima.
      • sotopheavy, on 02/01/2008, -1/+9Man, I guess I am a bit of a chauvinist, but it's all in good humor. I get dugg down by a bunch of angry girls when the story first comes out, but then it hits the front page and my comment goes back higher than I expected. Girls don't want to be fat either, they just get mad when a guy says it referring to a girl, especially when talking about pregnancy. Artificial incubation would make a lot of people happier.
      • yeti22, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2Maybe the problem here is the common perception that bigger women are unattractive? Or that women of all ages should look/dress/act like they're in their 20's? How bizarre to think that natural gestation is a "problem" requiring a medical solution.
        • TnTBass, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1You do realize it is women who are buying into that idea and propagating the cycle, right? Sure, men want women who look super hot, but since when is this new? Women are the ones who buy the magazines, and the rest of the crap that the media portrays.
          I have no idea where women think they should look/dress/act like they are in their teens/20's. They instantly become only useful for one thing, and it isn't conversation or a long lasting relationship.
          I personally find a real women more attractive than the magazine women.
    • AgentMull, on 02/01/2008, -2/+7Brave New World ftw!
    • jmeskimen, on 02/01/2008, -5/+38Don't tell me my penis is "expendable."
    • p0tent1al, on 02/01/2008, -2/+30The majority of scientists in the field, are predominantly male. Without males, this might have not have even been discovered /lol
      Furthermore, this may be a "I Am Legend" sort of thing, where everyone thinks science has perfected this, but in fact this sperm might produce weak humans, which certainly don't help the survival of our race. Just a couple of thoughts.
      • Hickeroar, on 02/01/2008, -0/+8I dunno about "weak" but you're definitely cutting out half of the gene pool...
        • PopcornDave, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3But are you? Because any woman born from a male sperm mating with a female egg is going to inherit the previous generations strengths and weaknesses in the DNA aren't they. You 're definitely cutting out some of the gene pool but I don't know if it's half.
          • MacEnvy, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3It's certainly half of the *current* gene pool options.
      • Masterful1, on 02/01/2008, -0/+5well it did say that the mice they bred with this method had 7 pups, 1 died and the other 6 had Health problems. so I am not concerned about a global Lesbian penis embargo yet. plus who would pick up heavy things for them and reach the top shelf in the cabinet.
        yes men are less important than women when it comes to reproduction, simply due to the fact that one healthy man can father several thousand children in his lifetime, where women are limited to double digit numbers. the most children I have ever heard of one mother having in her life was 43. and thats just nuts.
    • Boor, on 02/01/2008, -4/+25We are also more expendable because while a man can pregnate multiple women at a time, a woman can only be pregnant once at a time. That sentence made minimal literal sense, but I hope you get what I'm talking about. 1 man = multiple pregnant women, 1 woman= 1 pregnant woman (potentially speaking). I suppose now it would be 0 men = multiple pregnant women too. This is all purely from a practical and semi scientific point of view.
      • adrianmonk, on 02/01/2008, -0/+29What you're saying is that males have more baby-making bandwidth than females.
      • Tahiri, on 02/01/2008, -2/+2It's all about the baby through-put baby.
      • sotopheavy, on 02/01/2008, -0/+6Women are the bottleneck of baby making. That may be a good thing since our planet is overpopulated as it is.
        • cdahlkvist, on 02/01/2008, -0/+7Women are a firewall and alcohol can serve as an excellent exploit.

          Sadly iPanties keep blocking me from viewing that material.
    • chipsdw, on 02/01/2008, -30/+22Men aren't sent to war because they're expendable, they're sent because they can handle it. It's a proven fact that Women's brains are smaller. Besides, if you got rid of all the males, the females wouldn't be able to figure out how to do this. Plus there would be no mathematicians/engineers/scientists/business people. And demand for prostitution would go way down! Didn't think of that one I bet!
      • mrkmrk, on 02/01/2008, -9/+4We've got a Huckabee-supporter, methinks.
      • NoCt1, on 02/01/2008, -3/+5dug for the prostitute comment./
      • TheOneTrueGod, on 02/01/2008, -3/+11"Men aren't sent to war because they're expendable, they're sent because they can handle it. It's a proven fact that Women's brains are smaller." Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
        • Vodka2389, on 02/01/2008, -4/+6Your small brain simply can't comprehend it.
          • TheOneTrueGod, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Maybe I should stick my dick into one of your eyes.
        • REsplin, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Their brains are only 1/3 the size of ours. It's science.
          • cdahlkvist, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2That's right. And it's made up of sugar and spice. Everyone knows you need snips and snails and a puppy dog tail in your noggin to make you able to handle things like war.
        • Metasquares, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2It's actually true, but it says nothing about intelligence.
          • TheOneTrueGod, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1The point is: You don't need much intelligence to take part in a killing fest.
      • testcase, on 02/01/2008, -1/+15You're a *****' genius. It's a crime that there are no programs for getting people like you out of the trailer parks and into high government positions.

        Oh wait. It's been done. It's called the GOP.
      • NOFXY, on 02/01/2008, -1/+11"Is it not a problem that the woman have a smaller brain? The government scientist, Dr. Yamak, have proved it is size of squirrel."
      • kaelyiesta, on 02/01/2008, -1/+10It is true that female brains are smaller than male brains, but that does not define intelligence. Proportionality of brain to body has been shown to be a better indicator(think of huge whales with much bigger brains than you or I. Hopefully you would agree that they are not smarter than yourself.). Women are smaller than men, but the ratios of brain to body between both sexes is close to being the same. Simply put, thats not a valid argument for what you implied.
      • kohan69, on 02/01/2008, -1/+3Please, go handle war then. Preferably in some remote country with no internet access.
      • altinnovation, on 02/01/2008, -2/+1W00T! Borat has a Digg account!
      • Recluse84, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Dug for hilarity
    • Mesmorize, on 02/01/2008, -11/+38Men are naturally the fighters, which is why they are sent to war. Not because they are expendable. Women are physically inferior.
      • adrianmonk, on 02/01/2008, -3/+15I don't know if I would make a statement as general as that women are "physically inferior". (I certainly don't feel that when it comes to aesthetics.) But it is true that women are simply not as physically strong on average, and the strongest women are not as strong as the strongest men.

        For instance, in the marathon, the world record for men is 2 hours, 4 minutes, and 26 seconds, but the world record for women is 2 hours, 15 minutes, and 25 seconds. Doing the math, that means that if the men's and women's world record holders had established those records in the same race and started at the same time, when the man crossed the finish line, the woman would be over 2 miles behind. That's pretty significant!
        • Vodka2389, on 02/01/2008, -3/+10Wow, up until that example I had no idea that men are physically stronger than women.
        • skyfire1, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1I read your comment wrong. Bury me to hell please.
      • RedHeadedFreak, on 02/01/2008, -6/+13Men also are mentally superior...kinda. On average, women are more intelligent, however, most all women fall within the middle when it comes to intelligence. Men have more of a capability to be geniuses, but also idiots. So, in reality, without men, women would have never been able to figure things like this out. That's just the way it is.
        • Vodka2389, on 02/01/2008, -6/+6Actually men are slightly smarter on average.
        • Tahiri, on 02/01/2008, -5/+4Obviously not, given you as an example.
        • MrSteamTank, on 02/01/2008, -2/+9Now now redheadedfreak. Let's not say non-PC things.
          Just because it's proven that men have both more retards and more genius' than women doesn't mean we have to say in public now.
        • dreadroberts, on 02/01/2008, -4/+0Of course, you have no way of proving whether this is because they are genetically male, or whether it is because of different societal expectations on males, which could easily change in the future.
      • terminal157, on 02/01/2008, -11/+15They're physically inferior when it comes to brute fighting, but they have higher endurance and pain tolerance. They're still less effective in classic war, but let's not go out of our way to make them sound meek and pathetic.
        • Vodka2389, on 02/01/2008, -6/+11"Higher endurance and pain tolerance"

          Where ta hell did you hear that?
        • du4l1ty, on 02/01/2008, -4/+14It's a stupid old wives tale probably based around child birth.
        • strayangel, on 02/01/2008, -3/+3Actually I've heard that from an instructor as well. I'm not sure it's true but women do have a lower pain threshold i.e. they experience more pain. It has to do with their having more nerve receptors.
        • deadseksy, on 02/01/2008, -1/+4I do remember reading study done on pain tolerance. It showed that men have a higher threshold for pain, as women tend to have a higher number of pain receptors (especially on the face).
        • garvallagh, on 02/01/2008, -4/+2Its the truth,... think Amazon Women
        • florin, on 02/01/2008, -1/+4The higher pain tolerance is a myth, sorry. Endurance is about the same.
        • Arramol, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4The studies I've seen indicate men have a higher pain tolerance and threshold: http://www.livescience.com/health/050706_pain_gend ...
          I've also heard (but don't have a link handy) that women have twice as many pain receptors, which would explain the results of the above link.
      • sotopheavy, on 02/01/2008, -5/+1There are at least 10 women much stronger than you. It's disgusting, but they exist.
        • taquitohater, on 02/01/2008, -0/+6There are probably a ***** ton of women stronger than me, we're talking about averages here not anecdotes.
      • DrMonkeyLove, on 02/01/2008, -0/+7But they are expendable. Think about it. You only need one man to make dozens of babies. You need dozens of women however, to make dozens of babies. Survival of the species does not require a lot of males.
        • MorbenDK, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1that depends on the quality of those males-- women still have to choose to have sex with them.. ever heard the phrase, "even if you were the last man on earth"?
      • confusednazgul, on 02/01/2008, -3/+1I'm betting that you felt compelled to make that comment because you've had your ass kicked by a woman.
      • florin, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2"Superior" in terms of strength - that is, the maximum muscular force that they can produce. In that case, they are a superior, by a factor of 2x or so, a very large margin. In terms of speed, men are a bit better, but it might be just the advantage of superior strength translating into more speed. In terms of endurance, men and women are almost equal.
        Men are also less emotional, less likely to empathize. They have better spatial skills - can easier find their way out of a labyrinth.

        For all these reasons, war was traditionally a man's job.
    • mithrasinvictus, on 02/01/2008, -0/+10Both genders have been genetically selected to fit those profiles. If you eliminate one gender the other will be worse off. Or did you think women invented this?
    • carnag3aus, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3I think I will keep my woman and my sex, rather than som fake incubation :S.
  • marioday, on 02/01/2008, -23/+10this is not a good news.
  • w0lfh0und, on 02/01/2008, -8/+72If they can create sperm they can create eggs too.
    • tolbs, on 02/01/2008, -2/+34Yeah but a man can't be pregnant...I don't even want to think about it
      • jeskadubyah, on 02/01/2008, -0/+5oh god, imagine where the child would be carried! would they make marsupial sacs for themselves?
        • sgtbutterscotch, on 02/01/2008, -0/+16oh come on, what do you think beer bellies are for? Evolution in action.
          • nastajus, on 02/01/2008, -0/+5That's disgusting. I don't want anything raised in a beer belly.
      • daliminator, on 02/01/2008, -0/+21Mechanical growth pods or artificial wombs, man. Just like the Matrix.
      • lys3rgic, on 02/01/2008, -0/+21"IT'S NOT A TUMOR!"
      • passedoutghost, on 02/01/2008, -0/+6The Govenator begs to differ.
    • TremorX, on 02/01/2008, -0/+13Yeah, but who's gonna fly it, kid? You?

      Wait I don't think that quote quite applies
    • HPMNick, on 02/01/2008, -1/+0I don't even know how they'd procreate like that..

      I guess they'd have to just.. like ... scissor or something..
  • homedaddy, on 02/01/2008, -4/+75Can they create 'Y' chromosome sperm? Or will this technique not only make men obsolete but extinct?
    • rnwen2750, on 02/01/2008, -20/+7Actually, there is significant evidence that the Y chromosome is slowly disappearing altogether and is constantly getting weaker.
      • Syphon8, on 02/01/2008, -3/+55[Citation needed]
      • Zalyster, on 02/01/2008, -8/+4Is that why there are so many more gay/gay looking males?
        • Zalyster, on 02/01/2008, -8/+2Note I'm asking, not trying to be derogatory.
          I guess the proper term would have been effeminate?
      • whoaohh, on 02/01/2008, -0/+13Please elaborate on this. I don't know why it could be getting weaker, considering it's a sex-defining chromosome. I'm not saying your wrong, I just need some more info.
        • solidus636, on 02/01/2008, -3/+5Yeah. Are he suggesting there are more females than men? If so, great! more women to cook and clean for me.
        • treeboxgrass, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3you're*
      • Resiroth, on 02/01/2008, -0/+5It's actually true; but it will not really matter in the near future. Perhaps thousands of years there will be some problems but by then we'll probably have found a way to bread sperm that makes females or males.
      • StaticThunder, on 02/01/2008, -0/+5He's right, but I don't have a reference handy -- theres very little selection pressure to maintain any part of the Y but the sex determining region, so its constantly shrinking. But all that will happen is another chromosome will pick up the male trait and start losing its other genes, and in 10 million years we're back where we are now. Couple that with the odd chromosome duplication event, and it really doesn't matter much. Males were, prior to this, in no danger of going extinct since parthenotes are just asking for a parasite to come and wipe them out.

        Of course if we go extinct than I won't be around to think about how unfortunate that is.
      • Alexa42, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1LINK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,103 ...
      • StaticThunder, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1All I can say to the guardian article is I have a professional disagreement with its conclusion that male fertility will decline because of damage to the Y-chromosome. There is strong selection pressure to maintain fertility. The other genes on the Y weren't "lost" because they WERE important, and they now reside on the other 22 chromosomes. The only genes allowed to remain there are ones that aren't required to also build a female body -- namely things like hairy earlobes and male sex determination.

        There are species that had sex long before humans came around, and they still have their sex determining chromosomes and they are filled with unimportant genes. I think that should be enough to prove that unless we're a special case, we have little to worry about.

    • onetimer, on 02/01/2008, -0/+37That is an interesting point. I'm not exactly sure how the sperm cells will be created from the female, but the production of a sex cell from any cell in a woman's body using meiosis would ONLY give rise to a haploid cell with an X Chromosome, which means that the resulting offspring between the female semen and respected ovum would be female as well, 100% of the time. Kind of a double whammy against men kind.
    • Yookji, on 02/01/2008, -2/+6A Y chromosome might be borrowed from a male, since they don't contain any really important information and females don't have any Y chromosomes.
      • yeti22, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Hey! I happen to think my Y chromosome contains very important information.
    • Gabberwok, on 02/01/2008, -0/+11You wouldn't be able to get a Y chromosome from a cell that doesn't have any, so no, all children produced by this method would be females or (more likely) horribly deformed stillborn fetuses due to issues with maternal/paternal imprinting of their DNA.
    • StaticThunder, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Why do I care? This is like a sci-fi movie where Kirk has to kiss the leader of the lesbian civilization to remind them how much they like sex. The idea of extincting men looks possible on paper, but nobody in their right mind actually wants it, and if they do, I won't be around to see it.

      As for imprinting... it depends. Did that sperm develop normally and receive a paternal imprint? Or is it defective. I'd wager that the imprints formed during meiosis just like they were supposed to. Tricking a womans cells into thinking they are male is no harder than tricking an embryo into doing it. Turn on the genes downstream of SRY.
    • ElectroBot, on 02/01/2008, -2/+91) If this were widespread then it would decrease the genetic drift by 50% !
      2) All the mice in the study died or have health problems.
      3) Who would women complain about / complain to?
      4) From history (even recent) it is the men who are the explorers - Will women revert to a "Amish" lifestyle and be wiped out by the first comet/asteroid then hits Earth?

      And the most important:
      5) Who will FIX their computers?
      • kohan69, on 02/01/2008, -4/+1But what about NOW?!

        Who taught you the English grammar?
    • StaticThunder, on 02/01/2008, -2/+1@Electrobot, I thought about the genetic drift thing -- actually I'm not sure thats the right term, but it actually wouldn't. There are two components to the equation, the assortment that occurs during production of sperm, which is much greater in the male than the female (the genetic assortment I mean), and outbreeding.

      Since this isn't parthenogenesis, theres no problem with the outbreeding, and since the sperm cell is basically a male cell, we can probably assume crossing-over and assortment occurred as normal.

      Its not getting rid of males, its getting females to act like males cytologically. Not much of a difference except for the absence of the Y chromosome, which carries all of 1 important gene... unless hairy earlobes are important.
    • Tahiri, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2The Y chromosome wouldn't be needed, seeing as men are not required. Human's would become Women. A unigendered species over time.

      Though the human population would fall to something more easily manageable. Same with crime rates.
    • deadmann, on 02/01/2008, -1/+3Furthermore, would this unnatural technique halt the natural processes of evolution?
    • doktorzee, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2Lets say all the offspring are male. And lets say there is some catastrophe (weather, floods, war, meteor, etc) and our technical advances are lost.
      Then we won't have the technology anymore to get these female-made sperm cells.
      Therefore, humanity will be extinct.

      And if making these female-made sperm cells isn't easy, the population will surely decline anyway.
    • esteskid, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1they've been able to impregnate women since the 80s with Y chromosome from other females so if they wanted to wipe us all out they've had the ability for a while
  • MadScientist68, on 02/01/2008, -14/+19Well this will turn out badly. We really don't know the quality of the sperm, and whether it will behave correctly..ie. that the dna wasnt damaged in this process. I wonder how many malformed fetuses will result from this type of Frankensteinian treatment of human beings.
    • LargeTrout, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1How does sperm normally behave? I've never really checked myself.
    • Metasquares, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2TFA mentions that these sperm are not viable as of yet.
  • tinko, on 02/01/2008, -20/+7Women have known this for years
  • Sheshymaroii, on 02/01/2008, -19/+158Yeah... And who found this information out?
    Probably a Male.
    HA.. Take that... You Females would be screwed without us :P
    • Magnus150, on 02/01/2008, -3/+52They can't be screwed without us!

      Scissor me baby!
    • Yookji, on 02/01/2008, -2/+27Well, to be literally screwed...

      Also, males do have a more spread out bell curve for just about every characteristic. More male geniuses...but more male dumbasses.
      • xaviermeng, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2hey that's my theory too! well my guess, more geniuses and more idiots/crazy ones. and a female friend accused me of being sexist without even thinking about the possibility.
        • BigBallistix, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1Someone's going to literally twist a screw into me with a screwdriver? Ow.
    • voomfoo, on 02/01/2008, -8/+1there are a lot of dumbasses now that i think of it..... SILLY PENIS
      • sgtbutterscotch, on 02/01/2008, -2/+1I remember you. You must've gotten banned and have gotten a new username. WEIRD ASS
    • PrincessBiscuit, on 02/01/2008, -5/+5Too bad u can't masturbate without thinking of us, so take that... HA... and if you say u can, then ur probably gay.
    • ThReAtEnEd, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1aren't you the admin of that my little pony website that was on the front page recently?
      the one that was trying to get the guy not to talk dirty?... btw i hit the wrong button this is meant for princessbiscuit..
  • wapee, on 02/01/2008, -12/+8This is old news...
    http://digg.com/health/Sperm_made_from_human_bone_ ...
    • wapee, on 02/01/2008, -4/+1OK, the only new thing is that they've done it with female stem cells now.
  • Battleloser, on 02/01/2008, -12/+264Women don't need us? Ya right. Without men around it would be chaos. Pickle jars everywhere would be unopenable, spider infestations would be rampant and completly unmanageable, and lets not even get started on working the DVD players!
    • Yamahaha, on 02/01/2008, -10/+31Don't forget the many other more important things men do. Men do the majority of the work in the world. Yes, some of it is done by women but it's mostly men that do the following.

      They build the cities that we all live in. Grow and harvest the food. Maintain the infrastructure of the cities, be it policing, firemen or garbage collection. They for the most part do the dangerous job of mining resources from the Earth. Men are better as doing things, in general, better than women. Most of histories greatest people form all areas have been men. Inventors, explorers, scientists, thinkers and philosophers. Yes there have been a handful of women that have helped contribute to the world but the vast majority of our success and civilization has been built on the backs of men.

      Case in point, many women would be dead today if not for the medical help of men. Without the medical marvels invented by men, that freed humanity from the appalling job being done by the midwives of history, unfortunately millions of lives too late. Why, after thousands of years of experience, when men were banned from taking part in childbirth, had women failed to invent the obstetrician's forceps, a relatively simple instrument to think up that has saved millions of lives, although it has been losing favour in recent decades? Go on, do an internet search for a picture and ask yourself if inventing that is rocket science. That's why a man invented it within a relatively short time of being allowed to participate in childbirth. Yet these midwives had millenia...the mind boggles. Mothers all over the world should be aware of the name of Peter Chamberlen, who by ingeniously inventing this tool around 1600 helped to gatecrash the midwives' party and thereby saved millions of lives. Do modern midwives today (and NO man has been infantile enough to propose that the name be changed to 'mid-person') hold the name Peter Chamberlen high, or that of the countless doctors that followed him to help make woman live 7 years longer than men in the US?
      • mufasa, on 02/01/2008, -2/+24If women ruled the world, wars would break out once a month :p
        • svander, on 02/01/2008, -3/+4Are you saying G.W.B. is a *****?
        • dr3minem, on 02/01/2008, -2/+5I dunno if he said that but isnt he?
          • svander, on 02/01/2008, -2/+1I don't think he has quite earned that compliment.
      • Jray087, on 02/01/2008, -6/+0Are you gay?
      • PandarenLord, on 02/01/2008, -3/+10Hmm, ever heard of a patriarchy? Women weren't allowed to be the "inventors, explorers, scientists, thinkers and philosophers." Little more then 100 years ago, women would write using the names of men, otherwise they would be taken as fools. Your entire point becomes invalid as soon as you realize that the institutionalized and beaten in idea of the superiority of men prevented women from doing the majority of work.
        • amr05h, on 02/01/2008, -3/+1I could not have said it better myself. Males have been trumpeted as making achievements of humanity possible only because they were given the chance to!
        • madm0nk, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Uhhh ... who or what was it that gave them the chance? Nobody or no thing can take away who you are as a person. It may sound a little existential but it's the truth. Ultimately the choices you make in life are your choices alone.
      • krautkamel, on 02/01/2008, -3/+1Women aren't allowed to be. Nice excuse.

        Try this, men have been the dominate sex on earth since civilization started. Could that be because males are the superior sex? Maybe that is why we were able to dominate. I don't remember a lot of the greater figures in history using the excuse, "they wouldn't let me". Sounds like affirmative action ***** to me. Rise above and stop making ***** excuses. If you cheer for the headline "Males irrelevant to the survival of the human race" then you need stop pretending that you don't need men or at least not make excuses for your plight.
        • thewrathoffluff, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Idiot. Who was able to rise to the top politically without any support? Even Hitler had his supporters. How could a woman rise to the top if all the people with a voice (i.e. men) wouldn't support her?
      • thewrathoffluff, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Women aren't because their husbands don't allow it. I know several women where their husband wants them to quit work and stay home to take care of the kid when they decide to have a baby. Maybe if men started taking up that responsibility there would be more women in the work force.
        And to your comment about men doing it all...it's not as though women are too weak or stupid to do it. While many of them are, it still stands that if women were forced to build cities and harvest food, etc, we could.
    • elizabethb221, on 02/01/2008, -13/+1I do that stuff myself, bitch.

      This is a perfect opportunity to try out lesbianism...eh?
      • svander, on 02/01/2008, -1/+13Well, I've always been a lesbian trapped in a man's body...
      • Jpotts12, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1Silence! There will be no more insubordination from your people.
      • madm0nk, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1The term feminazi was coined for a reason.
    • fantasticFlan, on 02/01/2008, -1/+19I'm sure they'd get us to invent some bizarre woman operable pickle jar before eliminating us completely.
      • Tahiri, on 02/01/2008, -1/+6I learned to bash it against the counter at an early age. Maybe that's why I'm a lesbian.

        That and men don't like seeing a woman bash a cylindrical object against a counter then tear the top off and poke inside with a fork.
        • ungamedplayer, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Its not that, trust me.

          They see you using the wrong tool for the job.
    • Hindu_Wardrobe, on 02/01/2008, -1/+13Funny thing is that my dad's always asking my mom how to work the HDTV, DVD player, and other consumer electronics :)
    • Jpotts12, on 02/01/2008, -2/+4Haha...no kidding. Let's also not forget that without men, scientific breakthroughs like this wouldn't be possible in the first place. Women would still need men to figure out how to make the damn sperm cells.
    • McBadass, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Good lord I laughed at this comment. I wish I could digg it twice.
    • freedomwv, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0I hear that I am always the one who kills all the creepy bugs and gets up to put a movie in the DVD player. I have discovered that it is my job to be cool and have a job and to kill bugs and work the DVD player. Well, at least my wife is Japanese and we live in Tokyo.
  • Error601, on 02/01/2008, -8/+175I beg to differ. Who is going to kill all the spiders and drink all the beer?
    • rnwen2750, on 02/01/2008, -19/+7I'll still do it as most boys I know are little babies.
      • KMartSheriff, on 02/01/2008, -1/+19You should probably try graduating from "boys" to "men" then.
      • Tyr86, on 02/01/2008, -0/+8Hi, I'm Chris Hanson from Dateline NBC. Why don't you go ahead and have a seat?
    • thatspsychotic, on 02/01/2008, -0/+8I totally just read that as "I digg to beffer." Too much digg on the brain.
  • xsuite, on 02/01/2008, -8/+102Scientists who engineered this, turn in your penises at the door. Thanks.
  • Ymeg, on 02/01/2008, -7/+11This will be like when the test tube babies eliminated females back in the day!!!
    • JaredXM, on 02/01/2008, -1/+12They weren't born out of a test tube.
    • qber, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Test tube babies were only conceived in a lab. They still needed to be implanted into a woman's uterus to grow into a baby.
  • BigManOnCampus, on 02/01/2008, -11/+121Buried as innacurate, someone has to reach the top shelf, build the homes, move heavy things, and take out the garbage.
    • romistrub, on 02/01/2008, -4/+30... run the countries, heal the wounded, enforce the law, build the bridges...

      (I kid, I kid)
      • Zalyster, on 02/01/2008, -2/+26And SOMEONE'S gotta eat all that food made in the kitchen.
      • kweeky, on 02/01/2008, -6/+3We also ruin the countries, cause the wounded, break the law and burn the bridges!
    • linagee, on 02/01/2008, -1/+6...robots. (make sure to stay clear of stairs though)
    • Proctor, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2Crush the spiders in a Napkin.
  • oOLiquidNightOo, on 02/01/2008, -0/+21http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YOB48WGM4Y&eurl=ht ...
  • snowskate22, on 02/01/2008, -20/+12*insert witty one-liner about how men aren't irrelevant*
  • sundancekid503, on 02/01/2008, -5/+73Don't worry, they'll come crying back to us as soon as they need an oil change
  • Wade, on 02/01/2008, -3/+89I can't wait for the day when "Humans irrelevant to the survival of the human race" is headlined.
    • xaviermeng, on 02/01/2008, -0/+7finally a good one
    • anonydigg, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2Actually it could be done. Just make a nano-factory capable of recreating the human genome + related stuff from organic material. Then you have babies with no parents. They could even simulate some environment and let the genes mutate virtually (even intelligently) and evolve for a while and then create the next generation.
      • Gutterpunk, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2And they would all be driving flying cars!
    • madm0nk, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1I think there was a movie about that. The Matrix. Well I guess we didn't really 'survive' so to speak, but a similar idea. Nevermind .... I'm drunk.
  • romistrub, on 02/01/2008, -9/+15***** witty one-liners. The idea of gender will, without some philosophically-grounded intervention, become irrelevant. Whether this will happen before or after the machines rise, however, I cannot be certain.
  • evilpoptart, on 02/01/2008, -2/+28this thread of comments is priceless.
    • shawgo, on 02/01/2008, -1/+12yah, because no one wants to pay for it.
    • justice7, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1ARE priceless, yes, they ARE.
      • yeti22, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Heh, nice try. Actually, the thread IS priceless. What is the thread of? Comments.
        More technically, "comments" is the object of the preposition "of", while "thread" is the subject of the sentence. The verb is conjugated to match the subject.
        I have no idea why I know this.
  • CTK14A, on 02/01/2008, -6/+55Iron my shirt
    • m0zzie, on 02/01/2008, -1/+4i don't know why, but i found hilarity in this.. thankyou though, it's friday afternoon here and you just made my day.
    • justice7, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3....bitch!
  • tmoney578, on 02/01/2008, -2/+52great, just another reason for women to reject me.
    • KMartSheriff, on 02/01/2008, -0/+8You're only doing it to yourself man.
  • Bartboy919, on 02/01/2008, -0/+23Oh *****, isn't this how Y: The Last Man Started?
    • TremorX, on 02/01/2008, -0/+6No, it was monkey *****.
    • sixhoursoflucy, on 02/01/2008, -0/+0Yeah, this is how it started. The monkey ***** provided the antibodies that saved Yorick.
  • Eshestun, on 02/01/2008, -12/+5Without the sperm from another male, genetic diversity would halt. Which means evolutionary trends would halt. Which means that recessive traits would pop up more and more and the population would slowly but surely doom itself...

    ...Unless they take the embryonic stem cell sperm from another female....

    Ya, us males are *****.
    • StaticThunder, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Without the sperm from another female, genetic diversity would halt. They are completely playing within the rules. But hey, whats wrong with being a lesbian?
  • robbh66, on 02/01/2008, -6/+57Then who would women nag?
    • Tahiri, on 02/01/2008, -8/+2Speaking as a lesbian, I'd nag my girlfriend. :p
    • passedoutghost, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2Also, who would they bitch at during childbirth?
    • Jray087, on 02/01/2008, -0/+10Also, what would happen to the internet?
      • KYLIEISNEET0, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1hah, you're concerned about the internet
        aren't we all.. *sigh*
  • RIMberry, on 02/01/2008, -14/+7But if there were no men, what would be do about innovation? :)
    • Hickeroar, on 02/01/2008, -3/+6or typing skills for that matter...
  • Syphon8, on 02/01/2008, -11/+7Dr. Karim Nayernia is a man. The human race still depends on males, if only because we're better at doing science. *cool*
  • hugeposuer, on 02/01/2008, -3/+19Shh... shut up!
  • Narcism, on 02/01/2008, -9/+17Who are they going to yell at?
  • smackifilia, on 02/01/2008, -5/+2then who'd be able to figure out how to use it?
  • getrealnow, on 02/01/2008, -20/+10Women love dick & being in the kitchen.
  • contradictator, on 02/01/2008, -2/+30Well, it's been a good run, but looks like the party's over.
  • itsgotyou, on 02/01/2008, -7/+9insert I welcome our new female overlord joke here____________________
  • theworldisflat, on 02/01/2008, -6/+13They may be able to make sperm... but who the hell is going to kill the spiders in the bathroom?
  • willywong, on 02/01/2008, -4/+25I bet men figured out how to do this in the first place.
    • TheOneTrueGod, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2Somehow this proves that they are doomed to be extinct. :]
  • AlienMushroom, on 02/21/2008, -0/+37it's not about reproduction most of the time. that's why we invented condom...
  • thejames, on 02/01/2008, -6/+13they wouldn't last a month.
  • rjhomuth, on 02/01/2008, -8/+6Who's gonna make my sandwich now?
    • xdra, on 02/01/2008, -3/+13once again, the cleverness of diggers overwhelms me
    • svander, on 02/01/2008, -0/+5You've got nothing to worry about man. What this study/experiment/discovery doesn't take into account is that women, by far and large, actually like the *****.
  • smurf22, on 02/01/2008, -6/+37We're irrelevant until a light bulb needs changing.
    • confusednazgul, on 02/01/2008, -1/+3It's not that women don't know how to change light bulbs. It's that we know that we can easily make men do things for us, giving us more time to plot your demise.
      • ManoWar, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1just keep telling your self that.
        • confusednazgul, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Well, we have to make your species useful in SOME way.
  • InspectorGadget, on 02/01/2008, -3/+22Meh. See how far they get trying to move something heavy. Its going to take a whole lot of Rosie O'Donnell types to get any serious physical labor done. Though Rosie looks like she gets most of her exercise sprinting between the fridge and the couch and doing 200 reps of the Dorito dip.
    • lazyfisherman, on 02/01/2008, -2/+4Two types of women will evolve.. one type for manual labor. Big-boned, power girls like Rosie. The other class will be very feminine, smaller and less physically powerful, dependent upon the Rosies to lift heavy objects. They will control the Rosies as they have always controlled men -- with sex. Oh no, wait --- THEY WON'T. The Rosies will eat all of them and live happily ever after.
  • madm0nk, on 02/01/2008, -3/+10As soon as women are able to build things as well as men do, are able to create the technology they seem to be completely lost without, and fix cars. And a whole host of other things that men are much more efficient at than women I don't have any worries. I am not ragging on the women or trying to make them out to be useless. Far from it, but there is much more to the dependency of one sex upon the other than mere procreation. Also I am not stating that no women is capable of doing the things I listed above, it's just that men are more physically adept to perform those tasks efficiently.
    • pendrachken, on 02/01/2008, -1/+3There are plenty of women that are " just one of the boys" out there.

      Hell the place where I drive for has 2 of them, 1 little 5'3 115 pound mechanic ( a nice little hottie too, I mean who wouldn't like a chic that aint afraid to get greasy and fix something) and the other is a driver.... of semi trucks.
    • vikki77, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2Not to sound feminist, but maybe it's because we haven't been given the chance or motivation to do it. Although, it would be kind of hard to work on my car while I'm barefoot and pregnant.
      • dcshiderly, on 02/01/2008, -1/+5While this is true, the statistical distribution of intelligence among the sexes practically guarantees that most abstract pursuits will be dominated by males. One can think of it thusly: two rooms, one w/ 200 women, and one w/ 200 men. Both groups average 100 IQ. But the women all cluster right around 100, with the men going from 1 to 200. The men will have more geniuses, but also far more imbeciles. This in turn leads to higher crime rates among men, as the ones below average will be increasingly unable to make sound choices for themselves.

        Additionally, many women are perfectly satisfied with a more domestic role and prefer to leave leadership to their men. I'm not saying it's good or bad, it just is.
        • dcshiderly, on 02/01/2008, -1/+3Oh for cryin' out loud. This isn't to say that very, very bright females don't exist, they're just more of a statistical outlier than the very bright males. As an aside, is there some kind of automatic digg-down for my userid? srsly...
        • StaticThunder, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Statistical "outlier" being the female mean is moved all of 4% to the left of the male mean? Alot of this is socialization and not brain development. One might as well say because mens verbal and emotional skills are statistical outliers, in a world of artificial wombs and no women, there would be no writers of romantic comedies.

          And again, one can argue if such a thing would even be necessary in such a world. We have technology primarily to impress women and insure that they bear *my* children. All the way up to the atom bomb its been about propagating my genes ahead of somebody else's.
          • dcshiderly, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1How then, does one explain the order of magnitude greater representation of males in the 140+ IQ group than females? I'm curious as to your reasoning.
          • StaticThunder, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Spatial reasoning is something men are better at, but they've been doing more of it for cultural reasons. You have no evidence to say women couldn't develop the skills to the same degree if they had to. But they are generally not raised to be mechanics and mathematicians instead of nurturers and caregivers, right down to the toys they are bought as toddlers. Its an uncontrolled experiment with lots of confounding variables.

            So, were the two groups raised under identical conditions? How do you explain the difference between black men and white men in the same quantile? Are you asking this question to confirm a personal bias that there must be something that you are innately better at? Did you take the Bell Curve seriously and miss all the criticism of it?
          • dcshiderly, on 02/02/2008, -1/+0I can actually guarantee it's not cultural. Men had to trek miles in unmarked wild forest and jungle stalking the day's food. They had to be able to find their way back after taking down their prey. The men best able to hold the path they took in their head were the ones that actually made it back before nightfall, and therefore more likely to return at all. That right there is a horrific selection pressure. Males unable to do this will quickly be eliminated from breeding, while the guy with the better brain will still be around.
            This is like saying the difference in aerobic capacity between the sexes is cultural as well, as we encourage boys to run and jump and play, and encourage girls to be "domestic."
            As to the Bell Curve, I'd like to point out that simply because the financiers of the research have ulterior motives doesn't invalidate the data and conclus