A World Without Men?

[Oakley]

But there might be easier ways to reduce that than by exterminating them all.

With the exception of the abortion option, nobody said anything about exterminating anybody. This is a common hysterical claim used to derail threads on this topic.

We don't kill men. We just stop making more of them.

[Oakley]

You need to demonstrate that violence is in some way a property of boys and not girls,

Women's biological role is to have and nurture children, their bodies are designed for this purpose. The biological role of men is to compete with other men to weed out the weak genes, and present the strongest genes for reproduction.

These roles have been in place for millions of years before we were even human, which is why they can't be meaningfully edited by social methods like religion, morality etc.

but to do that would need to get rid of that "vast majority" and replace it with "all",

No, we don't need that. We need only show that we have no known method of getting rid of just violent men, thus all men must go. I completely agree that most men are peaceful. That doesn't help us here unfortunately.

[FlashDangerpants]

You need to demonstrate that violence is in some way a property of boys and not girls,

Women's biological role is to have and nurture children, their bodies are designed for this purpose. The biological role of men is to compete with other men to weed out the weak genes, and present the strongest genes for reproduction.

These roles have been in place for millions of years before we were even human, which is why they can't be meaningfully edited by social methods like religion, morality etc.

but to do that would need to get rid of that "vast majority" and replace it with "all",

No, we don't need that. We need only show that we have no known method of getting rid of just violent men, thus all men must go. I completely agree that most men are peaceful. That doesn't help us here unfortunately.

Look, I told you what was wrong with a poorly constructed argument you presented that lacked a proper link between premise and conclusion. you know, very basic philosophy stuff. You can address that problem or you can fail. But if you try to drag this sideways into a discussion of your unfounded teleological theory of biological determinism I might not bother. None of what you wrote there is viable either as an answer to my prior criticism nor on its own grounds.

So to make this clear. those things I told you that you needed to do are things you would need to do in order to fix the logic of your argument. they aren't serious suggestions, because your argument was pretty dumb and can't actually be fixed.

[Oakley]

because your argument was pretty dumb and can't actually be fixed.

People tend to characterize arguments once they realize they can't defeat them. You're going emotional almost immediately, diving straight in to male ego head butting, thus illustrating the point I'm making about men.

[FlashDangerpants]

because your argument was pretty dumb and can't actually be fixed.

People tend to characterize arguments once they realize they can't defeat them. You're going emotional almost immediately, diving straight in to male ego head butting, thus illustrating the point I'm making about men.

Yeah, I suppose you can try that move and see if I care. But you presented an argument where the premise can be true and the conclusion can be false without contradiction, thus the argument was bad. I have no need to get emotional at all and I can assure you that the only emotion that is creeping up on me right now is boredom.

Now you've tried defelecting from your problem with some random waffle about women serving a purpose to produce babies, and then you tried to deflect again by blaming my grunting manly hormones for me not agreeing with you. But it fixes nothing about your bad argument. You would be well advised to try and understand the problem with your reasoning in order to become better at whatever you are trying to accomplish, rather than wasting your efforts condescending to me.

[henry quirk]

We don't kill men. We just stop making more of them.

How?

Here's an idea (it's a longshot)...

Cook up a virus (or take advantage of some natural pathogen), scare the hell out of the world, release a series of vaccines to supposedly immunize the global population, vaccines which instead sterilize men (or mebbe make carryin' a baby boy to term impossible).

You'll have to wash-rinse-repeat. Several waves of different strains with accompanying iterations of the vaccines.

You're lookin' at five, mebbe ten, years of this before the bulk of humanity is genengineered.

The stubborn few who refused, refuse, to accept the jab? Once the world's population has accepted the Global Hegemony crafted thru public health measures, roundin' up the recalcitrant ought not be a chore. You can force-jab 'em or just *off 'em.

Word of advice: pick a better Fauci.




*probably your safest bet cuz I promise you: if you don't off me, I'm gonna get ya and make you eat your own face

[Sculptor]

Would you like the human species to continue if so what are you going to do? Are you female?

I'm male.

As for reproduction, I can see these possibilities so far.

1) We're entering an age when more babies will be made in the lab, so as to prevent genetic diseases, and to select for certain traits, such as gender. This is coming for sure, but scaling it up to include the whole population is very challenging.

Most of the world could only dream about access to lab facilities.
Thus far parthenogenisis has never been tried. And the only thing you could do so far is cloning. Cloning produces progeny with limited lifespans.
I imagine that in the future it would be possible to produce only female progeny without male seed, but that it still science fiction

2) A tiny number of men can impregnate a huge number of women. So if we were willing to settle for far less men, no new technology is needed.

Where do I sign up??
I imagine, though that I'd just be hooked up to a wanking machine - not much fun.
Actually you scheme would not work, since it would soon be obvious that the gene pool would start to be restricted to prevent excessive incest. GM would have to be a constant companion to the process which goes back to the problem of lab access.

3) Abortion.

Eh?
Not sure why this is here

We should also turn your question around and see the other side of it. An ever accelerating knowledge explosion is giving violent men ever more power to generate chaos.

Women are perfectly capable of inventing and using new weapons. And the more tach they get, they less agression is needed to use them. I understand that women make excellent drone operators. Which brings me back to the bit of my objection you have not dealt with here on this thread. Women are violent too. Communist armies in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Russia have all emplyed women with excellent results. Even now the West is beginning to induct women in to the military on active duty.

If we don't do something radical like this how does the species, or at least civilization, continue?

Men are not going to volunteer to end the career of men.

People typically this is a crazy idea that we have the option to ignore. I don't see it that way.

It's not crazy. There have been a few sci-fi stories that have investigated this possibility. My problem with it is threefold. Practicality and implementation on the one hand, but the fallacy that it is based on the view that women are not violent, or a lack of imagining a society where ONLY women had to step into the boots of men. I would not be so different.

[Age]

Well, the mods approved the post for publication, so I guess that's a go ahead.

I'm fascinated by the idea that world peace might really be possible.

OF COURSE its possible. If, and WHEN, adult human beings are just being Truly Honest and OPEN, and CHANGE their wrong ways, then 'world peace' can be reached, and WILL BE achieved, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.

The logic is remarkably simple.

1) Men commit the overwhelming vast majority of violence, a consistent pattern going back thousands of years in every time and place.

Where is the evidence that men commit the overwhelming vast majority of violence for thousands of years in EVERY time and place?

What does the word 'violence' mean or refer to, to you?

It can also be irrefutably argued and proven that adults have, relatively speaking, ACTUALLY committed, or caused, ALL of the violence throughout human history. So, WHY are you NOT considering and talking about 'A world without adults'?

2) If there were no men, there would be radically less violence.

Are women NOT violent?

But, if adults changed there wrong ways, which causes ALL violence, then there would be NO violence, and just a peaceful world.

3) In that case, most of the trillions upon trillions of dollars which are now spent committing violence and responding to it could be reinvested in life affirming projects like health care and education etc.

The result would be something which could fairly be called world peace, at least in comparison to the current reality.

Keep this idea in the back of your mind as you click through your news feed, watch TV news etc.

If, and WHEN, you discover, or learn, and understand WHY ALL adults do wrong, then you KNOW the cause, and then you can PREVENT ALL wrong from happening EVER again, and then 'world peace' can and WILL begin.

AND, NO human being has to be gotten 'rid of' AT ALL.

When the news is reporting some horror show like the latest mass shooting, or the war in Syria etc, ask yourself a question like this...

Are male humans so important as to be worth this price?

What 'price'?

That's enough for now, look forward to hearing your thoughts.

You appear to be NOT REALLY looking forward to ANY thought, which OPPOSES your view here

[Age]

How about a world without pacifists?

Instead of eliminatin' violent men, let's just eliminate those who object to violent men, and violence in general.

There are far fewer pacifists than violent men: logically, gettin' rid of pacifists would be far easier.

But what would this achieve other than LESS of those who are pacifists existing, and MORE, percentage wise, of those who are violent?

[Age]

1) Men commit the overwhelming vast majority of violence, a consistent pattern going back thousands of years in every time and place.

2) If there were no men, there would be radically less violence.

3) In that case, most of the trillions upon trillions of dollars which are now spent committing violence and responding to it could be reinvested in life affirming projects like health care and education etc.

All of that seems true to me. Isn't it also true, however, that most of the inventions in life have been by men? Not that women can't do it, they just don't seem as inclined. Personally, I would gladly trade a high-tech world for a more peaceful one. I imagine that a world of women would be more peaceful. I do love male energy though... not the destructive or stupid stuff, but the wise, guiding, peaceful ones, which are more rare, and I wouldn't want a world without them.

Perhaps there's some kind of unevolved defect that could somehow be resolved within those violent and closed mindsets.

There IS.

It's as if such mentality is locked in a box which it's continually fighting/raging against, sometimes to insane degrees.

Yes that CLOSED mentality is, literally, locked in a box, that box of BELIEFS, which creates and causes CONFUSION, which is continually fighting/raging against, sometimes to, literally, insane degrees.

There needs to be something that opens the doors, and lets some new light and air and potential flow in.

There IS.

That thing IS The Key, which UNLOCKS and OPENS ALL the "doors". It is also The Key to UNLOCKING ALL the mysteries of Life, which 'you', human beings, still had, in the days when this written.

Tripping on mushrooms has been used for a long time by civilizations and wise men as a way to broaden perspective. Maybe that kind of mental expansion is another area that certain leagues/generations of men have distorted and rewritten (like religion) in order to claim control and authority, and keep everyone subservient to them. Fuckers.

This is quite some wild ASSUMPTION going on here.

But EVERY one has had DIFFERENT past experiences, which DOES effect the way they think and see things NOW.

Tripping on mushrooms NOR ANY thing else is NEEDED to OPEN or BROADEN ones perspective.

The Key which ACTUALLY does OPEN and BROADEN perspective to, ALL and Everything, is NOT done NOR achieved by "tripping on ANY thing", but rather when It is found OPENS one up to a Truly AMAZING and REVEALING 'trip' in itself. Including REALIZING what is just SO PLAIN OBVIOUS was NOT SEEN before.

OBVIOUSLY, The KEY IS what OPENS one to thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

It's really too bad. The world doesn't have to be this stupid. Perhaps such density sets the low standard that inspires an equally high standard to be manifested... which can also be seen widely throughout humankind. There are a lot of types of energy sharing this planet! Hopefully some major mental shift will ripple throughout humankind before this beautiful Earth and its inhabitants are further devastated.

One could say you are LOOKING ONLY AT the "wrong" here, which is OBVIOUSLY NOT the BIG and WHOLE True Picture.

But, anyway, that 'mental shift' is on the way.

The beauty of those who are ABLE to GAIN, and MAKE, 'the shift' have ALREADY OBTAINED The Key', which OPENS and BROADENS them to ALL and Everything, including the "secret" and the formula to what is ACTUALLY NEEDED in order to create and achieve a Truly Peaceful 'world', for EVERY one.

[Oakley]

Where is the evidence that men commit the overwhelming vast majority of violence for thousands of years in EVERY time and place?

Do you own a TV?

[Age]

Perhaps there's some kind of unevolved defect that could somehow be resolved within those violent and closed mindsets.

Yes, ideally we would keep the peaceful men and just get rid of the violent men. Or, we would fix the violent men.

But how could you fix some thing, which has NOT YET occurred?

Or, are ALL men, so called, "violent men", anyway, BEFORE they behave violently?

The problem here is that no society in history has figured out how to do either.

Until that changes, to have men is to have violent men, and to have violent men is to put the entire civilization at risk.

And, conversely, to have women is to have "violent women", and to have "violent women" is to put the entire civilization at risk, could also be "argued". But to 'try to' "argue" either would just be a fruitless task, as they are NOT sound and valid arguments, anyway.

[Age]

But there might be easier ways to reduce that than by exterminating them all.

With the exception of the abortion option, nobody said anything about exterminating anybody. This is a common hysterical claim used to derail threads on this topic.

We don't kill men. We just stop making more of them.

Oh, is this so 'you' can REMAIN ALIVE "yourself"?

It seems rather hypocritical to propose the idea that a world without men is much better for society or civilization, but then NOT want to end your own life FIRST.

[Age]

You need to demonstrate that violence is in some way a property of boys and not girls,

Women's biological role is to have and nurture children, their bodies are designed for this purpose.

And what purpose do you envision the penis and the testicles of some bodies were designed for, EXACTLY?

What are men's biological role, if NOT to have and nurture children?

The biological role of men is to compete with other men to weed out the weak genes, and present the strongest genes for reproduction.

LOL Okay.

So, to you, it is a PERFECTLY NORMAL biological role for men to just KILL those who appear "weaker than them" [whatever that ACTUALLY means or refers to?).

These roles have been in place for millions of years before we were even human, which is why they can't be meaningfully edited by social methods like religion, morality etc.

but to do that would need to get rid of that "vast majority" and replace it with "all",

No, we don't need that. We need only show that we have no known method of getting rid of just violent men, thus all men must go. I completely agree that most men are peaceful. That doesn't help us here unfortunately.

So, "peaceful men" do NOT help here, correct?

But we do have a KNOWN method of "getting rid" of "just violent men".

Also, "all men MUST go", includes 'you', "oakley", correct?

[Age]

because your argument was pretty dumb and can't actually be fixed.

People tend to characterize arguments once they realize they can't defeat them. You're going emotional almost immediately, diving straight in to male ego head butting, thus illustrating the point I'm making about men.

OF COURSE, IN GENERAL, women are more loving and caring beings, but this is NOT because they have a vagina and milk producing breasts.

Getting rid of, or preventing, human bodies with penises and testicles from existing is NO solution to absolutely ANY thing AT ALL here.

The role of BOTH the female and the male human body is to have and nurture children, and this is WHY human beings have existed for millions of years, and as some would suggest, are 'overpopulating' the earth.