Gendercide - Inevitable
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm
Gendercide - Inevitable
The next problem no one really wants to know this will happen as it's at odds with the Left's position, and the Right are too stoic to care.
It costs around $250,000 US to raise a child, making each adult lost worth more to society than any child that's on the expense alone. Yet when a child dies in war the 'emotional' impact on our soft society is equal to one hundred male soldiers dying. This priority made sense in the past but not now. Any adult is worth more than a child the training and money invested in raising someone to adulthood aside, a productive life is lost. A soldier can be a father, a son or a brother but who cares when they die apart from their family, and that's in today's so-called caring society.
If science were to announce evidence of the existence of God tomorrow the news would travel all around the world, but after a few days settle down and be replaced by the latest news. No big deal there. The claim that all males will be eliminated would be lesser news, no one really interested all too much. These things all play a part in the inevitability factor. The why it must happen and the part we play in making it happen.
The Left, the socio-political representation of our 'X' Chromosome, itself represented by the pure form female, set to eliminate the mutant male, the bearer of the 'Y' chromosome.
There is maybe only a matter of months left to do the little that can be done to prevent this from happening.
The males part in the making of the roads, the buildings, the cities, everything man-made. The reward, death!
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Gendercide - Inevitable
)
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm
Re: Gendercide - Inevitable
The elimination of all males within one hundred years is inevetable. As an outcome totally in compliance with Nature. The natural world disposes of those who are obsolete. It may be that it is for the better even. But that's when Nature becomes unconcerned. It's unseeing in some ways and guarantees nothing.
So, when if as a mistake it's realized it still won't be acknowledged and regardless will be effectively irreversible, resurrecting males at that late stage pointless anyhow.
But before considering any of this seriously the way around this gendercide could be as simple as dismissing what I'm saying as being part of a delusional (not simply mistaken) thought process. It's an all too common occurrence on the web I would think. But I've tried this approach myself and so far haven't found any real flaws apart from maybe that it is not possible to self-assess something like this.
So. If at some date fifty years on a group of Amazonian women were set to take control of the world then this would be an outcome no one really could predict. But then if we were to say something similar that leads to that will happen then its progression would need to be evident in some way now (but not soon because it would then be little more than a prediction still). It would have had a starting point, milestones would already need to exist.
The Swiss Cheese Model is used to visualize the alignment of events that combined bring about a catastrophic outcome and that's despite many layers of safety being in place. The 'holes' in the layers aligning to bring down an airliner specifically.
There are no real safety layers when it comes to gender, individuals and groups yes. But still there would need to be 'holes' in the system that allowed, not necessarily an alignment, but the many things, some only incidental, some directly aligned, some in parallel, to occur if gendercide is to be the outcome. Some of these things being freakishly co-incidental admittedly, but maybe still explainable with a better understanding of how Time, should it exist, works.
From my point of view anyone saying this won't happen or it can't happen does nothing to reassure. As it is already happening. Besides those who are atheists can't reassure anyone of anything much in the way of positive outcomes, logically.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Gendercide - Inevitable
I am not sure why you are focusing on males only dying. Apart from soldiers, with all that is going on globally there may be many who die prematurely. Factors such as climate change may affect many, especially those in countries like India. Also, it may be the poor and vulnerable who are affected most through poverty and war. So, it may not be gendercide but an overall problem affecting so many sections of the population globally, with wars and other forms of destruction.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 1:29 am Four billion males, half the world's population will be eliminated in the next one hundred years. Would we allow that? Of course we would. That's because the number of people who will die in that time is actually around eight billion. The whole world population alive today will mostly die within that time simply because of natural attrition. So, so much for the argument we would not let that many die as far as numbers go.
The next problem no one really wants to know this will happen as it's at odds with the Left's position, and the Right are too stoic to care.
It costs around $250,000 US to raise a child, making each adult lost worth more to society than any child that's on the expense alone. Yet when a child dies in war the 'emotional' impact on our soft society is equal to one hundred male soldiers dying. This priority made sense in the past but not now. Any adult is worth more than a child the training and money invested in raising someone to adulthood aside, a productive life is lost. A soldier can be a father, a son or a brother but who cares when they die apart from their family, and that's in today's so-called caring society.
If science were to announce evidence of the existence of God tomorrow the news would travel all around the world, but after a few days settle down and be replaced by the latest news. No big deal there. The claim that all males will be eliminated would be lesser news, no one really interested all too much. These things all play a part in the inevitability factor. The why it must happen and the part we play in making it happen.
The Left, the socio-political representation of our 'X' Chromosome, itself represented by the pure form female, set to eliminate the mutant male, the bearer of the 'Y' chromosome.
There is maybe only a matter of months left to do the little that can be done to prevent this from happening.
The males part in the making of the roads, the buildings, the cities, everything man-made. The reward, death!
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14994
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Gendercide - Inevitable
It would seem that western men are not being replaced by women, but by Chinese men.
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: Gendercide - Inevitable
What?Gregory A wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 1:29 am Four billion males, half the world's population will be eliminated in the next one hundred years. Would we allow that? Of course we would. That's because the number of people who will die in that time is actually around eight billion. The whole world population alive today will mostly die within that time simply because of natural attrition. So, so much for the argument we would not let that many die as far as numbers go.
The next problem no one really wants to know this will happen as it's at odds with the Left's position, and the Right are too stoic to care.
It costs around $250,000 US to raise a child, making each adult lost worth more to society than any child that's on the expense alone. Yet when a child dies in war the 'emotional' impact on our soft society is equal to one hundred male soldiers dying. This priority made sense in the past but not now. Any adult is worth more than a child the training and money invested in raising someone to adulthood aside, a productive life is lost. A soldier can be a father, a son or a brother but who cares when they die apart from their family, and that's in today's so-called caring society.
If science were to announce evidence of the existence of God tomorrow the news would travel all around the world, but after a few days settle down and be replaced by the latest news. No big deal there. The claim that all males will be eliminated would be lesser news, no one really interested all too much. These things all play a part in the inevitability factor. The why it must happen and the part we play in making it happen.
The Left, the socio-political representation of our 'X' Chromosome, itself represented by the pure form female, set to eliminate the mutant male, the bearer of the 'Y' chromosome.
There is maybe only a matter of months left to do the little that can be done to prevent this from happening.
The males part in the making of the roads, the buildings, the cities, everything man-made. The reward, death!
What? There are so many strange people with strange ideas.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 9:10 am The elimination of all males within one hundred years is inevetable. As an outcome totally in compliance with Nature. The natural world disposes of those who are obsolete. It may be that it is for the better even. But that's when Nature becomes unconcerned. It's unseeing in some ways and guarantees nothing.
So, when if as a mistake it's realized it still won't be acknowledged and regardless will be effectively irreversible, resurrecting males at that late stage pointless anyhow.
But before considering any of this seriously the way around this gendercide could be as simple as dismissing what I'm saying as being part of a delusional (not simply mistaken) thought process. It's an all too common occurrence on the web I would think. But I've tried this approach myself and so far haven't found any real flaws apart from maybe that it is not possible to self-assess something like this.
So. If at some date fifty years on a group of Amazonian women were set to take control of the world then this would be an outcome no one really could predict. But then if we were to say something similar that leads to that will happen then its progression would need to be evident in some way now (but not soon because it would then be little more than a prediction still). It would have had a starting point, milestones would already need to exist.
The Swiss Cheese Model is used to visualize the alignment of events that combined bring about a catastrophic outcome and that's despite many layers of safety being in place. The 'holes' in the layers aligning to bring down an airliner specifically.
There are no real safety layers when it comes to gender, individuals and groups yes. But still there would need to be 'holes' in the system that allowed, not necessarily an alignment, but the many things, some only incidental, some directly aligned, some in parallel, to occur if gendercide is to be the outcome. Some of these things being freakishly co-incidental admittedly, but maybe still explainable with a better understanding of how Time, should it exist, works.
From my point of view anyone saying this won't happen or it can't happen does nothing to reassure. As it is already happening. Besides those who are atheists can't reassure anyone of anything much in the way of positive outcomes, logically.
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm
Re: Gendercide - Inevitable
The death rate for males will be higher for all causes. But this is not the problem. Scientists will at some time in the near future explain to us that the male will eventually pass out of existence over an extended period. We will accept this as being a natural thing as no one group is going to be responsible for it as an eventuation. The physically larger male is less efficient than is the smaller female, 'environmentally unfriendly' for example. Every indiscretion by a prominent male will be publicized by the modern media spreading instantly across the world an indictment of all males in the eyes of a public that can't differentiate between the actions of an individual and that of an entire gender. The good things men do don't sell as well as do the bad things anyhow. The focus in an increasingly female-dominated society will be on the bad regardless. And then there is the chivalry factor where men want to show how sacrificial they can be in helping the womenfolk. Any nations resisting these changes, and there will be many, will be eliminated (when the women and female children have been evacuated first).JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 11:57 amI am not sure why you are focusing on males only dying. Apart from soldiers, with all that is going on globally there may be many who die prematurely. Factors such as climate change may affect many, especially those in countries like India. Also, it may be the poor and vulnerable who are affected most through poverty and war. So, it may not be gendercide but an overall problem affecting so many sections of the population globally, with wars and other forms of destruction.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 1:29 am Four billion males, half the world's population will be eliminated in the next one hundred years. Would we allow that? Of course we would. That's because the number of people who will die in that time is actually around eight billion. The whole world population alive today will mostly die within that time simply because of natural attrition. So, so much for the argument we would not let that many die as far as numbers go.
The next problem no one really wants to know this will happen as it's at odds with the Left's position, and the Right are too stoic to care.
It costs around $250,000 US to raise a child, making each adult lost worth more to society than any child that's on the expense alone. Yet when a child dies in war the 'emotional' impact on our soft society is equal to one hundred male soldiers dying. This priority made sense in the past but not now. Any adult is worth more than a child the training and money invested in raising someone to adulthood aside, a productive life is lost. A soldier can be a father, a son or a brother but who cares when they die apart from their family, and that's in today's so-called caring society.
If science were to announce evidence of the existence of God tomorrow the news would travel all around the world, but after a few days settle down and be replaced by the latest news. No big deal there. The claim that all males will be eliminated would be lesser news, no one really interested all too much. These things all play a part in the inevitability factor. The why it must happen and the part we play in making it happen.
The Left, the socio-political representation of our 'X' Chromosome, itself represented by the pure form female, set to eliminate the mutant male, the bearer of the 'Y' chromosome.
There is maybe only a matter of months left to do the little that can be done to prevent this from happening.
The males part in the making of the roads, the buildings, the cities, everything man-made. The reward, death!
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm
Re: Gendercide - Inevitable
The difference in ratio a discrepancy that can probably only be explained by a gendercide process at the time favoring boys over girls for manual labor.
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm
Re: Gendercide - Inevitable
It's to do with the nature of the beast. With no apparent evidence of gendercide, then there of course could be no group responsible for what would then need to be nothing more than an apparition. But regardless if it were to still happen the absence of any responsible group necessitates the existence of auxiliary factors. Fitting with this it can be argued that men will be rewarded by being allowed to live out their lives in deserved comfort. But that ultimately males will still be eliminated over time. No problems there, and those males who are eventually hunted down for the $10,000 bounty on their 'scrotes' (scrotums) won't have contributed all that much to society anyhow. As these being runaways from the criminal gangs of the future seeking sanctuary in the wild, feral creatures in fact. Sounds like part of a theme for a B-grade movie I know. But it's a most likely outcome regardless.stevie wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 5:32 pmWhat?Gregory A wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 1:29 am Four billion males, half the world's population will be eliminated in the next one hundred years. Would we allow that? Of course we would. That's because the number of people who will die in that time is actually around eight billion. The whole world population alive today will mostly die within that time simply because of natural attrition. So, so much for the argument we would not let that many die as far as numbers go.
The next problem no one really wants to know this will happen as it's at odds with the Left's position, and the Right are too stoic to care.
It costs around $250,000 US to raise a child, making each adult lost worth more to society than any child that's on the expense alone. Yet when a child dies in war the 'emotional' impact on our soft society is equal to one hundred male soldiers dying. This priority made sense in the past but not now. Any adult is worth more than a child the training and money invested in raising someone to adulthood aside, a productive life is lost. A soldier can be a father, a son or a brother but who cares when they die apart from their family, and that's in today's so-called caring society.
If science were to announce evidence of the existence of God tomorrow the news would travel all around the world, but after a few days settle down and be replaced by the latest news. No big deal there. The claim that all males will be eliminated would be lesser news, no one really interested all too much. These things all play a part in the inevitability factor. The why it must happen and the part we play in making it happen.
The Left, the socio-political representation of our 'X' Chromosome, itself represented by the pure form female, set to eliminate the mutant male, the bearer of the 'Y' chromosome.
There is maybe only a matter of months left to do the little that can be done to prevent this from happening.
The males part in the making of the roads, the buildings, the cities, everything man-made. The reward, death!
Gregory A wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 9:10 am The elimination of all males within one hundred years is inevetable. As an outcome totally in compliance with Nature. The natural world disposes of those who are obsolete. It may be that it is for the better even. But that's when Nature becomes unconcerned. It's unseeing in some ways and guarantees nothing.
So, when if as a mistake it's realized it still won't be acknowledged and regardless will be effectively irreversible, resurrecting males at that late stage pointless anyhow.
But before considering any of this seriously the way around this gendercide could be as simple as dismissing what I'm saying as being part of a delusional (not simply mistaken) thought process. It's an all too common occurrence on the web I would think. But I've tried this approach myself and so far haven't found any real flaws apart from maybe that it is not possible to self-assess something like this.
So. If at some date fifty years on a group of Amazonian women were set to take control of the world then this would be an outcome no one really could predict. But then if we were to say something similar that leads to that will happen then its progression would need to be evident in some way now (but not soon because it would then be little more than a prediction still). It would have had a starting point, milestones would already need to exist.
The Swiss Cheese Model is used to visualize the alignment of events that combined bring about a catastrophic outcome and that's despite many layers of safety being in place. The 'holes' in the layers aligning to bring down an airliner specifically.
There are no real safety layers when it comes to gender, individuals and groups yes. But still there would need to be 'holes' in the system that allowed, not necessarily an alignment, but the many things, some only incidental, some directly aligned, some in parallel, to occur if gendercide is to be the outcome. Some of these things being freakishly co-incidental admittedly, but maybe still explainable with a better understanding of how Time, should it exist, works.
From my point of view anyone saying this won't happen or it can't happen does nothing to reassure. As it is already happening. Besides those who are atheists can't reassure anyone of anything much in the way of positive outcomes, logically.
What? There are so many strange people with strange ideas.
When an atheist tells a theist 'don't worry everything will turn out right', it's time for everyone to start sh*itting themselves. Because if you know even a little about a Natural (godless) world you know that just about everything ends in disaster there. Athiests, it makes sense, are people we should have absolutely no 'faith' in.
Galileo was a strange person with strange ideas at the time.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14994
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Gendercide - Inevitable
Not for manual labour. They favour boys per se. While the one-child policy was in force, infant girls were not being killed so as to gain a manual labourer. They were killed so the parents could have a son.
Ultimately, males have been more valued in families because they can potentially have hundreds of children, while each woman can potentially give birth to far, far fewer offspring. That's a greater potential to spread genes and thus grow the strength of a family. Not so long ago in historical terms, Henry VIII killed wife after wife for failing to give him sons. At the time it was not known that the male has greater influence over the child's gender.
There is a fanciful futuristic notion that males will become obsolete, used purely as sperm donors. It's pure science fiction, like interstellar travel or androids that transcend the uncanny valley. It seems to me that many Americans have lost the ability to distinguish between reality and movies.
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm
Re: Gendercide - Inevitable
It's what I'd meant. The gendercide process would have been of girls in that instance. But now that food availability and energy waste are priorities, the work that's left favors machinery and females.Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 9:04 pmNot for manual labour. They favour boys per se. While the one-child policy was in force, infant girls were not being killed so as to gain a manual labourer. They were killed so the parents could have a son.
Women can and do have babies, men can't'. Making women more valuable than men as diversity is hardly needed anymore in a world already occupied by billions of people.Ultimately, males have been more valued in families because they can potentially have hundreds of children, while each woman can potentially give birth to far, far fewer offspring. That's a greater potential to spread genes and thus grow the strength of a family. Not so long ago in historical terms, Henry VIII killed wife after wife for failing to give him sons. At the time it was not known that the male has greater influence over the child's gender.
It is fanciful (being used as sperm donors) but not futuristic. Males have engineered their own obsolescence. Mechanization leaving the 'male' worker bordering on redundant (it is what I mean by auxiliary factors). Men don't want males eliminated but are playing a primary part in that happening.There is a fanciful futuristic notion that males will become obsolete, used purely as sperm donors. It's pure science fiction, like interstellar travel or androids that transcend the uncanny valley. It seems to me that many Americans have lost the ability to distinguish between reality and movies.
Science fiction gets it wrong unless that is females are depicted as being in charge in the future (a scenario too politically incorrect to portray now?). Science fact is what matters. One of those facts (an auxiliary factor), an event I've alluded to already if I remember, an incident occurring in Scotland on July 5, 1993, marking a milestone (in the gendercide process too), the birth of Dolly the sheep. The first-ever cloning of an animal using an adult somatic cell. This event technically making males superfluous from that day forward. And allowing for example at some time in the near future, lesbians to have (their own) children without any male involvement whatsoever.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Gendercide - Inevitable
Gregory, I have read the post above as well as the one which you sent in reply to me. It seems to me that you are putting ideas of gender and transhumanist together in a rather haphazard way. I actually had a thread in transhumanism in the last week looking at the nature of what may be possible, although it may be that my own thread failed to link the topic with reproductive technology.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 11:24 pmIt's what I'd meant. The gendercide process would have been of girls in that instance. But now that food availability and energy waste are priorities, the work that's left favors machinery and females.Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 9:04 pmNot for manual labour. They favour boys per se. While the one-child policy was in force, infant girls were not being killed so as to gain a manual labourer. They were killed so the parents could have a son.
Women can and do have babies, men can't'. Making women more valuable than men as diversity is hardly needed anymore in a world already occupied by billions of people.Ultimately, males have been more valued in families because they can potentially have hundreds of children, while each woman can potentially give birth to far, far fewer offspring. That's a greater potential to spread genes and thus grow the strength of a family. Not so long ago in historical terms, Henry VIII killed wife after wife for failing to give him sons. At the time it was not known that the male has greater influence over the child's gender.
It is fanciful (being used as sperm donors) but not futuristic. Males have engineered their own obsolescence. Mechanization leaving the 'male' worker bordering on redundant (it is what I mean by auxiliary factors). Men don't want males eliminated but are playing a primary part in that happening.There is a fanciful futuristic notion that males will become obsolete, used purely as sperm donors. It's pure science fiction, like interstellar travel or androids that transcend the uncanny valley. It seems to me that many Americans have lost the ability to distinguish between reality and movies.
Science fiction gets it wrong unless that is females are depicted as being in charge in the future (a scenario too politically incorrect to portray now?). Science fact is what matters. One of those facts (an auxiliary factor), an event I've alluded to already if I remember, an incident occurring in Scotland on July 5, 1993, marking a milestone (in the gendercide process too), the birth of Dolly the sheep. The first-ever cloning of an animal using an adult somatic cell. This event technically making males superfluous from that day forward. And allowing for example at some time in the near future, lesbians to have (their own) children without any male involvement whatsoever.
You point to the possibility of lesbians conceiving and this is one possibility. However, not all women are likely to become lesbian in orientation. The spectrum of sexuality is large and the nature of gendered relationships is complex because there have been inequalities, including sexism and heterosexuality. Many gay men would like to conceive children just like men would like to. The science is not there yet.
Some of the problem of the fears of gendercide may go back to the way in which women have been dominated by men. In this sense, women may feel like victims or as Simone de Beauvoir, spoke as being 'the other..However, the reversal of gender dynamics is unlikely to help. In the post which you wrote to me you spoke of men being more difficult to sustain on the basis of size. However, historically, it has been the other way round with men oppressing women in terms of power. Women's reproductive ability has been used to oppress them and it would not make sense to simply reverse this. Men and women are both important, as the yin and the yang. But, it seems to me that your own argument is based on fear, with little evidence for gendercide as the main threat for the future of humanity.
,
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14994
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Gendercide - Inevitable
At this stage, it's still being baby girls being sent to the bottom of the Yangtze, not boys.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 11:24 pmIt's what I'd meant. The gendercide process would have been of girls in that instance. But now that food availability and energy waste are priorities, the work that's left favors machinery and females.Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 9:04 pmNot for manual labour. They favour boys per se. While the one-child policy was in force, infant girls were not being killed so as to gain a manual labourer. They were killed so the parents could have a son.
If you say so. I would say that each individual brings their own qualities to a society, regardless of gender. Most people don't judge quality by gender as you do, they consider the character and capabilities of the individualGregory A wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 11:24 pmWomen can and do have babies, men can't'. Making women more valuable than men as diversity is hardly needed anymore in a world already occupied by billions of people.Ultimately, males have been more valued in families because they can potentially have hundreds of children, while each woman can potentially give birth to far, far fewer offspring. That's a greater potential to spread genes and thus grow the strength of a family. Not so long ago in historical terms, Henry VIII killed wife after wife for failing to give him sons. At the time it was not known that the male has greater influence over the child's gender.
You have not parsed science fiction from science fact. These cloning experiments mean nothing as regard any future that's relevant to you or me. We are both going to be dust by the time anything dramatic happens to humanity due to cloning.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 11:24 pmIt is fanciful (being used as sperm donors) but not futuristic. Males have engineered their own obsolescence. Mechanization leaving the 'male' worker bordering on redundant (it is what I mean by auxiliary factors). Men don't want males eliminated but are playing a primary part in that happening.There is a fanciful futuristic notion that males will become obsolete, used purely as sperm donors. It's pure science fiction, like interstellar travel or androids that transcend the uncanny valley. It seems to me that many Americans have lost the ability to distinguish between reality and movies.
Science fiction gets it wrong unless that is females are depicted as being in charge in the future (a scenario too politically incorrect to portray now?). Science fact is what matters. One of those facts (an auxiliary factor), an event I've alluded to already if I remember, an incident occurring in Scotland on July 5, 1993, marking a milestone (in the gendercide process too), the birth of Dolly the sheep. The first-ever cloning of an animal using an adult somatic cell. This event technically making males superfluous from that day forward. And allowing for example at some time in the near future, lesbians to have (their own) children without any male involvement whatsoever.
I suspect that humanity will be too busy trying to forestall nuclear war, climate change, loss of biodiversity, desertification and clean water shortages to bother trying to destroy itself with unprecedented reckless use of cloning technology.
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm
Re: Gendercide - Inevitable
Last week? Gendercide was a projection I'd made about ten years back. Since then all potential intervening processes have not shown themselves. Gendercide is in effect inevetable. A process of Nature where the male actually plays a part in his own elimination. Where 'equality' is just a milestone, a midpoint in what is really a succession process. A supersession by the bearers of the 'X' chromosome.JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 25th, 2022, 3:46 pmGregory, I have read the post above as well as the one which you sent in reply to me. It seems to me that you are putting ideas of gender and transhumanist together in a rather haphazard way. I actually had a thread in transhumanism in the last week looking at the nature of what may be possible, although it may be that my own thread failed to link the topic with reproductive technology.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 11:24 pmIt's what I'd meant. The gendercide process would have been of girls in that instance. But now that food availability and energy waste are priorities, the work that's left favors machinery and females.
Women can and do have babies, men can't'. Making women more valuable than men as diversity is hardly needed anymore in a world already occupied by billions of people.Ultimately, males have been more valued in families because they can potentially have hundreds of children, while each woman can potentially give birth to far, far fewer offspring. That's a greater potential to spread genes and thus grow the strength of a family. Not so long ago in historical terms, Henry VIII killed wife after wife for failing to give him sons. At the time it was not known that the male has greater influence over the child's gender.
It is fanciful (being used as sperm donors) but not futuristic. Males have engineered their own obsolescence. Mechanization leaving the 'male' worker bordering on redundant (it is what I mean by auxiliary factors). Men don't want males eliminated but are playing a primary part in that happening.There is a fanciful futuristic notion that males will become obsolete, used purely as sperm donors. It's pure science fiction, like interstellar travel or androids that transcend the uncanny valley. It seems to me that many Americans have lost the ability to distinguish between reality and movies.
Science fiction gets it wrong unless that is females are depicted as being in charge in the future (a scenario too politically incorrect to portray now?). Science fact is what matters. One of those facts (an auxiliary factor), an event I've alluded to already if I remember, an incident occurring in Scotland on July 5, 1993, marking a milestone (in the gendercide process too), the birth of Dolly the sheep. The first-ever cloning of an animal using an adult somatic cell. This event technically making males superfluous from that day forward. And allowing for example at some time in the near future, lesbians to have (their own) children without any male involvement whatsoever.
You point to the possibility of lesbians conceiving and this is one possibility. However, not all women are likely to become lesbian in orientation. The spectrum of sexuality is large and the nature of gendered relationships is complex because there have been inequalities, including sexism and heterosexuality. Many gay men would like to conceive children just like men would like to. The science is not there yet.
With no males left heterosexuality becomes impossible all women homosexual by default. A situation made easier by the matriarch in the relationship being butch. A pseudo male in effect. The present cross-dressing of junior schoolgirls and the sexualization of all females combined with natural female closeness a process of (unwitting) homosexualization already underway. The spectrum is large but the ratios are small. The predominant group, the constantly under-fire heterosexual majority, the 50:1 outnumbered gay males, followed by the 100:1 outnumbered Lesbians. But these numbers too will of course mean nothing when males are eliminated.
And men having babies would be even more of an affront to women than is the position of a female mechanic an affront to men. That women should have gone through billions of painful, often agonizing, sometimes fatal, births just to be replaced by a male mother would be the ultimate show of disrespect. If this were to happen giving real reason for male-hate.
That "women have been dominated by men", "Women's reproductive ability has been used to oppress them", "men oppressing women in terms of power" are all political statements and would need to be substaniated first. And remaining a part of feminist doctrine until shown to be otherwise.Some of the problem of the fears of gendercide may go back to the way in which women have been dominated by men. In this sense, women may feel like victims or as Simone de Beauvoir, spoke as being 'the other..However, the reversal of gender dynamics is unlikely to help. In the post which you wrote to me you spoke of men being more difficult to sustain on the basis of size. However, historically, it has been the other way round with men oppressing women in terms of power. Women's reproductive ability has been used to oppress them and it would not make sense to simply reverse this. Men and women are both important, as the yin and the yang. But, it seems to me that your own argument is based on fear, with little evidence for gendercide as the main threat for the future of humanity.
Men are no longer important having literally designed and engineered the machinery that is now making them obsolete. Feminism with its 'equality' ,'liberation' & 'empowerment' ploys only. You can't be 'equal' and not be a potential replacement for example. Why it must happen is that our primal emotions make us side with those who only appear to be effected by a disparity. The facts are that feminists, like communists who dont represent workers at all, are not representations of regular women. But are instead academic types who have never really played any part in the advancement humanity whatever and offer no real alternatives for the majority of women. Not that women can be separated in society from men anyhow.
My only fear and is in one that does play a significant part in this process and is that as a conservative in an otherwise liberal-dominated environment I will be censored. To lose your right to free-speech is an horrific thing. That's when preventing political censorship would need to be the first step in stopping gendecide.
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm
Re: Gendercide - Inevitable
Sure. But the girl is not the actual target. It is the boy who is being targeted for his work potential. And why is it gendercide "baby girls sent to the bottom of the river" when otherwise it's a termination (fetuses being thrown in the trash) when the Left advocate for abortion?Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 25th, 2022, 5:17 pmGregory A wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 11:24 pmIt's what I'd meant. The gendercide process would have been of girls in that instance. But now that food availability and energy waste are priorities, the work that's left favors machinery and females.At this stage, it's still being baby girls being sent to the bottom of the Yangtze, not boys.
I am working with facts, but the significance of that has it appears been lost to my poor wordskills. so, cloning itself will play no real part in any of this, but it is instead the use of adult somatic cells that is relevant. Because as from that day (Dolly the Sheep) forward Lesbian couples could in practice actually have children without any direct male involvement.If you say so. I would say that each individual brings their own qualities to a society, regardless of gender. Most people don't judge quality by gender as you do, they consider the character and capabilities of the individualGregory A wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 11:24 pmWomen can and do have babies, men can't'. Making women more valuable than men as diversity is hardly needed anymore in a world already occupied by billions of people.Ultimately, males have been more valued in families because they can potentially have hundreds of children, while each woman can potentially give birth to far, far fewer offspring. That's a greater potential to spread genes and thus grow the strength of a family. Not so long ago in historical terms, Henry VIII killed wife after wife for failing to give him sons. At the time it was not known that the male has greater influence over the child's gender.
You have not parsed science fiction from science fact. These cloning experiments mean nothing as regard any future that's relevant to you or me. We are both going to be dust by the time anything dramatic happens to humanity due to cloning.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 11:24 pmIt is fanciful (being used as sperm donors) but not futuristic. Males have engineered their own obsolescence. Mechanization leaving the 'male' worker bordering on redundant (it is what I mean by auxiliary factors). Men don't want males eliminated but are playing a primary part in that happening.There is a fanciful futuristic notion that males will become obsolete, used purely as sperm donors. It's pure science fiction, like interstellar travel or androids that transcend the uncanny valley. It seems to me that many Americans have lost the ability to distinguish between reality and movies.
Science fiction gets it wrong unless that is females are depicted as being in charge in the future (a scenario too politically incorrect to portray now?). Science fact is what matters. One of those facts (an auxiliary factor), an event I've alluded to already if I remember, an incident occurring in Scotland on July 5, 1993, marking a milestone (in the gendercide process too), the birth of Dolly the sheep. The first-ever cloning of an animal using an adult somatic cell. This event technically making males superfluous from that day forward. And allowing for example at some time in the near future, lesbians to have (their own) children without any male involvement whatsoever.
It is early gender detection combined with the right to have an abortion that pre-empts the elimination of all males. Nothing whatever to do with cloning. Evolution impossible to compensate for the effect of a loss of an entire gender in that short time leading to a seriously deteriorating conditions. The resulting Feminist fascism unable to maintain political stability in any nation and those eventually turning on each other.I suspect that humanity will be too busy trying to forestall nuclear war, climate change, loss of biodiversity, desertification and clean water shortages to bother trying to destroy itself with unprecedented reckless use of cloning technology.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023