Poll: So, you're the last man (woman) on Earth, left with everyone of the opposite sex...
- Thread starter Paragon Fury
- Start date
I mean, I'd do my duty to humanity, but I'd probably be horribly depressed about 3.5 billion people being dead and the world, at best, being in a semi-apocalyptic state. My heart just wouldn't be in it.
Also, I'd stock up on STI medicine.
Also, I'd stock up on STI medicine.
Its situation where in one case one male and number of females, conceivably there could be some continuity to the species. The human species is 100% over if there is only one woman left and a bunch of men. Regardless of whether or not the woman is willing to be pregnant for the rest of her fertile life, she cannot produce enough off spring for the species to have enough genetic diversity to survive.
As a gay woman... well... I'm just as fucked as they are, and the species is already fucked. Not sure what I'd do.
As a gay woman... well... I'm just as fucked as they are, and the species is already fucked. Not sure what I'd do.
I believe that if these people want to play their boys sexual fantasy game, you should at least be allowed to play your destroy dickhead humanity game. It's just as fair and much less boring.Phasmal said:
At least a few guys here realize that, for our gender, the "all the women at my beck and call" scenario is pure fantasy, and the reality would be "spending the rest of my life imprisoned in a hospital as my seed is impersonally harvested".
And I dunno that one woman could even hope to make a difference in saving the species, as one child every nine months over the course of her reproductive lifetime (let's assume she starts at 20 and hits menopause at 40) only tallies up to twenty-seven kids, barring miscarriage or other complications. (Using in-vitro fertilization to implant multiple embryos is its own group of risks, and there's simply no way she could realistically bear enough children for any sort of genetic diversity without risking damage to herself.)
And I dunno that one woman could even hope to make a difference in saving the species, as one child every nine months over the course of her reproductive lifetime (let's assume she starts at 20 and hits menopause at 40) only tallies up to twenty-seven kids, barring miscarriage or other complications. (Using in-vitro fertilization to implant multiple embryos is its own group of risks, and there's simply no way she could realistically bear enough children for any sort of genetic diversity without risking damage to herself.)
Don't worry, we don't actually need your body intact, only the egg cells. In fact, assuming IVF retains its current viability and success rate, it's actually easier to repopulate from many males and a single female than it is from a single male and many females. (Though, genetic diversity will be a problem either way.) Unlike males, who begin sperm production with puberty, we don't need to wait for newly-sired females to mature. Simply wait until the fetus germinates and harvest her eggs, rinse, repeat. With careful planning and disposal of excesses, we could rebuild a balanced generation of viable, fertile fetuses within a few years. No pregnancy required.Phasmal said:
Of course, what happens in the meantime depends on who finds you first. I do not envy that predicament.
On the other hand, as a male, the most effective method of repopulation is, sadly, the frequent "milking". No one-time surgery for me, and absolutely no "death by snu snu", only conversion into a biological sperm-factory for all the females who don't want to wait for "manual" genetic sperm production. And you know what? fuck that. People treat me badly enough when all they want from me is directions. I would probably try to take advantage of the situation as long as I could stay in hiding (which, let's be honest, won't be long; women are wily), but I'd rather die and doom all of you to months of waiting before you can get pregnant than live like that.
Well, I mean, to some extent that would probably happen. Some amount of women would be willing to complete for the scarce partners, some, probably more like most, would likely decide "fuck it" and not try, which means the competition goes down, blah blah blah.Paragon Fury said:
Basically, how important are men to women anyway? Changing the ratio of men to women destroys so much of the basic assumptions on which our gender dynamics are built, traditions and societal obligations mostly will not survive the transition. So there are only 3 things a man can uniquely provide at first glance: sex, impregnation, and possibly romance/companionship. Anyone who wants a male partner after the manpocalypse is looking for some combination of those.
In a world like our own filled to the brim with porn and sexy toys, sex is not going to be a huge motivating factor. We can satisfy ourselves in other ways. Some might seek it out occasionally as a novelty, but most wont want to deal with the efforts that they would have to go to to be chosen as some guy's permanent partner. Even if we assume only 2 out of every 10 women are actually interested in such a partnership that means women have to be roughly twice as desirable to get the same quality of partnership. That is a situation with a massively diminishing return on investment. So sex is a motivator, but not a terribly strong one. We are very quickly going to cap out on how far women are willing to go for that.
Second, we have impregnation. Artificial insemination seems like the obvious solution here. Of course, men might not want to donate sperm, but there are ways around that. Such as appealing to greed. A guy might be able to give a sperm sample to a fertility clinic for a good amount of money, and women seeking to have a child might pay some money to be impregnated. A single sperm sample can impregnate several women. I mentioned the 10 to 1 rule in my last post, it is conceivable that this could be achieved with a single sperm sample.
Last we have romance and companionship. Frankly, you can get companionship from a gender you are not sexually attracted to and like sex there exist plenty of tools to get romance even without a partner of any sort. Romance novels, for example. You would likely see a large rise in non sexual unions among women. I mean, really, you can get almost everything from a really good friend that you can get from a sexual partner, to some degree even romance.
Essentially, in practical terms and divorced of tradition and our current societal values, women can replace men with a combination of porn, sex toys, artificial insemination, romance fiction, and female companionship. We don't need any space age shit, this is all current technology. We could have done this back in the 70's and our ability to replace men is only getting better as time goes on. It's not perfect yet, but it gets the job done. And a world like this would make creating higher quality replacements a real industry. How long before we develop perfect or even superior replacements in one or more of these fields? Cloning with genetic mixing, for example, would eliminate the need for men to impregnate women. Or sex bots. All we need to do is fool our animal brains into being satisfied. That isn't very hard, and you would easily be able to build a "man" to your specification. We are getting really damn close to both anyway and we don't even need them! We are already developing these technologies largely for the hell of it.
I really don't think the competition for men will be as fierce as you or the writer of that paper would like to imagine.
Now, there would be one more motivating factor. Status symbols. Men are rare, that makes them valuable. Having a man might be seen as a status symbol, especially if he is exclusively yours. You might see a sharp rise in trophy husbands among the rich and social elite.
The question is where does the equilibrium end up at? You are almost certainly going to get a situation where the men get to choose from more desirable partners than in the current environment, whatever "desirable" means to that particular man. You will also likely get to sleep around a bit without any real social judgement.
But that all is very different from political power. And I don't mean just who gets to be president or something, I mean on every level of society. Women will become the default just by virtue of outnumbering men 9 to 1. Everything shifts to the default assumption of appealing to women, men are an after thought. Going forward the vast majority of everything is created by women and for women. Every academic field of every academic study is female dominated. Every job of every type, from soldiers to athletes to politicians, are female dominated. Everywhere in the world. And women get 9 out of every 10 votes, or at least make up 9/10ths of the voice of the people. Men become a special interest group. I honestly cannot fathom how this would not result in a massive political shift of power away from men towards women.
It's taken me years to get over my paranoid feelings that women are just waiting for a method of reproduction that doesn't require a man and a more convincing fake penis, and then at the first opportune they'll kill all us males without an regret. Years, damn it. And now its back.ThatOtherGirl said:
Thanks a ton.
DAAAAAAAAMN YOU P.F.!!!!!!!! I JUST got through reading that laborious mountain of piss-drivel and was going to do a thread on it. Mostly griping about how garbage it is and how it, and the harem genre as a whole, could've been somewhat more entertaining... if it didn't hit every plothole and anime trope like a damn speed bump built on top of land mines, but I digress.
I assume if the "gender apocalypse" did happen I probably wouldn't even notice. I'd assume (or I'd hope rather) that some type of tyrannical matriarchy did spring up from the ashes of the old world and men were de-humanized, enslaved, and farmed for their sperm just like you'd see happen to women in most porn art. I'd only like for this to happen just so it'd proved that women-dominated governments could be just as evil as those led by men.
Unless, and it's far more likely, that the virus not only targeted men, but also women who weren't all highly attractive, weak-willed sacks of flesh, and they if had two brain cells to rub together they could've figured you could just genetically engineer a cure or something rather than pin all your hopes on some whiny little shit, that must go on a dangerous quest to find his girlfriend WHO'S PROBABLY EITHER DEAD OR THE MAIN VILLAIN RUNNING THIS SHITHOLE!
I assume if the "gender apocalypse" did happen I probably wouldn't even notice. I'd assume (or I'd hope rather) that some type of tyrannical matriarchy did spring up from the ashes of the old world and men were de-humanized, enslaved, and farmed for their sperm just like you'd see happen to women in most porn art. I'd only like for this to happen just so it'd proved that women-dominated governments could be just as evil as those led by men.
I don't know that whole explanation in the book kinda sounded demeaning and condescending as hell (I mean it's japan, so it's not that farfetched), like there aren't just female engineers, laborers, technicians, leaders, and scientists already around that can lead them to a new tommorrow, they gotta teach them like parents to children. Yeah, men are more commonly employed in these fields but it's not like if women took over everything would just break down and turn to shit.Paragon Fury said:
Unless, and it's far more likely, that the virus not only targeted men, but also women who weren't all highly attractive, weak-willed sacks of flesh, and they if had two brain cells to rub together they could've figured you could just genetically engineer a cure or something rather than pin all your hopes on some whiny little shit, that must go on a dangerous quest to find his girlfriend WHO'S PROBABLY EITHER DEAD OR THE MAIN VILLAIN RUNNING THIS SHITHOLE!
I was thinking that for the average male on the escapist, this fate would be beyond cruel and unlikely considering we can repopulate the earth humanely. If we are going to kidnap, mutilate, and rape this guy over and over, or whatever you want to call it, it would be an equivalent amount of suffering, so we can shave a generation off or two... Yeah, I think humanity has lost its mind.LifeCharacter said:
Even if our guy was unreasonable, like say he wanted a shark fin and whale sandwich smorgasbord every week, then the women would just laugh at him and say it's impossible. If this guy wanted to have sex with lots of women, which is perfectly healthy and not at all unreasonable with so many women around, then you can collect everything in a condom, or arrange things so the chance of pregnancy was at the highest.
However, if it were like you said, where our guy was abusive and malevolent, or likely to commit suicide, the best course of action would be to put him in a medically induced coma so we don't have to cut off his limbs and make him experience everything, and electrostimulate orgasm, not with a cattle prod of course.
And to squeeze every last drop strapped in makes no sense when all you really have to do is masturbate in a cup at morning and at night. Besides, after you stop being fertile or pretty soon after, you would have like a million people with your dna running around.
Hacking off some poor bastards limb's never solved anything.LifeCharacter said:
Well... ok, maybe it solved a drug and corporate greed fueled crime wave in Detroit. But we should never base our actions on what works in Detroit - It is a bad place.
How so? Granted, having a limited genetic diversity is a bad thing, but I don't see how would that prevent the species from limping by and eventually becoming numerous again?The Material Sheep said:
It's a matter of genetic diversity.FirstNameLastName said:
Consider if every person has a number of recessive genetic traits that would be lethal, but nearly all of them are completely unique to that individual. The mother would pass roughly half of these genetic failure states to each of her children, and crossing her children with each other would mean a 1 in 4 chance of every one of those traits manifesting in each potential offspring - with 10 such traits, that would give us a roughly 5% offspring viability rate for the next generation, which is probably a very generous estimate. The problem only compounds from there, as you have to start considering the genetic failures of each of the fathers and the genetic failures generated by random mutation in each of the children. Over the course of generations the genetic failures build up until no offspring are viable.
But it may be possible to create a viable species through an extremely strict breeding program from a single mother using stored genetic material. One of our basic assumptions here is we have basically infinite male genetic material, far more than we could ever use. They key would be to store as much of that material as possible and never allow interbreeding between children of the one mother for as long as possible. With every generation less and less of the genetic makeup of each individual is the mothers. Say you managed to make it even 4 generations without any inbreeding, which would be easily possible if sperm storage was effective. This brings the percent of mother DNA in each individual down from 1/2 to 1/16, or a 1/32 chance of each genetic failure being manifest in the population, giving us a roughly 70% viable offspring rating (with our simple assumption of 10 genetic failures). And 4 generations would be simple, assuming our storage is good enough. We could do a lot better than that
Now that is extremely simplified to the point of almost being untrue, but you get the main point of it. Lack of genetic diversity leads to a non viable species over the course of a few generations. A strict breeding and artificial insemination program might be able to combat that.
If the last man alive was that insane, it would be very unfortunate, almost as unfortunate as there being no survivors of a gender. I think threatening to do the inhumane option would make most men want to regulate their sick fantasies, but if the last man is going to kill himself then I guess there is no choice, as long as he isn't conscious while being restrained and milked.LifeCharacter said:
I'm not a saint, I would truly like detestable people, fictional or real, to suffer the amount that they have caused, or at least until I'm satisfied. But I guess I am also a fan of some sort of utilitarianism, where alleviating suffering is given special interest, like giving a poor person a hundred dollars is more fruitful than giving it to a rich person. I think the right thing to do, would be to have our guy be put in a coma so he doesn't hurt anyone else and doesn't suffer himself, which is the option that minimalizes suffering for everybody. So, if the milking ending was inevitable, the best thing to do would be to chose one million happy people, and one unconcious person, rather than one million slightly happier people, and one person that is in a living hell.