Poll: So, you're the last man (woman) on Earth, left with everyone of the opposite sex...

[Madner Kami]

I think humanity is well beyond the point, where physical intercourse is the necessary thing for procreation. I'll happily donate a load of potential new humans per day, especially if I get manual help though.

 

[Lightknight]

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.

Absolutely, it just needs to be accepted that this action is purely selfish and non-heroic. It is just a game after all. In real life the last man or woman would be drugged up, imprisoned and kept on watch if they were not on board with the scenario.

Oh, did I make it sound like not being willing to sacrifice oneself for the entire human race is selfish? Are... are you trying to make me feel feelings about pointing that fact out? Yes, if there's something you can do to save the entirety of the human race and you decide not to because you enjoy your life so much in other ways then it is a selfish action or inaction.

Do you believe that any single person's life is more valuable than the continuation of all human life?

Don't get me wrong, we're not debating pro-choice or women's rights here. We're debating having the ability to save an entire species of sentient beings and not doing so. I mean, I guess you could also just agree to octomom it one time and punt the problem down the field at the expense of nine months of your life. Would even that be agreeable to you?

No, me and my selfish bajingo are going to destroy humanity.
Like I said, if it got to the point where it were literally up to me, that's already too late. And besides, as much as you're hand-waving it, I'd literally rather die than be used as an incubator by anyone. I dunno, call it a personal dealbreaker.

Sorry that in this incredibly-impossible dystopian fantasy I don't meet your standards of morality, but- fuck it.
Death first.

Eh, I think you're taking my discussion with you a little too combatively. If you realize that the choice to refuse is an incredibly selfish choice on the scale of the entire species then that's still just your choice regardless of the moralistic attachments.

I'm not mad or whatever if that's how my posts come off. I am stating that in this scenario a refusal to reproduce even one time would be deciding to put your needs above the entirety of the human race.

Most people would have a problem with that moralistic decision given the gravitas of it. But I'm not saying it isn't your prerogative to make that decision. I mean, of course you'd immediately be imprisoned and forced to do it (were you capable of reproducing), but people are allowed to have lines they will not cross.

I could imagine a scenario where a transman that still has viable eggs and uterine lining is suddenly called upon to perform this task. Boy would that get horrible for them fast.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Also,

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.

Thanks a ton.

Glad I could help!

+1 AccursedTheory. Though considering your comment included still using Insemination from harvested sperm to achieve reproduction, we aren't -entirely- invalid, are we? Both sides at least still need the other's sex-cells at the moment, don't they? It should be fair to say that by the time we reach a point scientifically where girls can have children without men at all involved, there should be about as much advancement to allow guys to do similar, right? I wouldn't mind a future in which physical gender outright becomes meaningless for both sides (because it's nothing more than an annoying barrier on average, a simple detail at best, and a stupid excuse to cause horrible problems at worse), but hopefully neither side is able to make the other 100% irrelevant, can they?

I only ask because I've had nightmares before about being gunned down for being a worthless man, and this post makes me sweat a little. T_T

Well, the ability to clone sex cells from both genders is probably not that far off. I would be surprised if we don't figure that out in our life time.

If it makes you feel better, women are nearly as replaceable to men. We can actually demonstrate this with Paragon Fury himself, who has said in the past that he has no girlfriend, never expects to have one, and is unwilling to change to increase his prospects. He has replaced women in his life to his satisfaction. Which is why I find it funny when men imagine they are irreplaceable to women. Like in this paper paragon mentioned. The basic assumption there is that women need men and cannot replace them. We observe people successfully replacing the opposite sex all the time, and this is in a partner rich environment. At best men (and women) are a luxury good with imperfect replacements (that is in terms of economics).

The only "advantage" women have in this sense is that women carry children to term. Even if we are getting close to cloning tech, we still need a woman to carry the baby. Once we figure that one out that advantage is gone, and all the same things I said about women not needing men apply in the other direction.

 

[FillerDmon]

Absolutely, it just needs to be accepted that this action is purely selfish and non-heroic. It is just a game after all. In real life the last man or woman would be drugged up, imprisoned and kept on watch if they were not on board with the scenario.

No, me and my selfish bajingo are going to destroy humanity.
Like I said, if it got to the point where it were literally up to me, that's already too late. And besides, as much as you're hand-waving it, I'd literally rather die than be used as an incubator by anyone. I dunno, call it a personal dealbreaker.

Sorry that in this incredibly-impossible dystopian fantasy I don't meet your standards of morality, but- fuck it.
Death first.

Eh, I think you're taking my discussion with you a little too combatively. If you realize that the choice to refuse is an incredibly selfish choice on the scale of the entire species then that's still just your choice regardless of the moralistic attachments.

I'm not mad or whatever if that's how my posts come off. I am stating that in this scenario a refusal to reproduce even one time would be deciding to put your needs above the entirety of the human race.

Most people would have a problem with that moralistic decision given the gravitas of it. But I'm not saying it isn't your prerogative to make that decision. I mean, of course you'd immediately be imprisoned and forced to do it (were you capable of reproducing), but people are allowed to have lines they will not cross.

I could imagine a scenario where a transman that still has viable eggs and uterine lining is suddenly called upon to perform this task. Boy would that get horrible for them fast.

I think the problem (with this specific conversation) is that you keep going back and forth on ground that's firmly established on both sides. You say it's a woman's duty in this scenario to be a baby factory, and Phasmal would sooner figuratively fuck humanity than literally fuck humanity. Probably not going to come a middle ground here, and you're just otherwise repeating yourself as if to win a debate or argument, asking each time and changing it trying to get a different response (or at least that's what I got out of your posts).

Not that I'm saying you are, and correct me if I'm wrong. Just saying there ain't much to really add in this diatribe.

Well, the ability to clone sex cells from both genders is probably not that far off. I would be surprised if we don't figure that out in our life time.

If it makes you feel better, women are nearly as replaceable to men. We can actually demonstrate this with Paragon Fury himself, who has said in the past that he has no girlfriend, never expects to have one, and is unwilling to change to increase his prospects. He has replaced women in his life to his satisfaction. Which is why I find it funny when men imagine they are irreplaceable to women. Like in this paper paragon mentioned. The basic assumption there is that women need men and cannot replace them. We observe people successfully replacing the opposite sex all the time, and this is in a partner rich environment. At best men (and women) are a luxury good with imperfect replacements (that is in terms of economics).

The only "advantage" women have in this sense is that women carry children to term. Even if we are getting close to cloning tech, we still need a woman to carry the baby. Once we figure that one out that advantage is gone, and all the same things I said about women not needing men apply in the other direction.

That's what I'd naively hoped. Both sides still physically need the other for a little longer, so no "kill the other gender entirely" super-villain acts yet. I can rest easy for a bit.

Though I wonder who/what the lives of the "they absolutely couldn't replace us" men are like, because holy shit is that a far fucking flung cry from reality. As male dominated as history and society has been, a female uprising is probably karmic-ally deserved at this point, and even now it's a very competitive world in terms of gender, assuming one even chooses to care about such things or decides they even want a partner at all.

... am I a feminist? o.o

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

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.

I'm still rather skeptical here. After reading a whole heap of articles there seems to be no clear consensus on whether or not two people would be able to repopulate the species (assuming that whatever wiped out the rest of the people isn't still a problem, and they were able to find a city they could scavenge from), but the situation being discussed here is whether or not one woman and some indeterminate number of men would be able to do so. If there are many men then there wouldn't be any need for inbreeding for quite some time. Sooner or later there will of course have to be breeding between pairs sharing some kind of relation, but with even a small population this could be diminished enough to not cause extinction. Cause problems? Sure, they'll certainly have fucked up genetics, but not enough to prevent them from surviving. Remember, we're not talking about a favorable outcome, only whether or not our species would be able to limp by and eventually become numerous again.
It's also important to remember that a lot of the calculations about minimum viable populations and such are based around random probability, which doesn't really apply as easily to humans. Humans are far more aware of extinction, our species as a wholeAs apathetic as our species seems about each other, and as cynical as I am about my fellow humans, I believe people will be more cooperative when there are only a handful of us left to carry on our species., and the actual metrics of inbreeding, and so any calculation based on humans in such a situation essentially flipping a coin to decide who to fuck don't really have much validity. Humans can plan out such matters into the future, rather than leaving it up to instinct.

Well that is why I put in the disclaimer that the explanation I gave was so over simple that it is almost untrue. It only gives you the vaguest shape of the problem. It is actually much more complex than that. The extinction event might not occur for a thousand years, for example, and could be triggered by all sorts of things. What if, for example, that mother had a dominant gene that means her immune system is extremely weak to a particular type of attack? Right now it might not matter, but down the line some super virus evolves and wipes out nearly the entire human race. You would also likely see a massive increase in the amount of genetic disorders. And we never really recover, even after we become numerous. We never get more genetic depth, the best we could do it weed out the genetic flaws.

And I also noted that with an aggressive breeding program it would almost certainly be possible to repopulate the species from a single mother. No where near ideal, but almost certainly possible.

But recovering from just two people seems extremely unlikely. I mean, we have seen what happens when people interbreed to that level, and that is why incest is taboo and illegal. It might be possible, but even with an aggressive breeding program it would be very suspect.

Of course, all of this is largely speculation.

 

[happyninja42]

What would I do? Try in vain to repopulate the species, even though the lack of genetic diversity would pretty much guarantee failure on that front. Unless there was a lot of stored up sperm from other men to help with the gene pool. I'd feel bad for my children, in that they would likely have to sleep with any of the still fertile women after they reached productive age, again, just to try and spread out the diversity. But, with what little I know of genetic reproduction, it would be pretty hopeless.

 

[scorn the biomage]

I since I have I'm a man with a desire to see humanity go extinct I would remain chaste to ensure that.
since Op left out the existence of sperm banks so I would simply seek these place out and cut power to them if where the last man left.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I since I have I'm a man with a desire to see humanity go extinct I would remain chaste to ensure that.
since Op left out the existence of sperm banks so I would simply seek these place out and cut power to them if where the last man left.

Isn't it great that they do not need the opposite sex to fertilize eggs now since they can fertilize them entirely with a woman's cells? This ensures that we have advanced to a point that we could repopulate the earth without needing any of those sperm banks at all.
Guess you missed the links in my post on the first page..
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.939052-Poll-So-youre-the-last-man-woman-on-Earth-left-with-everyone-of-the-opposite-sex#23674107

 

[the December King]

SHEESH You guyzz.. Not to rain on your "Every woman in the world wants to rape my balls fantasy.." But you do not necessarily have to have males to fertilize eggs.


http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/babies-from-bone-marrow
http://www.gizmag.com/stem-cell-skin-cells-embryos/36221/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1431489.stm

Jeez, it looks like they're getting close to not needing either sex to produce viable embryos...

 

[FillerDmon]

Isn't it great that they do not need the opposite sex to fertilize eggs now since they can fertilize them entirely with a woman's cells? This ensures that we have advanced to a point that we could repopulate the earth without needing any of those sperm banks at all.
Guess you missed the links in my post on the first page..
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.939052-Poll-So-youre-the-last-man-woman-on-Earth-left-with-everyone-of-the-opposite-sex#23674107

Your first link says it still uses male bone marrow, the 2nd link is still in the research phase, and the 3rd, in addition to still being in the experimentation phase, notes potential problems dividing cells in that regard.

So I don't think they'd dump out all of the sticky white stuff yet. Probably use it as fuel for more research if anything. Once they start getting results, mind...

Jeez, it looks like they're getting close to not needing either sex to produce viable embryos...

Yeah, it doesn't seem to be entirely exclusive to just eliminating the male part either, these studies.

Better that than one or the other invalidating the opposite. Granted, where men would be able to carry the developing baby would still be an issue for a bit...

 

[veloper]

SHEESH You guyzz.. Not to rain on your "Every woman in the world wants to rape my balls fantasy.." But you do not necessarily have to have males to fertilize eggs.


http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/babies-from-bone-marrow
http://www.gizmag.com/stem-cell-skin-cells-embryos/36221/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1431489.stm

Jeez, it looks like they're getting close to not needing either sex to produce viable embryos...

Brave New World!!

...only in the OP's game there's no sperm banks, so presumably no fancy gene-baby labs either.
Maybe fundie reli's put an end that stuff in his scenario, or maybe the scientists just didn't get some important details right, or whatever. Not all apocalypse fiction is also sci-fi.

 

[the December King]

Isn't it great that they do not need the opposite sex to fertilize eggs now since they can fertilize them entirely with a woman's cells? This ensures that we have advanced to a point that we could repopulate the earth without needing any of those sperm banks at all.
Guess you missed the links in my post on the first page..
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.939052-Poll-So-youre-the-last-man-woman-on-Earth-left-with-everyone-of-the-opposite-sex#23674107

Your first link says it still uses male bone marrow, the 2nd link is still in the research phase, and the 3rd, in addition to still being in the experimentation phase, notes potential problems dividing cells in that regard.

So I don't think they'd dump out all of the sticky white stuff yet. Probably use it as fuel for more research if anything. Once they start getting results, mind...

Jeez, it looks like they're getting close to not needing either sex to produce viable embryos...

Yeah, it doesn't seem to be entirely exclusive to just eliminating the male part either, these studies.

Better that than one or the other invalidating the opposite. Granted, where men would be able to carry the developing baby would still be an issue for a bit...

That would be bloody fascinating, pregnant human males. But I suspect there's still some way to go to get an artificial womb functional, let alone a sex-swapped womb for males.

 

[scorn the biomage]

Snip

Well then gotta convince the women that human extinction is a good thing.

 

[springheeljack]

So the way I think about it now that there are so many technological ways of getting a woman pregnant without a mans sperm I probably wouldn't need to be used as a baby machine after all. I could instead attempt to placate all of the horny heterosexual women in need of sex. It something of a noble calling if you think about it that way.

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

Well, in this scenario, it's quite clear that the last man on earth would be surrounded by gorgeous women fighting for his Lvl 8 Penis of the Infinite.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

So the way I think about it now that there are so many technological ways of getting a woman pregnant without a mans sperm I probably wouldn't need to be used as a baby machine after all. I could instead attempt to placate all of the horny heterosexual women in need of sex. It something of a noble calling if you think about it that way.

God speed your glorious bastard.

 

[Lightknight]

Absolutely, it just needs to be accepted that this action is purely selfish and non-heroic. It is just a game after all. In real life the last man or woman would be drugged up, imprisoned and kept on watch if they were not on board with the scenario.

No, me and my selfish bajingo are going to destroy humanity.
Like I said, if it got to the point where it were literally up to me, that's already too late. And besides, as much as you're hand-waving it, I'd literally rather die than be used as an incubator by anyone. I dunno, call it a personal dealbreaker.

Sorry that in this incredibly-impossible dystopian fantasy I don't meet your standards of morality, but- fuck it.
Death first.

Eh, I think you're taking my discussion with you a little too combatively. If you realize that the choice to refuse is an incredibly selfish choice on the scale of the entire species then that's still just your choice regardless of the moralistic attachments.

I'm not mad or whatever if that's how my posts come off. I am stating that in this scenario a refusal to reproduce even one time would be deciding to put your needs above the entirety of the human race.

Most people would have a problem with that moralistic decision given the gravitas of it. But I'm not saying it isn't your prerogative to make that decision. I mean, of course you'd immediately be imprisoned and forced to do it (were you capable of reproducing), but people are allowed to have lines they will not cross.

I could imagine a scenario where a transman that still has viable eggs and uterine lining is suddenly called upon to perform this task. Boy would that get horrible for them fast.

I think the problem (with this specific conversation) is that you keep going back and forth on ground that's firmly established on both sides. You say it's a woman's duty in this scenario to be a baby factory, and Phasmal would sooner figuratively fuck humanity than literally fuck humanity. Probably not going to come a middle ground here, and you're just otherwise repeating yourself as if to win a debate or argument, asking each time and changing it trying to get a different response (or at least that's what I got out of your posts).

Not that I'm saying you are, and correct me if I'm wrong. Just saying there ain't much to really add in this diatribe.

I'm just emphasizing that being unwilling to put your needs over the entire species is selfish. Phasmal seems to have accepted that as correct so we now appear to be in agreement. An action being selfish doesn't make an action wrong. It's just that in your own personal evaluation your wants/needs are more important that others. Others may disagree, but the difference then is of perspective and sometimes moral ambiguity. It's just an interesting topic to discuss and phasmal is usually good for an interesting and informative discussion, particularly on philosophical subjects. I wasn't trying to reiterate out of tedium but was trying to draw out a conversation which Phasmal obliged well enough.

 

[Lightknight]

What would I do? Try in vain to repopulate the species, even though the lack of genetic diversity would pretty much guarantee failure on that front. Unless there was a lot of stored up sperm from other men to help with the gene pool. I'd feel bad for my children, in that they would likely have to sleep with any of the still fertile women after they reached productive age, again, just to try and spread out the diversity. But, with what little I know of genetic reproduction, it would be pretty hopeless.

Hypothetically, even if only two people remained and they were siblings (ugh), reproduction could be successful if they had a LOT of kids and those kids had a LOT of kids too. The effects of inbreeding aren't one to one like I used to think. It's definitely a risk that close but not so much.

The hardest part is if it's a woman that is the only one left. Men could reproduce with a huge genetic diversity of women and produce tens of thousands of offspring. The male offspring could then reproduce with a variety of women at a young age and humanity would easily find a way. But one woman would need to produce a lot of girls who themselves would have to produce a lot of girls in the time that the male population is still fertile. It'd be a real bottleneck in this scenario. The fortunate part is that the males would also be fertile for a few decades longer than females.

In any event, both of those scenarios are better than just two people being the last. The name of that game is as many children as possible for the next several centuries.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Absolutely, it just needs to be accepted that this action is purely selfish and non-heroic. It is just a game after all. In real life the last man or woman would be drugged up, imprisoned and kept on watch if they were not on board with the scenario.

No, me and my selfish bajingo are going to destroy humanity.
Like I said, if it got to the point where it were literally up to me, that's already too late. And besides, as much as you're hand-waving it, I'd literally rather die than be used as an incubator by anyone. I dunno, call it a personal dealbreaker.

Sorry that in this incredibly-impossible dystopian fantasy I don't meet your standards of morality, but- fuck it.
Death first.

Eh, I think you're taking my discussion with you a little too combatively. If you realize that the choice to refuse is an incredibly selfish choice on the scale of the entire species then that's still just your choice regardless of the moralistic attachments.

I'm not mad or whatever if that's how my posts come off. I am stating that in this scenario a refusal to reproduce even one time would be deciding to put your needs above the entirety of the human race.

Most people would have a problem with that moralistic decision given the gravitas of it. But I'm not saying it isn't your prerogative to make that decision. I mean, of course you'd immediately be imprisoned and forced to do it (were you capable of reproducing), but people are allowed to have lines they will not cross.

I could imagine a scenario where a transman that still has viable eggs and uterine lining is suddenly called upon to perform this task. Boy would that get horrible for them fast.

I think the problem (with this specific conversation) is that you keep going back and forth on ground that's firmly established on both sides. You say it's a woman's duty in this scenario to be a baby factory, and Phasmal would sooner figuratively fuck humanity than literally fuck humanity. Probably not going to come a middle ground here, and you're just otherwise repeating yourself as if to win a debate or argument, asking each time and changing it trying to get a different response (or at least that's what I got out of your posts).

Not that I'm saying you are, and correct me if I'm wrong. Just saying there ain't much to really add in this diatribe.

I'm just emphasizing that being unwilling to put your needs over the entire species is selfish. Phasmal seems to have accepted that as correct so we now appear to be in agreement. An action being selfish doesn't make an action wrong. It's just that in your own personal evaluation your wants/needs are more important that others. Others may disagree, but the difference then is of perspective and sometimes moral ambiguity. It's just an interesting topic to discuss and phasmal is usually good for an interesting and informative discussion, particularly on philosophical subjects. I wasn't trying to reiterate out of tedium but was trying to draw out a conversation which Phasmal obliged well enough.

That's nonsense. The species has no 'needs'. You are treating the species like an actual being, it's not. The species doesn't need to survive, doesn't have a will, and has no right to continue. *You* want it to. There's no problem with humanity going extinct in this manner.

The only beings with rights are individuals, not the species as a whole. If it goes extinct that really doesn't matter.

What is selfish is putting your silly values above the rights of individuals.

 

[Lightknight]

Absolutely, it just needs to be accepted that this action is purely selfish and non-heroic. It is just a game after all. In real life the last man or woman would be drugged up, imprisoned and kept on watch if they were not on board with the scenario.

No, me and my selfish bajingo are going to destroy humanity.
Like I said, if it got to the point where it were literally up to me, that's already too late. And besides, as much as you're hand-waving it, I'd literally rather die than be used as an incubator by anyone. I dunno, call it a personal dealbreaker.

Sorry that in this incredibly-impossible dystopian fantasy I don't meet your standards of morality, but- fuck it.
Death first.

Eh, I think you're taking my discussion with you a little too combatively. If you realize that the choice to refuse is an incredibly selfish choice on the scale of the entire species then that's still just your choice regardless of the moralistic attachments.

I'm not mad or whatever if that's how my posts come off. I am stating that in this scenario a refusal to reproduce even one time would be deciding to put your needs above the entirety of the human race.

Most people would have a problem with that moralistic decision given the gravitas of it. But I'm not saying it isn't your prerogative to make that decision. I mean, of course you'd immediately be imprisoned and forced to do it (were you capable of reproducing), but people are allowed to have lines they will not cross.

I could imagine a scenario where a transman that still has viable eggs and uterine lining is suddenly called upon to perform this task. Boy would that get horrible for them fast.

I think the problem (with this specific conversation) is that you keep going back and forth on ground that's firmly established on both sides. You say it's a woman's duty in this scenario to be a baby factory, and Phasmal would sooner figuratively fuck humanity than literally fuck humanity. Probably not going to come a middle ground here, and you're just otherwise repeating yourself as if to win a debate or argument, asking each time and changing it trying to get a different response (or at least that's what I got out of your posts).

Not that I'm saying you are, and correct me if I'm wrong. Just saying there ain't much to really add in this diatribe.

I'm just emphasizing that being unwilling to put your needs over the entire species is selfish. Phasmal seems to have accepted that as correct so we now appear to be in agreement. An action being selfish doesn't make an action wrong. It's just that in your own personal evaluation your wants/needs are more important that others. Others may disagree, but the difference then is of perspective and sometimes moral ambiguity. It's just an interesting topic to discuss and phasmal is usually good for an interesting and informative discussion, particularly on philosophical subjects. I wasn't trying to reiterate out of tedium but was trying to draw out a conversation which Phasmal obliged well enough.

That's nonsense. The species has no 'needs'. You are treating the species like an actual being, it's not. The species doesn't need to survive, doesn't have a will, and has no right to continue. *You* want it to. There's no problem with humanity going extinct in this manner.

The only beings with rights are individuals, not the species as a whole. If it goes extinct that really doesn't matter.

What is selfish is putting your silly values above the rights of individuals.

Ah, cool. So you're anti-animal preservation too? You're also cool with dismissing anything society wants as long as it doesn't suit your desires?

(That's meant to be more Socratic questioning than dick-response. Sorry if my tone is indistinguishable from dickishness)