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

[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)

 

[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.

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)

What a silly question.

Do you think the only reason that people could be for supporting animal preservation is because they think the species has a right to survive?

Furthermore, did you even bother to consider the comparative costs involved? Do you somehow imagine someone's rights are being trampled to preserve animal species or do you think that money is comparable to an individual's rights?

Animal preservation is fine. So is preserving humanity. So is eating. And walking. But amazingly there's a limit to the costs that allow these, who'd have thought?

 

[FillerDmon]

Yo, did it just get hot in here?

If you're capable of recognizing that you sounded dickish, why didn't you just alter what you said instead of sounding dikish, then offering that "heartfelt" qualifier? Is this some kind of meta-dickishness, or even a meta-commentary on dickishness?

Or do you just not see it?

Honestly, depending on the wording used and intended in the response, it's hard to make what should be a genuine question not come off as sarcastic and intentionally biting when it's meant to be a debate based question. I've had comments that were meant to be taken at face value that sound -easily- like I'm trying to be a ***** even when I absolutely meant the comment in normal font. The internet's weird like that.

 

[The White Hunter]

But I like both and one without the other is so bland...

 

[Lightknight]

Yo, did it just get hot in here?

If you're capable of recognizing that you sounded dickish, why didn't you just alter what you said instead of sounding dikish, then offering that "heartfelt" qualifier? Is this some kind of meta-dickishness, or even a meta-commentary on dickishness?

Or do you just not see it?

Honestly, depending on the wording used and intended in the response, it's hard to make what should be a genuine question not come off as sarcastic and intentionally biting when it's meant to be a debate based question. I've had comments that were meant to be taken at face value that sound -easily- like I'm trying to be a ***** even when I absolutely meant the comment in normal font. The internet's weird like that.

Yeah, I wanted to make the point those questions made but also wanted to be sure the person didn't think I was being sarcastic in those questions. Just producing a good ol' reductio ad absurdum. The reason for my qualifier was because tone isn't implicit in text.

What a silly question.

Not really. While society isn't an entity, society is a functioning colony. It'd be like describing an ant colony in a lot of ways.

Do you think the only reason that people could be for supporting animal preservation is because they think the species has a right to survive?

The reason doesn't matter so much as that society has a general belief that species should be protected from extinction and that it is our moral obligation to see that through.

Furthermore, did you even bother to consider the comparative costs involved? Do you somehow imagine someone's rights are being trampled to preserve animal species or do you think that money is comparable to an individual's rights?

Animal preservation is fine. So is preserving humanity. So is eating. And walking. But amazingly there's a limit to the costs that allow these, who'd have thought?

I'm unsure what point you're trying to make here. Yes, people's rights (particularly property rights) get trampled all the time for animal preservation and we as a society are generally okay with that in circumstances where that doesn't get out of hand.

As for the freedom of one person compared to the continuation of the entire human race? It's really a no brainer to most people. The person having to make the sacrifice may waffle, but society would force them to do what needs to be done in that scenario.

I'm not sure how you can dismiss the obvious moral obligation in perpetuating the species. It is absolutely there. But moral obligations are laws or forced imperatives. So you also have the right to decide that your own desires outweigh the needs of the many. It's just that unless you carry a cyanide capsule in a hollowed out tooth at all times then that choice will be taken away at some point.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Yo, did it just get hot in here?

If you're capable of recognizing that you sounded dickish, why didn't you just alter what you said instead of sounding dikish, then offering that "heartfelt" qualifier? Is this some kind of meta-dickishness, or even a meta-commentary on dickishness?

Or do you just not see it?

Honestly, depending on the wording used and intended in the response, it's hard to make what should be a genuine question not come off as sarcastic and intentionally biting when it's meant to be a debate based question. I've had comments that were meant to be taken at face value that sound -easily- like I'm trying to be a ***** even when I absolutely meant the comment in normal font. The internet's weird like that.

Yeah, I wanted to make the point those questions made but also wanted to be sure the person didn't think I was being sarcastic in those questions. Just producing a good ol' reductio ad absurdum. The reason for my qualifier was because tone isn't implicit in text.

What a silly question.

Not really. While society isn't an entity, society is a functioning colony. It'd be like describing an ant colony in a lot of ways.

Which makes the implicit assumptions in thinking such a question is even relevant no less silly.

Do you think the only reason that people could be for supporting animal preservation is because they think the species has a right to survive?

The reason doesn't matter so much as that society has a general belief that species should be protected from extinction and that it is our moral obligation to see that through.

Yes the reason does matter if you're trying to connect my response to the useless question to my position on the main topic.

As for 'society', it is utterly irrelevant what they generally believe. Furthermore, I see no evidence that they believe it to be a moral obligation on the whole as opposed to practical or simply desirable.

Furthermore, did you even bother to consider the comparative costs involved? Do you somehow imagine someone's rights are being trampled to preserve animal species or do you think that money is comparable to an individual's rights?

Animal preservation is fine. So is preserving humanity. So is eating. And walking. But amazingly there's a limit to the costs that allow these, who'd have thought?

I'm unsure what point you're trying to make here.

That your implied comparison is nonsense.

Yes, people's rights (particularly property rights) get trampled all the time for animal preservation and we as a society are generally okay with that in circumstances where that doesn't get out of hand.

By all means prove that their *rights* are trampled on.

As for the freedom of one person compared to the continuation of the entire human race? It's really a no brainer to most people.

Proof?

I do wish you would quit this irrelevant nonsense in trying to shore up your opinion. 'Most people agree with me, I just know it!' isn't much of an argument. Surely you could waste less time by not typing that and coming up with an actual argument?

The person having to make the sacrifice may waffle, but society would force them to do what needs to be done in that scenario.

By all means, prove it needs to be done. You seem very eager to refuse to take responsibility for your own values, pretending they are a necessity instead.

I'm not sure how you can dismiss the obvious moral obligation in perpetuating the species. It is absolutely there. But moral obligations are laws or forced imperatives. So you also have the right to decide that your own desires outweigh the needs of the many. It's just that unless you carry a cyanide capsule in a hollowed out tooth at all times then that choice will be taken away at some point.

Weak response. 'Obvious' moral obligation. Just a dodge for having to actually argue your position. Why do I need to acknowledge your *feelings* as obviously true?

'Needs of the many'. By all means prove that the many have a need here. You *claimed* the species had a need. I disagreed. Did you expect me to just forget you never addressed that?

 

[Phasmal]

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.

Having unfortunately met people who believe it's a woman's job to be a baby factory, I've long ago come to the decision that nothing is more important to me than my own bodily autonomy. I agree it definitely could be spun as selfish, but I think if there's one thing I can be selfish about, it's my self.

Bleh, being like "they'd make you do it anyway so whatever" is kind of weird. Nah, I'd off myself. Even if I was caught, I would find a way. No baby factory here. Not going to happen, no if and's or buts.

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

I must say, that was a beautiful way of putting it. Well done indeed.

 

[Kerethos]

Male or female, I don't see this scenario being very enjoyable. You'll either be a sperm factory (as insemination is a fuck lot more efficient than intercourse) or a constant baby oven. Either way sex won't be on the table. Getting strapped down and used is what you're in for.

You'd have to be damn quick to kill or castrate yourself in order to escape, because once you're in custody you'd be under suicide watch or just permanently kept in a coma (to ensure you don't hurt yourself and can be monitored at all time).

At that point you'd do it because you'd be offered no other choice; seeing as you'd be drugged and/or sedated - if that's what's required to keep you cooperative and healthy enough to continue to produce viable offspring.

It would not be a world where you have any sort of freedom and your odds of actual intercourse would be virtually non-existent. You'd also get to say goodbye to privacy and the right to your own body, among many other things.

Basically, it'd be hell. Not some sexy adventure. Just "You are a baby machine - eat your assigned sustenance or be sedated and used for breeding anyway". I'd say it probably beats dying, at least for a while. Eventually, you'd probably rather be dead than continue that horrible existence of yours - but then it'll be too late.

Still... I intend to live forever or die trying. So why not? Maybe they can just keep me in cryostasis for most of it, until my services are no longer needed and I get to spend time with my 10 000 grandchildren or something like that.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Well considering the topic and I'm an asexual trans woman whose also post Orchiectomy... Regardless if it's on the basis of biological sex, or my gender... The species would be doomed, but that would be true even if I weren't infertile.

That however gives me a striking advantage in this nightmare situation, for one the ability to relate to women would be invaluable, for two I'd be the only one not hysterical with panic over potential extinction. Assuming there are any tissue, genetic, or sperm samples remaining by this point I'd be in the best position to direct human efforts in restoration of the species. Which in my case would translate to a massive genetic engineering project, development of tank breeding(so regardless of sex in the future, everyone can have blood related kidsm even if they're sterile/barren), erasure of the regressive concepts of masculinity, and an eventual unified path for humanity. The end result would be having a fresh generation of both biological males and females from samples far flung in origin, who aren't bogged with gender politics. The result would allow gender and physilogical sex to be less constraining, while allowing easier default based on gender identity, rather than plumbing. Tank breeding would remove the physical burdens for both sexes, plus it'd allow for more communal family structures, reducing strain on parents in absolute terms. Which would allow gender identity, expression, role, and sexuality to become fluid. This would allow people the most bodily and personal autonomy and agency, which would ultimately lead to a more peaceful species. Genetic engineering would allow breeding of people who are better suited to hostile environments, while also being an artificial means of expanding genetic diversity.

After the breeding project is in full effect and society stabilizes, then we're cooking with gas... With less effort needed for breeding and child rearing, I'd put a massive focus on establishing human colonies in orbital space colonies, on whatever we can terraform in this solar system, and on planets in other star systems. Less as a measure to combat over population, more to ensure the species never faces the catastrophe that wiped out an entire gender and threatened to doom the species.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

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?

So we should bring back the dinosaurs? We should create any type animal through genetic engineering and let it populate? We shouldn't fight to eradicate hostile diseases if it means the extinction of a parasite? Thing is, society doesn't want to exist. You want it to exist. It doesn't have some God-given right to, either. Our lives our easier with other people around but it's self-evidently true that not all society deserves to exist, or even wants to. Depending on your criterion that might've been the Soviet Union, or it might be Wall St. investment banking culture.

Regardless ... the rest of the universe doesn't give a shit, and neither do a lot of other people care for whatever you might uphold as 'society' ... because it's transient as fuck, and that's exactly how it should be. The universe doesn't give a shit about whether you live or die, and neither do I. If you got hit by a bus tomorrow, I wouldn't care. Doesn't mean I advocate all people should be recklessly assaulted by buses. In fact, I might even use your death as a reason why greater safety measures might be needed ... but none of us are so intrinsically important for the universe to take notice.

Humanity doesn't have some intrinsic, God-given right to exist. Neither does any contemporary, transient idea of society in the 21st century. None that the universe would care about in ignoring if a particularly dangerous long gamma ray burst cooks this planet 5 kilometers into the crust. When the Permian extinction event hit and wiped out 97% of all biota on the planet, what idiot would say; "Oh, how immoral of the planet for doing so..."?

There are social and financial reasons why people might want ecological stability. But that confers to a want, not an intrinsic need. I like the idea of African elephants still kicking past the 21st century, I'd like humans to do the same, but that does not confer that individuals are beholden to being the sole persons that should make this a reality. Ignoring the simple problem of *scope* alone, no. There are actions humanity may take that confer it no special status of surviving, regardless. If the last male on Earth attacked me and I stuck them with a spear, that is not some grand moral failure. Moreover, you'd have to prove that there were no males left even if you were so twisted to assume tgat that would make them untouchable. Plenty of reasons why they might die, and if they were self inflicted or not I cannot be held accountable and neither should they. They're dead.

If the only answer was that male, and you could categorically prove it, you have solved nothing by letting them survive.

 

[L377UC3]

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.

*Applause*

 

[Kajin]

Okay, so I got the idea for this from a new manga I was reading called...World's End Harem (alt. The Harem at the End of the World, alt. alt. The Only Way Paragon Would Ever Get Any).

Spoiler

Basically, dude goes into cyrostasis for a few years until a treatment can be finalized for his disease. Gets woken up, finds out world has gone to shit. The men of the world all died with 6 months of each-other due to a sex-specific disease (assumed by some to actually be a bioweapon) and he and a handful of other men are the only ones who appeared to be immune. So while the remaining lady scientists and governments try to find a cure/vaccine for the disease, they want him (and the other few men who are left alive) to get with the baby-making (hoping that their children will also be immune). He doesn't want to because...plot (he wants to find his old girlfriend first). Story ensues.

I got to thinking...what would I do if I found out I were the last man on Earth?

I'm not completely sure. I don't think I'd take it too well; especially considering all the bad shit that would've had to have gone down in the meantime. I also don't know if I could handle the pressure of being the last man left - I mean hell, I can barely handle the pressure of being one of a few billion guys.

So what about you Escapist?

I would live the rest of my days alone in my isolated concrete bunker. Paid for with the money acquired from my mail order test tube... stuff. It would be a place of relative comfort, and also it would have an internet connection. Can't sell test tubes of anything if you can't access whatever the test tube equivalent of eBay is.

I'd probably take gardening and cooking up as hobbies. I'd have the spare time. No more guy friends to play D&D with, after all. I think Valve is run mostly by guys, too, so buying anything off the Steam store would be impossible as well.

 

[Chris Moses]

I've always said that even though I am gay I would not be an asshole and not breed if humanity needed me to. So, I said yes. Add to it that I do occasionally find women attractive, and I could probably "do it naturally" at least some of the time. Though, they need to hurry up. I am in my 40's and losing my mojo