No men needed; All-female society in 5000 generations through parthogenesis

[DaFool]

Originally Posted by Lost

I find that unrealistic. Are you looking down on the female gender? What is to say that an androgynous society will reach a constant in the above areas? Can we really predict that less men means a controlled birth rate? What of the inherent instinctual *want* of females to be mothers? What of preservation of your genetic line, female or otherwise? Birth rates may very well continue as they already are. This would lead to the same increasing consumption of resources, and environmental destruction.

It's similar to the white man's burden question. What if white men didn't venture towards the East? Would asians have started colonization? Or Africans, even? We don't know. There are records that the Chinese have reached the New World ahead...but they didn't have the Manifest Destiny culture that drives colonization.
So similarly, if men didn't create machines, would women have led the way? We do not know---it is all speculation until recently. I have taken courses of women in engineering by the way, but I realized most of their work was within the majority framework...just like the development of East Asia was within the Western framework.

And yes, Patriarchy drives birthrate. No sane woman would want 13 kids (or 6 even), but that's how it was in the old days. Well, it could just be an ignorance of family planning.

[kujoe]

Originally Posted by DaFool

And yes, Patriarchy drives birthrate. No sane woman would want 13 kids (or 6 even), but that's how it was in the old days. Well, it could just be an ignorance of family planning.

I'm not sure about this in particular. While this is true, one significant factor prevalent in the spirit of the old days was the notion and drive for survival. Long ago, most people didn't live long. Huge families had an advantage since they were assured that they had sons and daughters who could work the fields and provide economic support. Our time has fortunately improved since then, (although others may argue with that idea...) and having such a huge family isn't really that compatible with the times anymore.

Who is to say that an immensely and dominant matriarchal society would not opt for more children given those very same conditions? Would things have been any different? It's not really easy to say. I believe that, for the most part, birthrate trends are determined by the conditions and times we live in.

[KaneDragon]

Topic reminds me of the chapter in Genome: The Y chromosome has had to keep shedding genes as the X develops ways to target them and kill off the Y sperm in favor of more females. That this is why the Y is so similar across all men (all Y killed off except for the very rare mutant that then spreads to rebalance the sexes). With an example of a butterfly species that developed such a technique and wildly distorted the sex ratio. Or something like that. Interesting stuff.

Vandread, anyone?

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by arias

Not true; every biological species is continually evolving with each generation, subtly responding to environmental demands.

Well, I'm not a scientist or anything and I'm aware that evolution is a slow process as well as one that doesn't 'stop,' but human beings aren't changing the way animals are. I've discussed this with biologists at the science museum in Boston, and they generally agreed with me. Unless some drastic change happens to the planet, the only evolution humans will go through will be adaption to disease. Technology has made it so that we will have a stable environment for a long, long time. I'm not talking computers, either. Try agriculture.