Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

I'm pretty sure unless you very specifically want some of your possessions to go somewhere specific like a charity, or you have multiple children and want to make sure the responsible one gets the family heirloom, the de facto 'next of kin' works well for most of us. I have a organ donor card and that is about it.

I have an organ donor card too, but I also have some math textbooks that need to be passed on to another proto-mathematician if I die, and similar.

[Pnx]

There's also the copyrights to that book you translated isn't there?

[Vector]

Yup.

[Max White]

have a look at the chance you will die by the end of the year.

That is a really strange graph. I mean I know male life expectancy is lower than female, but it was always explained to me as relating to the fact that testosterone is harmful to your body chemistry, but then you wouldn't expect to see such a large discrepancy until much later in life on that basis. You can't even really put it down to males partaking in more risky activities, as the difference is viable from the first few years in life before we partake is any activities. Do men just have a shitty immune system? Are we more prone to genetic disease? I'm curious now.

[Vector]

The Y chromosome is slowly deteriorating, making men more prone to a range of genetic ailments.

Also, it's statistical projection, which is based on boys growing up to, y'know, do stuff.

[Max White]

When you say the Y chromosome is slowly deteriorating, is that in terms of species, as in this is more a factor each generation, or in terms of the individual? I mean based on the fact that gender has been around for a while I'm guessing the latter, but then take nothing for granted.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Are we more prone to genetic disease?

We are significantly more vulnerable to sex-transferred genetic disease. A woman, having two X chromosomes, can potentially carry a genetic disease on one chromosome but have a more dominant healthy gene on the other.

Men having two different sex chromosomes increases the chance that one or both will carry a genetic disease and that it will phenotype, because there is only one copy of each.

For example, red-green colorblindness is carried on the X chromosome, and there are orders of magnitude more red-green colorblind men than women.

The Y chromosome is slowly deteriorating, making men more prone to a range of genetic ailments.

The Y chromosome shrinking theory is most likely false after the differentiation of humans.

It has also always seemed vaguely sexist to me (men are expendable and transient, women are the true humans).

[Max White]

Well the other side of that is that a harmful dominate trait carried on the X chromosome is twice as likely to affect women than men, right? I don't biology much...

Anyway, science can't exactly be sexist. If it was found that one gender is objectively less intelligent than the other, well so be it. Scientists, on the other hand, very easily can be. The prediction that men will go extinct certainly demands careful peer review, when you look at how well a two gender system has been serving life so far.

[Vector]

I'm not saying that because I'm a sexist, but because that was what I was taught in my biology class =[

But if it's wrong, then it's wrong.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well the other side of that is that a harmful dominate trait carried on the X chromosome is twice as likely to affect women than men, right? I don't biology much...

No. Everyone has an X chromosome, thereby making men and women equally likely to get it. But natural selection ensures that negative dominant traits are relatively rare.

Anyway, science can't exactly be sexist. If it was found that one gender is objectively less intelligent than the other, well so be it. Scientists, on the other hand, very easily can be.

Science can't be bigoted, but the applications of it certainly can be. The Rotting Y hypothesis is responsible for pretty much all of the "post-male" fiction that started springing up in the 70's.

I'm not saying that because I'm a sexist, but because that was what I was taught in my biology class =[

Not accusing you of being sexist. Just pointing out my issue with the hypothesis. (Or perhaps more of how it has been used politically.)

[Gamerlord]

Anyway, science can't exactly be sexist. If it was found that one gender is objectively less intelligent than the other, well so be it. Scientists, on the other hand, very easily can be.

Science can't be bigoted, but the applications of it certainly can be. The Rotting Y hypothesis is responsible for pretty much all of the "post-male" fiction that started springing up in the 70's.

I HATE that fiction. It is so freaking awful!

[Max White]

There is post male fiction? Oh god that is amazing! 
Does it end when everybody just dies of old age due to inability to reproduce?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No, it generally involves men dying out to being "genetically inferior" as women develop parthenogenesis and make Earth into a lesbian utopia.

[Gamerlord]

There is post male fiction? Oh god that is amazing! 
Does it end when everybody just dies of old age due to inability to reproduce?

Nope. They come up with thousands of freaking excuses for why it works. It is annoying as fuck.

[Max White]

Look, in a world where 50 shades of grey is actually popular, I'm not going to be too disgruntled when lesbians dream of a world where it is safe to hit on another girl and assume her sexuality matches their own gender for once.

If anybody actually, truly takes it as any more than a kind of porn... Well they have issues.