OC.TREI@CU20B.COLUMBIA.EDU (10/30/85)
From: Peter G. Trei <OC.TREI@CU20B.COLUMBIA.EDU> > From: COBLEY A (on DUNDEE DEC-10) <A.Cobley%dundee.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa> > Subject: mono sex societies > > Question > For any biologist out there, what's the feasability > of taking genes from two females and combining them together, > replanting them in a ovum and so get birth from the result. I > realise that only female children could be born this way ( YY > chromsone?) It has'nt been done yet, to the best of my knowledge. There is no good reason why it shouldnt work. It would be expensive, and requires skilled personel and sophisticated equipment (while the traditional alternative requires only unskilled labor). There is a facet to this which a non-biologist might miss. One inherits from one's mother not only the DNA encoded information in the nuclear genes, but also a load of mitochondria, which have their own DNA and genetic information. If the procedure was performed by fusing two ova (as seems the most likely possibility), then the new cell would have mitochondria from both parents. I have no idea how this would effect the cell, and the person that might develop as a result. If only the nucleus of one ova was fused with another, whole ova, this problem could be avoided. There are no people with YY chromosomes. Your normal male is XY, a normal female is XX. There are rare cases of individuals with XYY, but this is very much an abnormality. > What would a society be like if all repoduction (or most ) > was done this way...? Thats a VERY interesting question. I would tend to think that monosexual species are at some kind of reproductive disadvantage versus polysexual species, because most of the large, complex animals we see today are polysexual. One advantage that polysexual species may have over monosexual ones is specialization. For all that Mother Nature may offend some feminists, human females are physically optimized for bearing and caring for children while men are not (I am not saying men are optimized for anything). In humans, female sexual characteristics are much more impeding then the male's (there is a reason female Olympic athletes tend to look androgenous). Of course, in our modern, technological society, these physical differences are largely irrelevant. As we further mechanize the nature of work, sex differences become less important. So: (1) would an all-female society evolve? and (2) would such a society be stable? To answer the second question first, if reproduction is predicated on the existence of sophisticated medical technology, I do not think the society would be stable. A species which can not reproduce without artificial aid is extraordinarily fragile, as even a brief failure of civilisation woudl doom it. ('Lets start a baby, Meg.' "We cant Jean, we're out of batteries."). Also, in a given area, small elites could easily control reproduction. As to the first question, if the only advance were affordable female-female reproduction, it does seem likely that an all female society might slowly take over. However, I think something stranger is likely to happen. {enter blue-sky mode} Technological advances do not occur in a vacuum. Around any breakthrough there are a swarm of related advances, and the interactions of these is impossible to predict. I would suggest that the same science which may one day give us female-female reproduction is moving us towards a situation in which sex becomes a moot point, particularly for reproduction. We are slowly but steadily cracking the code of the human genome. It is not too wild a speculation to suggest that within the next century we will be able to select the genes of our offspring as easily as we assemble the components of a computer system today. Want your child to be beautiful? You can. Want a guarantee against cancer? You can get it. Want intelligence? Musical talent? Good teeth? Longevity? No pimples? Soon these will be selectable at will in ones offspring. Once this technology is in place (and I expect to live to see at least some of it), sex becomes an irrelevancy. Ones' child could be truly ONEs' child. Male and female characteristics become optional extras (though doubtless almost a 'standard option', at least at first). But why should genders be limited to two? I expect talented designer geneticists (they make designer genes) would come up with viable ideas for totally new sexes, opening the door to hitherto unknown classes of love and pleasure. If one could design one's heirs as easily as one designs a house, what would they be like? The question of gender becomes a small factor in a much larger universe of choice. {exit blue-sky mode} Peter Trei oc.trei@cu20b.arpa -------
AI.MAYANK@MCC.ARPA (11/02/85)
From: Mayank Prakash <AI.Mayank@MCC.ARPA> > Peter G. Trei <OC.TREI@CU20B.COLUMBIA.EDU>: > > {enter blue-sky mode} > > Technological advances do not occur in a vacuum. Around any >breakthrough there are a swarm of related advances, and the >interactions of these is impossible to predict. I would suggest >that the same science which may one day give us female-female >reproduction is moving us towards a situation in which sex becomes a >moot point, particularly for reproduction. > > We are slowly but steadily cracking the code of the human >genome. It is not too wild a speculation to suggest that within the >next century we will be able to select the genes of our offspring as >easily as we assemble the components of a computer system today. >Want your child to be beautiful? You can. Want a guarantee against >cancer? You can get it. Want intelligence? Musical talent? Good >teeth? Longevity? No pimples? Soon these will be selectable at >will in ones offspring. > > Once this technology is in place (and I expect to live to see >at least some of it), sex becomes an irrelevancy. Ones' child could >be truly ONEs' child. Male and female characteristics become >optional extras (though doubtless almost a 'standard option', at >least at first). But why should genders be limited to two? I >expect talented designer geneticists (they make designer genes) >would come up with viable ideas for totally new sexes, opening the >door to hitherto unknown classes of love and pleasure. > > If one could design one's heirs as easily as one designs a >house, what would they be like? The question of gender becomes a >small factor in a much larger universe of choice. > > {exit blue-sky mode} Try Lem's "Star Diaries" to see these ideas carried out to their logical extreme. -mayank. -------
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/03/85)
> > If one could design one's heirs as easily as one designs a > >house, what would they be like? The question of gender becomes a > >small factor in a much larger universe of choice. > > Try Lem's "Star Diaries" to see these ideas carried out to their > logical extreme. > Also much of John Varley's works, particularly the Ophiuchi Hotline universe and (even more) "The Conglomeroid Cocktail Party". -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
mab@riacs.ARPA (Matt Bishop) (11/04/85)
Also check out "The Crime and the Glory of Commander Suzdal"
by Cordwainer Smith. (It's a short story; my copy is in the
collection "The Best of Cordwainer Smith", Del Rey.
Cordwainer Smith is NOT E. E. "Doc" Smith!!!!
--
Matt Bishop mab@riacs.arpa {decvax!decwrl,ihnp4!ames}!riacs!mab