John2290 said:
ganoncrotch said:
Metroid33slayer said:
John2290 said:
Im sure many of the people who frequent these forums are of the mind not to pay attention to the feminist radicals, feminazi's as some call them, so Im sure this post won't blow into discrimination of a certain gender.
Here goes. There's 300 people on a sinking ship and 100 lifeboats that seat just one person and a child. In days past the women and children would get the life boats and the 100 men would be left to drown.
So, by today's standards do we put 50 men and 50 women on the boats along with the children or do the women and children first, as has always been the case?
Of course that is just a completely ludicrous situation but what say you?
Thoughts?
|
Firefighters will always save the women first in the event of a fire. In hostage situations you always hear the phrase " at least let the women and children go" and young men have been sent to die on battlefields for centuries. Men have always been disposable and whlie up untill recently men have had more freedoms and oppurtunities, the lives of men have always been valued less than the lives of women. This is one of the reasons why are species has been successful because the baby makers have been protected. You don't need many men to repopulate the species but you will always need lots of women.
|
What kind of bizarre situation are you imagining where there are so few humans left alive that we have all available fertile women being impregnated to repopulate the planet again? I mean even if we were after such a disaster where you really had to have each woman capable of reproducing doing so every year then you would be in a situation where in breeding would happen quickly due to the tiny gene pool you would be dealing with.
Just saying, think in your head, in reality where would you be lining up the available girls to breed? also... in any scenario you have 100 kids with you already, gonna guess they're 50/50 male / female so even with a complete 50/50 split of the adults you will be ending up with 100men and 100women on your life rafts if all 100 are filled to capacity.
|
Plus the fact that you need genetic diversity on the men's side, so you do need more men than this guy thinks or there would be rampant health problems. 1 man to 100 women, even though it's a damp nice thought, isn't going to cut it. More like one man for two women, maybe more I'f you use geography to spread the sperm over the female population, to give greater genetic diversity.
|
Indeed, 100 women with a single man, every single child born in this civilization will be half brothers/sisters. with 50% the same DNA as each other, the genetic defects would start to build within 2-3 generations not to mention the psychological damage being done forcing brothers and sisters to mate to breed....we are not cats, humans are very prone to issues from inbreeding.
1 single bad gene in the male could also lead to the whole civilization coming apart, while people like to imagine that Women add more to the formation of a child because of where the ovum is incubated unfortunately at a genetic level you get 23 chromosomes from your Father and 23 from your mother, that is the building blocks that you are created from. Chances of the second generation not having some clashing genes coming from the single father are zero.
