It’s pretty certain now. The eclipse of the male of our Homo Sapiens species began decades ago with the latest feminist push for “equality.” The actual demise of the male gender will depend upon the patience and generosity of the female majority of our species.
The scientists now know that animal reproduction through cloning requires only a skin cell and the nucleus of an ovum. The sperm is no longer essential. What the sperm contributes to the reproductive process can be obtained from the DNA molecule in the nucleus. Once it is socially acceptable for humans to be cloned, the mating ritual will soon be obsolete.
The only reason to continue reproducing males in any fashion is to have some stronger bodies around to do the menial tasks until recreational body building becomes a more accepted female activity. As more sophisticated robots are developed to replace the obsolescent males, there will be little reason to continue to clone these resource-depleting parasites.
Those who study the organized social communities in the insect world have observed the evolution of the queen as the primary egg producer. These ancient societies have not replaced the male entirely, but his role is generally limited to mating with the queen and then dying. Since the process of cloning insects has evolved into having one female produce all the eggs necessary to bear the community’s workers, the males are almost extinct.
What we know is that at least one insect egg producer is required. As the genetic role of the female of a species is to provide the eggs, the female will always be necessary for the cloning process. The rest of the sisters automatically become the support staff for maintaining and defending the hive, the nest, or the colony. If the queen dies, one of the princesses replaces her.
The removal of the gender factor will prove once and for all that the basic struggle on this planet is between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” Regardless of the supposedly loving nature and the nurturing talents of the female gender, the future females will not be able to avoid the conflicts caused by competition, jealousy, group dynamics, manipulation, and abuse of power. Whatever personality problems we have today will continue to plague the mono-sexual members of our evolving species.
That fact may not be comforting to the doomed male members, but the acceptance of the absolute power of our women will become increasingly clear. The honest males of our societies already were aware of the latent power of the “weaker” sex. Women could always negotiate anything, when they wanted to. Even without a majority of female law-makers, judges, and professionals. Women just needed to realize this fact and use their power. The only question that remains is, Will the future feminine leadership decide to prolong the longevity of the male contingent to wage the wars and police the peace?
The transition to the new regime will face many obstacles, such as the competitiveness resulting from over-breeding, resource depletion, and environment destruction. As the feminine rat population limits its breeding to balance the resources available to the rat community, the human females hopefully will discover this intelligent approach for rationing resources. Since women’s responsibilities will be expanded beyond the tokenism present in many occupations, they will have less time, interest, and motivation to reproduce and raise families.
The tendency of the families in the “first” world countries to limit family size is already apparent. The future portends a probable “negative” birth rate in the northern hemisphere even in the lesser affluent families. The average size of families is on the decline in the richer countries because of 1.) the acceptance of birth control devices and pills, 2.) the liberation of women from religious dogma to reproduce for the growth of the church, 3.) the latent materialistic greediness that prioritizes spending for parental gratification ahead of what would be necessary to raise and educate large families, and 4.) the expansion of pensions and social security benefits so that fewer children are needed to support their parents in their old age.
The current global “have-nots,” who are over-reproducing today and exceeding their countries’ ability to furnish the resources necessary to develop a more modern, materialistic society, will finally learn their economic lesson. Their only hope to reduce the growing gap between the “first” world and the “third” world is to limit the number of mouths that must be fed in Developing Countries.
The economic rules in effect today dictate that the cost of living will increase through inflationary wage/benefit-driven pressure and the natural human demand for a more costly technical level of products and devices. The only way to accumulate the income a family needs to pay for these cost increases is to have a double income or reduce the number of family members being supported. Underemployment and unemployment will still grow, however, as increased productivity eliminates jobs. The government will try to handle this problem through tax transfer payments, but unsuccessfully as usual.
So, the pressure will continue to be on everyone, everywhere: citizen and government official alike, to reduce the “surplus” world population. Counting on war, sickness, and natural disasters to limit population growth is the ostrich position.
In spite of all the varied efforts to improve agricultural productivity, the real opportunity in the not too distant future will be to find a way to hasten the elimination of the male gender. Unless, of course, society adopts some bizarre solution like Jonathan Swift’s or begins the practice of sterilization to limit the growing number of “undesirables” – however those are defined. Hitler’s recent eugenics experiment is unacceptable to most compassionate humans except a few religious leaders who tolerate their own extremists’ solution of “wiping out the infidels.”
I’m not predicting an aggressive feminist effort to make this happen tomorrow. The survival of the fittest in a species can only be observed over eons of time. However, if the human race delays too long, and the population continues to grow as it has in the last century, then we may become susceptible to some event like that which eliminated the dinosaurs, but on a smaller scale. If the human race survives this challenge, the cunning of the females will demonstrate itself in time, I feel sure. Once the majority of them understand that the males have created their dominant role just to have a place in the sun for themselves while the women are getting themselves organized, the ancient game of courtship will end.
The male dominated structure promulgated via the various world religions is under the strenuous attack of the feminist movement today. The equality that women seek is “fair” and “just.” True biological inequality can never be ignored, however. Because this inequity ensured the human lifeline to the future, there was an unwritten agreement between males to honor that female advantage, protect the female members, and provide economically for them. Now that the motherly, caring part of looking after the progeny has been partially replaced by the rapidly growing “child care” industry, married and single women are pursuing the education and experience required to replace men in industry and in society. And justly so, they argue.
I’m not here to argue against what is inevitably evolving. A male or female boss will be the same in the long run. Both seek power and dominance through exercising the wishes of the “owners” to make a decent return on the shareholders’ investment. The basic human economic activity is “hunting and gathering” the monetary resources that provide humans with the sustenance to avoid “giving up the ghost.” Disguise the animalistic role however you wish, we remain in a jungle ambience competing for resources as best we can.
Today’s argument over cloning humans or not is really nothing more than the continuation of the male position that tries to maintain the status quo versus the female position of creating the future, biologically and socially. This subtlety is lost in the religious rhetoric that politically clouds the issue.
But don’t fault us males. We are only defending our minority status from its inevitable demise. The future “have-nots” (we underprivileged males that produce no eggs) will always struggle with the “haves,” as long as the “haves” (to borrow a phrase from Richard Nixon) have us to kick around.