I have less time for Lawrence Auster’s site than I used to, but I came across someone saying something so incorrect about quarks that it could not be allowed to stand. The issue everyone else was more concerned with though is the possible end of the Y chromosome.
Quarks are not entities with no properties. They experience all four fundamental forces. This includes gravity (they have mass) and electro-magnetism (they have charge). There could not be different “flavors” of quarks if there were not properties to distinguish them. Antiquarks are defined by having properties the same magnitude as their counterparts, but with the opposite sign.
The bit about the shrinking Y-chromosome has been known for some time. It has a page at Exit Mundi*, for example. I think it technically would be possible to continue the species after men disappeared. Sperm exists to fertilize eggs with its DNA. We could extract DNA from one woman’s egg and use it to fertilize another egg. Specialization by gender has had a massive impact on our species (and others, I would think) so if that process continued we would expect the “women” of the future to be quite different from those of the present.
*I didn’t include this in the original email, but the Exit Mundi page is here.
Do you realize that you don’t sound like a human being? The neutral, affectless way you talk about ending humanity through science by turning humanity into something else, something without the male sex? You write: “I think it technically would be possible to continue the species after men disappeared. Sperm exists to fertilize eggs with its DNA. We could extract DNA from one woman’s egg and use it to fertilize another egg.” We could. as though it were something entirely doable and there would be no reason not to do it. Why do you sound like this? I think that your radical materialism has detached you from normal human reactions and values. That’s why you can speak of the end of humanity, brought about by science, as though it meant absolutely nothing, as though it were nothing more than an interesting experiment being performed by a race of aliens upon mankind, as in some sci fi horror movie. Except that you don’t feel any horror—because you’re one of the aliens. .
If you want to have discussions with me, you must, at least, try to sound human. I’m not interested in having conversations with pods, or with humans who sound like pods.
I’m not advocating the end of the Y chromosome, nor did it appear anyone was from Ben’s excerpt. As mentioned, our species is highly adapted to its existence. I’m commenting on the observed trend that leads some to believe it may disappear, and wondering what could be done if that occurred. You would view it as a great loss if it went away, but would it not be an even greater loss if all of humanity became extinct? Existential risks don’t mitigate themselves, and declaring them too horrible to think about hardly helps matters.
I have no idea what you’re referring to.
I clarify some more:
Sorry, I can be unclear at times. I’ll try to lay out the steps in my thinking.
1. There is an observed trend of the Y chromosome shrinking.
2. If it continues (and maybe it won’t) it could disappear.
3. The human species depends on the Y chromosome to perpetuate itself.
This naturally raises the question: if the trend does continue and the chromosome disappears (presumably it will simply lose its functionality and render men infertile at a sufficiently small size, but you get the idea), will that be the end of the species? Perhaps not. We will be losing an important part of humanity, but like the hiker who had to remove his arm trapped under a bolder (an inapt analogy since it was on his initiative that the arm was removed) we will be preserving the rest. 45 out of 46 chromosomes is a lot better than 0.
You might argue that our descendants, having changed to a single-sex, will no longer be our species. However, the first generation produced through such means would be indistinguishable from women now, and we of course consider them human. Over time the nature of these “women” would change to adapt to a world without men. The result could understandably be considered a different species, though “species” itself is such a fuzzy term it’s all rather subjective.