Why do males exist?

ancapailldorcha

Wouldn’t it be better if we lived in a world where females could mate with each other, both get pregnant and produce offspring that, if healthy, all of whom could in turn reproduce? Sexual reproduction is costly and inefficient with only half of adults being capable of producing offspring. Surely such a wasteful process would have been filtered out by natural selection eons ago.

It transpires that the answer to this question is no.

“Sexual Selection” involves males competing with each other for a chance to reproduce while females choose which males to mate with. A study carried out by researchers working for the University of East Anglia on flour beetles found that; when the beetles were paired off into monogamous couples, the community’s health rapidly deteriorated and didn’t survive past ten generations. Conversely, the populations which experienced strong sexual selection (90 males competing to mate with 10 females) were more resilient to extinction survived past 20 generations of inbreeding. Sexual Selection provides a vital means of genetic filtration to maintain the health of the population.

sniperman

if males did not exist,who would do all the thinking?:D

Joe Doe

Yep, it's been fine for the last few hundred million of years, long may the party continue (until the robots/trans-humanists take over).
Saying that, a good robot dance may help entice suitable vessels for prospective reproduction

MightyMandarin

Because those sandwiches won't eat themselves you know.:D

noway12345

Would there be any wars without males?

Lemming

noway12345 wrote: »

Would there be any wars without males?

Yes. To think that women are any less capable of violence then men is foolish naievity supreme. All this "we're all sisters" crap is just that; crap. When push comes to shove, it'll disappear up its own @rse when needs are preceived as "must".

Sofiztikated

Lemming wrote: »

Yes. To think that women are any less capable of violence then men is foolish naievity supreme. All this "we're all sisters" crap is just that; crap. When push comes to shove, it'll disappear up its own @rse when needs are preceived as "must".

A womans propensity for violence is amazing, and boy howdy will they fight dirty. Nothing is out of bounds, everything is a weapon, they can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

Lemming

You been watching The Terminator recently? :pac:

eternal

To pleasure women, to breed and lift the heavy goods, fix cars and make shelves and to be a rock of stability when women are hormonal.

Carawaystick

Bdelloid Rotifer's have this going on, how is it working out for them?

Sleepy

Anyone else watch this season of Bear Grylls the Island? He had two lots of survivors this year: an island of women and another of men. The women needed regular intervention from the producers as they fell to pieces as a group. There were a handful of them (notably a forrestors daughter and a girl who'd made an attempt to row the Atlantic) who were perfectly capable but as a group they floundered quite badly.

While by the last episode they were shown to be "thriving" (the point of the show), the reality was that they wouldn't have survived long past the 3rd week without the producer's intervention. While the men's group weren't perfect (there were a couple who weren't pulling their weight), they proved themselves far more capable.

Since watching it this season, I've been thinking a lot about how far removed we have become from our "natural" state on this planet. I'm reading "The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Our World from Scratch" and tbh, I think in such a scenario (re-building society after a complete breakdown (viral pandemic / asteroid strike / nuclear war / zombie apocalypse etc) and it really is clear to me that we'd need both genders to survive such an event.

Our bodies have evolved to allow the genders specialise to survive on this planet: the male being more muscular helps with the physical work necesary to survive e.g. wood cutting, building shelter, hunting etc. whilst the female has a metablolism evolved to store higher levels of fat reservesin order to survive prolonged periods of under-nourishment and to survive pregnancy and the re-production of our species.

Teyla Emmagan

For cuddling, laughter, support, a different perspective, to build things, and to smell good. And for lifting stuff.

Wibbs

Lets dial back on some of the oul casual sexism stuff please. Just a general heads up

Timberrrrrrrr

The grass won't it itself as mrs T likes to remind me

I suppose at the beginning of time we were the hunter/gatherers and i suppose the whole sperm thing comes into play as well.

noway12345

Lemming wrote: »

Yes. To think that women are any less capable of violence then men is foolish naievity supreme. All this "we're all sisters" crap is just that; crap. When push comes to shove, it'll disappear up its own @rse when needs are preceived as "must".

A female Hitler? Why haven't women started any wars up to now? They're hiding this barbaric side very well!
Men exist to fight and die in wars but also to start them!

Wibbs

Sleepy wrote: »

Since watching it this season, I've been thinking a lot about how far removed we have become from our "natural" state on this planet. I'm reading "The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Our World from Scratch" and tbh, I think in such a scenario (re-building society after a complete breakdown (viral pandemic / asteroid strike / nuclear war / zombie apocalypse etc) and it really is clear to me that we'd need both genders to survive such an event.

Very much so. One theory put forward as to why modern humans outcompeted other older human species was that we had a much more defined gender role split as far as survival tasks were concerned. We can see that in tribal peoples. In food gathering women actually as a general rule collect the most calories for a group(various plant resources), whereas the men gather more of the high value calories(meat). In ancient humans it appears that both sexes gathered about the same. It works, but the task splitting gets more food and from more varied sources so this means more kids and more population growth.

Such tribal societies also suggest that any post apocalypse world would likely be extremely patriarchal. While women in such societies are usually venerated and considered valuable it's much more as a reproductive resource, even one that is traded for resources or political alliances rather than as equals to the men(elderly women can be the exception there).

Men are the more disposable gender too, less reproductively valuable. Any group where a disaster like disease reduced the female percentage below a certain point, means that group is all but extinct, whereas a similar disaster affecting the men, wouldn't be, or would have much more of a chance of survival. One man and twenty women could restart a population, one woman and twenty men couldn't. You need more Eves than Adams. Our genes even show this. They show that in human history more female lines reproduced and survived than male lines. By some margin IIRC.

Sleepy

noway12345 wrote: »

A female Hitler? Why haven't women started any wars up to now? They're hiding this barbaric side very well!
Men exist to fight and die in wars but also to start them!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_of_Tuscany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Anjou

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher

Wibbs

noway12345 wrote: »

A female Hitler? Why haven't women started any wars up to now? They're hiding this barbaric side very well!
Men exist to fight and die in wars but also to start them!

Leaving behind the scenes intrigue of which there would be quite the number of examples, you'd have women like Elisabeth 1, Cleopatra, Boudica and here's a list of others. Still, male aggression is higher as a general rule.

seamus

There are benefits to a species in having a two-sex dichotomy, otherwise it wouldn't be so massively prevalent in nature and evolution would have bred it out.

At the highest level I suspect that it serves two main purposes;

1. Stronger genes spread faster. If it was a single-sex environment, then all members could be pregnant and their gene-spreading abilities "paused" for the gestational duration. In dual-sex environments, the male of the species can impregnate new females on a continual basis, thus accelerating the spread of their genes.

2. While not universal, there is usually some level of family or community associated with dual-sex environments which allows for division of labour - one sex can focus on child-rearing while the other focuses on resource gathering. This improves outcomes for the children of that environment.

noway12345

Sleepy wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_of_Tuscany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Anjou

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher

They were all nice warlords, apart from the last few!

tritium

noway12345 wrote: »

A female Hitler? Why haven't women started any wars up to now? They're hiding this barbaric side very well!
Men exist to fight and die in wars but also to start them!

Hmm, women have started wars you know? Margaret Thatcher and Indira gandhi spring to mind (and as with any conflict you can argue their culpability or provocation). Not so long ago Hillary Clinton was assuring us she'd nuke Iran (presumably it would largely be male soldiers who'd die in the resulting conflict to ensure women and children continued to be the real victims of war...... /facepalm)

noway12345

Wibbs wrote: »

Leaving behind the scenes intrigue of which there would be quite the number of examples, you'd have women like Elisabeth 1, Cleopatra, Boudica and here's a list of others. Still, male aggression is higher as a general rule.

Most women of yore were involved in uprisings and generally fighting against the oppressors.

noway12345

tritium wrote: »

Hmm, women have started wars you know? Margaret Thatcher and Indira gandhi spring to mind (and as with any conflict you can argue their culpability or provocation). Not so long ago Hillary Clinton was assuring us she'd nuke Iran (presumably it would largely be male soldiers who'd die in the resulting conflict to ensure women and children continued to be the real victims of war...... /facepalm)

It's mostly men that start wars.

Sleepy

I can't tell if noway12345 is genuinely this ignorant/deluded or just trolling?

ancapailldorcha

seamus wrote: »

There are benefits to a species in having a two-sex dichotomy, otherwise it wouldn't be so massively prevalent in nature and evolution would have bred it out.

At the highest level I suspect that it serves two main purposes;

1. Stronger genes spread faster. If it was a single-sex environment, then all members could be pregnant and their gene-spreading abilities "paused" for the gestational duration. In dual-sex environments, the male of the species can impregnate new females on a continual basis, thus accelerating the spread of their genes.

2. While not universal, there is usually some level of family or community associated with dual-sex environments which allows for division of labour - one sex can focus on child-rearing while the other focuses on resource gathering. This improves outcomes for the children of that environment.

Was wondering if anyone had read my OP there.

noway12345 wrote: »

It's mostly men that start wars.

Comments like this are adding nothing to the discussion. Feel free to leave the thread if this is all you have to add.

Day Lewin

I love men because they are different from women: bigger, stronger, much blunter of thought, feeling, action and WORDS (eye roll)

and they make babies (in a most enjoyable way) #survival - which has to be good for the species, you know, bio-diversity, mixing up the gene pool, etc. for hybrid vigour.

And their testosterone makes them aggressive, maybe, yes: but that is how they are willing to attack tigers and wolves and hostile enemy humans.

Also they do things like change wheels and remove spiders :-)

And protect, defend me and my kids, and hunt for us

Contrast makes beautiful, diversity enriches. Long live men, I love 'em.

ancapailldorcha

Sleepy wrote: »

I can't tell if noway12345 is genuinely this ignorant/deluded or just trolling?

If you think someone is trolling, please report the post.

eviltwin

I love men because as much as I love women you can't beat a penis when it comes to sex.

eviltwin

noway12345 wrote: »

It's mostly men that start wars.

Because men have always been in the position to start wars. Cruelty and ruthlessness is not a male quality, its a human quality.

dr.fuzzenstein

There are differences between males and females, no matter what the "official" line on the subject is. Anyone who suggests otherwise is deluded, like some of the more rabid equality proponents. Example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9028479/Couple-raise-child-as-gender-neutral-to-avoid-stereotyping.html
I feel so sorry for that kid. I expect to see his/her name in the news again and it won't be good.
Historically woman had to look after the offspring and the home, while men did the hard labour, heavy lifting and hitting each other over the head.
This is never 100%, but more general trends. Of course one is not allowed to say that these days.
These days it's different, either gender can look after the home or go to work, very few mammoths and sabre tooth tigers to be slain, so it's relatively safe and doesn't matter who brings home the bacon or tofu.
I think it is a genuine big step in our development, the gender roles are partially biological and partially historical, but we are in the middle of a big upheaval of all that. Just because it has always been a certain way, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. But that's straying from the point a bit.
Men and women exist for the simple reason of reproduction, it just evolved this way. There wasn't really much of a master plan behind it, it just happened. It's for genetic reasons, just don't ask me to explain the detail behind it :pac:
We're approaching this completely wrong if we're asking "why do human males exist", that is ignoring the entire history of evolution. It's like saying "why does the iPhone 6 exists?" and ignoring the entire history of electronics. Asking that question will not get a useful answer. It has to go right back to single celled organisms that multiplied by division, that way the genes would just get copied over and over and anyone who has ever heard a copy of a copy of a copy of an old cassette tape will know that is not a good idea.
With males and females the genes get mixed up and positive traits will win out over time. Also defective genes will not necessarily lead to defects in the offspring, if the working one is dominant.
So in short, evolution, baby! It just turned out that way. In the beginning there where only single celled organisms who reproduced asexually. Sexual reproduction only came in later and for any multi celled organism, it worked out quite well. It even works for plants.

Wibbs

OK let's get back to the thread topic and no more of the puerile posting. Write to some sort of standard or don't post. I've deleted some of those posts that didn't approach a standard we want to see here. Thank you.

Geniass

noway12345 wrote: »

It's mostly men that start wars.

Men are more often in the power positions to start wars. As has been pointed out when women find themselves in similar positions they have started wars.

zeffabelli

eviltwin wrote: »

Because men have always been in the position to start wars. Cruelty and ruthlessness is not a male quality, its a human quality.

I've read recently in evolutionary theory that men start wars, usually for access to women...this was based on looking at foraging peoples. See Steven Pinker.

Cruelty and ruthlessness certainly are not exclusive to men, but wars are not just about the utilising of cruelty and ruthlessness. They are about territory often, and domination and survival of the species. Rape has certainly been a common output of wars now for centuries.

We often frown morally on these qualities, but nature is not nice, it is not pink and fluffy nor is it moral, it is about survivorship. Isn't it funny she is called "Mother Nature," as if there is an implicit acknoweledgement of a feminine force behind all this survivorship.

Fact is, if it weren't for human's capacity to kill efficiently, none of us would be here right now.

It is that ability that eventually stopped German tanks from going though living room walls and what enables me to dive into a hamburger.

You know.... as I saw my friend-a man- put a live lobster in a pot, I thought hmnnn....maybe there is a good side to "cruelty." I certainly benefited from his ability to do that and we all like it or not are both harmed by but also benefit from cruelty.

zeffabelli

Sleepy wrote: »

Anyone else watch this season of Bear Grylls the Island? He had two lots of survivors this year: an island of women and another of men. The women needed regular intervention from the producers as they fell to pieces as a group. There were a handful of them (notably a forrestors daughter and a girl who'd made an attempt to row the Atlantic) who were perfectly capable but as a group they floundered quite badly.

While by the last episode they were shown to be "thriving" (the point of the show), the reality was that they wouldn't have survived long past the 3rd week without the producer's intervention. While the men's group weren't perfect (there were a couple who weren't pulling their weight), they proved themselves far more capable.

Since watching it this season, I've been thinking a lot about how far removed we have become from our "natural" state on this planet. I'm reading "The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Our World from Scratch" and tbh, I think in such a scenario (re-building society after a complete breakdown (viral pandemic / asteroid strike / nuclear war / zombie apocalypse etc) and it really is clear to me that we'd need both genders to survive such an event.

Our bodies have evolved to allow the genders specialise to survive on this planet: the male being more muscular helps with the physical work necesary to survive e.g. wood cutting, building shelter, hunting etc. whilst the female has a metablolism evolved to store higher levels of fat reservesin order to survive prolonged periods of under-nourishment and to survive pregnancy and the re-production of our species.

Yep. Now imagine them all 8 months pregnant.

What would get done? NOTHING.

Sleepy

zeffabelli wrote: »

Yep. Now imagine them all 8 months pregnant.

What would get done? NOTHING.

I'm sorry, I'm not quite following this point? Are you suggesting that in a primitive society, most of the women would be permanently pregnant?

On your point regarding men starting wars... did Pinker address the issue of men starting wars at the behest of women? As males tend to be physically stronger and, reproductively speaking, less valuable to the tribe, they're certainly the ones who tend to *fight* wars but how often are they instigating it in response to the demands of the women in their life?

Ask any barman or bouncer and they'll tell you how women are often the cause of bar-fights so I'd wonder if the "He's looking at me funny Johnny, kill him" (or aggressively flirting with another man to make her boyfriend jealous) of the modern urban world relates to the tribal scenario of wars being started for the wants / demands of the woman?

gctest50

zeffabelli wrote: »

Yep. Now imagine them all 8 months pregnant.

What would get done? NOTHING.

maybe

zeffabelli

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm sorry, I'm not quite following this point?

Well, you can barely tie your shoe laces at 8 months pregnant....so given the immobility, if there were just women around, nothing would get done, nothing built, nothing gathered, unless you rely of course on the non pregnant women which I guess is a possibility.

Sleepy wrote: »

On your point regarding men starting wars... did Pinker address the issue of men starting wars at the behest of women? As males tend to be physically stronger and, reproductively speaking, less valuable to the tribe, they're certainly the ones who tend to *fight* wars but how often are they instigating it in response to the demands of the women in their life?

Ask any barman or bouncer and they'll tell you how women are often the cause of bar-fights so I'd wonder if the "He's looking at me funny Johnny, kill him" (or aggressively flirting with another man to make her boyfriend jealous) of the modern urban world relates to the tribal scenario of wars being started for the wants / demands of the woman?

Ok I can't really comment on the bar scenario where there is alcohol involved, because I don't do the pub scene, but I'll take your word for it. But the example you give would demonstrate that competition is an effective spur to violence against other men. And jealousy would be a prime trigger in lot of DV.

It's long and complicated what Pinker goes into, but he cites that it is men that are more violent and start more wars and that wars have historically been more about proprietorship over women because of reproductive viability....the assumption there biologically is that women choose and men compete (even down to the behavior of the egg and the sperm). If you kill off other men, then you can secure more wives which means you can have more children.

He also makes an observation, which I'm still processing and not quite sure about, that with the ease of divorce, that we have become for all intents and purposes polygamous, and with women "choosing" men who have more status and more money, and divorce making this far more possible, it is leaving younger men with less options, (whereas pre easy divorce they had a better chance of securing a mate...with less competition) and as a result is leading to more violence among younger men...because the competition is more ferocious.

the evasion_kid

Sleepy wrote: »

Anyone else watch this season of Bear Grylls the Island? He had two lots of survivors this year: an island of women and another of men. The women needed regular intervention from the producers as they fell to pieces as a group. There were a handful of them (notably a forrestors daughter and a girl who'd made an attempt to row the Atlantic) who were perfectly capable but as a group they floundered quite badly.

While by the last episode they were shown to be "thriving" (the point of the show), the reality was that they wouldn't have survived long past the 3rd week without the producer's intervention. While the men's group weren't perfect (there were a couple who weren't pulling their weight), they proved themselves far more capable.

Since watching it this season, I've been thinking a lot about how far removed we have become from our "natural" state on this planet. I'm reading "The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Our World from Scratch" and tbh, I think in such a scenario (re-building society after a complete breakdown (viral pandemic / asteroid strike / nuclear war / zombie apocalypse etc) and it really is clear to me that we'd need both genders to survive such an event.

Our bodies have evolved to allow the genders specialise to survive on this planet: the male being more muscular helps with the physical work necesary to survive e.g. wood cutting, building shelter, hunting etc. whilst the female has a metablolism evolved to store higher levels of fat reservesin order to survive prolonged periods of under-nourishment and to survive pregnancy and the re-production of our species.

Don't know if you've ever seen this version of dutch survivor

Edit: fast forward to 13.20 it sums up the whole clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqfAt7TshLw

noway12345

Modsnip.

Have a few days off before posting again.

ancapailldorcha

noway12345, do not post in this thread again. You are adding nothing.

manjosh

With out men, am sure the world would have vanished...black hole stuff.

H3llR4iser

Sleepy wrote: »

Anyone else watch this season of Bear Grylls the Island? He had two lots of survivors this year: an island of women and another of men. The women needed regular intervention from the producers as they fell to pieces as a group. There were a handful of them (notably a forrestors daughter and a girl who'd made an attempt to row the Atlantic) who were perfectly capable but as a group they floundered quite badly...

That was an interesting unofficial experiment and it does depict a somewhat-accurate picture of the current status quo.

The only problem is that it can't be applied to a theoretical society where men did not exist at all - such a society would have a completely different balance, were the gender prototyping doesn't come in the picture.

The fact is simple, it's not like women can't or don't want to do certain things; It's that they are told, from the day they are able to walk, not to. Ask any woman in a tech/scientific career, and they'll tell you how they were considered "weird" growing up, because they essentially liked "boys things".

In other words, in an hypotetical society with no men whatsoever and thus no "social roles", most if not all women would be just like the two on the show who could get stuff done properly; They wouldn't grow up being educated and indoctrinated to the fact that "there will be a man to do X or Y for you".

wakka12

Lemming wrote: »

Yes. To think that women are any less capable of violence then men is foolish naievity supreme. All this "we're all sisters" crap is just that; crap. When push comes to shove, it'll disappear up its own @rse when needs are preceived as "must".

I disagree. Theres a considerably smaller number of psychopathic females than males, women are biologically less prone to acts of rage and aggression also. The nations which have the most females in positions of power are also the most peaceful (coincidence..maybe..?). Females are a much gentler gender on average, probably due to stronger maternal instincts.

But I still think war would happen in an all female world, there would just be less of it and on a smaller scale. People will compete for resources no matter how nice either side is. But they might come to a compromise more easily/quickly.

ancapailldorcha

wakka12 wrote: »

I disagree. Theres a considerably smaller number of psychopathic females than males, women are biologically less prone to acts of rage and aggression also. The nations which have the most females in positions of power are also the most peaceful (coincidence..maybe..?). Females are a much gentler gender on average, probably due to stronger maternal instincts.

Do you have anything to back any of this up with?

stuboy01

Sleepy wrote: »

Anyone else watch this season of Bear Grylls the Island? He had two lots of survivors this year: an island of women and another of men. The women needed regular intervention from the producers as they fell to pieces as a group. There were a handful of them (notably a forrestors daughter and a girl who'd made an attempt to row the Atlantic) who were perfectly capable but as a group they floundered quite badly.

While by the last episode they were shown to be "thriving" (the point of the show), the reality was that they wouldn't have survived long past the 3rd week without the producer's intervention. While the men's group weren't perfect (there were a couple who weren't pulling their weight), they proved themselves far more capable."

Also an interesting watch was 10,00BC. where a group of people were sent to live in prehistoric conditions for a few months. It was a mixed gender group. there was a lot of conflict and a lot of drop outs.
http://www.channel5.com/shows/10000-bc/meet-the-tribe
20 went in and I think only 4 or 5 made it to the end.

seamus

wakka12 wrote: »

I disagree. Theres a considerably smaller number of psychopathic females than males, women are biologically less prone to acts of rage and aggression also.

I'm not sure this is necessarily true. While international statistics show far less women in prison, they also show that women are far less likely to be prosecuted when arrested for violent acts and far less likely to be jailed.

Now, it would plain stupid for anyone to ignore the effects of testosterone here. There is a known link between testosterone and aggression, and likewise the vast majority of males in prison are young men, when their testosterone is at its highest.
So to suggest that women are as likely as men to be involved in violent crime would likely be wrong, but the evidence indicates that women are far underrepresented in violence statistics, for many various reasons.

The nations which have the most females in positions of power are also the most peaceful (coincidence..maybe..?).

Probably correlation. A higher representation of women in power is typically indicative of a more open society based on democratic and egalitarian principles. These tend to be more peaceful by nature.

But they might come to a compromise more easily/quickly.

Even anecdotally I see no reason to suggest that women are more likely to see reason and compromise more quickly than men.

H3llR4iser

wakka12 wrote: »

I disagree. Theres a considerably smaller number of psychopathic females than males, women are biologically less prone to acts of rage and aggression also.

This could very easily be due to social bias. Despite what certain media outlets try to push out, current society puts an enormous strain on men - they are expected to be providers, to be strong, efficient, to be able to go and "get what they want".

Most importantly of all, there's a perception that men should never need any help about anything, yet as soon as one puts one foot slightly wrong, he's blasted as a monster. It's no mystery that suicide rates are much higher in males than females, and it's just one of the ways such pressure exerts its toll.

Not saying that there are not expectations or pressures put on women, but there is also a lot more leeway; Women are not often put in the "never should ask for any help or you're less of a woman" scenario, and when they slip up they tend to get a much more lenient treatment.

Secondarily, sexual frustration also tends to be much higher and much more widespread in men than women, both due to hormonal and social reasons.

wakka12 wrote: »

The nations which have the most females in positions of power are also the most peaceful (coincidence..maybe..?).

Not sure what countries you are referring to; There are plenty of women in positions of power in the US and UK, and they could be considered some of the least peaceful nations around. Most of the times it's down to the cultural inclination of the population - Ireland would be peaceful even if G.W. Bush was the taoiseach.

wakka12 wrote: »

Females are a much gentler gender on average, probably due to stronger maternal instincts.

Pretty sure this has no basis, as I can't see how a "maternal instinct" cold apply anywhere outside the family context. Yet, there are plenty of women not afraid to literally use their own children as a bargaining tool in strained relationships and divorce scenarios.

wakka12 wrote: »

But I still think war would happen in an all female world, there would just be less of it and on a smaller scale. People will compete for resources no matter how nice either side is. But they might come to a compromise more easily/quickly.

This is where it gets interesting. In a nutshell, there would be no difference at all with what we have seen up to now. War, conflict, killing are part of the human, not male, nature. We are predators and not just any predator: the scariest and most ferocious that ever walked on this planet. We are the one species that actively hunts on itself and that continuously and incessantly uses a significant part of its own resources (both in terms of intellect and wealth) to figure new, better and faster ways to kill each other. If there was a society of only women, they would quickly and efficiently pick the mantle, fighting and killing just as well as men do.

zeffabelli

seamus wrote: »

Probably correlation. A higher representation of women in power is typically indicative of a more open society based on democratic and egalitarian principles. These tend to be more peaceful by nature.

.

How did such egalitarian and democratic societies achieve such democracy and peacefulness.... likely through bloodshed and revolution.

Can you provide some examples?

Who has a higher representation of women in power?

Pugzilla

Sexual reproduction increases genetic diversity, whatever genes favour the environment are then carried on.
Less likely to be wiped out by a disease or environmental change.

A lot better than soley depending on random mutations.

Mister Vain

noway12345 wrote: »

Would there be any wars without males?

Yeah they'd just be fighting over different things. Instead of fighting for land or power, they would invade other tribes because they had nicer shoes.

blinding

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Wouldn’t it be better if we lived in a world where females could mate with each other, both get pregnant and produce offspring that, if healthy, all of whom could in turn reproduce? Sexual reproduction is costly and inefficient with only half of adults being capable of producing offspring. Surely such a wasteful process would have been filtered out by natural selection eons ago.

It transpires that the answer to this question is no.

“Sexual Selection” involves males competing with each other for a chance to reproduce while females choose which males to mate with. A study carried out by researchers working for the University of East Anglia on flour beetles found that; when the beetles were paired off into monogamous couples, the community’s health rapidly deteriorated and didn’t survive past ten generations. Conversely, the populations which experienced strong sexual selection (90 males competing to mate with 10 females) were more resilient to extinction survived past 20 generations of inbreeding. Sexual Selection provides a vital means of genetic filtration to maintain the health of the population.

Jeez its tough being a man !

Always under the microscope and all that competition.

noway12345 wrote: »

Would there be any wars without males?

Fook yeah. Women would fight to the bitter end.

It might take them longer to get ready but when they are ready God help us all !