Men No Longer Needed

Finally, recent uncited sciencey breakthroughs have confirmed previous findings allowing the production of eggs and sperm from the stem cells of both men and women. For the past billion years our ancestors have been required to mate with males in order to reproduce, but that wasteful system has finally been corrected. Starting soon, clinical trials will be carried out in prestigious name-less research hospitals, allowing lesbian couples to have children they can both call their own. Women will soon be rejoicing around the world, as men are no longer needed!

Let the age of Fempires begin!

Luckily for us men, no recent breakthroughs have actually made this a possibility, yet. Researchers in Newcastle and Cambridge have taken the first steps in creating sperm and eggs from stem cells, but they are still quite a long way off making this a reality. But let’s just imagine this is real, and is about to create shockwaves throughout our societies, as it might in the not too distant future.

If you’re in a lesbian relationship and hoping to have kids, this is the perfect opportunity for you. You no longer need to decide who will be the biological parent, as now you can both be. You can even take it in turns acting as the mother or fertilizing the egg (with your very own female sperm), as your family grows.

The male sex is a puzzle that biologists have been mulling over for decades. They can’t directly produce offspring and reproduce – the currency of natural selection – so why on earth are there so many of them? Clearly with just a few males in a population of females the group could produce a great number of offspring – far more than a rival group with a 50:50 ratio of males to females. Yet the small number of selfish males would have such high reproductive success, that natural selection would favour an increase in males. It currently takes one male and one female to produce an offspring, so if either sex were greater in number, then individuals of the common sex would have a lower average reproductive output than the rare sex. Thus, an equal ratio would be restored by natural selection, as the rare sex would be favoured by selection.

But now things have changed. With the advent of stem-to-sperm (STS) capabilities we can allow women to produce healthy sperm cells, which can be used to impregnate the egg of another woman. No longer are we restricted by the iron grip of natural selection. No longer are costly men required.

A fantastic side effect of lesbian couples having their own children is that, with no Y chromosome involved, couples are guaranteed to have little baby girls. So perhaps it is only a matter of time before men become obsolete – their parasitic nature finally exposed for all to see, and their legacy finally coming to an end.

It is true that these breakthroughs also bring us new stem-to-egg (STE) capabilities, meaning gay male couples now also have the chance to bring up children to which they are both the biological parents. However, two men, each the legacy of a billion years of the exploitative sex, simply don’t have the required uterus for same-sex reproduction. No, gay couples require a woman to act as the surrogate mother, thus continuing the dependency men have had for eternity.

Now before we celebrate there is one thing we should still consider, and that is that many women are quite attracted to men. Unfortunate though this now is, it is a rather general, well-supported finding both scientifically and anecdotally. So although men are technically no longer needed for reproduction, this does not mean that women will immediately stop finding them attractive and mating with them. Looking forward, we will perhaps see competition occurring between the men of the world and the growing number of lesbians, for the affections of straight women. But the outcome is far too uncertain for speculation.

Another potential use of this technology would be cutting out a reproductive partner all together, as women could make their own sperm and use it to fertilize their own egg. This self-fertilization might sound like a great idea that would result in clones, twice as related to you as normal offspring, however there are a few problems. Firstly, clones have an identical genome to the ‘parent’ whereas this would be two random halves of the same genome. This means the chance of abnormalities due to inbreeding and harmful recessive alleles is dangerously high. Additionally, reproducing with one’s self, usually known as asexual reproduction, is detrimental because it severely limits the genetic variation of the resulting offspring. Sexual reproduction evolved as it maximizes genetic variation, such that diseases and parasites cannot become accustomed to a host’s genome and thus able to rapidly attack its offspring.

There is one final pitfall that we must consider. Take our perfect lesbian couple; let one fertilize the other’s egg and watch as the child develops over the next 9 months. Now here’s the problem. What if our sperm-wielding woman does a runner? She could move to the next town, attract another lesbian partner, impregnate her and then move on again! Outrageous you might say. But this woman would be doing rather well in the gene pool, and she would be taking advantage of her ability as the sperm-giver to make a very low investment in reproduction. What does this all mean? Well, in a world full of lesbians, some would probably shift to a fast, low investment strategy and the lesbi-man would be born. All of this goes to say that when it comes to sexual reproduction, even between members of the same sex, unequal initial investment in human reproduction cannot be overcome.

Latest Research

Newcastle: “Women may be able to grow own sperm” by Roger Highfield: The Telegraph (2007)

Cambridge: “Cell breakthrough to bring two-dad babies” by Lois Rogers: The Sunday Times (2015)

Another World

It’s crazy to think that a parallel universe exists alongside our own, and people can jump in and out of it at will. It allows us to live double lives and be in infinite places at once. It provides jobs and augments people’s interactions with friends and family. Although it can provide entertainment, money and popularity to some, this universe has a dark secret; it does not really exist, except in people’s gadgets and minds. Despite this, it has a remarkable ability to pull people away from reality, enticing them to spend more and more of their lives inside its virtual space. So strong is its draw that people even use it to deliberately waste their own time, to waste their lives.

We call it the Internet.

Phonies on the beach/Instagram

Facebook’s Emotion Study Under Ethical Scrutiny

A controversial paper has just been published in PNAS that studied the effects of the emotional content of posts that appear in a person’s news feed on Facebook. The number of positive and negative posts that appeared was manipulated without the person’s knowledge to look at what effect it had on the emotional content posted by the user. Their results show that emotional contagion (transfer or sharing of an emotional state) can occur through online social networks. However, the effects reported in the study were very small. As they put it, “people’s emotional expression is difficult to manipulate” as mood is affected by many experiences throughout the day.

More interesting than the results is Facebook’s ability and willingness to cause changes in emotions in an enormous number (689,003) of unknowing ‘participants’. There was no consent given for involvement in the study and it is looking as though no ethical approval was ever received by the researchers. The rather serious implications are that the data use policies of companies like Facebook and Google can allow them to legally experiment and tinker with the emotions and thoughts of their users. Don’t get me wrong collaboration between universities and private companies is desirable, but there surely must be greater transparency and regulation to limit behavioural manipulation of the public.

Medical Advances and their Limitless Potential

Extraordinary genetic and medical advances are becoming ever-more frequent occurrences it would seem. The possibilities are endless and we are rapidly increasing our repertoire of extreme, life-saving and unbelievable therapies. For example, this woman in Holland had a rare condition that caused the bone in her cranium to thicken to the extent that it was crushing her brain, causing loss of sight and severe headaches, which would eventually have killed her. So she had her cranium scanned and then a perfect 3-D printed version made for her and implanted as a replacement to her own. This photo shows her with the new plastic skull as it was fitted during the operation.


Insane. But 100% real and hopefully life-saving for her. We can allow ourselves to imagine that we’ll soon be able to create synthetic versions of any organ or structure and make it personalized to an individual’s DNA, so the chances of it being rejected are extremely slim. We’ll be growing spare organs that are made-to-order and perhaps even providing genetic and tissue enhancements too. It reminds me of the film ‘Robots’ where they buy new parts in order to grow or make improvements, but only the richest individuals can afford the most desirable and powerful upgrades.

However, it’s unlikely we could ever recreate a person’s brain, as it is incredibly difficult to understand and attempt to replicate the relationship between neuron signalling and memories, thoughts, feelings and emotions, although we are improving all the time. Maybe one day it will be possible to upload the content of a brain, and to download this on to a replacement, in essence allowing someone to live forever. The film ‘Transcendence’ uses this idea to suggest that an uploaded brain could be given access and control over the power of a super-computer, forming a sort of Artificial Intelligence/Human hybrid. I can’t help but think that film is about Ray Kurzweil. But I would hasten a guess that if we do hybridise in some way with machines, it is more likely that we would be incorporating computer power into our heads, rather than our minds into a computer. It just seems simpler.

Killer Robots No Longer Just Science Fiction

Later this month the UN will discuss the possibility of autonomous killing machines at a convention on weaponry in Geneva. They are essentially talking about Terminators or drones from the Iron Man films (pictured), that is killer robots that don’t require human involvement or decision making. We could be in serious trouble if Google (AKA Skynet?) decide to get involved, or maybe they already are?


Isn’t it crazy to think that we’re considering developing and building robots designed to, quite literally, kill ourselves. Surely it would only be a matter of time before they got into the wrong hands or experienced a life-destroying software malfunction. It’s hard to know how advanced technology has become in the most secretive and well-funded laboratories around the world, namely those involved in military projects. We can be reasonably sure these technologies do not yet exist, but equally sure they are close to being a possibility, if not a reality. The weapons experts talking in Geneva are therefore attempting to pre-empt killer robot manufacturers and impose a ban that will ensure the safety of us all.

Look Up and Stop Being a Phonie

This video basically sums up my previous article on Phonies being distracted by technology and failing to engage with friends and family. The message is that we should all “look up” from those screens and see what is happening around us, talk to people and live our lives. We need to use our phones in moderation and be aware of the appropriate times to use them, or more likely, to keep them firmly in our pockets.

Brains Online in 2030’s?

Over at the Singularity University in Silicon Valley, California (of course), some of the brightest (and richest at $29,500 per 10 week course) technology-loving futurists gather to discuss, imagine and create. Ray Kurzweil, co-founder of the ‘university’, has recently been speaking about some of his work as the Director of Engineering at Google. He describes their current mission as “reengineering the human brain” in such a way that we can eventually connect it to the internet, which he predicts will be realised in the 2030’s. As a leader in this field and proven predictor of such things as the year a computer would beat a human chess grand master and the explosion of the internet, it’s hard not to take his word for it.


Perhaps the most shocking part of Kurzweil and Google’s work is not that they are trying to hook us up to the cloud by inserting nanobots into our brains, but the potential resulting brain power that could come from such a process. Were it done correctly, and by that I mean accurately mimicking existing brain connections and hierarchical structure, then it could create a super-intelligent network of brains. Imagine linking the neocortex of the members of a lab group, allowing them to more efficiently trade ideas, innovate and discover using a ‘multi-brainstorm’ approach. Teaching would be transformed – think Leonardo DiCaprio and Ellen Paige designing radical architecture while dream-sharing in the film Inception – but in danger of imposing ideas instead of just presenting them.

Picture world leaders plugged into each other’s heads discussing the future on behalf of the rest of us. Could they not easily do away with transparency, leaving the public out of the loop? Or would it allow great collaboration, democracy and openness in politics and worldwide, unified action? There is also danger that the experience of linking minds itself may be so overwhelming that any group risks an explosion of power-thirst and ambition from among its members. More likely not.

There is no shortage of volunteers to scout, pioneer, and trial new technologies, even when there are unresolved ethical dilemmas and questionable futures. The “Explorers” that bought the first Google Glass models and have been using them ever since are just one such example – cameras in contact lenses could be next. Whatever new tech is released there is always someone willing to test it, so the progression towards greater technological dependence and enhancement of humans is in some ways inevitable (if such things are mechanistically feasible, which they probably are).

Cloning for Lay-Men and Women

How do you clone a dog like they did on the Channel 4 programme “The £60,000 Puppy: Cloning Man’s Best Friend” shown this week? It might seem obvious to some, but for the great majority cloning sounds like something out of science fiction. Let’s break it down as simply as possible. DNA is the recipe that is used by almost all of life on Earth. Every single animal that has ever lived started as a single cell and developed into an adult by following, very precisely, the instructions in its DNA. Using delicate processes scientists are now able to remove the DNA from an embryo, leaving a healthy but information-less cell. The DNA is then taken from a living individual and inserted into the empty cell, replacing that which was removed and giving it instructions to create an adult. This embryo is then implanted in a female and the pregnancy and growth begins.

So an individual’s unique DNA specifies precisely how to ‘make’ that individual from the starting point of an embryo. By replacing the recipe from one embryo with that of a living individual, a clone is produced that is essentially an identical twin, just with a different birthday to the original. This does not mean that the clone is the exact same individual – just look at typical identical twins – they are made individual by the environment they experience through their lives.

Cloning cannot recreate an individual’s personality; it cannot make a copy of a person; it cannot bring someone back from the dead or let them live forever. However, it could be used to exclusively breed the most desirable and valuable animals for agriculture, albeit at greater risk of epidemics.

Distracted by Tech: the Phonies

So I’ve recently realised some people are much less sociable in group situations than they surely were when phones weren’t quite so versatile. These people, I like to call ‘Phonies’, are constantly sidetracked by their phones; the temptations and draws of social media and nifty, ‘time-saving’, trending, gadget-like apps. Constantly engaging with dozens of little ‘helpful’ apps can save seconds and make a day run smoothly, but they come at a cost to friendly interaction. Often Phonies don’t listen to your story, thoughts or questions, they just vacantly stare at their screens instead. In extreme circumstances Phonies appear to distance themselves from the group at times by busily checking what people are tweeting about or what they’ve got up to and posted on facebook or instagram. I say it’s simply not worth it. We desperately need to be able to separate our time spent engaged with our phones and time spent fully engaged with our friends! Otherwise we’ll just continue this demise and eventually won’t be bothering to talk much at all. And it’s infuriating and boring to be around friends who are full or part-time Phonies.

I would almost go so-far as to say that I’m offended that a shiny LED screen can sway someone’s attention from talking to me. And unfortunately the rise of Phonies has the potential to spiral out of control, especially as phone use can be contagious. One person engages with their phone and others get bored/offended/jealous and soon immerse themselves in their own tech, leading to conversational inertia. And the young may be at greatest risk due to their high exposure to tablets and games at home (see this worrying article), resulting in the incomplete development of their basic abilities to socialise, befriend and network. Result: a world full of Phonies, like the two depicted below in a new piece by Banksy called “Mobile Lovers”.20140420-221508.jpg

Human Software Updates?

Will we augment ourselves and become one with machines as futurist Ray Kurzweil (pictured below) predicted many years ago for 2029? It definitely looks like it. Think about it, you already increase your social interactions on a daily basis using a handheld supercomputer. We spend huge chunks of our day browsing, checking facts and ‘socialising’ on the internet. We even have virtual versions of ourselves that allow others to meet and learn about us while we sleep. It is not a question of if we are going to become one with technology – our lives are already heavily reliant and interwoven with computers and electronics and this is only going to become more efficient and subtle. The result? Someone who looks totally normal but has the ability to draw from a vast database of knowledge and communicate online without a sweat. But we don’t seem to be able to multitask at present so I would imagine this will lead to even less attention being paid to reality, despite the intentions of more seamless usage. Let’s just hope we maintain the ability to relax and interact physically with others, else life might lose its joy.20140420-222551.jpg