2
$\begingroup$

It's year 2156 and humanity as we know it is drastically changed by alien radiation. Six years ago an alien ship teleported above Earth and emitted what we later found out to be radiation that causes the human genome to mutate only to... women (Researchers revealed that the Y chromosome offers immunity to the mutation). The radiation appears to be engulfing the Earth despite the ship not being there anymore.

The mutation affects the behaviour of women making them uncontrollably violent and, at its peak, making them capable of slaughtering everyone around them. It seems to have different levels of evolution and propagation, but all women that reached the peak mutation levels became ruthless killers. Propagation to all women seems to be only a matter of time, as despite all efforts, the mutation kept on spreading.

A year and a half a go, the mutation started to spread and to evolve more quickly putting in danger humanity, so the women from the High Council decided that it is best to exterminate every possible recipient of the mutation, including any genome back-ups in labs, since some had been noticed to be affected as well. However advanced was our technology, we had no means of leaving Earth, but we managed to create a womb emulator that guarantees to give birth to a boy, making use only of a man's sperm.

The first birth from the emulator happened yesterday, and it's been a year since it's a men-only world and we find ourselves uncertain as to what the future holds without women.

Points to consider:
- there is no way for men to leave Earth
- the radiation will always be surrounding Earth, causing mutation to women
- there is no threat at all of a future alien visit
- from a birthrate standpoint, humanity is safe, although that means only men are alive

The Question:
What could negatively impact men's lives (and if it's the case, the existence of humanity altogether) now that it's only them on Earth? Bonus points for solutions given the situation, where applicable.

$\endgroup$

closed as primarily opinion-based by Confounded by beige fish., Cadence, Gryphon, Shadowzee, Cyn Mar 15 at 5:00

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No threat at all of a future alien visit - how? why? $\endgroup$ – cegfault Mar 15 at 0:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Welcome to the site WomeholeToNowhere, please take the tour and read up in our help centre about how we work: How to Ask At the moment any answer to your question could be nothing but opinion based and as such till you edit it to fit with our rules: VTC: POB. It could be re-opened depending on the quality of your edit. $\endgroup$ – Confounded by beige fish. Mar 15 at 0:13
  • $\begingroup$ @cegfault The reason why I added the "no threat at all" thing is that I want the answers to focus on the actual development of human life and ignore the fanatasy part of alien invasion which is just the cause $\endgroup$ – WormholeToNowhere Mar 15 at 0:35
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Useful: Male-only worlds in Sci-Fi. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Mar 15 at 0:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I really wanted to throw together a Joke answer about things not being clean, terrible fashion and perfect traffic conditions but I'll try not to. This question is way to open ended. The removal of essentially 50% of the population is a huge issue and radiation doesn't just stick around. Something needs to generate this radiation and you bet yourself that men will do anything to get rid of that source. After all sex sells and the porn industry is basically unstoppable. $\endgroup$ – Shadowzee Mar 15 at 1:25
5
$\begingroup$

If we're going to answer this with some measure of completeness, we need to make a few assumptions about your technology;

1) Your embryos made up of male sperm are made up of TWO different males, combining a sperm cell with an X chromosome and a sperm cell with a Y chromosome from different people

2) You have a viable replacement for Breast Milk in the early stages of life

3) Both these are based on technologies that CANNOT be easily disrupted through power outages and the like; in other words, they're as close to their natural and organic counterparts as is possible.

If we hold these assumptions to be true, then your society may well be more stable than a mixed gender one, but there are some areas where there are issues, just the same.

For a start, yes, sexual attraction to each other will only occur in a small number of cases because if homosexuals are born that way, then so are heterosexuals and yes, that may result in more 'companion bot' products being sold, but that's not necessarily a bad thing as such devices may also have other benefits, like companionship. Certainly such behaviour can be programmed into devices, as the latest robot toys demonstrate, and this will only increase.

Families will still be a thing because men, regardless of much of the propaganda put out by special interest groups to the contrary, want to be good parents if they are inclined to have children in the first place. The willingness and capacity to be a good parent (in my experience on the matter) does not correlate along lines of gender. While sex is currently used in our society to emotionally bind pairs, in this society that doesn't have to be the case and we'll find other points of commonality that create close friendship bonds instead.

As such, pairs or small groups of men (the count is now irrelevant because it's not a function of sex) would probably form family units, and their DNA would probably be the contributions made to the children they raise. As such, children wouldn't necessarily be at a loss for family and community interaction at all and would grow up perfectly adjusted, especially given that all children would grow up in similar groups and therefore it wouldn't be a point of comparison between themselves in a schooling environment.

Society wouldn't become more aggressive; there's actually a case to answer that it would become less aggressive insofar as it wouldn't be focused on demonstrating prowess or aggression to attract potential mates by showing of their ability to protect from outside hostility. The homogeneity of gender would make other considerations important when establishing a pecking order in society and as such, leaders would be quick to ensure that rational thought and action is valued at the cultural level over aggression in any event.

There would probably be an increase in neurodiversity for the same reasons, and given that you now have a culture where rational abilities are encouraged, it may actually be genetically selected as a preference. While Asperger's Syndrome is no longer a thing (it got rolled into the Autism Spectrum with DSM-V) figures showed that it affected males in far greater numbers than females, and that means that it will increase as a percentage of society by virtue of removing a cohort that was under the average of incidence in the first place. How do you fix it? The same way you fix it today; embrace it as a critical element within your culture that allows the people who exhibit such diversity to contribute to the society in different ways that benefit the whole. We should be doing that now, but I digress.

The single biggest issue that men will face over time is increasing colour blindness. The reason why this is suffered by males far more than females is that the recessive gene that causes it is on the part of the X chromosome that does not get paired with the shorter Y chromosome. Hence, a woman might carry the gene but not have it (the other X has the dominant gene that blocks it) but pass it on to her sons.

In our new world however, some of the X chromosomes will have the recessive gene, some won't. Unless you're doing genetic screening on your contributions to the embryo, eventually your entire population will be colour blind because there's a good chance that the X chromosome that you pick carries it until you ONLY have those chromosomes to pick from. Even if you only select X chromosomes from men who aren't colour blind, if they carry the recessive gene there's still a 50% chance their children will be colour blind as a result.

The only way to solve this is through proper genetic screening, but then you're also touching on the subject of eugenics.

In short, if your society is successful, it's going to have to be more rational, accept small companion groups as de facto families, and seriously consider that part of the X chromosome that doesn't pair to Y chromosomes as a valuable asset. If we do those things, accept that men living together doesn't have to be a sexual thing but a strong platonic bond instead that's capable of raising children in a similar way to how it's done now, then society doesn't even really have to change all that much.

A final point - economies.

If you look at the figures for most advanced countries that have a good education system and gender equality in the workplace, most have a stable population if you deduct immigration figures.

Japan. Russia. Australia - the list goes on.

Each country deals with this in a different way; Japan for instance is actually going down the companion bot path as their population ages and contracts. Russia is engaging in a massive immigration campaign to preserve growth.

The society of all males we're creating will have similar characteristics; great education system, and gender equality in the workplace (for different reasons I grant you) so that you can expect this population to end up with zero population growth.

That means, economies now lack the capacity to expand, outside of technological assistance.

This isn't as bad as you might think, and there's an argument to say that we need to be thinking about how to make this happen now. The key problem here is that companies are funded through growth and stock price increase, meaning that they are voracious when it comes to growth. As such, your all male society may need to revisit the corporate entity model so as to stabilise economic size to match population. How do you do that? I have no idea, but what I can say is that people are far more likely to stop producing when they have 'enough' than companies are. As such, the worst thing you could do if population size starts to stabilise is leave companies to grow.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Really love the answer! Wish could upvote more than once. It feels as though you looked inside my head and managed to put things into words way better than myself. You also seem to have grasped the intended future of this society, i.e. men living together doesn't have to be a sexual thing but a strong platonic bond instead that's capable of raising children, since there will be created a One Big Family system made out of smaller family-like groups, where openness and friendship are core. $\endgroup$ – WormholeToNowhere Mar 15 at 1:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Will certainly need to consider solutions for Breast Milk and colour blindness and will think of a way of organising the economy side of things. Thanks a lot for the answer, once again! $\endgroup$ – WormholeToNowhere Mar 15 at 1:42
  • $\begingroup$ "leaders would be quick to ensure that rational thought and action is valued at the cultural level over aggression" - Now that is glossing over a whole lot of difficulty with a few bland words. Do you have any useful information about how such a feat of social and cultural engineering would be performed? Or is this one of those "exercises left for the reader"? $\endgroup$ – WhatRoughBeast Mar 15 at 3:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @WhatRoughBeast it would be performed the way that it's performed now; stimulus response management along with semantic association. In Australia for instance we had a big problem with people out in public killing people with one-punch attacks - we used to call them King Hits, now we call them Coward's Punches. It was a deliberate move in the media, and had an effect. Attitudes to drink driving are another example. In this world, key roles would be denied to people exhibited the wrong traits, punishments for anti-social behaviour would ramp up and public opinion would eventually follow. $\endgroup$ – Tim B II Mar 15 at 3:19
1
$\begingroup$

Vexed sexual desires

Millions of years have programmed men to have and act out sexual desires with women. When that is suddenly removed, things will change. Teenagers will probably be confused as all hell, especially if they've never seen a woman before, but have sexual desires ("I'm turned on, but not by any of these people", plus teenage angst in general). Adult men will want a release someway, somewhere. Here are some possible outcomes:

  • Increase in crime, especially violent crimes and rapes
  • Increased rates of depression and suicidal ideation - which also means increased medication
  • Standardization of sex changes / cultural support for transgenderism (aside - I'm not saying this is a negative, just a probable outcome)
  • Explosive growth of sex robots and virtual / AI pornography

Family structures

Your world still has children. But probably an increase in single-parent homes. This means an increase in daycare facilities, government-run welfare programs, etc. This drastically effects the psychology of children. Both perception of "home" as well as perceptions of society, individuality, and the like.

Genetics

It's not clear in your question, but if a single sperm is taken and incubated, that means that each new human is effectively a clone of a previous human. This prevents adaption, evolution, and mutation. It's not unfathomable that people would be more aggressive in pursuing, and supportive of, genetic research, gene-splicing, and stem cell research.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A lot of sexual nature is remarkably plastic. See, for instance, early Greek societies. Plato's "Symposium", for instance, puts forth the proposition that armies should be made up of bonded pairs, since each will try to impress his lover with his courage. Same-sex institutions such as boarding schools, prisons and military are famously subject to "institutional homosexuality". With no alternative outlet, I suspect most men would adapt. As the proverb goes, penis erectus non habet conscientiam "A stiff prick hath no conscience." $\endgroup$ – WhatRoughBeast Mar 15 at 3:22
1
$\begingroup$

I'm seeing a few issues coming from the way that humans are now forced to reproduce. Although your idea of reproducing through sperm conflicts with the structure and function of sperm itself, asexual human reproduction is theoretically possible using an ovum (through parthenogenesis). That obviously won't work in your setting, but the cell itself could be modified in a more realistic way to work with men alone instead of women alone. If the people in your world could obtain early STEM cells or develop a process for doing so with somatic cells, your world could be a little more consistent with human biology (Not that it needs to be).

Now for the real problems with male-only reproduction. First of all, it's probably asexual. If each new human boy is developed from the sperm of a single man, he would essentially be a clone, which would be an absolute ethical mess. Even if the general population could be convinced to work with this, they would lose the advantages of sexual reproduction. As a sperm and an ovum fuse their DNA, there is a chance for the zygote to have lost bad mutations from one of the parents, refreshing the gene pool and creating a variety in new people. If men were to be produced as clones of one another, they would not only lose genetic variance, but would continue to rack up mutations without any way of losing them, culminating in the death of the clone line. Over time this could cause changes in the human population, with a wide range of interesting mutations that could handicap or destroy clone lines and decrease the population.

As a solution, pseudo-sexual reproduction between males could be attempted, which would lean very heavily towards LGBT territory, if that's what you'd like. Another solution might be the editing of the human genome, manually correcting bad mutations and supporting the persistence of good ones. Either way, a solution would include a great advancement into science, which may have already been achieved in your setting.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.