/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #14159994

16KiB, 480x360, shy.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Fri 28 Jan 20:45:32 2022 No.14159994 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>14160094 >>14164576 >>14164663 >>14171010 >>14174634 >>14180907 >>14186467 >>14188263

How do we genetically engineer an organism that grows a penis during mating season, but is female for the rest of the year?

(The evolution stabilizes because individuals who can't grow a healthy member will be the ones impregnated.)

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Jan 2022 20:50:16 No.14160007 Report

Quoted By:

I'm personally more interested in a fully hermaphrodite species that can change its sex and also fat distribution and height at will.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Jan 2022 21:20:46 No.14160094 Report

Quoted By: >>14160309

>>14159994
so they're all female except for mating season? How is a species supposed to survive if its a sausage fest?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Jan 2022 22:10:38 No.14160309 Report

Quoted By:

>>14160094
There are actually multiple viable trajectories, I just thought it'd be rude to post spoilers of the entire evolution of a species.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Jan 2022 08:48:43 No.14162064 Report

Quoted By:

Regenerating testes probably wouldn't work, or if it did would cause too much mutation in an adult. There might be hard biological limits we can't sidestep.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1646238291655.jpg, 146KiB, 1080x774

Anonymous Sat 29 Jan 2022 09:16:16 No.14162105 Report

Quoted By: >>14162488

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Jan 2022 12:28:20 No.14162488 Report

Quoted By:

>>14162105
Lead with OC or die. Your parasitic spamming isn't welcome, and /b/ is really no more than 10 seconds away. Raid for attention alone and that may be exactly what you get, as a raid in the opposite direction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Jan 2022 12:30:38 No.14162497 Report

Quoted By: >>14162540

>le sex
Is this your new fetish amazon women fag?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Jan 2022 12:41:16 No.14162540 Report

Quoted By: >>14167421

>>14162497
No, they're advocating for sexual dimorphism. I'm suggesting the exact opposite.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Jan 2022 22:57:36 No.14164559 Report

Quoted By: >>14164907

>an organism that grows a penis during mating season
That's a waste. Lugging around a full male reproductive system and everything it entails (with a few tweaks to allow its existence in an otherwise female organism) is nowhere near as taxing as maintenance required for gestating and delivering.

The only real flaw of non-sexual reproduction is lower variety. Dimorphism as specialization is very useful but only until a certain point. We're either already past that point or close to it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Jan 2022 23:02:21 No.14164576 Report

Quoted By: >>14164584 >>14164653

>>14159994
So how exactly is this supposed to work out? everyone becomes male and cant really get preggy when they are horny? and the rest of the time they are females? kekw

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Jan 2022 23:04:53 No.14164584 Report

Quoted By: >>14164604

>>14164576
He is simply not yet ready to accept that futa is the logical optimization to the existing dimorphic state. Once a certain technological threshold is reached, specialization between sexes rapidly loses its advantages.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Jan 2022 23:10:47 No.14164604 Report

Quoted By: >>14164894

>>14164584
>believes faggotry will make the genderduality obsolete thx to technology

damnit i relly start to believe we live in the end times.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Jan 2022 23:26:42 No.14164653 Report

Quoted By:

>>14164576
You are now the second anon to not read the stuff in parentheses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Jan 2022 23:29:09 No.14164663 Report

Quoted By: >>14164691

>>14159994
Stop watching porn and seek mental help.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 29 Jan 2022 23:35:56 No.14164691 Report

Quoted By:

>>14164663
One way or another, w*men are inferior humans and will be replaced by superior organisms.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 00:30:45 No.14164894 Report

Quoted By:

>>14164604
>>faggotry
>>genderduality
Yeah, your brain has entered the end times long ago.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 00:33:37 No.14164907 Report

Quoted By: >>14164952

>>14164559
What's so difficult about that? Why wouldn't it fit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 00:48:05 No.14164952 Report

Quoted By: >>14165091 >>14165099

>>14164907
Sex hormone release regulation is a rather complex mechanism and having not one but two sets of sexual organs alone is going to complicate things even further. The female+ approach also has this, but at least it doesn't require for the specimen to go through the rollercoaster of restarting and stopping at least another sex hormone cycle every X months.
And then we have the hopefully obvious on a science board problem of huge energy and nutrient drains from regular rapid regrowth and reabsorption of both external and internal organs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 01:17:57 No.14165091 Report

Quoted By: >>14165487

>>14164952
Internal organs should remain the same, I'm just not sure if that would include the testes. You're right about the complexity of maintaining two sets of organs though. It's probably too idealistic nutrition-wise. When resources are scarce it would make more sense to just find a hermaphroditic equilibrium instead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 01:19:38 No.14165099 Report

Quoted By: >>14165487

>>14164952
Why two sets? Why not one of each?
>And then we have the hopefully obvious on a science board problem of huge energy and nutrient drains from regular rapid regrowth and reabsorption of both external and internal organs.
The penis could just be retracted, then potrude in place of the clitoris.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 03:22:15 No.14165487 Report

Quoted By: >>14167184 >>14167265

>>14165091
>When resources are scarce
I believe it would also increase the rate of cancer occurrence, so it only keeps getting worse.

>>14165099
>Why two sets? Why not one of each?
And have them transform into one another? As in completely switch from androgen-based chemistry to estrogen-based? That would turn their brains into mush in several cycles.

>The penis could just be retracted, then potrude in place of the clitoris.
That's futa.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 18:07:13 No.14167184 Report

Quoted By: >>14167218

>>14165487
No, the first few generations would select rapidly. Seeding the population with good nutrition is a valid evolutionary requirement. It's meaningless to talk about genetic engineering if we're not going to produce a survivable environment for the organism.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 18:17:48 No.14167218 Report

Quoted By:

>>14167184
>No, the first few generations would select rapidly.
For what? Your foundation is a nearly normal otherwise female that undergoes rapid sweeping changes to her endocrine system every X months.

>It's meaningless to talk about genetic engineering if we're not going to produce a survivable environment for the organism.
For something like decorative dogs? Sure.
But you are talking about the dominant species that ought to be capable of surviving short periods of resource scarcity (accidents, cataclysms until survivors get to a safe spot, and so on).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 18:18:55 No.14167221 Report

Quoted By: >>14167248 >>14168556

the question isn't whether you can invent some convoluted reproductive process because nature shows you almost certainly can, but rather if that end result is actually stable in a sexually competitive environment

for example, in this hypothetical sometimes-male sometimes-female species, what benefit does the species get for performing the switch? there's obviously a real cost associated with it so there must be a real benefit otherwise there would be selective pressure for the organism to stick to one sex (or stick with both) rather than playing musical chairs with their genitalia.

hermaphroditic reproduction has proven to an effective reproduction strategy though, so that's probably the best way to go about it. even from an engineering perspective it makes more sense, since it's just wasteful to have to constantly be changing out equipment. ducks can apparently regenerate their penises too so maybe you just have some organism that's basically sexless most of its life then develops both sets of sexual organs during their puberty or metamorphosis or whatever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 18:26:03 No.14167248 Report

Quoted By: >>14167442

>>14167221
>there would be selective pressure for the organism to stick to one sex
Unless you are implying parthenogenesis, that is the end for the species.

>or stick with both
This is sensible and is already represented in simpler species. The smaller problem with humans specifically is that there is not enough space to fit the male equipment inside.

>ducks can apparently regenerate their penises too so maybe you just have some organism that's basically sexless most of its life then develops both sets of sexual organs during their puberty
That is both too error-prone and too costly, or vertebrates would already be doing that everywhere.

>or metamorphosis or whatever.
That might actually be a decent idea. The question is whether it would affect the brain negatively.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 18:33:34 No.14167265 Report

Quoted By: >>14167324

>>14165487
>And have them transform into one another?
I'm not OP, I'm just discussing a hermaphrodite race I've been thinking about. I think that one testicle and one ovary would work.

For what he talks about I presume that there would be no hormones.

>That's futa.
A futa is permanent, is it not? This would be able to retract and also seal up the vulva.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 18:50:27 No.14167324 Report

Quoted By: >>14167439

>>14167265
>For what he talks about I presume that there would be no hormones.
How would that work? Regular, much simpler humans already need all kinds of hormones.

>This would be able to retract and also seal up the vulva.
What is the benefit? There are glands that produce lubrication and the passages constantly clean themselves. You would have to stop all this music and then restart it come breeding season. Having the hymen broken over and over again. Having the vagina be initially uncomfortably tight for giver and/or receiver at every cycle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 19:12:23 No.14167421 Report

Quoted By: >>14168556

>>14162540
I am amazon guy.
Why do you hate sexual dimorphism?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 19:16:36 No.14167439 Report

Quoted By:

>>14167324
>How would that work?
I don't know, I just presume it because different sex hormones every year would fuck things up.

>What is the benefit?
Aesthetics, to appear more masculine. Only the front part would seal, into a pseudo scrotum.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 19:17:02 No.14167442 Report

Quoted By: >>14167480 >>14167506

>>14167248
>That is both too error-prone and too costly, or vertebrates would already be doing that everywhere.
if your standard is to develop a better method of reproduction that nature hasn't figured out yet then you're going to run into trouble, because nature has had a lot longer to work on the problem than you have

the OPs suggestion is already probably unviable for a species in the long term so you're going to have to settle for an inefficient solution at some point if you really want these bioengineered futa catgirls or whatever the intention was behind the post

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 19:21:14 No.14167454 Report

Quoted By: >>14186644

Giant women and small males is the optimization. I know you guys hate me for some reason but I am correct about this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 19:27:13 No.14167480 Report

Quoted By:

>>14167442
>if your standard is to develop a better method of reproduction that nature hasn't figured out yet then you're going to run into trouble, because nature has had a lot longer to work on the problem than you have
Kind of. See, what we have for mammals now works incredibly well (because everything not fit enough getting replaced by better competition tends to produce this result) because it is to a large degree is a product of the environment they live in.

Humans have in an evolutionary very small number of generations achieved a very artificial and unnatural habitat. At present it is still easy to regress into a more primitive state that is very comparable to how, say, other simians live.
But only regionally, even if on a large enough scale. Globally? Only if nukes start flying, but in that scenario everything is moot. Even if a continent was thrown back into not-quite-Stone Age (more like Iron Age is my guess), it will quickly bounce back to something like late XX century due to other regions which were not affected.

So now we get to a juncture where a question needs to be asked "how many of traits which were unambiguously advantageous at least until the medieval times are still unambiguously advantageous?" And if you spend enough time pondering that, especially with the possibilities of extinction events and everything related to them in mind, the picture gets a bit grim.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 19:32:08 No.14167506 Report

Quoted By: >>14170301

>>14167442
Also
>so you're going to have to settle for an inefficient solution at some point if you really want these bioengineered futa catgirls
I am not actually very anxious about that future as, being a boring old male, I would have no place in it. I reckon this is how many felt with the rapid advent of industrialization, automobiles, omnipresent telecommunication, computers and whatever it is that is happening now.

>or whatever the intention was behind the post
To speculate on what would be the likely least inefficient morphology and biology of future humans considering where humanity is now and where it seems to be headed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 20:42:14 No.14167781 Report

Quoted By: >>14170301

mitochondria and the nucleus have two different mutation rates and this is a problem because the cell must be in perfect ATP balance to function - mitochondria supplying and the nucleus demanding. For this reason you cannot have one single genetic line since the balance would eventually fail due to different mutation rates. So you need to have at least two sexes.
Nick Lane is the expert in this field and have a couple of good books that you should read if you're interested in this topic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 20:44:39 No.14167794 Report

Quoted By:

This is literally middle school horny lockeroom talk.
>g-guys what if we stopped time and fucked every girl in the world!!!!
woah, very interesting thank you very much

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Jan 2022 22:03:49 No.14168055 Report

Quoted By: >>14172087

Can you just engineer me a futa girlfriend that can produce at least 500ml of cum every day?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Jan 2022 00:08:34 No.14168556 Report

Quoted By: >>14170289 >>14170295 >>14170641 >>14184589

>>14167221
>nature shows you almost certainly can
Yeah if we're taking newts as an example, there don't seem to be any real limits to regeneration. I should probably clarify that we're not just restricted to mammals or anything like that, I'd accept an argument that some microorganisms already kind of have temporary genitalia if it's well presented.
>>14167421
What are males good for if we survey the animal kingdom? Do we have to cite how anglerfish breeding works to really understand how important reproductive abilities are?

It's not really about dimorphism, lesbians are just superior for long term planning. Hyperpromiscuity is a feature. Breeding just makes sense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Jan 2022 13:30:45 No.14170289 Report

Quoted By: >>14170295

>>14168556
>It's not really about dimorphism, lesbians are just superior for long term planning.
Not as they are right now. Highest rates of domestic abuse and all that. You need more or less masculine minds for a single sex species to work long-term.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Jan 2022 13:31:48 No.14170295 Report

Quoted By:

>>14168556
>>14170289
Well, for human-derived single sex species.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Jan 2022 13:33:49 No.14170301 Report

Quoted By: >>14170311

>>14167506
>behind the post
Well that's certainly relevant to the topic, but mostly it was about dissolving the idea of traps at a global level. Seeding soluble phallus notions could prove useful for softening the needlessly stagnant complex we find on /d/.
>>14167781
I was actually thinking something similar to that earlier. One gender would mean no Y gene, and lack of dimorphism would further slow down the rate of evolution. There might be other ways of introducing diversity, but gender just seems to be efficient. Awesome to see how it actually applies at a metabolic level.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Jan 2022 13:37:44 No.14170311 Report

Quoted By: >>14172087

>>14170301
>Well that's certainly relevant to the topic, but mostly it was about dissolving the idea of traps at a global level. Seeding soluble phallus notions could prove useful for softening the needlessly stagnant complex we find on /d/.
So you're just mad about dickgirls becoming mainstream because it's not your fetish? Should have said that outright.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Jan 2022 15:56:46 No.14170641 Report

Quoted By: >>14172087

>>14168556
>What are males good for if we survey the animal kingdom? Do we have to cite how anglerfish breeding works to really understand how important reproductive abilities are?
This is basically why males will be small and females big. Having one sex that does both tasks is less efficient than having two that are dedicated and optimized.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Jan 2022 17:33:26 No.14171010 Report

Quoted By: >>14171043 >>14182819

>>14159994
Turbellaria worms are sort of like that. They are hermaphrodites and when the time they battle it out, fencing with their penises, trying to impregnate and not get impregnated. Winner gets to do nothing while the loser has to cary baby worms.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Jan 2022 17:42:49 No.14171043 Report

Quoted By: >>14180806

>>14171010
>the you will never get to penis fence with your friends and impregnate all of them
Why even live?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Jan 2022 21:55:26 No.14172087 Report

Quoted By: >>14172460

>>14170641
No, it's more efficient to make ideal use of every body. Anglerfish evolve that way because their habitat is pure darkness, and opportunities to mate would otherwise be too rare for them to breed if they didn't latch on. It's efficient because of the environment, not some aesthetic about overall utility. Crippling half your workforce isn't really useful.
>>14170311
>said that outright
No I'm pretty happy with the state of /d/, I just think it could use an alternative once in awhile.
>>14168055
I can engineer basically everything that's been imagined, anon. You have to be far more specific with what you're asking for or you could end up in a Species scenario.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Jan 2022 23:08:33 No.14172460 Report

Quoted By: >>14172555

>>14172087
>No, it's more efficient to make ideal use of every body. Crippling half your workforce isn't really useful.
Larger people do not contribute more to the labor force or economy, nor do they have a greater potential in the modern world.
Women are made to be large so that they can produce litters of offspring quickly with their strong bodies big bodies and spacious supple wombs, they are made to super-ovulate each cycle so that when impregnated, they have litters of offspring. It's not about making them more or less efficient laborers based on size, it's about maximizing their fecundity in order to increase the population of the breed quickly. Hoping that every woman in your society has at least 2.1 kids for replacement is not as safe as just making it so that all women have 4 kids every time they get pregnant (then even if only half of the women have kids, you'll still be at replacement).
By doing this, the population never falls below replacement, and because half you population doesn't require nearly as much food or space to live at the same quality of life, you can sustain a larger overall population, with a massively greater fertility rate, for less land, energy, and other resource requirements. Making everyone into giant futas would neither reproduce as fast nor would it be as resource efficient for an equivalent population size.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Jan 2022 23:25:57 No.14172555 Report

Quoted By: >>14172560 >>14188203

>>14172460
Population size doesn't measure (or map to) efficiency, in any environment. People don't want to have litters, especially when you account for mortality. The argument about resources is plain wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Jan 2022 23:27:03 No.14172560 Report

Quoted By: >>14173419

>>14172555
>Population size doesn't measure (or map to) efficiency
Yes it does
> People don't want to have litters
Some people do
>The argument about resources is plain wrong.
No it isn't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Feb 2022 03:49:35 No.14173419 Report

Quoted By: >>14174619

>>14172560
Yes it is. Populations of the same size have the same resource requirements regardless of their trait composition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Feb 2022 15:36:56 No.14174619 Report

Quoted By: >>14176946

>>14173419
If each person needs ~half as much food and land, you can support twice as many of them for the same amount of food and land. Where is the difference being lost?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Feb 2022 15:44:22 No.14174634 Report

Quoted By:

>>14159994
we can't and won't be able to any time soon. Genetic engineering sucks and any organism you could make trivial modifications to enable this is so fucking rare it will be too difficult

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Feb 2022 03:38:01 No.14176946 Report

Quoted By: >>14178756

>>14174619
You haven't done the math at all. Both genders would still be using the same living spaces, which if anything might need to be more spacious to accommodate our larger female frames. Since daily diet is more about energy use than growth characteristics, the average resources remain relatively the same for adulthood and would probably balance out to around what we have now during puberty. You've increased the complexity of the environment and decreased efficiency of the population in relation to its current state.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Feb 2022 18:05:43 No.14178756 Report

Quoted By: >>14178823

>>14176946
The BMR for men calculated by 88.362 + (13.397 x weight in kg) + (4.799 x height in cm) – (5.677 x age in years).
Comparing two 25 year old males, one a 5'7"/170cm 130 pound/59kg male vs. a 3'5"/105cm 50 pound/23kg male, the 5'7" guy has a BMR of ~1,553 calories per day while the smaller one has a BMR of ~760 calories per day. This is slightly under half of the basal metabolic needs. Why do you think they'd use the same amount of energy?
For living space, they males are smaller, so one room could comfortably house the sons of a couple for basically their entire adolescence, all the way through highschool/college. So a normal size house that would normally comfortably house a family of 4 could be stretched to comfortably house a family of 6-7 without major modifications.
I don't see where I'm wrong here. We live in the prime environment for female biased dimorphism. There's food everywhere and males don't need to beat each other up for mating rights. This is the environment for big girls and small boys.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Feb 2022 18:27:40 No.14178823 Report

Quoted By: >>14182964

>>14178756
Energy use isn't the problem, accounting for both halves of the population is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 05:35:30 No.14180806 Report

Quoted By:

>>14171043
Bad things happen when I try to give life a purpose. You're better off not asking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 06:18:27 No.14180907 Report

Quoted By:

>>14159994
that would never happen because it's unnecessarily over complicated and "nature" like simplicity

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 18:28:56 No.14182819 Report

Quoted By:

>>14171010
Oh hm that's a good point. There's probably a selection pressure to keep a penis if you can grow one at all, so just having it fall off at the end of mating season probably wouldn't be a resilient mechanism.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Feb 2022 19:03:51 No.14182964 Report

Quoted By:

>>14178823
Where am I not accounting for both halves of the population? What do you mean?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 04:39:42 No.14184589 Report

Quoted By:

>>14168556
>Do we have to cite how anglerfish breeding works to really understand how important reproductive abilities are?
Do I need to cite how induced plasma currents work for you to understand how important solenoids are?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 17:34:12 No.14186467 Report

Quoted By:

>>14159994
The Lef hand of Darkness

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Feb 2022 18:22:54 No.14186644 Report

Quoted By:

>>14167454
lmao untaken boywife what are you doing outside of /gif/

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Feb 2022 03:00:34 No.14188203 Report

Quoted By: >>14189987

>>14172555
Women would need more resources to carry pregnancies like that, so you haven't reduced any of the resource requirements for the general population. People don't value breeding based on logic, nor does anyone seem to want a higher efficiency population. Economic arguments about human evolution could prove interesting, but you'd have to actually predict human values or the system cannot evolve.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Feb 2022 03:20:01 No.14188263 Report

Quoted By: >>14190015 >>14190842 >>14192740

>>14159994
Us bioengineers are not here to indulge your fetishes. Plus, if we can engineer tissues to change like that dynamically in complicated organisms (like humans), then we would probably know enough about reproduction to create artificial wombs, which would make human reproduction much easier, cheaper, and safer.

Furthermore, bionegineers have an ethical code not to cross lines into eugenics as we cannot evaluate the long lasting effects that interventions made to change such complicated traits would have.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Feb 2022 15:50:10 No.14189987 Report

Quoted By:

>>14188203
5'2" 100 pound woman - 1,152
6' 160 pound woman - 1,614
5'7" 130 pound man - 1,533
3'7" 55 pound man - 812

the normal couple - 2,685

the dimorphic couple - 2,426

This is about ~90% of the energy, which may not seem like a lot at first, but it's the difference of 100 million people when we are talking about national scale, and they would have far greater fertility. And this is comparing a small couple with the dimorphic one.
If we compare a couple of a 6' dude and a 5'5" woman, the difference becomes even greater.
This does reduce material requirements while at the same time increasing fertility rates of the population.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Feb 2022 16:01:54 No.14190015 Report

Quoted By:

>>14188263
>Us bioengineers are not here to indulge your fetishes
Yes I am, at least I'm doing this to further my fetish and my ideals of how humans should be.
There is literally no argument you can make that making men small and women big wouldn't be an overall positive for our species. All of the arguments boil down to aesthetic critiques about heteronormative gender roles, or fear mongering about externalities that do not exist. There aren't any problems that could arise from making men small and women big, we're not talking about trying to modify and control complex unobservables like intelligence or personality. Body size and mass are pretty clear, small men and big women already exist without problems, there wouldn't be any problems with a human species composed of such people.

Literally every argument against this is, at it's core, simply driven by a hatred for small men and/or big women. It's honestly is pretty unbecoming for people who consider themselves progressive, to turn around and ardently defend a regressive dimorphism or patriarchal gender dynamics for our species. There is literally nothing wrong with making men small and women big and anyone who has a problem with it is, ultimately, a bigot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Feb 2022 16:16:25 No.14190055 Report

Quoted By:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_reed_frog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_hermaphrodites

now go back to /d/

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Feb 2022 19:24:45 No.14190842 Report

Quoted By:

>>14188263
>Furthermore, bionegineers have an ethical code not to cross lines into eugenics as we cannot evaluate the long lasting effects that interventions made to change such complicated traits would have.
I'm willing to bet all my possessions, freedom and sanity that there will be enough volunteers to live in secluded and possibly even controlled environments if they and their offspring get to be what they want.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Feb 2022 04:51:38 No.14192740 Report

Quoted By:

>>14188263
>to indulge your fetish
Then you won't make any new organisms.

How are you planning to get anything done if you're not willing to fuck your creations? Do you think the OP pic was chosen on accident?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches