What if humans could reproduce asexually and sexually?

[Xanikk999]

Do you think society would of changed at all? It probably would have.

Kings and other monarchs in history may have favored reproducing asexually to garuntee the survival of thier kingdom.

There would probably be laws regarding it also. And would there be discrimination against asexually reproduced children as opposed to sexually reproduced children? Which would be preferable in popular culture?

At least it would offer an alternative to people who could not find a partner to have kids. But if people were asexual, there would also probably not be gender roles, so for the purpose of this lets say everyone is a hermaprodite.

 

[skadistic]

If asexual reproduction felt as good as sexual there would be alot of disposed babies and our current world wide population would be astronomical.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Do you think society would of changed at all? It probably would have.

Kings and other monarchs in history may have favored reproducing asexually to garuntee the survival of thier kingdom.

There would probably be laws regarding it also. And would there be discrimination against asexually reproduced children as opposed to sexually reproduced children? Which would be preferable in popular culture?

At least it would offer an alternative to people who could not find a partner to have kids. But if people were asexual, there would also probably not be gender roles, so for the purpose of this lets say everyone is a hermaprodite.

History would have sucked... so much.

What if Stalin or Hitler could have done this. a Never ending game of pain and terror. Im glad how things are... Atleast if they reproduce sexually then the offspring will likely be diffrent, but if it is done asexually, the product is just a clone right?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

What if humans could reproduce asexually and sexually?

By now there would have been a 'Million Bozo March' on Washington DC.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But even if Hitler had cloned himself, so what? Humans are more than their genes, we are also our upbringing and (if it exists) free will; besides, Hitler couldn't hold onto power for himself, so there is no way he could have done it for a clone.

No, the real difference is that Xanikk would start fewer threads . . .

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Mind is not determined merely genetically, so a clone of Stalin or Hitler would have been a different person.

I think we would have genespammers to the Nth degree, and looser murder laws or stricter population laws.

And we would have biology problems once a series of asexual reproducers begins to diverge into a new species.

 

[Eukaryote]

My gut tells me that if humans could reproduce asexully this world would be a lot worse.

Edit: Hey Xannik, can I call you Xanny, sounds cooler to me.

 

[Kyriakos]

What do you mean by "asexually"?
Unless you mean some non-human telepathic way, then nomatter how the sexual organs would have been (i trust you do not mean hermaphroditical reproduction) there would again have been a sexual drive, and its effects on way of thinking, organisation of various concepts and general mentality.
Even if a person does not have sex they still would have had to have a built-up idea of it, and a view of it, not to mention a complicated stance towards it, which would produce & sustain their asexuality of sorts.
To claim that sex is something locked out of the overall world of thought is like claiming that the hypotenuse is something unrelated to geometry, since it does not come up obviously in every geometrical thought Now imagine the hypotenuse being linked to a living urge of a π

 

[Xanikk999]

What do you mean by "asexually"?
Unless you mean some non-human telepathic way, then nomatter how the sexual organs would have been (i trust you do not mean hermaphroditical reproduction) there would again have been a sexual drive, and its effects on way of thinking, organisation of various concepts and general mentality.
Even if a person does not have sex they still would have had to have a built-up idea of it, and a view of it, not to mention a complicated stance towards it, which would produce & sustain their asexuality of sorts.
To claim that sex is something locked out of the overall world of thought is like claiming that the hypotenuse is something unrelated to geometry, since it does not come up obviously in every geometrical thought Now imagine the hypotenuse being linked to a living urge of a π

Ummm ok... What does that entire post have to do with anything? I dont even know what geometry or telepathy would have to do with sexual or asexual reproduction.

 

[Swedishguy]

The biggest change in human society: I would be able to have children!

 

[Gilder]

The arguement against gay marriage would be dead.

 

[Kyriakos]

Ummm ok... What does that entire post have to do with anything? I dont even know what geometry or telepathy would have to do with sexual or asexual reproduction.

Well, what do you mean by "asexual reproduction"?

I took it that you meant reproduction without sex. But i point to you that unless you were thinking of something alien (telepathy etc) then nomatter what the organs used in it were, the species using them would have had developed ingrained relations with them, much like we have with our own, human ones. And the human world is very much influenced by sex, not only in direct ways. Ever wondered why less advanced societies have obsessions with their national symbols? A general view is that they see them as symbols of their own sexuality, via the concept of power, and identification with country.

 

[Xanikk999]

Well, what do you mean by "asexual reproduction"?

I took it that you meant reproduction without sex. But i point to you that unless you were thinking of something alien (telepathy etc) then nomatter what the organs used in it were, the species using them would have had developed ingrained relations with them, much like we have with our own, human ones. And the human world is very much influenced by sex, not only in direct ways. Ever wondered why less advanced societies have obsessions with their national symbols/religion? A general view is that they see them as symbols of their own sexuality, via the concept of power, and identification with country.

Do you know what the word asexual reproduction means?

It means sex without a partner basically. It produces an identical copy of the parent organism. Asexual reproduction is used by lower life-forms like sponges, single cell organisms, and jellyfish.

 

[Kyriakos]

The 'word' is hermaphrodism..
Or is it not? Well i am not familiar with the term you used, so if it is not hermaphrodism i trust it is more basic (worms, yes)

And so as to write something more:

A more complicated organism could not reproduce in such a way. Furthermore i seriously doubt that any intellectually significant organism could reproduce in such a way either; this would mean that said organism could be able to control its reproduction, which in turn would mean that it would have biologically inherited controlling urges. This in turn would mean that, since it would have no sexual organs, and no action to do so as to reproduce, it would have to have a block in its very thoughts. This in turn would mean that it could never develop very far away from that block though, since controlling a thought is not very easy, and biologically it would have needed to.

 

[History_Buff]

Kings and other monarchs in history may have favored reproducing asexually to garuntee the survival of thier kingdom.

Actually, I think the opposite would have been true. In a tough spot, they may have done it, but most of the time they would prefer sexual reproduction, for social reasons.

European nobles were rather famous for showing off their wealth. They partook in activities simply because the peasantry could never afford to do it, and this is where the nobles would meet, and gossip about other nobly types. I would think the peasants would be less likely to be married and reproduce sexually, since they'd be busy farming and fighting wars, the nobles would be all about the beast with two backs.

 

[Xanikk999]

The 'word' is hermaphrodism..

No hermaphroditsm means that they have both male and female parts.

Asexual reproduction is the act of reproducing asexually, hermaphrodism just refers to having both pairs of organs. It does not have anything to do with actively reproducing.

Single cell organisms are never considered male or female, so its clearly not the same thing.

 

[Eukaryote]

The arguement against gay marriage would be dead.

Wait a minute, there are arguments agansit that? Real ones?

 

[Perfection]

We'd all live on the moon and have green noses.

 

[CaptainF]

Toooo many babies.

 

[Shadylookin]

it depends on if it's voluntary or involuntary. if every time you play with yourself you run a high risk of impregnating yourself then people would probably be more open to sex since if you're going to take the risk of pregnancy you may as well have sexual intercourse since it's more fun.

it it was voluntary as in you get to choose when you become self impregnated I don't think much in society would change. we still have sex drives, sex is not solely a tool for reproduction, and it would still be very undesireable for men to have children since we dont' have a big enough exit