Yes! They are!
But to understand why, first we need to understand why do males exist, in the first place?
If you were attentive in your biology class back when you were at school, you must have heard curiously and imbibed that humans reproduced by sexual methods and it was necessary to combine and mix genetic information from two different sexes—one male and one female—to increases variation in genetics of the next generation and it was this very variation that helped a species survive.
Unless you were not busy admiring the diagrams of the reproductive systems of your opposite sex!
In either case your biology text books were wrong!
Unfortunately, most evolutionary experts stopped believing in the concept of a male-female sexual reproduction , almost a century ago. (Your textbooks couldn’t keep up with the developments happening in the world!)
The first animal cloning was done in 1885, when Hans Adolf Eduard Driesch artificially twinned a sea urchin embryo by shaking it.
However, the first animal cloning using nuclear transfer, was done in 1952, when Robert Briggs and Thomas King transferred the nucleus from an early tadpole embryo into an enucleated frog egg.
Dolly the sheep, the first mammal cloned from an adult cell, was born in 1996.
First primate, A rhesus monkey, created by embryonic cell nuclear transfer in 1997. This proved that humans closest relatives could be cloned.
These advancements falsified the much followed concept, that two different sexes were needed for mammalian reproduction and that a sex-ratio balance between males and females was necessary for the continuation of the species.
Before that if you asked any one whether mammals could reproduce without sexual reproduction…The short answer would have been a no, mammals cannot reproduce with means other than sexual reproduction. It was believed mammals relied on genomic imprinting (a mechanism that labels which genes are inherited from the mother and which are from the father.) which prevented mammals from reproducing asexually. It was also believed that asexual reproduction resulted in clones that are genetically identical to the parent.
But with times, comes change and with change, comes evolution.
Scientific developments has now enabled us humans to evolve independent of nature and time. We have been able to achieve things like Cloning, Gene Splicing and Parthenogenesis , processes that defy the rules made by nature and evolution.
Have we finally defied the Darwinian theory of evolution?
Was there inherently something wrong with evolution?
The process of evolutionary struggle between the two sexes has been long and full of controversies with males, asserting their dominance, have long proclaimed themselves the stronger sex, attributing physically demanding and formidable tasks exclusively to their domain. Wars have been waged under the guise of safeguarding lands and protecting women. The female, historically deemed the weaker sex, found herself entrusted with the nurturing and rearing of the offspring, a role recently challenged as women increasingly delve into tasks once considered the sole purview of men. Yet, amidst this evolution, one must ponder:
Is this the course that nature intended all along?
Let’s see!
In an extremely simplified way, to describe the initial stages of fetal development, the early stages of development, the fetal gonads have the potential to become either testes or ovaries.
The default state is considered to be “female.” ( Men can be shocked here as nature’s default sex is Female!!!)
Both future males and future females fetuses start with similar structures in the early stages, and it is indeed the presence or absence of a specific chemical trigger that determines the differentiation into either a male or female.
This trigger is the release of hormones, specifically the presence of the Y chromosome in the male. If the fetus carries a Y chromosome (XY), this signals the gonads to develop into testes, which then produce hormones like testosterone. These hormones play a crucial role in the development of male reproductive organs and the differentiation of secondary sexual characteristics.
In the absence of a Y chromosome, the gonads will develop into ovaries, and the fetus will follow a female developmental pathway.
That would mean , in the words of Bryan Sykes,
“Men are basically genetically modified women – the female being the fallback developmental pathway for any fetus.”
Now, men, after you have digested that we can move forward. Shall we?
If that was not enough , throughout life, men are more vulnerable than women on most measures
1. Fetal Development:
Studies suggest that male fetuses may be more vulnerable to certain complications during pregnancy. For example, male fetuses may be at a higher risk of preterm birth and other prenatal challenges.
2. Infancy and Childhood:
Male infants may face a higher risk of certain health issues, including developmental disorders and certain congenital conditions. This vulnerability is not universal but may be influenced by genetic and environmental factors.
3. Adolescence:
During adolescence, males may engage in riskier behaviors compared to females. This behavioral difference can lead to a higher likelihood of accidents or injuries among adolescent males.
4. Adulthood:
Men, on average, have a shorter life expectancy compared to women.
The life expectancy of men in the U.S. is nearly six years shorter than that of women, according to new study in JAMA Internal Medicine.
They are more prone to certain health conditions, such as cardiovascular diseases and some types of cancer. Lifestyle factors, genetic predispositions, and hormonal differences contribute to these vulnerabilities.
5. Disease Predisposition:
Genetics and hormones play a role in disease susceptibility. For instance, men may be more predisposed to certain genetic conditions (Hemophilia, Color Blindness, Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy) while women’s hormonal profiles may offer protective effects against certain diseases until menopause.(Osteoporosis, Cardiovascular Disease (postmenopausal), Autoimmune Diseases (more prevalent in women, especially postmenopausal) – Examples include rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis.)
6. Immune Response:
Studies suggest that women generally mount a more robust immune response compared to men. This difference may contribute to variations in vulnerability to infectious diseases and autoimmune conditions.
7. Mental Health:
Mental health vulnerabilities also differ between genders. While women may have higher rates of certain mental health disorders, men may be less likely to seek help, potentially leading to underdiagnosis and undertreatment.
8. Societal and Environmental Factors:
Social and environmental factors, including occupational exposures and societal expectations related to masculinity, may contribute to increased vulnerability in men. These factors can influence health behaviors and access to healthcare.
What???? Why has been a male put at so many disadvantages by nature?
Did evolution go wrong?
Why would a male exist if a female is the default state of natural selection and are more hardier ?
The various current theories about why males evolved and still remain in existence are nicely set out in Matt Ridley’s book The Red Queen.(It discusses the evolutionary role and persistence of males in the context of sexual reproduction & delves into the concept of sexual selection, where competition for mates drives the evolution of certain traits and behaviors. Ridley explores why sexual reproduction, involving both males and females, has persisted over asexual reproduction in many species.
In sexual reproduction, males and females contribute genetic material to produce offspring. Ridley discusses the advantages and evolutionary reasons behind having two distinct sexes, exploring the benefits of genetic diversity, the Red Queen hypothesis, and the arms race between the sexes. The idea is that the constant genetic reshuffling through sexual reproduction provides a mechanism for adapting to changing environments and combating parasites and diseases.
The book examines various aspects of sexual selection, including the evolution of secondary sexual characteristics, courtship behaviors, and the role of competition among males for access to mates.)
Evolution has created two different genetic rivals. The male has been “endowed” with the Y(chromosome) which a male can transfer to his son only( though there are genetic disorders where Y can be present with XX (Klinefelter Syndrome) and can be absent in XX Male Syndrome but normally 46 XY is a male geno/phenotype) and the female has been given the mitochondrial DNA , which can be passed on from a female to a daughter only (The mitochondria in mammalian sperm are usually destroyed by the egg cell after fertilization!).
The mitochondrial DNA is a neat and efficient model, but the Y-chromosome is a bit messy and struggling with mutations.
The mitochondria evolved a unique mechanism which maintains mtDNA integrity through degradation of excessively damaged genomes followed by replication of intact/repaired mtDNA. This mechanism is not present in the nucleus and is enabled by multiple copies of mtDNA present in mitochondria.
Why is the Y-chromosome, once a chromosome with many useful genes, now facing difficulties?
It took on the role of creating males, which likely happened around 100 million years ago due to a mutation, leading to its current situation which unfortunately doesn’t carry much significance. Over time, it has lost many of its useful genes and now only 27 remain- and they too are constantly at risk.
The Y chromosome plays a crucial role in spermatogenesis, which is the process of production of a mind-boggling 150 Million sperms per day. This crazy cell division predisposes to error-prone DNA copying thus providing ideal conditions for mutations.
How can these mutations manifest?
-
- 1 in 6 couples in the U.S. deal with infertility — that’s nearly 17%
- Male factor infertility is the primary medical issue in about 30% of all infertility cases
- Male infertility is a factor in 30 – 50% percent of couples trying to get pregnant a second time.
So much so that the male infertility crisis has increased since the mid-1970s.
A 2017 meta-analysis found that sperm counts had declined by 52.4 percent between 1973 and 2011.
Moreover, when the dataset was restricted to more recent studies (post-2000), the declines in semen parameters became steeper. For instance, the decline in worldwide sperm concentration doubled, suggesting that these declines may be accelerating.
In roughly a quarter of cases of male primary infertility, the problem is traceable to new Y-chromosome mutations, which disable one or other of the few remaining genes.
So what does that mean? Are Y-Chromosome and males loosing relevance?
Kind of, yes.
With the advent of reproductive techniques like cloning, gene splicing and parthenogenesis will a male not be needed for procreation?
Fret not!
That’s not going to happen soon. At least not for the next 100,000 years considering the rate of decline in male fertility.
But before we jump on to interpretations and conclusions I for one will want to see the Male evolution and his contributions to the earth.
Be warned as they are as bad as they are good in nature!
The Aggressor
While it may not be impartial to attribute most acts of violence and aggression, ranging from local incidents to global events, predominantly to men, the connection remains robust, persistent, and indisputable. The world invaders, war going clans, nuclear explosions, chemical warfare etc you can think of as many examples where men killed fellow men and even women in children in the guise of saving their land or the lady. A less aggressive attitude would have saved so many lives.
For reference :
| Invader | Time Period | Approximate Death Toll |
|---|---|---|
| Genghis Khan | 12th-13th centuries | 30 to 40 million |
| Alexander the Great | 4th century BCE | 1 to 2 million |
| Attila the Hun | 5th century | Hundreds of thousands |
| Julius Caesar | 1st century BCE | Tens of thousands |
| Napoleon Bonaparte | 19th century | Up to 6 million |
| Adolf Hitler | 20th century | 11 to 17 million (including Holocaust |
| Joseph Stalin | 20th century | 20 to 25 million |
| Mao Zedong | 20th century | 45 to 75 million |
Women very rarely commit violent crimes, become tyrants or start wars.
While there are examples of female rulers, warriors, and combatants in various cultures and periods, the overall narrative has predominantly been shaped by male military leaders. Notable historical figures such as Joan of Arc, Boudicca, and various female warriors from different cultures have been involved in military activities, but their numbers and impact on large-scale wars are relatively limited compared to men.
Moreover women have taken to arms to save her family against aggressor men.
Some will put forward the argument that there have been women murderers as well.
While the majority of notorious serial killers historically have been male, there have been a few infamous cases involving female serial killers. Here are a couple of examples:
- Aileen Wuornos: Aileen Wuornos is one of the most well-known female serial killers. She was convicted of killing seven men between 1989 and 1990 in Florida. Wuornos claimed that she acted in self-defense and was a victim of sexual assault by her victims. Her life story was later adapted into the movie “Monster” in 2003, where Charlize Theron portrayed Wuornos.
- Elizabeth Bathory: While not a traditional serial killer in the contemporary sense, Elizabeth Bathory, a Hungarian countess from the 16th century, is infamous for her alleged involvement in the torture and killing of hundreds of young women. She was accused of bathing in the blood of her victims to maintain her youth and beauty. The full extent of her crimes is debated among historians, and some consider the accounts to be exaggerated or even fictionalized.
It’s important to note that female serial killers are relatively rare compared to their male counterparts, and their cases often attract significant attention due to their rarity.
The Builder
No argument on that.
Men have toiled and died building the world we live in.
No authority can challenge the fact that places where men sweat are not even fathomable by a female. Even todays’ feminists who claim equal job opportunity and equality of pay also don’t even apply for openings where its sheer combination of will and muscle power is required.
They restrict their claims only to air conditioned offices or jobs where the actual brawn is needed.
Yes, women are closing in, as automation makes life simpler for such professions but till this date in time ,females have been labelled as the weaker sex( by men or themselves, is a subject of contention!) and handled less risky or laborious jobs.
Evolution , that damned process, has played its part here as well.
-
-
- Men who are inclined to take risks might be favored by natural selection. As time passes, there could be a genetic predisposition for boys and men to engage in hazardous activities.
- Alternatively, tribes ensuring the safety of girls and women may have had an advantage, as they could maintain larger group sizes.
-
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the four most dangerous occupations in the United States in 2019 were fishing and hunting, logging, piloting a small plane or helicopter, and roofing.
Of the individuals who work in the four most dangerous jobs, more than 90% are men. Consequently, across all occupations, men are much more likely than women to be killed on the job. In 2017, for example, 4,761 men were killed at their workplace, compared to just 386 women.
That’s 10 times more chance of getting killed for men!
So males have played their part and in this regard evolution has been kind.
But we just discussed that the Y-chromosome is dying. Gradually!
How can we evade extinction( without going digital and staying more biological human) because no males will mean no second parent?
Well, you guessed it right.
Homo sapiens are at least capable of being aware of our impending demise and we already have the methods to prevent it.
Cloning, Gene Splicing and Parthenogenesis will help us find a way round our death sentence
So will the human race need men? And for how much longer?
Only time will tell.
In the mean time gene splicing can help us splice genes off the Y-Chromosome and re-assemble them into small “chromosomal” packages and still retain the males.( Easier said than done!)
Who would do the tough jobs after all. Who would go out in hail and storm to bring back food to be fed to the off-springs. ( Considering that tomorrow we may end up in a stone age because of our technological wrong doings!)
But what if a male isn’t needed at all for reproduction or for any purpose, what so ever?
That sounds impossible (to men at least!) but that would simplify reproduction all together.
Reproduction is fertilization of egg with a sperm.
Right.
Not exactly!
Its the coming together of genetic information of father with that of mother.
This genetic information is carried in nuclear chromosomes.
So basically its just nuclear chromosomes of two individuals.
Not necessarily male or female.
It could be from 2 females as well.
The wide application of Intra-Cellular Sperm Injection (ICSI), the fertilization of eggs by injecting sperm, can very easily be adapted for this purpose.
Currently , its not possible!
Phew!
The only hurdle we would encounter would be the Genomic Imprinting that goes on during production of sperms and eggs. And if these genes a not switched on or left off then they can produce genetic abnormalities like Angelman Syndrome and Prader-Willi Syndrome.
Scientists have had some luck creating mice with two female parents, by injecting one set of maternal DNA in to a sperm(but then you either make a synthetic one or you would again need a male.)
Currently, the prevailing concept I’ve encountered for achieving same-sex fertility involves harvesting stem cells(considered the body’s versatile reserves.
The approach involves prompting these stem cells with hormonal signals to developinto the desired type of gametes, essentially discarding the use of the individual’s actual gametes and starting the process from a more basic stage.
Though this sounds impossible, very little stands in its way from the genetic point of view.
So such engineered embryos would grow into perfectly normal babies. Eventually!
Humans have succeeded in what ever they have tried doing, till this date. So this is also definitely doable.
The only difference from any other birth is that the sex will always be known.
The baby will always be going to be a girl.( As we discussed earlier, they are anyways females , if not for the Y-Chromosome).
Importantly, the baby girls will not be clones.
They will inherit a blend of their parents’ genes, mixed just as extensively as any present-day child.
They will have two biological parents, two mothers!
The entire process has been accomplished without sperm, without Y-chromosomes and without men.
Men! Doesn’t it Sound scary!
Over the past few generations, there has been a remarkable and rapid evolution in female control over fertility. In the span of a single lifetime, women have progressed through multiple significant stages of biological liberation, culminating in the possibility of virgin births. Women now emphasize more control over birth control either in the form of use of contraception or choosing the time and mode of their conception and then birth. Males have been now reduced to mere partners who offer safety, monetary gains or in some cases genetic superiority over other competitors. Women are choosing to have less children anyways.
Its a matter of time that the Y-chromosome will loose its meaning and humans might end up being single-sex species with only X-chromosomes.
However, other scientists have challenged this idea and argued that the Y chromosome is not doomed to extinction. They have shown that the Y chromosome has evolved mechanisms to preserve its essential genes and to avoid further degradation.
The journey of human evolution has been marked by adaptability, and only time will reveal the trajectory of our species. In the interim, the coexistence and collaboration of both genders remain essential for the continued progress and preservation of our shared humanity.
In contemplating the hypothetical scenario where males go extinct, the notion of maleness would indeed become relegated to theoretical discussions. The traditional roles of males as guardians and protectors of females, deeply ingrained in historical and cultural contexts, would undergo a profound shift. The absence of males would necessitate a reevaluation of societal dynamics, with the need for alternative mechanisms to fulfill roles traditionally associated with them.
This all is coming , unless we choose to go the way of digital immortality , which seems to be coming much earlier than male extinction.
Men, you can take a sigh of relief now.
My personal guestimate- By the time you read this article someone somewhere would have inched one step closer to his/her aim of digital immortality. By 2100s, humans will have metamorphosed into Homo Immortalis with no importance of male or female sex.
Hell!! There will be no need for reproduction.
We would have conquered death and evolution, making them dance on our tips.
Males would be extinct! So would be Females!
Homo Immortalis will be, if I may say, Gods of the Universe!