Should the testosterone level in all males be curbed and controlled by phased medical intervention?
It appears the level of human male testosterone on the planet is at danger levels. Medically reducing this level at a designated age, before he reaches full maturity, may temper the testosterone-driven urge to destroy the human race and our planet. Is it a viable theory?
Answers:
roflmao - Go and read the first couple of chapters of "Brave New World" by Auldus Huxley!! - Is that the way you want to go?
you must be female!!
no man would ask that!
Very silly indeed.
No, I like testosterone!
no, no and noooooooooooooo..
I tend to agree; maybe testosterone should be controlled. But estrogen should also be limited. There are plenty of hormone-engorged women who can become just as violent as men, and not only for a few days every month.
Uh.. no.
"It appears the level of human male testosterone on the planet is at danger levels. "
Where did you get this information from?
That is a totally unfounded statement.
What A good idea perhaps we wouldn't have so many sex related crimes...!
That would be just fine..
Testosterone levels are naturally falling in the developed world due to increased levels of female hormones in the water supply and increasing average levels of bodyfat. That is why sperm counts are dramatically falling.
I suppose there may be some benefit to an amazonian style all female society as proposed in the SCUM Manifesto (1968):
"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex." - V. Solonas
This may be viable in some ways but it would rely upon women becoming better at fighting than men which given the superior physical strength and stronger bone structure of men would be very difficult. Although you could set about altering the genome of humanity on a basic level by removing men at a chromosomal level:
"Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the y(male) gene is an incomplete x(female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples." - V. Solonas.
This would bemore viable than altering men's testosterone levels in puberty as all this would do would be to produce a race of angry eunuchs and as eunuchs are more suseptable to human growth hormone you would have a lot of resentful seven foot 350 pound guys wandering the streets.
So in the end we are stuck with men, which is good because without testosterone then the world would have been conquored by spiders long ago.
I have heard the opposite, that there is too much oestrogen in boys due to the contraceptive pill entering the water supply.
Instead I would suggest that known sleazy males are hormonally castrated.
But of course, that's what "fortified" means in the foods males (and females) eat.
.
And by emasculting the male population what do you achieve ?.
Whilst I think that mans efforts could be better employed for the
benefit of all mankind than in war and weaponry, the urges to
explore and discover could be said to be primarily male in their origin, technological developments from such exploratory ventures do procure benefits for the whaole of mankind, those of medical advances and undestanding of biological systems amongst them.
Would you not lose the very maleness that attracts a woman to a man, the ability to support her when she is vulnerable with child both in pregnancy and when the child is still utterly dependent upon her and the other attributes that go beyond the physical ?.
By your line of argument would it also be acceptable to say that women who are not naturally fertile or have low levels of fertility should not be given assistance in concieving children, should there also be a limit placed on those who can and do bring children into the world who cannot support them, here I speak of those in the so called rich countries not those who rely on their children to provide life in thier old age having no welfare systems to support them in these latter years ?.
Interesting.
If i had put a similar question like this, but the opposite way around i.e.
Should the Eostregen (or however its spelt) level in all females be curbed and controlled by phased medical intervention?
It would have been removed as an abusive question, but it OK to say it about men...
You begin your question with the words "It appears". Perhaps you could tell us where you got these facts. I thought the opposite was true but maybe I've been reading lies. Lots of lies.
But I do see where you're coming from. However, what you propose is tinkering with humanity on a massive scale. I wonder how many scientists think about this. I suggest you post this on a medical forum.
why are girls crazy in the head.?
Who would you never ask for a suggestion or a favour?
Is this a question?
what does being 'shy' mean when it comes to a sexual manner?
hotels in crachow poland and info on death camps near crackhow?
if a man comes up and asks u on a date what would u say?
where does the phrase on tender hooks come from?
how do you cope with A holes at work/school bad mouthing you to others hehind your back do you confront them?
Answers:
roflmao - Go and read the first couple of chapters of "Brave New World" by Auldus Huxley!! - Is that the way you want to go?
you must be female!!
no man would ask that!
Very silly indeed.
No, I like testosterone!
no, no and noooooooooooooo..
I tend to agree; maybe testosterone should be controlled. But estrogen should also be limited. There are plenty of hormone-engorged women who can become just as violent as men, and not only for a few days every month.
Uh.. no.
"It appears the level of human male testosterone on the planet is at danger levels. "
Where did you get this information from?
That is a totally unfounded statement.
What A good idea perhaps we wouldn't have so many sex related crimes...!
That would be just fine..
Testosterone levels are naturally falling in the developed world due to increased levels of female hormones in the water supply and increasing average levels of bodyfat. That is why sperm counts are dramatically falling.
I suppose there may be some benefit to an amazonian style all female society as proposed in the SCUM Manifesto (1968):
"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex." - V. Solonas
This may be viable in some ways but it would rely upon women becoming better at fighting than men which given the superior physical strength and stronger bone structure of men would be very difficult. Although you could set about altering the genome of humanity on a basic level by removing men at a chromosomal level:
"Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the y(male) gene is an incomplete x(female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples." - V. Solonas.
This would bemore viable than altering men's testosterone levels in puberty as all this would do would be to produce a race of angry eunuchs and as eunuchs are more suseptable to human growth hormone you would have a lot of resentful seven foot 350 pound guys wandering the streets.
So in the end we are stuck with men, which is good because without testosterone then the world would have been conquored by spiders long ago.
I have heard the opposite, that there is too much oestrogen in boys due to the contraceptive pill entering the water supply.
Instead I would suggest that known sleazy males are hormonally castrated.
But of course, that's what "fortified" means in the foods males (and females) eat.
.
And by emasculting the male population what do you achieve ?.
Whilst I think that mans efforts could be better employed for the
benefit of all mankind than in war and weaponry, the urges to
explore and discover could be said to be primarily male in their origin, technological developments from such exploratory ventures do procure benefits for the whaole of mankind, those of medical advances and undestanding of biological systems amongst them.
Would you not lose the very maleness that attracts a woman to a man, the ability to support her when she is vulnerable with child both in pregnancy and when the child is still utterly dependent upon her and the other attributes that go beyond the physical ?.
By your line of argument would it also be acceptable to say that women who are not naturally fertile or have low levels of fertility should not be given assistance in concieving children, should there also be a limit placed on those who can and do bring children into the world who cannot support them, here I speak of those in the so called rich countries not those who rely on their children to provide life in thier old age having no welfare systems to support them in these latter years ?.
Interesting.
If i had put a similar question like this, but the opposite way around i.e.
Should the Eostregen (or however its spelt) level in all females be curbed and controlled by phased medical intervention?
It would have been removed as an abusive question, but it OK to say it about men...
You begin your question with the words "It appears". Perhaps you could tell us where you got these facts. I thought the opposite was true but maybe I've been reading lies. Lots of lies.
But I do see where you're coming from. However, what you propose is tinkering with humanity on a massive scale. I wonder how many scientists think about this. I suggest you post this on a medical forum.
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.