I recently ran across an article which was titled “Will Chromosome Y Go Bye-Bye?” and subtitled “Is the End of Men Imminent?” (written by Radha Chitale of the ABC News Medical Unit and dated Friday July 10, 2009), and I decided to offer my own two cents worth on this topic.
The article itself looks in physical terms at the size of the Y-chromosome in comparison to the X-chromosome. And for the benefit of any readers who have been out of school for enough years to have forgotten how the sex chromosomes work, we all get:
- One sex chromosome from our mothers (which will always be an X) and
- One sex chromosome from our fathers (which can be either X or a Y, although Y-chromosomes are slightly more likely to “take root”)
Ms. Chitale begins the article this way:
“What makes a man a man? Socially, that is a complicated question. Genetically, however, it is as simple as a single Y-chromosome. But guys, that chromosome is in trouble.”
She continues by pointing out that:
“… the Y-chromosome, which once contained as many genes as the X-chromosome, has deteriorated over time and now contains less than 80 functional genes compared to its partner, which contains more than 1,000 genes.”
Of course, chromosomes are known to include a lot of extra “junk” (genes that have no discernable function) as a result of how the process of evolution works at a DNA level.
That’s in terms of changes to individual genes which build on earlier changes and in some cases render certain pre-existing genes functionally obsolete. Those differences may or may not be significant in the real world.
Will the Y-chromosome get down to
zero genes some day?
Probably not … even if it’s dropped from 1,000 down to 80 over the course of a billion years (that being how long ago sexual reproduction evolved), it therefore doesn’t follow that this rate of decrease will continue all the way to zero.
After all, if you buy a two-feet-high sapling from a nursery, plant it in your backyard and watch it grow to 25 feet in the next 10 years, it won’t continue growing at that rate indefinitely. It will top out at no more than a few hundred feet and likely at a few dozen feet.
Things will work the same way with the Y-chromosome and its prospective evolution.
However, that’s so far in the future it has pretty much zero relevance to anything affecting you and me. I’ll be long gone by the time it changes much so it won’t affect me a bit. I’ve got no skin in that game.
“…
Are males becoming culturally obsolete in the Western world?
…”
The more interesting question to me is…
“Are males becoming culturally obsolete in the Western world?”
The evidence there suggests a “Yes” answer … and the rate of that cultural evolution is rapid enough to affect all of us within our own lifetimes.
In fact, it already has (see our four-part series of blog posts entitled “Liberated and Unhappy”).
So … what are men needed for?
Evidence suggests we have
four main roles
In days of yore, we were needed as protectors (collectively as soldiers and individually as unpaid bodyguards to our wives and children). The former role still exists to some extent, in that heads of State still wage war pretty regularly. (Having said that, the fighting is more likely to be about resources, ideology and domination rather than protection).
But war has gotten much more “high tech” in recent years (and is likely to become even more so) and therefore the greater physical strength which men have and their greater “extendability” in society’s eyes are much less important factors in today’s wars.
Nowadays with the advances in high-tech weaponry and the increasing use of robotics (such as unmanned Predator drones), war is getting closer to playing a Nintendo game rather than to being comparable to a UFC fight.
Of course, real people still get killed or maimed in large numbers in war but they’re often on the other side so they don’t really count. Especially since, at 35,000 feet, you don’t see then body parts … and the media are also very cooperative about sanitizing that violence.
What about the “bodyguard”
role for our family?
Out in the plains back during the days of the Wild West, our male ancestors shouldered much of that burden. But nowadays, the police are around to keep the peace (or at least the status quo) … and the lawyers are also ready to pounce if someone does take things into his own hands.
Second, we were needed as sperm providers … no sperm, no babies. For women who wanted children (and there’s a fairly strong biological urge for them to want some), it was a package deal.
“…
if you as a woman wanted a kid, you had to get a guy to provide some of the raw material
…”
If you as a woman wanted a kid, you had to get a guy to provide some of the raw material.
Not that this was difficult, of course.
Men aren’t nearly as reluctant as they ought to be about giving out free samples of the stuff, so all that most women really needed to do was (a) show up; (b) set their usual high standards aside for the moment; and (c) not say “no”.
And for the women who didn’t want to engage in sex at all with a man or weren’t happy with the selection of men they were able to attract, there were sperm banks to fill that gap.
Regardless of the mechanism though, a male was involved in one way or another (even if just donating to a sperm bank).
But suppose there were
no men at all?
Today that would still be a problem. But advances in cloning technology suggest that it will someday be scientifically possible to clone human beings … perhaps as soon as the next couple of decades.
How long it will take societies to come to grips with the religious implications is another story, of course, but I expect it won’t be many more years before women have the option of having kids with no sperm-related male involvement whatsoever.
But what about the money?
Third, we were needed for financial support. By and large, there was no safety net long ago (and, in quite a few countries, even today).
Your family was it.
And, within that family structure, it was the man’s job to pick up the tab for everything. After all, that had been the real reason why men were traditionally expected to pick up the tab when dating: they were being trained for their role in life later as an adult.
Nowadays, women in Western countries have other options. If they’re able-bodied and even remotely ambitious, they can provide their own financial support. And if they’re not able-bodied and ambitious, the government will often step in as the substitute provider.
“…
rich guys are unlikely to become obsolete any time soon … but poor guys are another matter
…”
That’s the safety net for women.
So there as well, men are rapidly becoming obsolete. But many women still want a man with high earning power, even if they no longer need one. After all, it’s more pleasant to let someone else do the heavy lifting for you (as any slave owner back in the antebellum years could have attested).
As a result, rich guys are unlikely to become obsolete any time soon … but poor guys are another matter. There won’t be much need for them in future decades.
So, what does that leave?
Men in their role as performers. Not in the show business sense, though … in the sense of breaking up the boredom that so many women seem prone to experiencing.
Increasingly, women no longer need men.
“…
the problem for many guys, however, will be that they’ve been largely neutered by the evolution of feminism
…”
But emotionally they’re still likely to crave some of the ancillary aspects of having men around: the occasional or even frequent bout of drama … free money … being desired sexually … the competition with other women over who can attract the hotter guys … and someone to have on call for those unpleasant odd jobs (like changing their flat tire at three in the morning in a bad part of town).
The problem for many guys, however, will be that they’ve been largely neutered by the evolution of feminism. They’ve been domesticated. And that means “boring”.
Guys with game could still offer plenty of entertainment value. But guys who walk on eggshells around women won’t do well in the future (heck, they don’t do well now!).
So guys may not actually become extinct in the future, but both poor guys (and timid guys) are likely to become increasingly invisible where women are concerned.
We’re well along on that progression already.
Stay tuned,
-Mack Doppler
