Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

If humans reproduced asexually?


CosmicHooves

Recommended Posts

Well the thing is, humans evolved through sexual procreation, so the entire scenario can't work as worded. "Humans" can't reproduce asexually, if they did, they wouldn't be human. Now if "the dominant species" reproduced asexually, then yes the world would be very different.

 

The way I'm picturing it though is . . . lethargic. Sure not as much crime or war, but neither as much of the creature comforts we enjoy or things we aspire to become.


 

 

I think first off, we'd be at least 3 times more advanced as a species than we are now. This is because allot of issues surrounding sexuality would be gone.

 

I have heard that statement applied to damn near EVERYTHING under the sun and I find it to be a rather simplistic assumption. It's like saying if the Roman Empire never fell we'd be living on the moon. It's fun to say and think about but how do we know that other problems might not arise? Plus "advancement" is not a river that can be stemmed, it's a network of watery paths. (For instance cultural advancement vs. technological advancement. Medicine, human rights, infrastructure. All of these things can affect or be affected by the billions of factors of the human condition.)

 

For all we know, our society might actually be more backwards if we reproduced asexually. If, going by Freud's logic, there was no need to compete for mates to reproduce, we may not have developed any kind of desire to build, explore, or discover.

Edited by Steel Accord
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@@GuyNamedEarl,

 

Anyway, on a more serious note...

 

Scientifically speaking, we wouldn't be here today. As my teacher would always say, diversity=survival. There's a reason sexual reproduction evolved, and there's a reason why it is still around today :)

 

In terms of society, that would fix many of our problems. There would be no more of these radical "feminists." I do support anyone fighting for a real cause, such as ACTUAL feminists... Not this propaganda crap we see from those who just don't get what they want. Anyway, the entire issue with feminism/gender equality would cease to exist. Also, there would be no problems with gay marriage. However, society wouldn't be the same... Just think of what would be changed.

 

From a human perspective... Sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to say the least.... Ancient man stayed in family groups, where females would tend to the nest, and have children, while the men hunted, and protected their families.... Now take away the family group system by making procreation asexual:

 

Firstly man would have taken to an exclusively female form (much like most asexual animals), and when birth was given, the offspring would be an exact clone of the mother, and most likely man would have been solitary (like most asexual animals), only living in mother daughter pairs while the child matured..... Without men to hunt, we would be oputunistic hunters, but mostly foragers and scavengers.

Without the need for the family unit, our development as a species would have been slower, as being in the family unit is what inspired creation, and ingenuity.

 

But this is just a guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'd be dead most likely.  Genetic diversity would be virtually nonexistent so disease would likely kill us because there wouldn't be opportunities for mutations to form from the diverse MHC gene combinations that occur naturally.  Humans are naturally attracted to pheromones from others with MHC proteins expressed most differently from their own (likely for this very reason).  And if you're talking about the capability of parthenogenesis (self fertilization of oocytes), then the same problem would likely occur and would only result in an entirely female population of mock clones with only slight, random mutations causing the only diversity that exists.  If males existed in this society, humans would prefer to reproduce sexually through instinctual desires in order to produce more viable offspring.  Though since you said that nobody would have a sex, I'm assuming parthenogenesis was not on your mind.  But the result of extinction is the same either way.  

Edited by Luna_tic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

That would mean that things would be severely different, particularly from a physical and sexual standpoint. 

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life goes on as normal as if we never know how else we can make babies.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the world would probably be a lot simpler, more efficient, more logical, and hell of a lot more boring.  The world would lack a lot of joy, but it would probably be better for me, because then I wouldn't spend 99% of my time fantasizing about something I can never have.  :laugh:

...

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't care about technological advancements or changing the world without keeping a human element in it. Marriage and human relations is what matters most. And reproduction without sex would just be boring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...