Should the testosterone level in all males be curbed and controlled by phased medical intervention?

Question

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?

Hi Martin G - on reflection, Brave New World did come to mind as I was constructing the question!

This is my theory, it's not fact. World aggression, war and destruction are perpetrated by men. So long as new ideas and inventions are applied to the competitive and confrontational, to the manufacturing of products of destruction, and to warring situations; and while societal structures continue to be based on the innate hormonal drives and timing of the testosterone charged male, then respect and care for our fellow human beings will never be a reality.

Answer 1

roflmao - Go and read the first couple of chapters of "Brave New World" by Auldus Huxley!!! - Is that the way you want to go?

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

.

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 ?.

Answer 4

I agree. human beings have a tendency to stay wakeful (or down) to the expectations they have been taught. both genders might want to learn both that violence isn't ok. of route, some MRAs do evaluate women human beings to be violent, emotionally if no longer bodily. there have been some analyze on the end results of testosterone on habit. i do not comprehend if the analyze have some thing to do with violence, in spite of the undeniable fact that. I trust Trev. a tremendous variety of the ameliorations between the genders are not using hormones, yet to conditioning.

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

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.....

Answer 7

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.

Answer 8

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.

Answer 9

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.

Answer 10

But of course, that's what "fortified" means in the foods males (and females) eat.