Neither... both will evolve into asexual beings!!!
2007-09-21 14:39:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Everand 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Simply cloning people is inherently bad in the long term.
think of it this way. Make a copy of a document. Make a copy of that copy, make of copy of the copy's copy. Eventually, the copy will be unreadable. Cloning eventually would have the same effect.
Genetic engineering by artificially combining DNA might work for longer (might!) but its possible that it would break down at some point b/c if we were combining it, why not try to fix the problems (stupid people, Sickle cell, other generic problems)? Well, what if we accidently do something and it takes a few generations to notice?
THAT BEING SAID
women would be better candidates for that, since they have 2 X chromosomes, and 2 Y chromosomes are useless genetically speaking. Though I am sure if we wanted to, we could find a way to have only males, though we'd need to gestate the engineered/cloned fetus in something.
2007-09-21 06:25:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by jared_e42 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
I raise chickens, and I have no roosters. If I wanted my hens to have chicks, I would only get one rooster, because only one male is necessary.
I know humans aren't chickens, but if there weren't many of us left, we would be in better shape with a lot of females and a few males than the other way around. Females carry children for nine months, so if only one or two females were left, very few children would be born. An excessive amount of males wouldn't help the situation.
Also, think about preservation of sperm. Sperm can be preserved for years, so if females remained without males, they could impregnate themselves with the preserved sperm and save humanity. But if males remained (despite recent advancements in preserving eggs), they could not save humanity because they would have no uterus to support the growing child. Maybe in the future, with artificial wombs... but not now.
However, all of this seems irrelevant, since we have the opposite problem: overpopulation instead of underpopulation.
As far as surviving hardships though, females tend to endure longer because of stored fat. If you read about the Donner Party, a group set out in search of help, and almost all the males in the group died of starvation or froze to death, while all the females survived. With extra fat, the females were able to live off their own bodies longer, and were better insulated from the cold.
2007-09-21 18:45:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by Roald Ellsworth 5
·
0⤊
3⤋
How long would we last if we didnt have each other? If we didnt have males females wouldnt be able to have sex and if they couldnt have sex then kids wouldnt be able to be born and if nobody was born well lets just say the world will only last a little longer and im pretty sure people dont want that happening so there you have it theres no living longer sex
2007-09-22 16:08:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
I would say females, if I had to choose one.
Why? Because scientists have conceived a mouse using two female mice, without any male mouse. Some other creatures, like some lizards, can reproduce without males. So, if you had one sex die off, it would probably be the males.
It would be a horrible life to live, in my opinion - thank goodness it's almost certainly hypothetical.
2007-09-20 22:37:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by drusillaslittleboot 6
·
2⤊
3⤋
To answer your question, I doubt either gender will become extinct because of the reasons so cleverly stated by other answerers, but to know which sex will eventually outnumber the other I think it would be necessary also to account for geneological factors, such as sexual antagonism. (The attempt of X and Y chromosomes to sabatoge or dominate each other on the molecular level.)
2007-09-21 18:59:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by redundantredundancy 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
It is a fact the women have lived longer. But with the raise of heart attacks in women, the bridge is closer now, that women and men will die about the same age.
2007-09-22 09:36:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by ladyhawk8141 5
·
0⤊
3⤋
Will survive what exactly? Women may survive loneliness and old age better than men but ultimately procreation is what will allow either gender to survive into the future (speaking from a totally humanistic point of view).
With all due respect, I fail to see the point of such a question.
2007-09-20 21:06:17
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
5⤋
Women, but in reality the earth will be first to go. The men and women just determine how long "She" will survive.
She-Earth
Gravy
2007-09-24 01:03:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Females becuase females go longest without sex
2007-09-20 21:05:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
How long do you think one would live without the other? how old are you?
Stop and think about your statement. if you were alone on a desert Island without a man how long would you live? that should answer your question as to how long your sex would last, would it?
All these that answered "women" think about it. Your only going to last as long as your going to live.
2007-09-22 07:52:01
·
answer #11
·
answered by cowboydoc 7
·
0⤊
3⤋