When I first chanced upon this article in the morning yesterday, my reaction was one of bewilderment. "Huh?" my mind seemed to go. But, as I continued to read, the article spoke of men becoming "redundant", especially when it comes to reproduction.
"What?!?" went my mind, rather indignantly. What could possibly replace the "male" in the grand scheme of life as we know it? Several things, as it turns out, but it seems that the virile, alpha male will give way to some kind of pseudo-sperm. The article is very careful to say "sperm-like cell" where possible - like that will help a bruised make ego - and apparently, creation of this cell requires "embryonic stem cells". Considering all the controversy surrounding the latter, it seems like this one will take a while to figure out.
One thing that I didn't quite get was how enabling women to have children without involving men was going to help the burgeoning population crisis. Well, that and the fact that the article ends by stressing on the fact that these experiments were, and will be carried out on lab rats and other hapless creatures. The reason for this is that 'we' decided it was wrong (inhuman) to experiment on human beings. But, and I can't believe I have to ask this, aren't 'we' the ones curious to find out if procreation is possible in the absence of a male participant? When was the last time you heard a lab rat ask if he could have all sorts of things injected into him, for example, out of sheer intrigue? I bet you can find many people who are rather 'dangerously curious' to experiment on, though.