Poll: Males, females and PostApocaliptic world

[JesterRaiin]

Scenario : there was a nuclear conflict, earth was bombed, millions evaporated, some parts are inhospitable. A few lucky one fled to vaults, the rest was left to their own fate. Typically, aftermath is close to visions presented in old Mad Max series. You know, battle for everything, food, territory, shelter, fuel, women.

And that's where things become interesting. Most futurologists and visioners take it for granted that there will be more men than women.
Let's think...

- According to this data...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio
...there are more males than females in the world.

However :
- The difference isn't that overwhelming.
- Women have generally longer lifespan than men.
- Current birthrate is neither 100% precise nor natural (it's a mix between lack of data and some exotic traditions that value male children over females).
- After possible Holocaust there will be not much place for making a fuss about plenty of things - including sex of newborns.
- There are more men than women in armies and those will probably be first to perish.
- Since men are naturally more accustomed to danger, i guess it will be their job to fight in future world, you know, they will be protectors, raiders, bandits, outlaws, and such. It's natural that they will also die faster.

I could go on with that list, but the more arguments, the weirder they are, so let me present only those with most plausibility.

tl;dr :
What do you think fellow Escapists, will women eventually inherit the Earth after nuclear war ?

Edit : By "dominant" i mean "bigger in numbers" my dear rabbits.

 

[Vrex360]

I suppose it's possible, though a lot of it might come down to actual physical conflicts between gangs and ultimatley if we ever get politics back it would all depend on who could get the most supporters and who had the better army.

That said it won't matter to me, I've only got one plan in the event of a total apocalypse. Expose myself to a little bit of radiation, start cutting and mutilating my face and jamming bits of metal into the flesh, file down my teeth into sharp points, collect a whole bunch of sharp swords and axes and other weapons and begin my new life as a post apocalyptic equivilant to the cannibalistic Firefly Reavers.
Men or women owning the world? Gender is irrelevant, victory shall come to the radioactive cannibal hordes that shall be lead by me. If nothing else, my life would be much simpler.

You know I'm right, the cannibal masses will inevitably win and while you are all debating over which gender is now technically the best and attempting to rebuild society... I'll be eating you.

 

[Zantos]

It's an interesting theory, however there are a few things that may tip in in the balance of men. Firstly, in a nuclear war as depicted by many of these futurologists targets are more likely to be cities than military installations, so the overbalance of men in the military won't have much effect in that regard, however trained military personnel are likely to be better survivalists. Also, tolerance to radiation is based on, among many other things, weight. Men are in most cases larger and heavier than women, so more likely to survive radiation related illness.

However, I'm not sure how much this could swing either way, a very interesting discussion.

EDIT: Sod it, I'm going with the nuclear cannibals.

 

[Lilani]

I suppose it's not impossible, but it's definitely the last scenario anyone wants. I mean there's a reason the legend of the Amazons didn't last long--with no guys, there are no babies, which means no future.

 

[MercurySteam]

No. Nuclear war means nuclear winter and radiation. Nothing on earth will survive. It will all freeze to death.

No one inherits anything. Earth will be a dead, frozen world where nothing survives.

Also, these gender wars things are getting old.

Pretty much this. Unless one gender builds up radiation resistance and the other one doesn't, all of humanity will be fucked no matter if you have a penis or the alternative.

 

[Zantos]

No. Nuclear war means nuclear winter and radiation. Nothing on earth will survive. It will all freeze to death.

No one inherits anything. Earth will be a dead, frozen world where nothing survives.

Also, these gender wars things are getting old.

Not necessarily, although it's hard to tell without one actually happening, it's thought that a short, brutal nuclear war between two or three countries will only have localised nuclear clouds. It's only in the drawn out events that nuclear winter would affect the entire planet. Although there is debate on, when discretion goes to the submarine captains, if there's any reason they wouldn't continue firing.

Also, this isn't a gender war, this is actually an interesting discussion point.

 

[JesterRaiin]

No. Nuclear war means nuclear winter and radiation. Nothing on earth will survive. It will all freeze to death.

No one inherits anything. Earth will be a dead, frozen world where nothing survives.

Also, these gender wars things are getting old.

No one inherits anything. Earth will be a dead, frozen world where nothing survives.
Also, these gender wars things are getting old.

Pretty much this. Unless one gender builds up radiation resistance and the other one doesn't, all of humanity will be fucked no matter if you have a penis or the alternative.[/quote]

Nuclear war isn't something we survived, so we do not know how it will resolve. All we have are assumptions, and you were presented with some at the beginning of this thread. I'm not saying your points are invalid, but they aren't relevant to my scenario.

Also, are you biased or something ? There's no mention about gender war here.

 

[Gulleko]

I suppose it's not impossible, but it's definitely the last scenario anyone wants. I mean there's a reason the legend of the Amazons didn't last long--with no guys, there are no babies, which means no future.

Well, with no women, there is definitly no future, since we are the ones who carry the child. Even test tube babies need a womb to grow in.
And I remembered an old article about scientists trying to create sperm from female stem cells, eventually making it possible for two women to have a baby together. After a nuclear holocaust the technology for it would likely be wiped out, but it is still a way for the race to live on with only one gender...

The article; http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/feb/08020103

 

[Phishfood]

Males. In a world where physical ability once again becomes relevant, the stronger people will rule. Besides, males already rule as it is. (and have always ruled during recorded history)

Now, this in no way represents my beliefs. I don't think men have the right to rule over women, I'm just stating facts. Dispute them if you wish.

The guy read my mind. Men have a larger, stronger frame on average and so will be better suited to a world where once again personal strength is all that matters.

Of course, in terms of population bias that probably means that the men will be out getting killed with the women "safe" at home.

That does just raise the question of "who is dominant?" I mean, the man is "In control" as it were since we are talking about a scenario where the man is doing all the work for the woman, but does that make him a king or a servant?

 

[Fleetfiend]

I think that it would definitely be men. As was said already in the thread, their simple physical advantage would make it much, much easier to survive.

However, I think women would be just as valuable, if not more so, than men, because there would probably be less of them. You know... reproduction and such.

 

[Nudu]

It's not really that the ratio is going to be different. Unless evolution makes a 90 degree turn there's not going to be a huge change in gender ratio whatever happens. It's the assumption that we'll devolve back to a world where brute force is all that counts. Of course, in the world of guns a 45% advantage in upper body muscle strength might not matter the way it did 5000 years ago.

 

[Vegosiux]

You people don't give Earth enough credit. It can easily survive a nuclear war, it has survived worse than that, among other things a collision with a Mars-sized rock.

Of course, WE might not be around to witness it surviving a nuclear war, but that's an entirely different matter. And yes, it doesn't matter which gender comes out on top right after it, it'd be a pretty miserable and demeaning outcome for the entire species.

 

[JesterRaiin]

Also, are you biased or something ? There's no mention about gender war here.

No, when females Vs. male discussion pops up, it devolves into gender wars. For some reason, they try keeping score like a game.

This is no gender vs gender discussion.

We have seen the effects of nukes through history, and we know scientifically that when that is unleashed on the world, we all die.
(snip)

I'm not asking anyone about possible scenarios regarding nuclear war. I'm curious which outcome is more possible in given scenario.

It's an interesting theory, however there are a few things that may tip in in the balance of men. Firstly, in a nuclear war as depicted by many of these futurologists targets are more likely to be cities than military installations, so the overbalance of men in the military won't have much effect in that regard, however trained military personnel are likely to be better survivalists. Also, tolerance to radiation is based on, among many other things, weight. Men are in most cases larger and heavier than women, so more likely to survive radiation related illness.

I don't think we have enough nuclear potential to burn whole globe to the ground. Without some serious and plausible argument i guess we should count for "Jericho" (tv series) scenario, instead of "The Road" (novel by McCarthy).

So, i agree, metropolities will no doubtly become radioactive graveyards, however i believe that life will survive in small cities, villages and there people are less specialized. People living away from "big city life" tend to be more equal, they have stronger characters and aren't that much dependant on modern technologies like we, denizens of the concrete jungle.

Survival ? Interesting points, however i wouldn't want to dwelve into the matter.
I use "nuclear war" as a meat cleaver cutting off old from new so to speak. I believe that in aftermath, plenty of traditions, culture and stuff will be simple buried and forgotten. With each decade people will forget more and more about this weird reality we live now and simply focus on survival. So, i think there won't be much use for any form of sexism - everyone would have to struggle. And i'm pretty much sure that women are tough enough for every hardships future will bring.

It's not really that the ratio is going to be different. Unless evolution makes a 90 degree turn there's not going to be a huge change in gender ratio whatever happens. It's the assumption that we'll devolve back to a world where brute force is all that counts. (...)

I'm convinced that it's not the evolution, but our sick, twisted ways that are responsible for the reality we're living in. And with most people dead, civilization irreversibly lost, things will return to more proper state.

 

[nekoali]

Well, I don't think there would be all that much difference. But what difference there is, I think men would become the more dominant sex again. Since society as we know it now would almost certainly break down into 'who is the strongest', men in general have an advantage in that category. I don't think it would be as dominant as say in the middle ages though, because there would still be some existing technology. And let's face it... you don't need to be a burly he man to shoot someone with a gun.

 

[Zantos]

Not necessarily, although it's hard to tell without one actually happening, it's thought that a short, brutal nuclear war between two or three countries will only have localised nuclear clouds. It's only in the drawn out events that nuclear winter would affect the entire planet. Although there is debate on, when discretion goes to the submarine captains, if there's any reason they wouldn't continue firing.

Also, this isn't a gender war, this is actually an interesting discussion point.

No even a short nuclear war would fuck over the planet. We dont have ww2 style nukes anymore. The ones around today are far far more powerful and only a handful of them is required to fuck the earth up nuclear winter style.

Even with the H bombs, all nuclear plans are written with the view that if a nuclear war lasted less than about 3 hours there would be parts of the world still habitable, even in the same countries as the major strike zones. As said though, it's unlikely that a nuclear war would only last for a a few hours, more likely the submarines would keep firing until there were no more missiles left.