A World Without Men

A thought experiment

Thought experiments are no-risk ways to explore extreme ideas in hopes that “thinking outside the box” will spawn new realistic ideas. Besides, I find it fun to contemplate thought experiments. Perhaps you will too.

I’ve written a number of thought experiments. Today’s: What positives and negatives would accrue from a world without men? For fun, I’ve lent this an air of parody.

The year is 2050. Society’s view of the male gender has changed. The 1950s venerated men. In the early through mid-2000s, the male gender was perceived as, on average, inferior. That was encapsulated in many private conversations among women in which it was agreed that “Men suck.” And now in 2050, the President of the United States, Jezebel Jones, issued an Executive Order to eliminate all men.

So she ordered Compound Z, a pathogen that causes men to instantly die but is harmless to women, to be released from all surveillance cameras in the U.S, which surreptitiously double as drug dispensers, whether to enhance health such as aerosol vaccines or to, well, kill. To ensure the extermination was fully executed, she also ordered the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines to release Compound Z throughout even lightly populated areas, from airplanes, helicopters, and tank turrets. She ordered the National Guard and welfare recipients to remove the dead carcasses.

At the press conference, a reporter asked, “But what about the men who survive?” President Jones said, “They’d have to remain in their shelter forever, whereupon, like flies stuck on fly paper, they’ll soon die.”

What might occur?

Of course, in the real world, generalizations about a gender are dangerous and are often over-generalizations. But in the real world, we do often make policy that applies only to a specific demographic, for example, reparations, scholarships for a particular demographic, and different standards for college admission, hiring, and awarding contracts. With that caveat, here are my hypotheses as what might accrue from a world without men.

Fewer wars, although it wouldn’t eliminate war. A small fraction of wars have been started by women. Cleopatra launched a war against Egypt. Britain’s Queen Anne started one in North America that was named after her. In 1971, India’s Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi started a war against Pakistan. In 1973, after a surprise attack on Israel by Arabs on the Jewish people’s holiest day (Yom Kippur), prime minister Golda Meir launched and won a brief war against Egypt. UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher started a war against the Falkland Islands — not a fair fight.

Less violent crime. While women may perpetrate other sorts of malfeasance, the large majority of violent crime is committed by men. No men, less violent crime.

Less competition, more collaboration. Of course, some women lean toward competition and men toward collaboration but, on average, women tend to be more collaborative.

More collaboration yields the advantages of more input and buy-in in decision-making, and some projects are best when tasks are divvied up.

On the other hand, collaboration tends to decrease individuals’ ownership. Also, group decision-making can result in tepid solutions, that lowest common denominator that the group can agree on. Plus, some tasks are better done by an individual — more investment, fewer communication snafus, and less frustration about team members who don’t pull their weight.

More work-life balance. Women have led the call for more work-life balance, for example, often pathologizing work-centric people as “workaholic,” evoking images of the addicted alcoholic. More work-life balance may yield greater net benefit to society although it must be acknowledged that working long hours can contribute to Gross World Flourishing, whether it’s the accounts-payable clerk who wants to ensure that people get paid on time or the cardiologist who sees patients at nights and weekends, saving lives. In addition, important life-changing discoveries were, in part, the result of “workaholics,” whether Jonas Salk who put in 70+ hour workweeks for years to develop the polio vaccine, the unsung heroes who long worked into the wee hours, developing Google-Search and the iPhone, or temporary “workaholics” like the team of bridge builders who, after the vital San Francisco Bay Bridge was destroyed in an earthquake, worked 16-hour days to rebuild that portal to and from San Francisco in just a few days rather than the government-estimated months.

Fewer scientists. The otherwise respected president of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, got fired for opining that more men that women may have the talent and predilection for science careers. Notwithstanding his having been fired for that, it may contain some truth, so a possible effect of a world without men could be fewer scientists or fewer excellent ones, whether in engineering, medicine, biotech, AI, or yes, developing even safer and more effective birth control. (FYI: Both the birth control pill and the tampon were developed by men.)

Monosexuality. A world without men would mean that women would have to choose among lesbianism, autoeroticism, and asexuality. Given the male/female tensions, which have accelerated in recent years, not to mention the 50% divorce rate, whether monosexuality is a net plus is an open question.

Tasks. While some women are good at and enjoy plumbing, roofing, and rat extermination, a world without men means that women must take on everything from home building to cleaning out the garage to the aforementioned rat extermination. Honey-do lists would be women’s work.

My takeaway

Perhaps no surprise, I believe the world is better with both men and women. But as I said at the outset. I find it fun to contemplate extreme thought experiments if only to be reassured that the status quo ain’t so bad. I hope you feel that way too.