Like I said: They are and should be different in order to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens.
If humans will not have any difference, they will either create differences or die out. Without any difference humans are not able to win any fight.
In the following animation the different one (with the red girdle) is an android machine:
You seem to have a very defeatist attitude toward clear definitions; “If I clearly define my words and concepts, I will lose my argument!”
So there is no purpose to life with which to answer to a “Should”. There is no “good”.
So your answer is “No”. (I guess I should have made this into a poll).
I tend to think that there are universal advantages in some things and thus there are “universal shoulds” to be considered, objective good. Granted they are abstract, not easily identified, easily debatable by shallow thinkers, but they are none the less objective.
Well again, you are addressing what IS. I am asking of what “SHOULD be”, as if you could change what is into a “better design” (because people are already doing that. We might as well see if there is any good to it).
But you still are not telling me WHY? And you are implying that as long as there are differences in male and female, humans will be able to beat up the androids … ??? 
Geeezz … I should have guessed beforehand. As usual, I get the most direct answers from the women (whether right or wrong).
Your (1) could be handled easy enough through the same entertainment ploys used today for everything else. I have no idea what you meant by (2). And (3) seems to be happening anyway, so what does it have to do with ensuring that male and female are distinct? And then (4) is certainly true between men and women (already being proven throughout the West) but the intent has been to cause love of government, that extreme and total dedication to the higher father formerly known in the priesthood in all religions. When people have nothing more obvious to love in their lives, they will reach out to esoteric, vague concepts such as "the Governance of the World (Global Unity), Gia, the Hive Queen, or whatever. That has also already been proven and is very largely the designed intent of gender neutralization and dissatisfaction.
So I get the general impression that your answer is “Yes, else humanity will screw things up even worse.” But I’m not getting any reasoning as to exactly WHY such would occur other than “boredom”. Couldn’t we just get rid of boredom instead?
I answered your question, and it was a very direct answer. And I don#t think that my answer was in too much German English. 
You asked:
I answered:
That was a very direct answer. And I thought that I don’t have to explain to you what “to pevent the extinction of homo sapiens” means.
But you do. The “yes” or “no” was the easy part. It is the exact “WHY?” that matters.
Exactly how does male and female distinction help prevent extinction considering today’s and the future’s technology?
Yes, and this was my answer to the “easy” part:
Yes, and this was my answer to the “exact WHY” part:
That IS exact, if one knows what “to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens” means.
Didnt say that at all, I said purpose is relative to an agenda. Some agendas are better than others, I would have thought that would be obvous by putting 'God' and "Marx' on my list of examples. I realize that you're still mad about me showing you up in Mundane Babble, but there's no reason to jump to conclusions here. :wink:
[/quote]
I have no problem with any of that, I agree with it. The point I’m trying to make is that if you make the justification of something about it’s purpose, then you make it’s justification contingent on convincing people of your agenda. So, if I say “Well, gender roles are important because obviously God created a natural order that they should be that way and they are a foundation of every human relationship and allow us to build a foundation of family and love independant of the State,” then I’ve tied gender differences to people accepting an entire world view that then has to be defended. Implicitly, then, if they reject all that, they are free to reject gender differences - I’ve taught them so, that differences between people only matter insofar as an agenda is endorsed. What I think is the more important point is that people fuck off and let others live their lives, and that screwing with gender differences because they don’t fit into some grand design (that is, somebody else’s agenda), is problematic.
So that’s why I reject the premise- whether or not you think gender roles have a purpose says nothing about if they should be allowed to persist.
I also answered this question.
You asked:
I answered:
I did not want to go into details. There are many aspects which refer to the human reproduction: biological differentiation (for example: pregnancy), other differentiations, for example in the sense of specialisation or division of labor (for example: homework versus other works, gathering versus hunting, … and so on …), … and so on …
The only thing that you showed was that getting you pathetically irate and mindless is a trivial effort and that you cannot conceive of some pretty trivial concepts … and I suspect those are related.
Well, emmm… yeah … (duhh)…
Huh???
What have you been smoking?
Empathizing with Ecmandu too much already??
So you have become paranoid and jaded. That answers the question of what you have been smoking… or perhaps “touched” with. 
Have you ever tried that argument with me? NO!!
… but lets not get technical, huh.
Well, it seems that what you don’t want to go into is the only thing I was interested in.
The evolution of the human beings implies the differentiations / specialisations. If there had not been such a specialisation, there would never have been any human being.
When these human differentiations / specialisations will vanish, then the human beings will vanish. That’s clear.
So, I thought that I did not have to explain to you ( 
) what “to pevent the extinction of homo sapiens” means, because it implies these differentiations / specialisations.
Again: Males and females should be different in order to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens. Without their differentiations / specialisations they would never have become humans and will never survive.
Ok.
What if everyone loved to be the same and accepted and appreciated it?
I don’t think strictly that total sameness = suicide.
It’s like solitude. Some people, well, many people would loose their marbles if they were in solitary confinement. But some people would enjoy it.
Wanting to die instead of wanting to live as a multitude, that’s just weakness and nihilism.
Things like ants survive as a species even though there’s nothing unique about them.
I know the people tend to talk bad about borg and ants and any collective, but that’s just culture talking. Nature says different. Nature says if it works, do it.
If we were hive or collective you are right but we are not.
To become so would take thousands of years of forced living as so or massive intricate genetic manipulation. Why change our core? Why not just teach love, acceptance and mostly patience…that would be more feasible.
Do you teach love, acceptance and mostly patience ?
When our immune system kills a tumor, it’s not done out of love or out of hate.
Taking hold of human evolution should have been done long ago and done right.
But that is a matter of true history.
Morality disconnected from reality.
We will have tumor’s rights groups.
Someday we’ll even vote a tumor in as president over all the healthy normal cells.
Ahhh, my friend who would be in charge of that manipulation of evolution?
We are not so bad. Sure there are horrible things but, hon, just 300 years ago it was so much worse. In 300 years we have jumped so far. Thousands of years of so much worse and now people forget just how far we have jumped. People seem to want overnight changes now.
Do I teach what you asked? When I can, by words and example. I do have a temper though and at times it does get the better of me, , I blame the red hair 
This is easy to answer actually… we need to organize society around community to find out who has made the most significant social contributions and give them X number of parters they can choose at will (not rape) just how the society is structured. That will solve the problems presented here. With sexual stratification geared towards the most aggressive, this species is screwed. We know for a fact in the extinction of the Irish Elk that the females actually had to gang up on the more agile males (with smaller horns) so they could have sex with the handicapped males, there’s no other possible game theory that could account for the Irish Elk eventually getting horns so big on maturation that they couldn’t lift their heads off the ground as a species. Females can just as easily destroy a species as males can. We need to look at the facts, and understand that everyone is impacted by sexual dynamics (even asexuals), and really build councils for this aspect of our existence.
Just one more comment on this line that I forgot to add (obviously there should ideally be no sexual stratification or conspicuous consumption aggression - distinct from aggression) but to work with THIS species, you probably need some type of tiered system when it’s possible one person could have a species wide card, but not everyone has a card to have sex with them… “card” right, then you bring in encryption and decryption, which means we’d have to significantly advance out encryption abilities beyond what they are now… this would be more valuable than money, the drive to cheat the system would draw the greatest pool of genius in the world. So we may have to have video representations of ceremonies declaring rank and number (that can change with time).
I robot.
Okay, so;
Given the goal of the maximum eternal joy per person (IJOT), in what way would gender distinction help more than hinder?