# What would life be like without hormones?



## InnerFlame00 (Jan 5, 2015)

In one of the books I'm writing human reproductive capabilities are removed at a very early age, like kittens are neutered or spayed.

I'm trying to get my mind around how that human would turn out.  Could a human be healthy in a complete absence of sex hormones?  They would not develop breasts or other sexual aspects, certainly. They would likely be asexual.  But would their health be affected in other ways? How would life be like for that person?

I imagine life without hormones would probably be a lot calmer in general.

What do you guys think?


----------



## Blade (Jan 5, 2015)

During the Middle Ages some males who were thought to have a good singing voice were castrated before puberty. As a result their voices never lowered although the rest of the body developed pretty well as normal. The result was an adult male with a deeper, stronger soprano voice than could be achieved otherwise.

There really should be specific intentions if one wishes to meddle. Keep the interventions to a minimum and as specific as possible.


----------



## dale (Jan 5, 2015)

life would definitely be "much calmer" after a generation, as the human race would cease to exist completely.


----------



## InnerFlame00 (Jan 5, 2015)

dale said:


> life would definitely be "much calmer" after a generation, as the human race would cease to exist completely.



Well in the book there is controlled breeding with some of the humans. Although the world definitely would be a lot calmer without humans altogether lol.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 5, 2015)

men would have nothing to do with women (joke)... come to think of it there would be no men... he-drones with odd appendages, useful for aiming, that's about it.


----------



## dale (Jan 5, 2015)

InnerFlame00 said:


> Well in the book there is controlled breeding with some of the humans. Although the world definitely would be a lot calmer without humans altogether lol.



eugenics is always a fun concept to play with. i'd see a world without hormonal drive in the average population masses as a rather
boring one, though. most of art and progress eventually boils down to these hormonal drives. and...a lot of destruction also eventually
boils down to these drives. but i don't think i'd like to live in a world without these conflicts. it would all seem lackluster to me.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Jan 5, 2015)

I found this on Wikipedia if this would help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration#Medical_consequences

One interesting side effect is that a castrated male might grow taller and live 14 to 19 years longer than average. I found that in a couple other pages as well.


----------



## Boofy (Jan 5, 2015)

Ah yeah, I've read about that. There's also benefits like lack of hair loss etc, all v. interesting stuff ^^


----------



## dale (Jan 5, 2015)

mrmustard615 said:


> I found this on Wikipedia if this would help
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration#Medical_consequences
> 
> One interesting side effect is that a castrated male might grow taller and live 14 to 19 years longer than average. I found that in a couple other pages as well.



that's interesting. i wonder if their longer life span isn't maybe the physical drive for immortality that a normal person achieves
(or thinks he/she achieves) through procreation?


----------



## Bishop (Jan 5, 2015)

Ask this gentleman!







But a drop in aggression would likely be a major result.


----------



## InnerFlame00 (Jan 5, 2015)

mrmustard615 said:


> I found this on Wikipedia if this would help
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration#Medical_consequences
> 
> One interesting side effect is that a castrated male might grow taller and live 14 to 19 years longer than average. I found that in a couple other pages as well.



That is interesting - I never would have thought that height would be affected to make one taller without sex hormones.

Now that I think about it I should have an easier time finding information about the male side of it since there is a history of castrating men, but it's been more difficult to find out what happens to a woman whose ovaries were removed before puberty since as far as I know no society ever did that.

Looks like it can make you more vulnerable to osteroperosis and a few other health side effects, though.


----------



## SwitchBack (Jan 5, 2015)

Personally the pros outweigh the cons. In the modern world there's a _*lot*_ of nitwits that_* shouldn't *_be reproducing period. In the 40s and 60s {I believe there's talk of doing it again in some areas} Alberta and a number of American states were thinking (and did) of spaying & neutering people with severe mental & physical disabilities. There were other states (more than Kansas mentioned) that did it with habitual criminals. Eugenics maybe cruel but we do it in everything from cows to dogs to chickens and everything in between. 

People who be "asexual" in appearance to some degree depending upon when their sexual organs were removed. What the wiki. article also doesn't mention is that spayed females will have a decrease in cervix, breast, and uterus cancer [all of which are typically associated with hormone imbalance & weight]. Similarly women would be taller. Men would have a considerable decrease in prostrate cancer [a growing consideration is to castrate males to treat prostate cancer]. 

The only real thing I can see off the top of my head is that the people may have an increased chance of being overweight [as with neutered / spayed cats & dogs].


----------



## dale (Jan 5, 2015)

SwitchBack said:


> Personally the pros outweigh the cons. In the modern world there's a _*lot*_ of nitwits that_* shouldn't *_be reproducing period.



and who should we put in charge of making this judgment? me? you? adolf hitler? joseph stalin?


----------



## aj47 (Jan 5, 2015)

There are people born without other organs, so why wouldn't there be XX-chromosomed people born without ovaries? Probably rare, but also probably documented somewhere.


----------



## Caragula (Jan 6, 2015)

"and who should we put in charge of making this judgment? me? you? adolf hitler? joseph stalin?"

We would all here, I imagine, be able to agree broadly on what would constitute a neglectful, selfish parent, a bullying parent, an absent parent.  These people shouldn't have kids because they are causing child suffering, a suffering that is life long.  Identifying these people, codifying and enacting legislation is almost impossible and would create a great deal of unnecessary suffering.  The sentiment isn't flawed in itself though.


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 9, 2015)

InnerFlame00 said:


> In one of the books I'm writing human reproductive capabilities are removed at a very early age, like kittens are neutered or spayed.



How are they "removed?" For instance, ancient eunuchs were still capable of having "sex" if they retained their penis, something that their masters obviously thought was not possible.

The user "Sampiro" made an excellent post on this board: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=367003 (I ran across it when double-checking my own thoughts on this issue, before posting.  )



> I'm trying to get my mind around how that human would turn out.  Could a human be healthy in a complete absence of sex hormones?  They would not develop breasts or other sexual aspects, certainly. They would likely be asexual.  But would their health be affected in other ways? How would life be like for that person?



The person may still have sexual urges, though rarely. Modern eunuchs (men) report that they still have them, but they are more "controlled" and it takes much longer for them to feel sexually aroused. (Most men who elect this procedure in modern times do so in an attempt to gain control over a sex-drive that they feel is out of control.)



> I imagine life without hormones would probably be a lot calmer in general.



Completely without hormones? In that case, life would not be possible. Wiki - Hormones

Hormones are part of more than just our sex-drive or emotional states. A person who has been chemically castrated, for instance, will still get hungry. They can still get angry. They can still be afraid. They can laugh, too, and feel pleased or happy. They're also not diabetic nor do they have trouble sleeping at night. (I wouldn't think, anyway.)

I think you need to decide what sort of hormonal control these people are under. If they are chemically castrated, then they'll have to deal with certain issues revolving around sex, of course, and sex drives. But, that does not mean that they can not then turn their interests to other things that they feel passionate about in order to feel "fulfilled" in other ways. I'm passionate about writing, but I don't have sex with books, for instance.  Ancient eunuchs were passionate about power, wealth, pursuing influence, achieving status, etc... (And, I am very thankful I am not a eunuch! But, it would be nice, on occasion, to be able to devote certain energies to more productive tasks... maybe. )

The absence of secondary-sex characteristics, like breasts, certain body hair, sexual organ development, etc, would be unmistakable in humans who were chemically castrated in the womb or at birth. For these, sexual urges would be very infrequent, if at all. For those subjected to this later in development, before puberty, they might have more frequent urges, but they would be extremely rare compared to uncastrated subjects. After puberty, a little more frequent, but certainly not at any normal rate for an unaltered human being.

There have been science-fiction books that explored this issue. From what I recall, most writers simply removed "sex" from the society. Members were asexual, only having the most basic secondary-sex characteristics, certainly none that were developed as particularly distinctive. (There will still be some, though.) What was emphasized the most, that I can recall, was that the society was painted as somewhat idyllic by its members, but viewed as "tortuous" by those who observed it and who considered themselves "whole" humans, complete with sexual urges and societies based upon them. (Family unit, sexual bonding, etc..)

That's something you would likely have to address. Our society is based upon "the family unit." It is focused on providing for the rearing of children. In every culture, the family unit, even if it differs between cultures, specifically, is the focus for a stable culture. When human cultures ignore or attempt to reduce support for the family unit, no matter what that unit is comprised of, instability is often the result. (The family unit can be anything, made up of members of any sex. What's important is that it "exists" in some way, at least for our current cultures on Earth.)

So, in your society, how will you support or reinvent "the family unit?" Will the state raise its children, exclusively? If so, will you replace the family unit with some other sort of "unit?" We are, after all, social creatures, even if we're not having sex with each other. This has been exampled in fiction, most often illustrated in "alien" societies, with base units of individuals that are focused on similarly important tasks, like research, art, leadership, etc.. In these sorts of fictional analogues to the human "family unit", authors often try to draw parallels. "Alien" members will often "bond" or combine their efforts to "produce" something other than offspring, but with _no less importance_ or gravitas placed upon the relationship than loving humans would place upon their own relationships with family members.

Even in fiction, we often find it difficult to reach beyond "the family unit." Exploring that in science-fiction is a popular past-time of many writers. Trying to develop a society that is truly alien is... haaard. 



InnerFlame00 said:


> That is interesting - I never would have  thought that height would be affected to make one taller without sex  hormones.
> 
> ...
> Looks like it can make you more vulnerable to osteroperosis and a few other health side effects, though.



Keep in mind that a society capable of tailoring its human population in such a way would likely also have the technology to overcome or reduce the possible harmful effects. They would, after all, be intimately effected by such things, so they'd likely seek remedies to mitigate the physiological consequences of "castration." Today, humans can take advantage of hormone therapies to replace deficiencies. It wouldn't be surprising that a sufficiently advanced society would have overcome certain issues in a similar way.


----------



## K.S. Crooks (Jan 17, 2015)

I would think that emotions would be duller and physical aspects of the people will be diminished. There will be less muscle mass and instincts such as fight or flight will suffer. If the person needs to deal with a risky situation they may be more level headed if there is time to think things over. If rapid decisions need to be made or actions taken they may be ill-equipped to do so. hope this helps. also consider that to remove a human's reproductive capabilities you don't have to alter the hormones. Surgery is done all the time. A male only needs to have the vas deferens severed or clamped to prevent sperm from being released. for women the procedure of blocking the fallopian/uterine tubes is more complicated but does the same function of preventing release. It could be interesting if you created a disease or ability that results from the treatment. Hope this helps.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jan 17, 2015)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituitary_gland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyroid

Without certain hormones our species would require a whole new system of system regulation.


----------



## JamesR (Feb 17, 2015)

To be honest, probably a lot more peaceful and a lot more productive. So much of our society's tension, competitiveness, and problems are the result of sex and mating rights. We as humans may have come far, but we're not fully past Darwinian evolution just yet. Next to religion and eating, there is nothing that holds as strong and complex a grip over humanity than sex. I speculate that in a completely asexual society, there would be less tension, aggression, and competitiveness, as well as greater technological achievements since all the time and effort we put into finding a mate could be redirected toward science and learning. I could see a utopia arising, although ending as soon as it arises due to there being no way to pass on the genes, unless these humans discover a way to reproduce or artificially produce new humans in a way apart from sexual intercourse.


----------

