Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The male “Pill” in spray form.
In other words, a good invention, but alas, you exist, so it came too late.
1/10, you need to work on your bait technique
where dumb people hang out
and mingle with others, hoping for osmosis to work its magic
Yup, people need to learn to not sniff the Round-Up.
Farmers and farm workers have a much higher exposure to pesticides than the general public. Is there a correlation there as well? One reason I ask is because in my area are a particular group of people who often work for farms in large numbers, and have an increased exposure as pesticides are handled and sprayed on farms. They also have relatively large families and have for years.
As far as I can see it’s a non-problem. If you’re still shooting millions of bullets it doesn’t matter if half of them are duds. Furthermore as long as people are still reproducing after enough generations, the future generations could end up less sensitive to the pesticides (assuming it even applies enough selection pressure – if it doesn’t, there’s no problem).
The population declines in many developed nations is mostly because people are choosing to not have children, not because they can’t.
I’d be more worried about cancer, congenital problems, Parkinson’s and other neurological issues from pesticides.
Anecdotal – I know someone whose kid used to have fits or something like that. Then they stopped having pest control come by regularly and their kid stopped getting fits. Maybe some pesticides are really OK for >90% of the population at the proper dose and usage, but peanuts are OK for >90% of the population too. Doesn’t stop a minority from having big problems with the stuff.
The other issue is some pesticides aren’t as safe as the studies indicate because the studies only study the “active ingredient” not the “full recipe” or “inerts” which turn out to be not so inert and maybe even more toxic: https://www.scientificamerican… [scientificamerican.com]
Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells – even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.
One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.”
“This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,”
Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells – even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.
One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.”
“This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,”
You should still be worried about people being infertile on a large scale regardless of the cause.
Why? What does the continuation of the human race have to do with the remainder of my life. This is like global warming. I won’t be alive to see the results and now because of pesticides I can’t have children. Seems like a win/win to me.
Kind of hardy to have empathy for such a huge problem that an individual has zero control over.
Can dogs detect sarcasm? I know you can’t.
An excellent justification for a maximum voting age if I’ve ever seen one. Or maybe just a prerequisite test for sociopathy.
> As far as I can see it’s a non-problem. If you’re still shooting millions of bullets it doesn’t matter if half of them are duds.
a) It matters when you don’t know what the cut-off number is.
b) That’s not what’s happening. It’s not just duds, it’s the number of bullets (sperm count) has halved in the last 50 years, as well as the remaining sperm having reduced motility.
Even if it doesn’t yet affect babymaking too much, it should be treated as a symptom of something, and that something is worth finding. The other symptoms you mentioned might, or might not be linked.
> Evolution and all that. Those who successfully reproduce would have descendants that tend to have similar traits.
Not if the decrease is due to increasing doses of external sources. Each next generation would be more affected, and evolution takes time, 40 years is at best almost two generations, way too short for random selection.
I recommend you take the time to read this book: Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race, By: Shanna H. Swan,
There are a lot of issues with falling sperm counts, even if there are still plenty of babies being born at the moment. For one, the children being born have health issues.
The decline in fertility just reduces the odds of getting pregnant. If you have lots of unprotected sex, eventually you will have children in most cases.
It’s a meta analysis (an analysis of the results of multiple other studies). If you take a look at the paper, table 2, you’ll see what kind of conditions the different component studies looked at. The “biomonitoring” section is the strongest, that’s where they actually measured how much pesticide exposure there was.
There are study populations from insecticide manufacturing facilities, agricultural workplaces, etc.
I fail to see the downside to this. Kids are annoying* and far too often they’re used as the justification for more government control which ultimately ends up affecting adults as well.
* Yeah, parents out there in the peanut gallery, I know, you love your kids and they’re the greatest thing ever. Some of us just aren’t into the whole breeding thing, sorry.
If ‘annoying’ is why you don’t want to be around kids, I fail to see the point in trying to explain any of these higher levels to you.
I want to come out and personally thank you for letting us know your position on this.
—
Congratulations. – Yogi Berra
If ‘annoying’ is why you don’t want to be around kids
If ‘annoying’ is why you don’t want to be around kids
Ever been to Halloween Horror Nights at Universal? It would be so much more enjoyable if it was an 18+ event. Probably less profitable, but it would be way better without all the kids. Online gaming? Same deal, lose the kids and it would be better. Go out to dinner and someone’s kid is screaming up a storm? Yeah, you know where I’m going with this.
I have plenty of friends who have kids, so I know to some people being a parent truly does bring joy to their lives. Some of us are just fine without that
Go out to dinner and someone’s kid is screaming up a storm
Go out to dinner and someone’s kid is screaming up a storm
It is unfair to blame the kid in this situation. They probably don’t want to be there any more than you want them there.
No, there have definitely been many times I thought of my own kid as being annoying!
You know you can move to live in a cave and there won’t be anybody to annoy you?
Then he’ll have to face the reality that “other people” wasn’t ever the problem.
Then he’ll have to face the reality that “other people” wasn’t ever the problem.
Then he’ll have to face the reality that “other people” wasn’t ever the problem.
“Kids”, not “other people”. Children are more like “people in training”. Even Reddit agrees. [reddit.com]
You know you can move to live in a cave and there won’t be anybody to annoy you?
You know you can move to live in a cave and there won’t be anybody to annoy you?
Caves have bats. Bats carry diseases. Do you want a new Covid? Because that’s how you get a new Covid.
Well, without kids (even other people’s kids), all your retirement savings will be worth nothing. You’ll need doctors, plumbers, delivery drivers, and they all will be retired if they are not kids now, or were kids in your adulthood.
Curious, what is your operating proof that the planet is overpopulated. Do you have reference data to share?
If you believe in things like co2 causing climate change then the world is over populated.
If you don’t then it’s fine for now.
Seems plausible, but I was hoping to hear from the OP
What if you don’t accept the proposition that co2 and population are somehow inextricably linked?
What if you don’t accept the proposition that co2 and population are somehow inextricably linked?
What if you don’t accept the proposition that co2 and population are somehow inextricably linked?
Carbon dioxide is put into the atmosphere by people using energy, so I’d say that the link between CO2 and population is pretty clear. Given no change in the way individual people use energy, more people will mean more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
If we change the way we produce energy or the amount of energy we use, we could make less carbon dioxide per person. But even then, less carbon dioxide per person with a smaller population will mean less carbon dioxide, while less carbon dioxide per person wit
Are you actually denying that the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere will be equal to the average emission per capita times the number of people?
Variance in per capita co2 emissions proves that while linked, population is not the only factor.
Variance in per capita co2 emissions proves that while linked, population is not the only factor.
Variance in per capita co2 emissions proves that while linked, population is not the only factor.
“Is not the only factor” is not the same as “is not a factor”.
In fact, I’d point out that the total world carbon-dioxide emissions is the product of two factors: average carbon dioxide per person, times number of people.
So you can lower total CO2 emissions by lowering the average CO2 emitted per person, or lower the number of people, or (most effectively) doing both.
Or so the math says.
The moral of my story was that while population matters, it’s not the only thing that matters.
Take for example foam insulation. You might assume it’s all bad for the environment, and that’s probably true, but some types are vastly less impactful to manufacture than others. Polyisocyanurate foam insulation in particular is very low-impact. It takes little energy to produce, it is made from relatively benign precursors, and the process does not have high GHG emissions. Polystyrene foam is much more impactful,
It’s not people. It’s what people do and how they choose to live.
It’s not people. It’s what people do and how they choose to live.
This is a great big fat logical fallacy.
To be fair, I’m willing to bet your average California homeless person has a significantly smaller footprint then your average worker and above. In fact, the richer you become the larger your co2 output seems to be. So maybe we need fewer rich people to save the world. Guess we’re screwed.
in percentages of biomass: 4% of all living mammals are wild. The remaining 96% are humans and their livestock.
Farmed chickens account for almost 60% of all bird biomass, 30% are wild birds. The other 10% are whatever other birds we’re farming.
> Curious, what is your operating proof that the planet is overpopulated. Do you have reference data to share?
Where have you been? This planet has been classed as overpopulated by practically anyone studying related subjects for the last 20 or more years.
The metric? Water. Water is the scarce resource. Thats FRESH water mind, the stuff you drink, cook and wash with. There simply hasnt been enough for a long while and we have just been managing as it is. Going forward, access to fresh drinking wate
So your real problem isn’t lack of rain but your government’s obviously lack of interest in capturing enough to sustain your population. As you mention, you let a large portion of it just run off into the ocean. California has the same problems.
There is plenty of water if both our societies could be bothered to invest in water catchments and a bit of engineering things to be more sustainable. We already have the technology but naturally it would cost our water companies money so screw that.
I do agree we are
Minimal working mental abilities. You obviously lack those.
My balls were not Round-Up Ready ™(r)(c).
How much influence does it have? 1% as much influence as the subject being obese? Or maybe even 2%?
Are mice different “down there”? Why didn’t high-dose mice tests catch this?
its bloody children of men!
Who would have expected that
While the name is new the condition isn’t, so any link would be with incident rates and not the existence itself.
There are also social factors that will have raised reporting rates, making teasing out any really solid data is a statistical challenge.
It’s not.
This is like the cancer argument. “everything causes cancer, so who cares”.
Smoke all you want, eat bacon and hang out in xray machines why don’t you.
Small contributions add up to large problems in large numbers in large populations.
It’s porn. All those guys wanked themselves sterile.
Another study said chemtrails.
It’s probably all of those. What you put in your body influence your endocrine system among other things, testosterone levels are also tanking which increases risk of obesity, and decreases fertility. There are studies showing that phtalates are one of the causes, and “birth control” would definitely count as another.
It does not have to be only one thing. We’re removing ourselves so far from nature, it could be accumulation of a dozen different things we replaced nature with.
Phtalates and testosterone impact study:
https://academic.oup.com/humre… [oup.com]
What hasn’t male fertility been linked to now??? One study says birth control in the water. Another says pollution. Another says the stress of being connected online 24/7. Whatever.
What hasn’t male fertility been linked to now??? One study says birth control in the water. Another says pollution. Another says the stress of being connected online 24/7. Whatever.
Yeah, it’s an extremely complex situation we find ourselves in, and anybody trying to link fertility to any one given thing can probably find a connection because, hey, environmental factors have an affect on things living within an environment. Who woulda thought?
The only reason it’s a concern at this point is the fear that population decline will lead to lost profits for the business sector. We’ve operated on the “always more people” premise for so long we’ve become addicted to the concept. Whether the Ea
Government also really doesn’t want to see a reduced headcount. All our social schemes need more people to pay in. Immigration is probably the only reason things haven’t gotten worse since we as a society are having fewer children. With fewer children becoming tax paying adults, who’s going to fun all the social programs?
Government also really doesn’t want to see a reduced headcount. All our social schemes need more people to pay in. Immigration is probably the only reason things haven’t gotten worse since we as a society are having fewer children. With fewer children becoming tax paying adults, who’s going to fun all the social programs?
Government also really doesn’t want to see a reduced headcount. All our social schemes need more people to pay in. Immigration is probably the only reason things haven’t gotten worse since we as a society are having fewer children. With fewer children becoming tax paying adults, who’s going to fun all the social programs?
Much, much, MUCH more importantly? Who’s going to continue to fund the war machine?
Eligibility for those programs is based on comparing income to various percentages of the federal poverty level, which is based on the federal minimum wage. So the answer is, states with their shit together will pay for them
It’s because men are snowflakes and their sperm wilt easily?
Many of the previous hypotheses were silly. Do you really think “stress” is a new thing? A century ago, do you believe that watching three of your five children die of smallpox wasn’t stressful? Or losing a leg in the trenches of the Great War?
The pesticide hypothesis is correlated not only with increased use of the toxins but with the individual levels in the subjects tested. That is much stronger evidence.
It also explains the differences between countries. For instance, Denmark is a sperm powerhouse. Danish men have three times the sperm count of American men and Denmark is a major exporter of sperm for IVF. The different types of pesticides allowed can explain that.
Do you really think “stress” is a new thing?
Do you really think “stress” is a new thing?
Stress isn’t new, but lifestyle changes are. One of the best ways to combat stress, which is correlated with elevated levels of cortisol (which has an inverse correlation to testerone levels) is diet and exercise. Especially exercise when it comes to stress management. So it’s not that stress is new, but as more and more people start living sedentary lifestyles, it could be that symptoms related to stress become more prevalent.
It’s not a silly hypothesis because the lifestyle of a modern day office worker vs a farmer or construction worker are radically different.
What does being tall, white and blond have to do with them having much higher sperm counts?
Being tall means the sperm are at higher altitudes, thus more exposure to cosmic radiation and lower oxygen levels. It’s especially bad for sperm with acrophobia. In the middle ages when men were shorter their fecundity was much higher. Q.E.D.M.Fs!
Well, these studies always analyze correlation, not causation. Male fertility has declined in recent decades, so anything that has increased in the same timeframe will show positive correlative value. That’s just math. These studies are are useless as the asshats who conduct them. If you want real hard science, use the scientific method. Make a hypothesis. Test your Hypothesis. Control for your hypothesis. Reach your conclusion.
*SNIP*
Danish men are also tall, white, and blonde. Genetics that are highly sought after. The pesticides they use should be experimented on. Make California abide by their rules for 15 years and see what happens. That is experimentation.
Well, these studies always analyze correlation, not causation. Male fertility has declined in recent decades, so anything that has increased in the same timeframe will show positive correlative value. That’s just math. These studies are are useless as the asshats who conduct them. If you want real hard science, use the scientific method. Make a hypothesis. Test your Hypothesis. Control for your hypothesis. Reach your conclusion.
*SNIP*
Danish men are also tall, white, and blonde. Genetics that are highly sought after. The pesticides they use should be experimented on. Make California abide by their rules for 15 years and see what happens. That is experimentation.
These studies are are useless
Did any studies examine whether the participants tried to use a butt?
If you think that’s bad, consider that “representative surveys” are basically coffee ground readers asking crystal ball owners for their unfounded opinion.
Ah, an assumption! You know what happens when you make assumptions don’t you? If you re-read (or read for the first time?) the summary carefully, some warning bells might go off. Then if you read the paper you might see where you’ve gone wrong.
Also, you don’t know much about the scientific method, but if you’re willing to volunteer for a pesticide dosing experiment on fertility I’m sure the world would be grateful.
Itâ(TM)s impossible to have a control group in an environment where exposure is unavoidable
Explain liberal logic and modern feminism.
Explain liberal logic and modern feminism.
Liberal logic and modern feminism are strongest in Nordic countries, where sperm count has not declined.
So your hypothesis doesn’t fit the evidence.
It’s not my fault that history is racist against white Americans.
It’s not my fault that history is racist against white Americans.
Actually, my knowledge of history shows that history is racist against pretty much every society everywhere.
Oddly, with the one historical exception of Genghis Khan. He was rigorously equal opportunity: if you opposed him he would kill you and your family and your village regardless of race, creed, or color. But if you allowed yourself to be conquered, he didn’t distinguish based on race or ethnicity.
Yeah feels same here. I’m over 40, and my wife is late 30s.
We started trying shortly before our wedding date because we thought it would be difficult. It wasn’t.
We nailed it on the first unprotected ovulation cycle. Making babies seems to still be pretty easy.
Same with me. We had two kids, and both times, she was knocked up on the first try.
But we grow much of our own food with no pesticides, so maybe that helped.
Same with me. We had two kids, and both times, she was knocked up on the first try.
But we grow much of our own food with no pesticides, so maybe that helped.
I had two kids without any conception issues while working as a pesticide applicator in a greenhouse.
they have fertility issues too to a point china discontinued their one child policy.
even if it weren’t so, people are having less children and are marrying later due to improved healthcare and curves that hit countries like US and europe end up causing issues to other countries like china later as healthcare and nutrition/agriculture improves.
it’s not one or the other… a lot of things happen simultaneously
long story short, before you can say it doesn’t check out, you have to examine a lot of environmental
China’s low birth rate is due to socio economic conditions, not environmental chemical issues.
By fertility issues, I meant the rate at which people reproduce in general, not chemical issues (as in the summary). Granted words like fertility rate, or natural replacement rate would have worked better and could be clearer, you could still get the idea from the rest of the post
I’d gladly take a shot over a knife to the balls to prevent children.
No those are OTHER chemicals and they are not making frogs gay, they are changing sexes or just becoming BOTH to the point they can breed with themselves!
I’m surprised industry has been clever enough to keep the homophobes from latching on to the problem as the cause for the rapid increase in gay humans. That would at least (correct or not) get more people active against the PR that keeps us from quickly solving the problems. Instead the nutjobs think conspiracies are out there to convert your kid to gay w
not pesticides.Synthetic hormones get studied doing unusual things and continue as they keep making chemicals with similar affect on biological systems…
UNUSUAL means more than rare cases.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
FAA Clears SpaceX To Launch Second Starship Flight
Prices For Offshore Wind Power To Rise By 50%
A person with one watch knows what time it is; a person with two watches is never sure. Proverb