JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I I still think that. Those that survive deserve to do so.
I disagree. Look at Afghanistan between the 1960s and now... Iran, Egypt, few other countries... what I am trying to get at is..
Ecologically and biologically, the world could indeed use less humans on it... but.. civilization, culturally, socially, economically.. I don't think it would be better off with less humans, certainly not the way things are going. If anything, it likely would go back to "might is right, live by the sword, die by the sword, place no value on opponets human lives"
 
Ecologically and biologically, the world could indeed use less humans on it...
That's what colonizing space is for, reach out to build an offworld resource base along with a "gene bank" so that even if some Giant Killer 'Roid does a K-T Event on us those offworld on Mars and aboard orbital habitats will perpetuate our civilization and keep reaching outward to our destiny across the stars.
 
If you read the article, the premise is the hormone disruptors in the woman, while pregnant, affect the sperm count of their children.
Ah, but they are talking about phthalates and BPA present in the mother, and if I recall what I read correctly, they are misinterpreted by the male endocrine system as estrogenic.
The two chemicals are probably exchanged from the mother to the fetus as food, which, in turn, triggers gene expression and activation.
BCPs work by introducing low levels of estrogen and progesterone in women's bodies, much like the natural ovulatory cycle, and when the estrogen level plummets in the woman (emulating the corpus luteum being exhausted, i.e. consumed) her body sheds the uterine lining. It's been ~15 years since I've studied it, but I believe BCPs also affect and inhbit HCG release, which is crucial to developing fertile eggs in the woman.
I expected them to say "lead", since Pb and other heavy metals are known suppressants for sperm development.
Now, rather than measuring their donkus in the bathroom, we're going to have boys measuring the gap between their, uh, nevermind.... o_O
 
That's what colonizing space is for, reach out to build an offworld resource base along with a "gene bank" so that even if some Giant Killer 'Roid does a K-T Event on us those offworld on Mars and aboard orbital habitats will perpetuate our civilization and keep reaching outward to our destiny across the stars.
Let me put this forth.
If America were to be wiped out in a massive, coordinated attack of some sort, or that also happens to Russia, China, much of Europe.. what use would technologic advances, and advanced mathematics and science be of to the remaining populace, other than to conquer and control the world? Note that while modern and cosmopolitian in the 60s and 70s, Afghanistan went right back to a brutal, violent, relatively primitive society when the government was replaced by a theocracy. Also note that Latin America has practically 0 civilian run Space programs, indeed, no real scientific institutions the likes that the 1st World nations boasts... and again, the main effort is basically military and economic power with the help of cartels :rolleyes: like I mentioned... the way things are going... I would be quite surprised to see any semblance of a functional, affordable civilian space program surviving whatever may come.
 
@The Heretic, thanks for posting this. I found it interesting, and not something I would have encountered without your link.
I have always found GQ to be a magazine that celebrated male femininity, LGBQT, and as such, it was never a rag that I would reach for. I confess, I'm homophobic.
The image of their ad says it all for me:
upload_2018-9-10_21-30-51.png
 
@The Heretic, thanks for posting this. I found it interesting, and not something I would have encountered without your link.
I have always found GQ to be a magazine that celebrated male femininity, LGBQT, and as such, it was never a rag that I would reach for. I confess, I'm homophobic.
The image of their ad says it all for me:
View attachment 498046
Oh come on you think GQ is all about male FEMINITY. lol here are a few pictures from GQ MAGAZINE .HEHE HAHA gallery-1458140224-oli-cheshire-gq-style-2-online.jpg lucky-blue-smith-porter-gq-fashion-story-01-1.jpg cshih_080207_sean_132_d_rgb1.jpg GQ-China_Mariano-Vivanco-05b.jpg gq_chesire_image_1.jpg 0febbab7febc5b3858d4bd902896999f.jpg had enough yet .LOL HAHAHA
 
A paraphrase. At 90, George Burns was asked by Johnny Carson about cigar smoking. George replied, "Twenty years ago, my doctor told me I'd be dead in 5 years if I didn't quit." Johnny asked, "What does your doctor say now?"

"I don't know...he's dead."
 
Ah, but they are talking about phthalates and BPA present in the mother,

As "hormone disruptors". My point was that birth control pills disrupt the hormonal system of a fertile woman much more directly and in greater amounts than trace amounts of hormone disruptors in the environment. The timing works too.

My question is, why isn't that mentioned in the article as at least a possible contributing factor? Surely these doctors/scientists have considered that?
 
As "hormone disruptors". My point was that birth control pills disrupt the hormonal system of a fertile woman much more directly and in greater amounts than trace amounts of hormone disruptors in the environment. The timing works too.

My question is, why isn't that mentioned in the article as at least a possible contributing factor? Surely these doctors/scientists have considered that?
While the original study may have looked at BCPs as a direct disruptor, I doubt it. You did note the one cited fertility example where they eventually used a surrogate. That specific instance of infertility couldn't be laid at the feet of the dude, regardless of his swimmers' population counts.
If you really want to get into the absurdity at the base of it, this is a study which pretty clearly targets Western civilization, a population subset which has demonstrated the proclivity toward lower reproduction rates, and regurgitated in a magazine which targets a demographic who reads(?) for ideas on how to color match their porkpie hat with their socks.
A classic case of confused Chicken Little.

Cynical Rant:
Note, while they disparaged DuPont, Dow, Chevron and other plastics producers, they didn't go so far as to try and smear Nestle for the BPA tainted bottled water they have created as a staple in everyone's household. They probably had an ad on one of the pages in the rag. But remember, Nestle is that evil capitalist company that wants to make water, a basic human right, something you have to pay for.
I wrote reads(?) above, because in college where I saw guys in my house "reading" GQ and sorority sisters who "read" Glamour or Cosmo, didn't. Like most boys with their dad's copy of Playboy, they just looked at the pictures.
Rant over. Cynicism to continue, unabated....
 
@The Heretic... I enjoyed the article immensely. While I'm not a fan of "we're all gonna die" hysteria, something about the article captured my attention. Maybe because Scientific American is such a political rag today.
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top