The Overpopulation Myth, The Underpopulation Crisis

Originally posted by soficrow
If the "developed / civilized" world's corporations stopped plundering "developing" countries resources, and contaminating their fresh water supplies, that too would "increase their living standard significantly."

It is very easy to blame Developed countries for the plight of Developing countries the same way it is easy for somebody in a bad situation to blame everyone else for their troubles. Most Developing countries with massive economic, political and social problems are that way because of the inaction of their own countrymen - not because Developed nations are preventing them from flourishing.

The ruling classes started becoming infertile in the 17-1800's - around the time eugenics was "developed" as a "science." The topic of fertility was much discussed in eugenics meetings, often with the lament that "the poor breed like rabbits."

Interesting that the "poor" remain genetically vigorous while the ruling classes have become practically infertile.

Or maybe the poor have a lot more time to get down and dirty and don't waste their time with distractions as do the ruling class.

One explanation:

* The greedy, ruthless, self-gratifying, self-congratulatory and arrogant behaviors that allow the ruling classes to rule are NOT beneficial to long term survival of the species - only short-term individual survival, while

* The cooperative behaviors of the poor ensure the long term survival of the "class" - and species.

Aren't you using the same argument, but screaming from the opposite side of the fence? It seems like you are implying that "the poor" are better than "the rich" are because they procreate at a higher rate.

[edit on 24/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by soficrow
If the "developed / civilized" world's corporations stopped plundering "developing" countries resources, and contaminating their fresh water supplies, that too would "increase their living standard significantly."

It is very easy to blame Developed countries ...

Didn't blame 'developed nations' - blamed global corporations and by implication, corporate economic system.

The ruling classes started becoming infertile in the 17-1800's - around the time eugenics was "developed" as a "science." The topic of fertility was much discussed in eugenics meetings, often with the lament that "the poor breed like rabbits."

Interesting that the "poor" remain genetically vigorous while the ruling classes have become practically infertile.

Or maybe the poor have a lot more time to get down and dirty and don't waste their time with distractions as do the ruling class.

Mother Nature does have her own priorities. ...But get real, most poor people spend the bulk of their time working their asses off.

One explanation:

* The greedy, ruthless, self-gratifying, self-congratulatory and arrogant behaviors that allow the ruling classes to rule are NOT beneficial to long term survival of the species - only short-term individual survival, while

* The cooperative behaviors of the poor ensure the long term survival of the "class" - and species.

Aren't you using the same argument, but screaming from the opposite side of the fence? It seems like you are implying that "the poor" are better than "the rich" are because they procreate at a higher rate.

No, I'm not "implying that "the poor" are better than "the rich" are because they procreate at a higher rate."

I'm observing that "natural selection" favors "the poor" - saying that the behaviors of "the rich" ensure only only short-term individual survival - implying that "the rich" are hoist by the petard of their own skewed values - and finally, observing that "the rich" are being "naturally de-selected" by nature.

Which is, no doubt, the way it should be.











[edit on 24-8-2010 by soficrow]

[edit on 24-8-2010 by soficrow]

reply to post by soficrow

Mother Nature does have her own priorities. ...But get real, most poor people spend the bulk of their time working their asses off.

I think our definition of poor people differs. Those people are not poor, I would call them middle class. Poor people are unemployed or unemployable, living on welfare or in ghettos.

Didn't blame 'developed nations' - blamed global corporations and by implication, corporate economic system.

I agree that evil corporations are part of the problem. This is also where population control and eugenics could help. If corporate slaves are not allowed to reproduce, their numbers go down and their price goes up. Thus they would not be slaves anymore..

I'm observing that "natural selection" favors "the poor" - saying that the behaviors of "the rich" ensure only only short-term individual survival - implying that "the rich" are hoist by the petard of their own skewed values - and finally, observing that "the rich" are being "naturally de-selected" by nature. Which is, no doubt, the way it should be.

So the world should be one big ghetto, with no rich or middle class citizens?? Exactly the opposite is what we need..

reply to post by soficrow


reply to post by soficrow

I'm observing that "natural selection" favors "the poor" - saying that the behaviors of "the rich" ensure only only short-term individual survival - implying that "the rich" are hoist by the petard of their own skewed values - and finally, observing that "the rich" are being "naturally de-selected" by nature.

Natural(!) selection does not favor the poor, the only reason why the poor are outbreeding the rich or middle class in current society is because they abuse the social system and humanitarian aid (in third world). Poor people would have significantly less chance to survive and procreate in the society without the others giving them free benefits. The moment the poor outnumber the rich and middle class the whole system will deteriorate, because the source of their social benefits - working people paying taxes - will go down relative to their increasing numbers.
THATS favoring short-term individual survival and gene spreading over the future of the society and progress of the mankind, not what the rich are doing.

have you seen the film Idiocracy? Thats exactly what I am talking about..

We have witnessed it also in my country. In the past (before socialism), gypsy communities almost never had more children than average population, because noone gived them anything for free and they had to work like everyone else, or die of hunger. That all changed with the introduction of social benefits system which encouraged procreation, without any population control or limits. Now its not incommon for them to have 10 children just to have higher social benefits. But will their children ever become productive, intelligent (..even rich?) members of the society? Nope. in the conditions in which they live, I highly doubt it.

Is that natural selection, if the only reason why they procreate and survive is artificial forced redistribution of wealth from richer individuals? Is that sustainable? Does it benefit mankind and its survival in the long run? Keep in mind that what humanity needs now are not numbers and manual workers, but brains and qualified people. Quality over quantity.

The same applies to humanitarian aid and some poor communities in other countries.

Originally posted by soficrow
Didn't blame 'developed nations' - blamed global corporations and by implication, corporate economic system.

Well it seemed like you were implying that, so I apologise for mistaking what it was you were saying.

Mother Nature does have her own priorities. ...But get real, most poor people spend the bulk of their time working their asses off.

Could this be attributed to the fact that they have more children than they can afford to feed? There are people whose financial situations change dramatically which creates unforeseen stresses, but it seems most of the poor have always been poor because they keep reproducing at a rate which does not allow them time not to work very hard.

In other words, who do you think will require less time working in order to pay the bills: a relatively poor person who has 2 children or a relatively poor person who has 4 children? People who live beyond their means will usually find themselves overworking just to keep up.

No, I'm not "implying that "the poor" are better than "the rich" are because they procreate at a higher rate."

I'm observing that "natural selection" favors "the poor" - saying that the behaviors of "the rich" ensure only only short-term individual survival - implying that "the rich" are hoist by the petard of their own skewed values - and finally, observing that "the rich" are being "naturally de-selected" by nature.

Hmm, ok. So those who believe that Natural Selection favours individuals who can self-sustain are "eugenicists", but people such as yourself claim, guilt free, that Natural Selection favours the poor because they procreate at a higher rate?

[edit on 24/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by Maslo


Just a reminder - this thread is about the myth of overpopulation, promoted to further the agenda of our world's rich, ruling class. To paraphrase.

From Causes of Poverty:

Behind the increasing interconnectedness promised by globalization are global decisions, policies, and practices. These are typically influenced, driven, or formulated by the rich and powerful. These can be leaders of rich countries or other global actors such as multinational corporations, institutions, and influential people.

In the face of such enormous external influence, the governments of poor nations and their people are often powerless. As a result, in the global context, a few get wealthy while the majority struggle.

Seems clear to me that populations are manipulated, controlled and abused to serve a very few masters. I do wonder why you're defending the ruling class system - and ignoring larger realities, ie., ...

Global financial crisis led to 80.7 million unemployed youth

...but you think they're just lazy?!?

And everyone knows the middle class is disappearing -into poverty- don't they?

Western Civilization and the Economic Crisis: The Impoverishment of the Middle Class

“The face of debt has changed. Historically, it used to be mainly people on benefits and people in social housing who went to debt advice agencies.” However, “Since the credit crunch started, there has been a big increase in professionals and home-owners coming for help - you just didn’t see these people before at all.” The middle class is “struggling with mortgages, secured loans, and credit card debts.”

In August of 2009, Bank of America released a report in which they explained, “The consumer debt problem in the economy really is a debt problem for the middle class. The need to work off a chunk of that debt will sap middle-class families’ spending power for perhaps years to come.”

"In terms of their debt burdens, neither lower-income families nor the wealthy are constrained the way the middle class is constrained. . .

Is this your real complaint? ...

the consumer society has already been altered. It will no longer be the middle classes that are the consuming class, but the wealthy. The middle class will be forced to deleverage and buckle under their debt burdens. This is only a radical acceleration of a several-decades long trend in Western society; the economic crisis simply sped up this process and is exacerbating its compound effects.

The BIS said that, “the biggest risk is that governments might be forced by world bond investors to abandon their stimulus packages, and instead slash spending while lifting taxes and interest rates.”

This essentially amounts to “austerity measures” imposed upon the Western ‘developed’ nations of the world, akin to the austerity measures imposed upon the nations of the ‘Third World’ through IMF and World Bank Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) following the 1980s debt crisis. This “austerity adjustment” will be endemic of the Western world. We are entering “a fiscal crisis of the western world.”

So - TPTB are pitting the "nouveau poor" (ex-middle class) against the long-time poor and down-trodden. And you're buying right into the strategy, is that it?

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

No, I'm not "implying that "the poor" are better than "the rich" are because they procreate at a higher rate."

I'm observing that "natural selection" favors "the poor" - saying that the behaviors of "the rich" ensure only only short-term individual survival - implying that "the rich" are hoist by the petard of their own skewed values - and finally, observing that "the rich" are being "naturally de-selected" by nature.

Hmm, ok. So those who believe that Natural Selection favours individuals who can self-sustain are "eugenicists", but people such as yourself claim, guilt free, that Natural Selection favours the poor because they procreate at a higher rate?

Not talking about "beliefs" or claiming that "Natural Selection favours the poor because they procreate at a higher rate."

1. Human INFERTILITY -not overpopulation- is the crisis facing our species - as described in the OP.

If one is infertile, one simply can NOT procreate, no matter how often one may do the deed for God, the Queen, whomever or whatever.

The 'ruling class' started becoming infertile in the 17-1800's; they did not choose to limit their progeny; they lost the ability to procreate (arguably, natural selection - if you "believe" in such). ...at the same time, eugenicists observed that "the poor were breeding like rabbits."

In the interim, the "infertility problem" crossed class boundaries and spread around the world.

2. Maslo said he thinks the "wrong people" are still fertile and able to procreate; I said Mother Nature knew what she was doing.

3. IMHO -
the Overpopulation Myth is designed to turn the "nouveau poor" (ex-middle class) against the long-term poor and thereby, destabilize society and maintain control.

From So long, middle class

5. The number of Americans with incomes below the official poverty line rose by about 15% between 2000 and 2006, and by 2008 over 30 million US workers were earning less than $10 per hour.

6. According to Harvard Magazine, 66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.

reply to post by soficrow

The 'ruling class' started becoming infertile in the 17-1800's; they did not choose to limit their progeny; they lost the ability to procreate (arguably, natural selection - if you "believe" in such). ...at the same time, eugenicists observed that "the poor were breeding like rabbits." In the interim, the "infertility problem" crossed class boundaries and spread around the world.

No, the ruling class and the rich choose to limit their progeny. They are equally fertile than the poor. The difference is in social environment.
Show me some evidence for your claim, because it does not make any sense from evolutionary or biological standpoint. Do you seriously think that 90 % of population in developed countries is infertile or has trouble to concieve as many children as they want? What is the biological reason for this absurd claim?

5. The number of Americans with incomes below the official poverty line rose by about 15% between 2000 and 2006, and by 2008 over 30 million US workers were earning less than $10 per hour.

Thats what happens when they have to compete with millions of poor workers in undeveloped countries. There is much more of them, thus they are cheaper. Basic economics, and exactly what evil corporations need - cheap labor.

6. According to Harvard Magazine, 66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.

This proves my point that we need quality over quantity.

In the face of such enormous external influence, the governments of poor nations and their people are often powerless. As a result, in the global context, a few get wealthy while the majority struggle.

I agree. The governments of poor nations are too powerless to do what is best for their people, and are puting corporate interest before them. That is why no such country has population control or eugenics program. One exception is China, and it has consistently the biggest economic growth in the world. Coincidence?

reply to post by Maslo

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by soficrow

 

The 'ruling class' started becoming infertile in the 17-1800's; they did not choose to limit their progeny; they lost the ability to procreate (arguably, natural selection - if you "believe" in such). ...at the same time, eugenicists observed that "the poor were breeding like rabbits."

No, the ruling class and the rich choose to limit their progeny. They are equally fertile than the poor. The difference is in social environment.
Show me some evidence for your claim, because it does not make any sense from evolutionary or biological standpoint.

The relevant history is well-documented, and describes multiple health problems, impotence, infertility and the failing fecundity of the ruling classes (mainly from inbreeding).

1. Historically, the ruling classes were considered "royal" by Divine Right - appointed by God to rule.

2. INBREEDING was practiced to preserve the "royal bloodline," maximize economic and other "fitness" - and to keep land, material possessions and resources within the "royal" families.

3. After centuries of inbreeding, Europe's "royal" dynasties suffered multiple health problems including impotence and infertility; the "royal" lines started dying out by the 1700's.

Ie., The Role of Inbreeding in the Extinction of a European Royal Dynasty

…inbreeding was a major cause responsible for the extinction of the dynasty when the king Charles II, physically and mentally disabled, died in 1700 and no children were born from his two marriages…the simultaneous occurrence in Charles II (F = 0.254) of two different genetic disorders: combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis, determined by recessive alleles at two unlinked loci, could explain most of the complex clinical profile of this king, including his impotence/infertility which in last instance led to the extinction of the dynasty.

The list of heritable illness in the ruling class' bloodlines ranges from hemophilia to madness to infertility, and is well- documented. Most recent studies involve DNA analysis.

RE: "it does not make any sense from evolutionary or biological standpoint."

Actually, it does.




More later...

reply to post by soficrow


Oh come on.. Yes, some royal families of Europe had genetic problems which resulted from interbreeding. But how does that relate to our current situation, our current CAPITALISTIC ruling class? (I assumed that is what you meant by ruling class, what do royal families from middle ages have in common with our 21.st century "ruling" class?) Those problems disappeared with the disappearance of arranged marriages and are now long gone. Actually, interbreeding related problems sometimes arise even in my country, but only in the poor uneducated gypsy communities of which I spoke before. Never in higher social classes, most certainly not in highest class.

Human INFERTILITY -not overpopulation- is the crisis facing our species - as described in the OP.

Human infertility problem only appeared in some royal family lines in middle ages, and was caused by inbreeding. Practices of arranged for-profit marriages are long gone, and so are the genetic problems they caused. Todays capitalistic, not royal "ruling class" does not practice interbreeding and does not have genetic problems. Their have less number of children only for cultural and sociologic reasons.

In the interim, the "infertility problem" crossed class boundaries and spread around the world.

No, it ceased to exist with dissapearance of monarchies and practices which led to it.

The list of heritable illness in the ruling class' bloodlines ranges from hemophilia to madness to infertility, and is well- documented. Most recent studies involve DNA analysis.

RE: "it does not make any sense from evolutionary or biological standpoint."

Actually, it does.

Yes, if you mean royal families inbreeding-caused diseases, it does make sense, but it does not relate to the topic of this thread or our current situation in any way. Or maybe in the one I proposed - some extremely poor and uneducated communities sometimes practice interbreeding, but this fact actually further supports reasonable population control of the poor..

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by soficrow

 

Human INFERTILITY -not overpopulation- is the crisis facing our species - as described in the OP.

Human infertility problem only appeared in some royal family lines in middle ages, and was caused by inbreeding. ...

In the interim, the "infertility problem" crossed class boundaries and spread around the world.

No, it ceased to exist with dissapearance of monarchies and practices which led to it.

Really? Can you explain why fertility clinics are popping up on every second street corner? Why Google lists 292,000 results for a "fertility clinic" search? Why there are about 48,100,000 results for "infertility"?

...and why the stats presented in the OP show clearly that our species actually is moving towards an underpopulation crisis? Or maybe you can explain this instead: MEN: You are being chemically castrated.

"fertility clinic"
About 292,000 results (0.23 seconds)
Fertility clinic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In vitro fertilisation is the most well known of the assisted reproductive technology procedures performed at a fertility clinic. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_clinic - Cached - Similar
UK Fertility Clinics – Choose a Fertility Clinic – HFEA
Search licensed fertility clinics in the UK by location, clinic name, fertility treatments offered, funding options and many other criteria.
guide.hfea.gov.uk/ - Cached - Similar
IVF, Fertility Treatment, IVF Treatment, Fertility Clinic, Egg ...
London Fertility Centre provides comprehensive, innovative assisted conception and gynaecology treatment including IVF.
www.lfc.org.uk/ - Cached - Similar
Choosing a Fertility Clinic
Choosing a fertility clinic to help you have a child is a huge decision. Read these tips for finding the right one for you.
www.webmd.com/infertility-and.../choosing-a-fertility-clinic - Cached - Similar
Infertility clinics, fertility clinics, fertility doctors ...
If you need assistance in selecting a fertility clinic, you can refer to our Guidelines for Selecting an Infertility IVF Clinic. ...
www.ihr.com/infertility/provider/ - Cached - Similar
Sandton Fertility Clinic - Johannesburg South Africa
Fertility Clinic in South Africa, Sandton, Johannesburg, Pretoria, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Swaziland.
www.sandtonfertility.com/ - Cached - Similar
Midland Fertility Clinic, IUI, IVF, ICSI, Egg Freezing, Sharing ...
MFS fertility clinic offers IUI, IVF, Embryo Transfer, ICSI, Egg and Sperm Freezing, Egg Sharing, Donor Treatments, Surrogacy, Male Investigations and ...
www.midlandfertility.com/ - Cached - Similar
Fertility Clinic Directory Infertility Specialists
Fertility clinic directory listing fellowship trained infertility specialists.
www.infertilityspecialist.com/ - Cached - Similar
Fertility clinics in Canada (Fertility Helper, www.familyhelper.net)
26 Nov 2008 ... Astra Fertility Clinic, 4303 Village Centre Court, Mississauga L4Z 1S2, 905-949- 6999, 1-866-962-7872, [email protected], ...
www.familyhelper.net › Fertility Helper - Cached - Similar
Shady Grove Fertility
Infertility clinic and IVF center with locations in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, DC.
www.shadygrovefertility.com/ - Cached - Similar

"infertility"
About 48,100,000 results (0.25 seconds)
Fertility - Infertility - Getting Pregnant - Fertility Treatments ...
2 Aug 2010 ... About.com's Infertility & Fertility site brings you information you can trust on infertility treatments, symptoms, causes, and diagnosis, ...
infertility.about.com/ - Cached - Similar
Infertility Causes, Diagnosis, and Fertility Treatment Information ...
Some tried-and-true stress control suggestions from former infertility ... Most experts define infertility as not being able to get pregnant after at least ...
www.medicinenet.com › ... › pregnancy az list › infertility index - Cached - Similar
Infertility - MayoClinic.com
Infertility — Comprehensive overview covers causes, treatment for both men and women with fertility problems.
www.mayoclinic.com/health/infertility/DS00310 - Cached
Infertility: MedlinePlus
Infertility means not being able to become pregnant after a year of trying. If a woman keeps having miscarriages, it is also called infertility. ...
www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/infertility.html - Cached - Similar
Infertility - NHS Choices
30 Jan 2010 ... Infertility is when a couple cannot conceive (get pregnant) despite having regular unprotected sex. Around one in six or seven couples may ...
www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Infertility/Pages/Introduction.aspx - Cached
WebMD Infertility Center: Trying to Conceive, Symptoms, Causes in ...
Infertility problems are diagnosed in 1 in 10 American couples, yet fully half eventually bear a child. Find infertility information including drugs, tests, ...
www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/default.htm - Cached - Similar
Infertility
Infertility is the inability of a couple to become pregnant (regardless of cause ) after 1 year of unprotected sexual intercourse (using no birth control ...
www.emedicinehealth.com › home › topics az list - Cached - Similar
Homepage : The National Infertility Association
US infertility association site providing information for patients, professionals and media. Details of local branches and events.
www.resolve.org/ - Cached - Similar
Infertility Network UK
Infertility Support from Infertility Network UK, providing infertility support, ... The Homepage of the UK' s largest Infertility Support Network, ...
www.infertilitynetworkuk.com/ - Cached - Similar
News for infertility
India Talkies
Molecular approach could be the key to understanding male infertility‎ - 1 day ago
Assuming these epigenetic marks are also present and serve similar functions in humans, the study identifies potential biomarkers of human male infertility. ...
Sify - 18 related articles »

RE: "interbreeding related problems sometimes arise even in my country"

Where IS your country? Is it Kantsaywhere?

Galton worked on a novel entitled Kantsaywhere from May until December 1910. The novel described a utopia organized by a eugenic religion, designed to breed fitter and smarter humans. His unpublished notebooks show that this was an expansion of material he had been composing since at least 1901. He offered it to Methuen for publication, but they showed little enthusiasm. Galton wrote to his niece that it should be either “smothered or superseded”. His niece appears to have burnt most of the novel, offended by the love scenes, but large fragments survive.[21]

Galton

[edit on 26-8-2010 by soficrow]

reply to post by Maslo


There are many analyses showing that our current elite has royal bloodlines. There's a lot of conspiracy theorizing about how royals continue to find each other, and the theories aren't perfect, but isn't it your experience that connections matter?

Surprisingly often the political and economic elite have no children. And when they do, it's rare that they have sons. When they do have sons, those sons are treasured. George HW Bush was our last President to have sons, and one of them was installed as President!

reply to post by soficrow

Really? Can you explain why fertility clinics are popping up on every second street corner? Why Google lists 292,000 results for a "fertility clinic" search? Why there are about 48,100,000 results for "infertility"?

Because in the past we did not have so advanced specialized medicine and Google?

theadventurouswriter.com...

...and why the stats presented in the OP show clearly that our species actually is moving towards an underpopulation crisis?

Our species unsustainable population boom from last century is just slowing down (thank god!) because of cultural and economic reasons - but its still higher than replacement rate (2.33 in average). Thats happening in underdeveloped and developing countries.

In developed countries, you are right, we are starting to observe even lower than replacement rates - but for cultural, not biological reasons. And considering that one human with technology produces so much values than 10 humans in the past, I dont think we should be alarmed. Population cannot increase forever, it has to stabilize and oscillate around certain value sometime (oscillate means sometimes even decrease). Are you not comfortable with cca 10-12 billion? That are even lowest plausible estimates.

reply to post by Maslo



Infertility FAQ's

Is infertility a common problem?
Yes. About 10 % of women (6.1 million) in the United States ages 15–44 years have difficulty getting pregnant or staying pregnant.

Is infertility just a woman's problem?
No, infertility is not always a woman's problem. Both women and men can have problems that cause infertility. About one-third of infertility cases are caused by women’s problems. Another one third of fertility problems are due to the man. The other cases are caused by a mixture of male and female problems or by unknown problems.

Infertility
(Data are for the U.S.)

Number of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity (impaired ability to have children): 7.3 million
Percent of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity: 11.8%
Number of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile (unable to get pregnant for at least 12 consecutive months): 2.1 million
Percent of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile: 7.4%
Number of women ages 15-44 who have ever used infertility services: 7.3 million

Source: Fertility, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health of U.S. Women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, tables 67, 69, 97



The impact of infertility on family size in the USA: data from the National Survey of Family Growth

BACKGROUND: Investigators have postulated that family size may be influenced by biologic fertility potential in addition to sociodemographic factors. The aim of the current study is to determine if a diagnosis of infertility is associated with family size in the USA.

CONCLUSIONS: A diagnosis of infertility, especially male factor, is associated with reduced odds of having a larger family, implicating a biologic role in the determination of family size in the USA.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by soficrow]

reply to post by soficrow

Are Infertility Rates Increasing?

No, infertility rates are not increasing. Here, fertility doctors explain three reasons infertility rates are not increasing — this is one of the fascinating morsels in 100 Questions & Answers About Infertility ! Women aren’t getting pregnant any less today than they did 50 years ago. This infertility book also explains why women aren’t conceiving babies.

Infertility is an extraordinarily common disorder,” writes Gordon and DiMattina. “An estimated 25% of all women will experience an episode of infertility during their lifetime.” They say that over six million American women and their partners are coping with infertility.

According to Gordon and DiMattina, infertility rates have remained stable over the years. A common misperception is that infertility is becoming more common – but in fact it’s fertility services that are more commonly used now than before.

We Think Infertility is More Common – 3 Reasons Fertility Doctors Say We’re Wrong

We talk about infertility more. As Kristin said above, couples coping with infertility are reaching out to their friends, over the internet, and to infertility support groups. People aren’t ashamed to talk about infertility and problems getting pregnant today.

Second, more women are waiting until they’re older to have children, which decreases their chances of conceiving a baby. I know I waited – I wasn’t ready to think about getting pregnant until I was 37 years old. Now, hubby and I are struggling to conceive a child, and are trying to encourage the sperm to buck up! In 100 Questions & Answers About Infertility Gordon and DiMattina write, “Over the last generation, a significant number of women have deferred childbearing while they pursued advanced academic careers or entered the workplace.” But, this career stress affects fertility levels.

Third, more couples are seeking help because the stigma of seeking infertility treatments is decreasing. “Today, more than 100,000 cycles of advanced reproductive technologies are performed in the United States each year,” write Gordon and DiMattina. “Given that 1% of all US births are now the result of fertility treatments, most couples probably know someone with a successful outcome from fertility treatments.”

You see? Thats my point. Infertility is a common disorder, but its rates are NOT increasing. And even if they were increasing by a few % because of environmental pollution, it would hit all social classes EQUALLY, so it would not explain what we see - people from higher social classes having far less children than people from lower classes. That can be explained only by sociologic and cultural differencies. So richer people dont have that many children because they CHOOSE to, not have to.

en.wikipedia.org...

Wiki link about causes of fertility rate decline.

reply to post by Maslo


Where is your quote from? It's not in the post you're replying to or any of the past five pages of this thread.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by oniongrass]

reply to post by oniongrass


theadventurouswriter.com...

Its in my post before.

reply to post by Maslo


Cool Eugenics marketing and promo-piece. But little merit regarding content, and NO LINK(s)! [tsk] ...You insist that infertility rates are not increasing, and back up your claims with Eugenics dogma. ng!

I provided links to my credible references, which in turn cited credible sources. ...Please, reciprocate. [FYI - "adventurous writer.com" doesn't count!]

...more women are waiting until they’re older to have children, which decreases their chances of conceiving a baby.

Why does "waiting" decrease the chance of conception? ...Could it be the chemical contraception used to prevent pregnancy?

More credible references to support my and the OP's statements:

"Infertility Rates Increasing," from the National Institutes of Health Medical Database:

The rate of infertility is increasing in this country. Primary and secondary infertility affect almost 25% of all couples of childbearing age. .....

Infertility has been described as a major developmental crisis. It affects one out of every six couples of childbearing age in the United States. With infertility rates increasing, .....A discussion of infertility as a crisis is included in order to help practitioners provide empathetic support to couples facing fertility problems.

...In conclusion, infertility is a common experience among couples attempting to become parents. ...A large minority of people in fertility treatment experience high fertility problem stress,and some use communication and coping strategies that predicts high stress. Developing and evaluating different psychosocial interventions are necessary to offer the psychosocial support needed...

Male factor infertility is a relatively common problem. ...These findings highlight the clinically significant negative sexual, personal, and social strains of a perceived infertility diagnosis for men.

Other:

With infertility rates increasing , and the fact that traditional treatments can be extremely expensive and hard on your body...

North India is slowly turning into the surrogacy outsourcing capital of the World.
With the infertility rates increasing abroad, foreigners are coming to India both for its genes, its absolute lack of laws on surrogacy and the low cost of treatment. DT looks at surrogacy as a lucrative biz...

With infertility rates increasing across the world, the many and varied treatment options currently available are in high demand. ...

[edit on 27-8-2010 by soficrow]

[edit on 27-8-2010 by soficrow]

[edit on 27-8-2010 by soficrow]

Apparently these couples are not "infertile" per se or there would be not live egg and sperm.

It seems that these people who insist on having children by these artificial means are perpetuating the problem. There is something wrong with them that they do not conceive and they will likely pass this onto their offspring.

There is further degeneration of women's birthing ability going on these days, as more and more of them are having Caesarians . The reasons being varied, from too small a pelvic opening to problems with the reproductive organs themselves. You hear of some of them having to stay in bed for months so they don't lose the baby. Here again they are passing on these traits. Without medical intervention nature would let them die for the sake of Species survival.

Much of our medical technology is like a double edged sword. It cuts both ways.

Your article on Infertility Increasing Across the World didn't say the whole world-every country and culture. Third world countries that live closer to nature seem to not have the problem as they are the ones with the biggest population growth.