You mean all these stories about women who waited too long to start families, all the stories of families desperate to adopt because they cannot have their own children, all the stories of people trying artificial insemination, ivf, surrogate mothers, sperm donors, egg donors, etc. are all just propaganda from our controlled media?

Let me ask you a historical question. Why do you think the famous King Henry VIII of England had to found the Church of England? Because the Roman Catholic Pope wouldn't give permission for him to remarry, even if he killed the old wife. Why did Henry keep wanting new wives, because he loved novelty in bed? No, it was because he kept having no sons. Granted he did have some daughters, but if he had been able to have as many children as he wanted, he would have had at least one son, and that wife would have lived a long and happy life rather than ending up in the Tower of London. All the money in the world, and the guy had some problem that limited his fertility.

Fertility Rates
The TFR is a synthetic rate, not based on the fertility of any real group of women, since this would involve waiting until they had completed childbearing...
Years TFR Years TFR
1950–1955 4.92 2000–2005 2.67
1955–1960 4.81 2005–2010 2.56
1960–1965 4.91 2010–2015 2.49
1965–1970 4.78 2015–2020 2.40
1970–1975 4.32 2020–2025 2.30
1975–1980 3.83 2025–2030 2.21
1980–1985 3.61 2030–2035 2.15
1985–1990 3.43 2035–2040 2.1
1990–1995 3.08 2040–2045 2.15
1995–2000 2.82 2045–2050 2.02

...the fastest-growing segment of U.S. women with impaired fecundity (the capacity to conceive and carry a child to term) is those under 25. ...exposure to low-level environmental contaminants such as phthalates, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, pesticides, and other chemicals may be subtly undermining our ability to reproduce.
Fertile Grounds of Inquiry: Environmental Effects on Human Reproduction

Based on this report, approximately 12% of American couples experienced impaired fecundity in 2002. This is a 20% increase from the 6.1 million couples that reported an inability to have children in 1995.

The decreasing trends in fertility rates in many industrialized countries are now so dramatic that they deserve much more scientific attention. Although social and behavioural factors undoubtedly play a major role for these trends, it seems premature, and not based on solid information, to conclude that these trends can be ascribed to social and behavioural changes alone. There is evidence to suspect that changing lifestyle and increasing environmental exposures, e.g. to endocrine disrupters, are behind the trends in occurrence of male reproductive health problems, including testis cancer, undescended testis and poor semen quality. These biological factors may also contribute to the extremely low fertility rates.

Geography and environmental factors figured largely in the study. Men who reside in bigger cities or agricultural locations where the use of pesticides is common had 20 percent less mobile sperm than smaller town and village dwellers, with “15 percent more defective spermatozoa,” according to an article in Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera.

Some experts attribute the diminishing sperm count to pollution and environmental factors such as “illegal dumps, pesticide use and smog,”

Avoiding these circumstances should significantly improve the likelihood of conception by decreasing attrition to the active genes controlling reproductive processes.

Evidence also included demonstrates the same chemicals responsible for infertility
and miscarriage are being identified as increasing the risk for having a child with
mental retardation, learning disabilities or behavior problems (such as A.D.D.).

The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that worldwide 80 million people are affected by infertility [1]. In Europe, fertility rates have been below replacement levels for several decades [2].

Chemicals Health Monitor Project

Tuesday, 2 July, 2002, 11:16 GMT 12:16 UK
Environmental 'hormones' wreck sperm

Environmental oestrogens can affect sperm
Chemicals found in the environment pose a threat to human fertility, scientists say.
Men and women may have been exposed to these chemicals from paints, pesticides and cleaning products, as well as beer, vegetables and soya.

Male fish living in water contaminated with female hormones (or estrogen mimics) can become feminized, developing female sex characteristics and behaviors. Only compounds acting like the natural estrogen hormone estradiol were thought to cause this type of sex reversal in male fish.

This study shows that is not the case and affirms that male fish are also feminized by compounds that disrupt -- or possibly block -- the male sex hormones. These compounds are described as antiandrogens.

Normally, testosterone and other androgens jump start and then guide the reproductive tract development that gives rise to the male sex organs. Antiandrogens can derail this process, preventing male attributes from developing and allowing the female versions to develop instead.
Antiandrogens are widespread in the environment and their effects on wildlife, and perhaps people, are possibly underestimated.

Whether one chooses to attribute impacts to human numbers or human behavior, the fact remains that the world’s population—its numbers, its movement, its actions—is having a profound impact on human and environmental health.

Policy-makers generally misunderstand the link between environmental sustainability (MDG #7) and health. Many health workers also fail to realize that social cohesion and sustainability—maintenance of the Earth's ecological and geophysical systems—is a necessary basis for health.

Emerging health issues: the widening challenge for population health promotion

RESULTS: Estimates on the prevalence of infertility came from 25 population surveys sampling 172 413 women. The 12-month prevalence rate ranged from 3.5% to 16.7% in more developed nations and from 6.9% to 9.3% in less-developed nations, with an estimated overall median prevalence of 9%.

You keep insisting that no one is less fertile, that falling rates are a matter of "choice" - that neither micro- nor macro-environmental contaminants have any impact on fertility - and apparently are NOT reading the many references provided to you that show otherwise. Again, a brief sample:

The evidence clearly implicates environmental contamination as a cause of infertility in people as well as animals; the impacts are clear in both developed and developing nations.

You recognize that often people don't reproduce because they can't

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by soficrow

---

The evidence clearly implicates environmental contamination as a cause of infertility in people as well as animals; the impacts are clear in both developed and developing nations.

But I agree with this.

I just disagree with the idea that infertility is responsible for sharp decline in total fertility rates around the world. This link is what I asked you to prove:

You recognize that often people don't reproduce because they can't

I propose that infertility has only little impact on fertility rates (=average number of children), and by far the biggest contribution is cultural and social.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by soficrow

---

Didn't we already admit there is a falling fertility rate among developed countries? You keep providing links which confirm this fact over and over again. You are good at finding different sources to back up your claims, congratulations.

Can you now do the same for people living in underdeveloped/3rd world countries?