411–420 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, it's not true. It's more like a decade's salary. Full IVF generally ranges from $10-15k USD. Median worldwide income is about $900 USD.
10-15k is nothing compared to the million your kid will cost you until its 20y birthday.
Along with the rise of age of adulthood and general hysteria, i would think they are all correlated. But whether sperm counts are falling or not we need more funding towards artificial reproduction and extracorporal pregnancies, it s such a non-brainer for our fragile and unique species.
> But whether sperm counts are falling or not we need more funding towards artificial reproduction and extracorporal pregnancies Seems like a pretty extreme solution to the problem of declining birth rates. Perhaps we’d be better served by encouraging people to reproduce through financial incentives and, frankly, positive propaganda. Part of the problem is that young folks feel like raising children is financially bu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who cares about hiding trade secrets if those trade secrets are "just a pinch of mercury" or some other nefarious chemical.
In principal, known toxins (when at anything even close to toxic doses when used normally) should be just not allowed in consumer products in the first place. In practice, people like their alcoholic drinks and don't understand why that by itself is enough to require the Californian proposition 65 "substances at this location are known to cause cancer" sticker.
1: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/health/insect-rodent-filth-in...
> Swan also recommends reducing exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals by being a savvy consumer Most hygiene products get away with listing diethyl phthalate as 'Parfum'. What we need is not savvy consumers what we need is regulators to get serious.
I get reliably downvoted for suggesting this, but we need vastly better labelling across the board. We give companies a lot of leeway when it comes to selling things to put in and on our bodies without us, owners of said bodies, having any way of finding out what the hell is in their products, or where they came from, or how they were processed. It absolutely baffles me how everyone doesn't want considerably more inf…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, I can confirm this based on personal experience with a gynecologist telling my wife that at 35 the pregnancy is considered a "geriatric pregnancy" (apparently some docs now call it "AMA"...advanced maternal age). This shocked both of us, frankly. We were aware of what the actuarial tables will tell you regarding birth defect rates related to maternal age, but hearing the term geriatric in your mid-thirties is qu…
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> alcohol, caffeine and meat one of these is definitely not like the others... An all-meat diet I would bet is the best to conceive, because it's the best for hormonal health, judging by the countless anecdotes (e.g. women regaining their cycles after many years) I'm seeing. Anyway, I just wanted to point that out, it's still shocking to me that people still believe that meat is detrimental to health.
Ahh, anecdotes about consuming meat, I can't think of anything more scientifically rigorous and less influenced by sentiment. My own anecdotes tell me that eating meat vastly decreases your fertility rate. Some anecdotes add that it's because of the animal hormones you consume, others state that it's because meat-eating is associated with other health conditions which interfere with conception (obesity, high choleste…
This thread is full of anecdotes so I'm just the messenger of some I know of. I don't care about science when our bodies are burning because of the terrible advice some of the "science" has been giving us.
- dietary cholesterol is good and cholesterol is not the problem, triglyceride/cholesterol ratio is
- hormones from meat... that's just not having a sense of scale, don't know how to put it, of course everything is going to have some tiny amount of hormones, even the vegans' beloved soy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"they want the population to decline" Who is "they"?
Some portion of commenters on HN, for one. There are plenty of people who are so desperate about anthropogenic global warming that they're willing to forgo having children and proclaim that the disastrous decline in fertility rates in places like Korea (see recent HN thread) are actually good and necessary because we need fewer humans on this earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience it was a stress issue for the couples that were having trouble that I know. One friend and his wife gave up alcohol, caffeine and meat, it seemed like there was just a ton of stress they had put on getting pregnant for 6 months. It wasn't until after they took a break from trying that they got pregnant one night after drinking. I think modern medicine somewhat ignores how powerful the human mind is.…
> alcohol, caffeine and meat one of these is definitely not like the others... An all-meat diet I would bet is the best to conceive, because it's the best for hormonal health, judging by the countless anecdotes (e.g. women regaining their cycles after many years) I'm seeing. Anyway, I just wanted to point that out, it's still shocking to me that people still believe that meat is detrimental to health.
It is interesting, I have a friend group that consists of about 5 married couples all of whom have been having issues conceiving and have been trying for a while now, but are still having issues. Curiously enough my wife and I just had our 4th and every time we've conceived within two months (even when I was hoping it would take a little longer). From what I hear our friends story is not unusual and many in our age b…
I don't think it's all that new to be honest, else these ceremonies wouldn't exist.
> Swan also recommends reducing exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals by being a savvy consumer Most hygiene products get away with listing diethyl phthalate as 'Parfum'. What we need is not savvy consumers what we need is regulators to get serious.
Consumers can voluntarily reduce their exposure to phthalates AND the industry can be regulated. Regulators aren't going to save consumers if consumers refuse to get educated or practice restraint.
That's literally the job of regulators, see asbestos or cancer causing pesticides that have been banned or severely restricted. Do you expect all consumers to have degrees in chemistry and read papers to make risk assessments about the 10,000s of chemicals they come into contact daily?