Demographic time bomb?

[poptart]

28 minutes ago, Chum said:

It's the next county out from a metro area. Half million dollar homes on one side and half worn-out trailers and farmland on the other and sprawl in-between. Our ward is boundary is everything but the high dollar homes.

I do get on with my in-laws. It's been a complicated relationship with everyone treating each other better and worse than we deserve. I could have done much worse.

My wife (now ex) left us to join the massive nearby homeless community.  One time she was gone for a few days and then we saw her on the news, living in a tent. Her and her bf are squatting in a foreclosure. They have the power on and take good care of it. Local PD recognizes them as the tenets. The bf is a good guy but has his own struggles. We're trying to help them make a go of it.

Living adjacent to so many homeless has helped me better understand their reality. In my teens, I was homeless for half a year and that didn't at all reflect the lives of the folks here. Their average age is twice what mine was and most have been trapped for a very long time. The vast, vast majority struggle with mental illness and this is one of those states that's overtly hostile toward helping vulnerable people. Our county leadership are somewhat better people but local resources are a pinprick against the need.

And here's where it gets really hard. My ex has SS disability and is ex-mil so she has Medicaid, Medicare and full access to the bet VA in the nation. What she's always needed is extended, recurring in-patient care and that doesn't exist anywhere in the US except for zillionaires. And before someone brings it up, the hell-holes that emptied out in the 1980s wouldn't have helped her.  The state actually still has a few but patients and staff alike die there with regularity.

That sucks, happy you have inlaws and something ward wise.  See, this is another reason why I have no interest in getting married in this country, seems like no matter what you do stuff like this is becoming more and more common.  
Something about homeless people nowadays i've noticed, when I was growing up besides being less common they tended to lay low and kind of hidden.  Now?  They trash everything and besides being addicted to some kind of drug are, as you've said mentally ill.  I'm sure you know about busing, thing is the areas the South and the Midwest have sent people to for decades? (CA, WA etc.)  They're sending them back.  Without breaking the politics ban I'll say this as delecatly as I can, rumor is these were some of the people Antifa recurited for the riots in Oregon, the guys who were starting the fires last year were mostly from out of state.  There are so many mentally ill people out there now it's scary, I think the American people in general have no idea just how badly this is about to screw them and their children/grand children over.  White flight isn't an option for most, that and with so many child free millenials the shrill call of think of the children tends to fall on deaf ears.  I'd say it will take really, really bad times to snap people out of it, then again considering the people you're refering to in your state I don't think even that would work.  Sucks for the parents and young children there, I can only imagine what a struggle it is to keep kids safe from that stuff nowadays. 

[mfbukowski]

On 4/24/2021 at 10:30 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Generally speaking, marriage and fertility rates tend to plummet when youth are saddled with huge student debt, can't find good paying jobs, and see no likelihood of improvement.  These are obviously not religious reasons.  One way to turn these problems around is to provide substantial tax credits or direct payments for having children, and to eliminate any marriage penalty taxes.  Same applies to the current housing crisis in which homes cannot be bought at reasonable prices, and rentals are skyrocketing.  Religion cannot ameliorate such problems.

Some countries provide free college education for those who are willing to study hard, and the results more than pay for that investment.  A religious group with lots of cash on hand could in fact subsidize such education for its youth, and thus keep the marriage and fertility rate at replacement levels.  Prayer and faith are less practical ways to prevent problems.  In other words, the Lord helps those who help themselves (God gave man a brain and expects him to use it).  For LDS, the way the Church works best is through orthopraxis, not orthodoxis.

A broad range of sociological reasons was provided here on this board at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68483-blogger-on-the-alarming-truth-behind-anti-mormonism/?page=19 .

However, I will mention here how this works for LDS also in other sociological ways:  Unlike the familiar pattern in which people with more education tend to be more likely to leave religion entirely, better educated LDS people tend to be more likely to stay in the Church.  Katherine Orgill, “Mormons more faithful with more education,” BYU Daily Universe, May 5, 2015, online at http://universe.byu.edu/2015/05/05/final-story-21/ ;  Joseph Walker, “LDS religious commitment high, Pew survey finds,” Deseret News, Jan 13, 2012, online at  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700215244/LDS-religious-commitment-high-Pew-survey-finds.html?pg=all ; https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/4bnont/as_mormons_become_more_educated_they_become_more/.

And there are other socioloigcal factors to consider:

 

 

Daniel Cox, “Most churches are losing members fast — but not the Mormons. Here’s Why,” Vox.com and MSN, March 6-7, 2019, online at  https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/3/6/18252231/mormons-mormonism-church-of-latter-day-saints .

Rodney Stark, "Why Religious Movements Succeed or Fail: A Revised General Model," Journal of Contemporary Religion 12 (1996): 133-157.

Now you're talking!

Governmental socialism is something I cannot support because of their values, but THIS kind of "socialism" is something I could get behind. 

[rongo]

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Now you're talking!

Governmental socialism is something I cannot support because of their values, but THIS kind of "socialism" is something I could get behind. 

I might have missed it, but did @Robert F. Smith address why countries that already do this have even lower birthrates than the United States? (e.g., free college, universal health care, "Kindergeld" (monthly payments per child to encourage having children, etc.)

What do you think, Mark? 

My view: the falling birthrate, while affected by economics to a degree, is actually much more strongly affected by non-economic social trends and changing mores and values. I think Europe has demonstrated that.

[Robert F. Smith]

51 minutes ago, rongo said:

I might have missed it, but did @Robert F. Smith address why countries that already do this have even lower birthrates than the United States? (e.g., free college, universal health care, "Kindergeld" (monthly payments per child to encourage having children, etc.)

What do you think, Mark? 

My view: the falling birthrate, while affected by economics to a degree, is actually much more strongly affected by non-economic social trends and changing mores and values. I think Europe has demonstrated that.

You make a good point.  No European country has replacement level fertility now, but some have much higher rates than others:

However, European countries are not actually trying to increase fertility:
 

Quote

Does the significant support given to families by the countries of the north mean that they are birth-prone? The family policy in their case is not intended to increase the number of births, but rather to enable parents to balance work and family.

These countries seek in particular to promote the work of women. Women’s labour-force participation rates there may be the highest in Europe, if not the world, but they are still lower than men’s. And state policy aims to reduce these gaps and ultimately achieve gender equality in the labour market.

The idea was widespread a few decades ago that for more births to occur, women had to stay at home. Actually, it is in the countries where women work the most that they have the most children. The female employment rates are the highest in Northern Europe and the lowest in Southern Europe, and it is in the north that women have the most children, and not the other way around.

......couples need to maintain two incomes to maintain their standard of living.

This is true both in Europe and in many countries elsewhere. Couples therefore delay the arrival of a child if it is not possible for them to reconcile work and family. By postponing childbirth, some couples ultimately give up on it.  https://theconversation.com/why-do-people-have-more-children-in-the-north-of-europe-than-in-the-south-152722

That the economy does in fact directly affect fertility rates is very clear from the impact of the 2007-2008 recession (the biggest since the Great Depression):

Except for the high birthrates in Africa and parts of Polynesia, one only finds a high birthrate in a modern, highly developed country such as Israel (3.1).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate.

Also, one might look to Russian President Putin for action in 2020:

Quote

President Putin says that Russia's birth rate is currently at 1.48 women per children. While this is a significant increase from 1999, when the figure fell to 1.16, Mr Putin hopes to raise the level to 1.7.

Under the proposals, first-time mothers would be eligible to receive maternity benefits previously paid only to women with two or more children.

 

Welfare benefits would also be paid for children aged three to seven in low-income families, and free school meals would be provided for the first four years of school.

Last year, Mr Putin promised tax breaks for bigger families.

A one-off "maternity capital" payment, currently worth £5,800 ($7,600; €6,800), was introduced for families with two or more children in 2007 under a 10-year programme.

Demography expert Prof Evgeny Yakovlev told BBC Russian that the move had temporarily increased the number of families with two children but added that financial uncertainty subsequently led to another fall in the birth rate.  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51118616

These are sensitive matters, but assurance that the future is good and that prospects for jobs and housing are good should go far toward increasing the birthrate.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You make a good point.  No European country has replacement level fertility now, but some have much higher rates than others:

However, European countries are not actually trying to increase fertility:
 

That the economy does in fact directly affect fertility rates is very clear from the impact of the 2007-2008 recession (the biggest since the Great Depression):

Except for the high birthrates in Africa and parts of Polynesia, one only finds a high birthrate in a modern, highly developed country such as Israel (3.1).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate.

Also, one might look to Russian President Putin for action in 2020:

These are sensitive matters, but assurance that the future is good and that prospects for jobs and housing are good should go far toward increasing the birthrate.

The Eurozone birthrates are well below replacement.

Which is why Angela Merkel, for one, has been importing more fecund populations. The trend does not bode well, even with increased fecundity among certain culture groups, and by the time the young workers are ready to retire, the state will not find it easy to support them. As the topic title indicates: ticking time bomb.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/3/2021 at 12:45 PM, Stargazer said:

The Eurozone birthrates are well below replacement.

Which is why Angela Merkel, for one, has been importing more fecund populations. The trend does not bode well, even with increased fecundity among certain culture groups, and by the time the young workers are ready to retire, the state will not find it easy to support them. As the topic title indicates: ticking time bomb.

Yes.  The only way the American population actually grows is via immigration, and that is essential to our Social Security system.  We must have enough workers to support Social Security payments to retirees.  That also presents a time bomb, if we cannot sustain adequate immigration.

However, I don't think that Angela Merkel actually intends to do the same thing in Germany.  She might like to, but the reality is that the incoming Muslim population does not assimilate well with the already existing population (which is not reproducing), and which is reflected elsewhere in Europe.  In fact, Denmark is trying to expel Syrians precisely because they do not assimilate to the Danish way of life.  Douglas Murray sees this as part of the future "strange death of Europe," as one culture replaces another this century.  Homogeneous Japan is quickly losing population, and cannot bring itself to allow large-scale immigration.  Two separate types of demographic time bombs.

Then there is the question of happiness.  Which sort of population is actually happy?  People lie a lot about what that means:  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/finland-happiness-lagom-hygge.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Edited May 11, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[rongo]

I disagree with this woman that the steep decline in fecundity in the U.S. is due to a lack of confidence. I think it's as simple as young couples want to devote their time and resources to their individual and couple pursuits, and not children (akin to the other Western, developed countries). Other opportunity cost calculus is possible if values and goals were different. As we've discussed in this thread, Europe shows that a vast welfare state wouldn't really affect things, since their birthrates are even lower than the U.S. (and have been for a long time). Even in the Church, where our doctrines about family, the purpose of life, etc. ostensibly should overcome this trend --- even in the Church we are mirroring this steep decline. 

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/5/6/22422179/our-ticking-demographic-time-bomb-cant-be-ignored-cdc-us-fertility-birth-rate

That's why I think this is a ticking time bomb for the Church, as our children of record plummet along with steep declines in missionary work production, as the Boomers and then later GenX die off and are replaced by generations with far lower birth rates. 

[halconero]

On 5/3/2021 at 12:45 PM, Stargazer said:

The Eurozone birthrates are well below replacement.

Which is why Angela Merkel, for one, has been importing more fecund populations. The trend does not bode well, even with increased fecundity among certain culture groups, and by the time the young workers are ready to retire, the state will not find it easy to support them. As the topic title indicates: ticking time bomb.

This 

 

On 5/3/2021 at 5:45 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes.  The only way the American population actually grows is via immigration, and that is essential to our Social Security system.  We must have enough workers to support Social Security payments to retirees.  That also presents a time bomb, if we cannot sustain adequate immigration.

However, I don't think that Angela Merkel actually intends to do the same thing in Germany.  She might like to, but the reality is that the incoming Muslim population does not assimilate well with the already existing population (which is not reproducing), and which is reflected elsewhere in Europe.  In fact, Denmark is try to expel Syrians precisely because they do not assimilate to the Danish way of life.  Douglas Murray sees this as part of the future "strange death of Europe," as one culture replaces another this century.  Homogeneous Japan is quickly losing population, and cannot bring itself to allow large-scale immigration.  Two separate types of demographic time bombs.

Then there is the question of happiness.  Which sort of population is actually happy?  People lie a lot about what that means:  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/finland-happiness-lagom-hygge.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Thank you for pointing this out regarding Merkel.

Regarding assimilation, I have to disagree. All of the research I’ve done for lit reviews indicates trends toward assimilation (citizenship, language, and employment acquisition, among others) that is generational, the same as in Canada or the US.

I don’t know if the Danish argument holds water (their argument, not yours). Again, indicators of assimilation exist in Denmark. The rationale they’re offering surrounds the definition of a “safe country,” and is couched in terms of politics and electoral threats than it is in economic or cultural realities.

[halconero]

To elaborate a bit further, I think the evidence of 2nd and 3rd generation assimilation is pretty well-grounded in the literature on the subject. 1st generation assimilation can occur to an extent, especially in more small-l liberal democracies that encourage naturalization and civil nationalism, but will never fully occur (nor does it need to in order to be functional).

My own untested take is that we only perceive assimilation occurring at a slower rate because the source countries are perceived by us as more culturally distinct than those of yesteryear. In reality the Swede nor the Dane assimilated any easier than the Syrian or the Pakistani, but the perceived gulf by us looking backwards is much narrower between an Anglo-American and a Swedish immigrant. Both Protestant, white, in similar occupations, with similar holidays. In reality, however, census data shows that the Swedes and Germans of the early 1900s persisted in not learning English for extended periods of time, attending segregated (by language) churches, and living in communities that we might call today “ethnic enclaves.”

Our perception of easier assimilation might not even be one shared by the natural-born citizens of the time. Part of the rationale for the 1924 Immigration Act was that Poles, Italians, Greeks, Jews and Ukrainians were not assimilating as they should. Yet, look around and I doubt anyone would call into question the “American-ness” of Polish-American Mike Bloomberg, Italian Ron DeSantis, Greek Jennifer Aniston (Jennifer Anastasakis), Jewish Jared Kushner, or Ukrainian Gary Johnson.

The same thing will occur over the next 10-30 years as we see Al-Kahilds and Jadedzadehs enter business, sports, music, politics, fashion, and industry, and we’ll forget the time when Syrian Americans or Iranian Americans were a novelty.

We, the Danes, and others are just very short-termism.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

To elaborate a bit further, I think the evidence of 2nd and 3rd generation assimilation is pretty well-grounded in the literature on the subject.

This is correct.

And on your other points, when someone says to me (a migrant) that migrants need to assimilate better, my response is nearly always, 'Agreed, and you need to let us!' Each time that a native-born person points out how I speak or some other point of difference, it reinforces that I'll never be seen/accepted as a real citizen by that person. Assimilation is always a two-way process.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 5/9/2021 at 12:12 AM, rongo said:

I think it's as simple as young couples want to devote their time and resources to their individual and couple pursuits, and not children (akin to the other Western, developed countries) ... Even in the Church, where our doctrines about family, the purpose of life, etc. ostensibly should overcome this trend --- even in the Church we are mirroring this steep decline. 

I don't know one unmarried/childless Latter-day Saint who wouldn't prefer to have a family. No doubt they exist, but essentially calling us selfish may not be very helpful.

In my case, I always planned to marry and have children. Just like Abraham, I've learnt to be loyal even when promised blessings seem impossible.

Quote

That's why I think this is a ticking time bomb for the Church, as our children of record plummet along with steep declines in missionary work production, as the Boomers and then later GenX die off and are replaced by generations with far lower birth rates. 

I wonder how much higher birth rates in the past really helped us. Apostate message boards seem to be littered with people from big 'Mormon' families who claim to have been herded from one cultural milestone to another but without the actual gospel having ever got inside them. I suspect the Church flourishes more based on quality and not quantity alone ... acknowledging, of course, that they are not mutually exclusive.

Without children of my own, my role is to help make sure other people's children are fully supported in coming to know truth for themselves. I teach our stake mission preparation class, and so I also get to help future missionaries be effective in their service. (I note here that our mission has had record high conversion rates since October, with no sign of any slow-down despite a very small number of local missionaries.) I'm grateful that no one here worries that I might be too 'selfish' to do any of these things ...

April's General Conference made it abundantly clear -- to me, at least -- that Church leaders understand that we singles will be significantly carrying the kingdom triumphant for a while. I'm happy to do my part.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[secondclasscitizen]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I wonder how much higher birth rates in the past really helped us. Apostate message boards seem to be littered with people from big 'Mormon' families who claim to have been herded from one cultural milestone to another but without the actual gospel having ever got inside them.

I can only speak to what I have seen come to pass with the families I was around growing up. There were about twenty or so power families in the stake and I was good friends with most the kids my age. All these families were the poster children of the church but pretty much the program was rammed down the kids throats. We had a minority Mormon population but we drank more beer, did more coke, smoked more grass and had more pregnancies than the heathen kids we were not supposed to associate with. all Eagle Scouts, all but me and another kid served missions, married in the temple, byu etc. now over 30 yrs later I have contact with or have at least got reliable info on many (over half or 50 or so Kids) and have found at least 70% are divorced, tons left the church publicly or are inactive and there are very few left who would be considered remotely of value to the church in terms of growth. There was one clan where all the kids left the church after both parents were dead. 
 

Our parents spent more of their time off at the temple or doing their high profile callings than they ever spent with their own kids. I guess that’s why we were holy terrors and no one knew better. But hey we got up early everyday and had family scripture time, then seminary. You know the drill. Didn’t work but it looked good and that is about all that counts in the high profile Mormon leadership families - looking the part and doing the part whether you wanted to or not. These folks were insufferable when it came to orthodox Mormonism. I know kids who got grounded over drinking a Pepsi. It was that stupid.
 

it was growing up like this and being a church orphan like my friends which made me decide to never take any calling that burned more than a few hours a week. I wanted family time not endless church time because it sucked. So../ fast forward to now I am glad I took that path. I spend more time with my kids in any given year than the total amount of time my parents spent with us growing up... by a long shot. I just choose to be at home instead of trying to beat the adjacent stakes temple attendance numbers. Yes this was a thing. Ok I need to be done with the rant lol.

As for me I am pimo. Probably will never leave my entire family is super orthodox and I’d just be disinviting myself from their lives forever. Many of their kids though.. are bailing 

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by secondclasscitizen
4got info

[rongo]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't know one unmarried/childless Latter-day Saint who wouldn't prefer to have a family. No doubt they exist, but essentially calling us selfish may not be very helpful.

I thought I made it clear that I was referring to those who could have more than a child or two, but chose not to. Not the single who would love to marry and have a family, or the married who are unable to have children. The overall decline in children among us is affected by all of these, but the declining size of Mormon families overall is plain to see --- they are smaller because the married who can have children are choosing to have less. 

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I wonder how much higher birth rates in the past really helped us. Apostate message boards seem to be littered with people from big 'Mormon' families who claim to have been herded from one cultural milestone to another but without the actual gospel having ever got inside them. I suspect the Church flourishes more based on quality and not quantity alone ... acknowledging, of course, that they are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think the logic of "since we're hemorrhaging young people in the Church, maybe less children is better than more" is sound. As you noted, it's case-by-case and anecdotal. There are plenty of very large Mormon families where the children don't leave the rails. I see just as much of families who "herd their children from one cultural milestone to another but without the actual gospel having ever got inside them" among small families who are spoiled with all of the luxury items (easier when there are less children, particularly with mom working, too, which is extremely common now). It really depends on parenting in either case. 

[cacheman]

On 5/12/2021 at 8:00 AM, rongo said:

....the declining size of Mormon families overall is plain to see --- they are smaller because the married who can have children are choosing to have less....

I don't doubt that married couples choosing to have fewer children is a factor in declining family sizes, there are likely other factors at play.  Something I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is decline in male sperm count and quality, particularly in 'developed' countries.  A number of studies have linked the decline to dietary/lifestyle factors (obesity, smoking, alcohol, processed foods, etc.) and environmental stressors (air quality, pesticides, plastics, etc.).  But whatever the case, studies are showing that young men in the west have roughly half the sperm count as their grandfathers would have had.  To compound that, sperm quality (motility, viability, chromatin integrity, etc.) has also declined.  From what I can see, the impact this has on overall fecundity has not been precisely quantified. But it's likely that it plays some role in lower birthrates in western countries.

cacheman

Edited May 20, 2021 by cacheman
corrected 'has been' to 'has not been'

[smac97]

I just saw this article yesterday and found it sobering:

Quote

Brink of a fertility crisis: Scientist says plummeting sperm counts caused by everyday products
A 40-year-long study showed sperm counts have dropped by nearly half. Dr. Shanna Swan hypothesizes men will no longer produce sperm by 2045.
Author: Liz Crawford
Published: 7:35 PM EDT May 18, 2021
Updated: 7:40 PM EDT May 18, 2021

TAMPA, Fla. — You’ve probably heard of someone who struggled with infertility. Maybe you even know a couple who had treatment to help them have a baby. 

Fertility issues are pretty common, and new research shows we could actually be on the brink of a fertility crisis.

Dr. Shanna Swan, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, found sperm counts have plummeted over the last four decades.
...
"Twenty percent of the couples we see on average have what we call unexplained infertility," said Dr. Celso Silva, the Medical Director at Shady Grove Fertility and Surdovels' doctor.

Infertility is on the rise with at least one in 10 couples struggling to get pregnant in the United States.

"Age is a major factor as far as the reproductive potential of any couple, the age of the female partner," Silva said.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, advanced maternal age refers to women age 35 and older. The term is intended to highlight the increased risk of complications that can occur such as difficulty conceiving, miscarriage and birth defects.

This factor is more a matter of choice than of medical or environmental considerations.  But there's more:

Quote

The age factor is pretty well known, especially among women who seem to be reminded of their "ticking clock" from relatives, friends, or strangers at some point in their lives.

However, new research shows infertility rates could be rising because sperm counts are dropping.

 

"All we can say is it has significantly declined with no indication that the rate is slowing down," said Swan, a reproductive epidemiologist who spent years studying male sperm counts.

Her research found sperm counts have dropped by half in the last four decades. In 1973, the average ejaculate had 99 million sperm per milliliter. By 2011, the average ejaculate had 47 million sperm per milliliter.

"It’s not just the number of sperm. They have to be shaped well," explained Swan, who described the upstream swim sperm have to travel for conception to occur.

In her new book, "Count Down," Swan says based on the current curve, sperm counts could be down to zero by 2045. 

There are already a number of habits researchers have long established that deplete one's sperm count.

Swan says certain occupations, like people who manufacture pesticides, have been shown to have zero sperm along with men who work with lead.

Other factors contributing to low sperm counts include smoking, binge drinking, obesity and stress.

"The number of stressful events you’ve had in just the last couple months lower sperm count," Swan said.

 

The "Latter-day Saint" lifestyle addresses some of these quite well (no smoking, no drinking), but we struggle with "obesity and stress."  Time to hit the gym, my brothers!

As for "stress," well...

Quote

Here's where things get a little doomsday on us.

Swan hypothesizes other factors that we aren't tracking are leading to an eventual fertility crisis.

She said, "While you can ask people how much they smoke or what drugs they take, you can’t do that with environmental exposures."

Swan believes chemicals from plastics are getting into our bodies, impacting our hormones and ultimately interfering with our reproductive functions.

Phthalates are the culprit. Remember that word. Phthalates are chemicals in plastics that lower the bodies’ testosterone. 

So how do phthalates get in our bodies?

Swan says they're everywhere. Any food product that is passed through a soft tube in the manufacturing process has likely absorbed harmful chemicals that could creep into our bodies.

"If you eat unprocessed food, particularly, if you can afford it, organic food, then you are avoiding a lot of exposure," Swan said.

However, it's not just food. Swan said creams, nail polishes, fragrances and other health, beauty and cleaning products are oozing with phthalates.

In regards to sperm counts, much of the damage is done when a male is forming inside the mother's uterus.

Swan said the chemicals get into a woman's body, then into the testicles of the fetus and change development. 

"When that child becomes old enough to have sperm, they’ll have a low sperm count and be infertile," she said.

Hmm.  I wonder if her hypothesis will be borne out by further study and analysis.

Quote

While changing our eating habits and being intentional about what products we use might help slow the curve, Swan says it's not enough.

She said we need entirely new products made of safer materials. It will take government intervention.

"They have to be made of different chemicals. Chemicals that can’t interfere with our hormones," she said.

Thanks,

-Smac

[AtlanticMike]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

but we struggle with "obesity and stress."  Time to hit the gym, my brothers!

I've read a couple of studies that say by 2030 85 percent of Americans could be considered fat. Soon we will be living in a real Wall-E's world, it won't just be a Pixar's movie. 

     Something's are just common sense, if you want to feel better, raise your own meat, or most of it. Have a garden, learn how to can veggies. Stop drinking soda, drink water. Walk, walk, walk, walk and walk. And most importantly stay away from fast food joints. Life on average can be simple, it's all about how you spend your precious time God has given you. I'm done with my rant now.