The good things about the Church

[DT_]

21 hours ago, katherine the great said:

There’s a weak relationship and a very small percentage of the increase that could be explained by increasing maternal age.

 It's true a small percentage could be explained by increasing maternal age, but that's only when you look at age itself. Would you agree there are other risk factors associated with increasing maternal age? A lot of people over 30 are overweight, the older you are the longer you are exposed to environmental chemicals, gestational diabetes is more common in women over 26, and so on. I don't think it's a small percentage when you look at age and all the risk factors associated with older age. The birth order also matters, so having your first child at 30 shouldn't be the new normal.

3 hours ago, katherine the great said:

However, there’s a lot more to life than just thinking about the odds of having a “ flawed” child.

 Is the increasing incidence of type 1 a problem?  Is the high prevalence of gestational diabetes a problem?

3 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I would not change my daughter one whit. Her diabetes is part of who she is and it has made her a very strong and compassionate person. I also feel blessed to live in a time when there are treatments.

I understand. However, the incidence of type 1 is also increasing outside the United States, there are some people who cannot afford treatments.

3 hours ago, katherine the great said:

 Also, there’s never been a time in history that people live as long as we do now. So the “ why rush marriage?” question seems pretty logical to me.

I don't think the difference is that big. 

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Is it known that coffee causes brain damage

 I don't know, but coffee does affect the quality of sleep. People who drink coffee in the afternoon probably don't get to stage 3 sleep.

Edited August 19, 2022 by DT_

[katherine the great]

15 minutes ago, DT_ said:

understand. However, the incidence of type 1 is also increasing outside the United States, there are some people who cannot afford treatments.

Okay so if you want to live in a world where people with diabetes just aren’t born, that’s your business. It isn’t going to happen but you can hope. You really seem to be totally obsessed with diabetes. 

[DT_]

5 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Okay so if you want to live in a world where people with diabetes just aren’t born, that’s your business.

There's no cure yet, but it is possible to reduce the odds. As I said, there are people who cannot afford treatment. I should also point out that some children have brittle diabetes. 

5 hours ago, katherine the great said:

 You really seem to be totally obsessed with diabetes. 

 It's a good thing that Church leaders are encouraging young adults to not delay marriage.

Edited August 20, 2022 by DT_

[DT_]

The Church gets a lot of criticism for encouraging young adults to get married. What I said should be a good defense.

There are other good reasons why I think young adults shouldn't wait to get serious after 30.

Quote

Nearly half of working-age women will be single in 2030, a new Morgan Stanley study predicts, a demographic that will drive increased sales for companies in the athletic wear, cosmetics and clothing sectors.

https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2019/09/single-women-will-drive-the-economy-in-the-next.html?page=all

 

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

18 hours ago, DT_ said:

I think it's perfectly fine for an individual to have children after age 30, some people didn't get the opportunity to have children sooner. However, it is a concern when we are talking about populations. A large percentage of people simply want to have fun in their 20s and decide to wait after 30 to get serious. During the great economic recession, the average age of first marriage was lower compared to today.

This doesn't reflect any sort of reality that I am aware of. There are significant reasons why people delay getting married and having children - and the biggest of these are economical. This isn't about "having fun" at all - that is a nonsensical explanation. Viewing it as a preference allows us to avoid addressing the underlying issues, and this is what we have done for the past four decades - with no real measurable change in these statistical trends.

To bring this back to the topic here - we all know that cheap, unhealthy foods also leads to higher incidences of diabetes. But for a chunk of the population that cannot buy better food (for a variety of reasons), this higher incidence of diabetes simply becomes a necessary risk. The same can be said about pregnancy for older women - it is a risk. And as unpleasant as it may be, diabetes is treatable, and the risk remains relatively low.

The CDC study (which you linked) noted three major factors that correlated with higher gestational diabetes. Age was one. Just as significant seems to be obesity.

My real point here is that these population trends aren't coming out of the blue. There are underlying causes to these shifts in marriage and fertility demographics. But dismissing those issues by suggesting that it is mostly about people "wanting to have fun" has the consequence of arguing that it is primarily a matter of personal preference. This simply isn't the case. If we dismiss the issue without attempting to address the underlying pressures that are driving these shifts, we won't make any progress. Simple encouragement will not be enough to overcome the real world pressures and the long term implications of these choices. Marrying early and having children early, comes with an increased risk of divorce, and contributes to economic inequality - not just in the current generation but also in future generations. There is an opportunity cost sacrifice that comes with starting a family early in our society today - and it is quite large.

[DT_]

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This doesn't reflect any sort of reality that I am aware of. There are significant reasons why people delay getting married and having children - and the biggest of these are economical. This isn't about "having fun" at all

Was the average age of first marriage higher during the great recession? I'll tell you what's going on. "Younger and middle-aged men are the loneliest they’ve ever been in generations, and it’s probably going to get worse." [1] The reasons are dating apps, higher relationship standards, and skill deficits. Young adults are taking more time to find the right partner (Mr. Perfect) and prioritize financial success [2].  According to a study, about half of all working-age women between 25 and 44 will be single in 2030, do you think that's a good thing?  More women between 26 and 33 are single now compared to 2012. [3]  Young men under 25 are the largest group of singles, but women over 26 are catching up. I think singles over 30 become emotionally vulnerable.

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

To bring this back to the topic here - we all know that cheap, unhealthy foods also leads to higher incidences of diabetes.

The metabolic rate peaks at 20. Would you agree there are risk factors associated with older age?

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The CDC study (which you linked) noted three major factors that correlated with higher gestational diabetes. Age was one. Just as significant seems to be obesity.

Obesity is associated with aging, so I don't think people should wait until 30 to have children.  

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 And as unpleasant as it may be, diabetes is treatable, and the risk remains relatively low.
 

  I agree, but some children have brittle diabetes, and some families (outside the US) aren't able to afford treatment. 

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

. Marrying early and having children early, comes with an increased risk of divorce

That doesn't take into account many things. Does your analysis control for young couples who get married because of an unplanned pregnancy?  Do LDS marriages have a higher rate of divorce? and is divorce really that bad after your children become adults?  Isn't divorce devastating when you still have young children?  Would you agree that finding the right person decreases the odds of divorce? The odds of finding the right person decrease after 27, especially for women.

I have one last question for you. At what age do most people finish college?

  [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-state-our-unions/202208/the-rise-lonely-single-men

[2 ] https://www.businessinsider.com/how-millennials-are-changing-marriage-divorce-weddings-prenups-2019-5?op=1&r=US&IR=T

[3] https://datepsychology.com/how-have-relationships-changed-in-the-last-ten-years/

Edited August 21, 2022 by DT_

[DT_]

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Marrying early and having children early, comes with an increased risk of divorce

I would honestly like to see studies controlling for education and unplanned pregnancies. If a man wants to get married right after college at age 22, would he have an increased risk of divorce?

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, DT_ said:

Wouldn't you expect the average age of first marriage to be higher during the great recession? I'll tell you what's going on. "Younger and middle-aged men are the loneliest they’ve ever been in generations, and it’s probably going to get worse." [1] The reasons are dating apps, higher relationship standards, and skills deficits. Young adults are taking more time to find the right partner (Mr. Perfect) and prioritize financial success [2].  However, after age 30,  people begin to be emotionally vulnerable. According to a study, about half of working-age women between 25 and 44 will be single in 2030, do you think that's a good thing?  More women between 26 and 33 are single now compared to 2012. [3]  Young men under 25 are the largest group of singles, but women over 26 are catching up.

I wouldn't expect it to be higher during the great recession (2008-2009). The reason why I wouldn't expect it is quite simple. The age of first marriage has been on a relatively linear decline since the 1960s. The reasons for this trend have been explored in a lot of detail - since it is not new, and since it is having a significant impact on American families and family outcomes. Consider this statement (emphasis added):

Quote

Overall, trends by race–ethnicity and education since the 2000s represent a continuation of trends begun decades ago rather than a distinct new period of change (Isen & Stevenson, 2011; Raley et al., 2015). Demographers and other social scientists in both the past decade as well as in prior decades have emphasized changes in the economy as a major reason for declines in marriage (Autor, Dorn, & Hanson, 2018; Cherlin, 2014; Cherlin, Ribar, & Yasutake, 2016; Schneider, Harknett, & Stimpson, 2018). People appear to tie marriage “readiness” to having a comfortable income, little to no debt, and a secure job. That is, marriage has come to be seen as a luxury good, a step to be taken after one has achieved a comfortable level of economic stability (Addo, 2014; Cherlin, 2004; Gibson-Davis, Gassman-Pines, & Lehrman, 2018; Huang, Smock, Manning, & Bergstrom-Lynch, 2011; Smock, Manning, & Porter, 2005). Those markers of economic stability have become less available to those without college degrees as the number of well-paid, skilled manufacturing jobs has declined. Scores of studies have shown that the least educated, typically those with the worst economic prospects, are less likely to marry than the most educated (e.g., Addo, 2014; Gibson-Davis et al., 2018; Ishizuka, 2018; Kuo & Raley, 2016; Lundberg, Pollak, & Stearns, 2016; Oppenheimer, 2003; Schneider et al., 2018; Smock et al., 2005; Smock & Manning, 1997; Xie, Raymo, Goyette, & Thornton, 2003). In addition to economic factors, marriage market availability and the increase in mass incarceration have also been leading explanations for trends and variation in marriage patterns (e.g., Charles & Luoh, 2010; Cohen & Pepin, 2018; Lichter et al., 1992; Raley et al., 2015; Schneider et al., 2018; Wilson, 1987; but see Lopoo & Western, 2005). [Smock PJ, Schwartz CR. The Demography of Families: A Review of Patterns and Change. J Marriage Fam. 2020 Feb;82(1):9-34. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12612. Epub 2020 Jan 5. PMID: 32612304; PMCID: PMC7329188.]

The challenge that I have with your comments is that you seem to be suggesting that this decision to wait until the economic situation is better is the same as wanting to have fun. Fully half of young single adults aged 18-29 lived with parents in 2020. It is awfully hard to think about getting married (which carries an economic cost as opposed to an economic benefit) when you cannot afford to leave home. So, I think that your expectation is, as I pointed out earlier, really nonsense. Find something better than an opinion blog.

3 hours ago, DT_ said:

Obesity is associated with aging, so I don't think people should wait until 30 to have children.

Which must explain why the CDC reports that 20% of children in the Unites States are obese.

3 hours ago, DT_ said:

That doesn't take into account many things. Does your analysis control for young couples who get married because of an unplanned pregnancy?  Do LDS marriages have a higher rate of divorce? and is divorce really that bad after your children become adults?  Isn't divorce devastating when you still have young children?  Would you agree that finding the right person decreases the odds of divorce? The odds of finding the right person decrease after 27, especially for women.

I'll try and hit a number of these points (in reverse order).

"The odds of finding the right person decrease after 27, especially for women."

Let me start by wondering exactly what you mean by "the right person". I do not believe that there is some sort of single right person for anyone. If, by right person, you simply mean finding someone where both have an interest and willingness to marry each other, I don't disagree with this statement. But, I do disagree with the inferences you draw from it. Here is a good reference for you (and I apologize for errors that came in through the OCR):

Quote

However, the likelihood of marriage for the less-educated steadily declines with age while the likelihood of marriage increases with age for the highly-educated. We also find that the amount of time spent in the marriage market, as measured by years since school completion, influences the likelihood of marriage (Mare. 1991 ; Thornton, Axinn, and Teachman, 1995; Schwartz and Mare, 2005). Although college-educated men and women enter the marriage market at later ages, this delay does not hamper their marriage prospects. Overall, this group is more likely to many than those with lower educational attainment (e.g. Blackwell, 1998; Mare, 1991; Oppenheimer, 1994; Qian, 1998; Qian and Preston, 1993; Schwartz and Mare, 2005). Marriage is less likely among less-educated men and women because they are less poised to compete for potential spouses than highly-educated individuals entering the marriage market. Less-educated individuals enter the marriage market at younger ages where they have opportunities to meet people with similar levels of educational attainment, leading to educational homogamy. Over time, the likelihood of marriage declines for less educated men and women, but those who marry tend to form heterogamous marriages. These results suggest that the marriage market is segmented along educational boundaries and that increasing levels of educational homogamy are associated with educational differences in marriage timing.

Overall, college-educated men and women are more likely to marry homogamously than heterogamously. However, we also find important gender differences in educational homogamy and marriage timing among college-educated individuals. With additional years out of school the likelihood of homogamy is reduced more for highly-educated men than for highly-educated women. For men, the decline in homogamy is coupled with an insignificant change in heterogamy over time. For women, the likelihood of homogamy while in school or just after school completion is much higher than it is for men, but this is accompanied by a higher likelihood of non-marriage at later ages. Highly-educated women tend to retreat from marriage rather than marry men with lower educational attainment than themselves. Several factors may account for this. First, men tend to become less selective in their partnering as they age (Lichter, 1990; Mare, 1991), a pattern which is less common among women (Lewis and Oppenheimer, 2000). Second, group boundaries are particularly strong for college-educated women. College-educated women, unlike college-educated men, are less willing to change their preferences as they age, decreasing the likelihood of ever marrying over time (Raley and Bratter, 2004; Sweeney and Cancian, 2004). Older unmarried women may face an increasingly difficult marriage market because there may be fewer qualified and available men as they age (Oppenheimer, 1988). Third, women may have limited choices in who they can marry in comparison to men due to gender differences in age at first marriage (Vera, 1985; U.S. Census Bureau, 2007) and women's comparative reluctance to marry men much younger than themselves (England and Farkas, 1986; Oppenheimer, 1988; Vera, 1985). Nevertheless, on average, highly-educated women are likely to marry and to find a similarly-educated spouse. There appears to be little marriage penalty for highly-educated women in the marriage market (Goldstein and Kenney, 2001 ; Rose, 2004), except for those women who substantially delay marriage after school completion. Yet, it remains unknown whether an increasing likelihood of nonmarriage is due to their choice to remain single or difficulty to find marriageable partners.

Shafer, Kevin, and Zhenchao Qian. “Marriage Timing and Educational Assortative Mating.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, vol. 41, no. 5, 2010, pp. 661–91.

Let me summarize in something that is easier to read. First, with ages trending upward (for the past several decades), it has become clear that people who complete additional years of schooling are more likely to get married than younger people without the additional education. As this author notes, this means that a woman who waits to complete their degree will have a better chance of getting married than any woman who doesn't - across the board. At the same time, older men have an easier time finding someone to get married to because, unlike older educated women, they are more willing to marry someone with less of an education than themselves. The author notes that for his study, it was unclear whether they simply chose to remain unmarried or whether they couldn't find "the right one" (to use your term). Perhaps a better way to put it is that maybe the women were simply unwilling to settle, while men were.

In another interesting study, one trend that has changed dramatically was the impact that the wife in a marriage's earnings and education had on divorce risks. Up until the 1990s, whenever a woman had a higher education and greater earnings than her husband there was a huge risk of divorce. That shifted in the 1990s when the impact of this education became negligible on divorce risks. This study had a number of interesting observations on what this means within families since the 1990s. Some of those conclusions lead me to think that it is possible that educated women simply remove themselves from the marriage search rather than settle (for a variety of reasons).

So while the odds of finding "the right person" diminish for women over 29, that is in part due to the fact that the number of available "right persons" has also diminished, and these women aren't interested in marrying someone who isn't the right person. Unlike men, who seem to be more than willing to do so.

"Would you agree that finding the right person decreases the odds of divorce?"

Sure. But once again, we have this question about finding the right person. There has actually been a lot of time spent dealing with this particular question by sociologists (I have read more than a bit about expectations and divorce). There is a really good piece that was recently published: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32656341/ . While marriage has been in decline (and the age to first marriage has been increasing), the rates of divorce have been going down significantly. If your claim is true, then this means that the most stable marriages (and by extension when people marry the right person) occur when educated individuals marry other educated individuals at an older age.

Quote

The analysis shows that refined divorce rates have fallen since 2008, and this is also apparent in a multivariate regression model controlling for demographic and marriage characteristics. Divorce rates have fallen for younger women, in both adjusted and unadjusted analyses, accounting for all of the decline in divorce rates. Although today’s older women have higher probabilities of divorce than women did at their age in the past, divorce rates over age 45 stopped rising in the last decade. Finally, because the risk profile for newly-married couples has shifted toward more protective characteristics, it appears certain that – barring unforeseen changes – divorce rates will further decline in the coming years.1 The reasons that higher education, older age at marriage, lower-order marriage all reduce the odds of divorce are beyond the scope of this analysis, but they are consistent with long-standing observations about marital stability (Isen and Stevenson 2010; Lundberg, Pollak, and Stearns 2016).

So, if we use divorce as a measurement of finding the right person (as you suggest), then the data argues that people actually are more likely to find the "right person" at an older age, with higher education. Realistically, what is also happening is that younger, uneducated persons (who have a greater risk of divorce) have simply stopped getting married.

"Isn't divorce devastating when you still have young children?"

I assume that it is. However, that is more or less a non-issue at this point. Currently, the Census department tells us that only about 60% of children live with both of their biological parents. This number is trending downward - but most of the 40% that don't lived with one biological parent. The three groups which saw the largest growth in the last decade are those living with unmarried parents (the figures above don't distinguish between married and unmarried biological parents), single fathers, and children living with grandparents. The marriages that are least likely to get divorced? Parents with similar education of at least an additional four years beyond high school. So, waiting until after college to get married actually protects young children from the impacts of divorce.

"and is divorce really that bad after your children become adults?"

I doubt it. It is much more problematic for the adults. But this does allow me to bring up an important issue faced by sociologists. They work with trends. I was married in 1990 (I am not a spring chicken). I haven't gotten divorced. I doubt I will. But statistically, there won't be certainty for another four or five decades. Trends are important because we are still seeing the outcomes of shifts over time - and they take a lot of time with the life expectancies of human beings. As Cohen notes in the article on declining divorce rates that I quote above, generational groups create stark boundaries in terms of the impact of education on income on divorce.

"Do LDS marriages have a higher rate of divorce?"

I doubt it - I think that LDS members tend to have a lower divorce rate. LDS members tend to have a strong cultural attachment to marriage. That being said, this is a complicated question - because studies that provide this data rely on self-reporting of religious membership. And we know that not everyone on the membership rolls self-identifies as Mormon. Additionally, this data isn't usually very detailed. Mormons also have a strong emphasis on higher education, meaning that to the extent that there is educational homogamy in LDS marriages, that might also contribute to a reduced number of divorces. I just don't have data that is detailed enough in this fashion to draw any stronger conclusions.

"Does your analysis control for young couples who get married because of an unplanned pregnancy?"

Generally, yes. That is another highly studied bit of data. However, unplanned pregnancies have been on the decline for quite some time. And, just as importantly, the data suggests that there isn't a very strong push for quite some time for unwed parents to get married - especially given the economic penalties caused by getting married (cohabitation yes, marriage no). So the question becomes increasingly irrelevant. Part of the reason why divorce is declining is simply that people aren't getting married under circumstances like this.

3 hours ago, DT_ said:

I agree, but some children have brittle diabetes, and some families (outside the US) aren't able to afford treatment. 

Perhaps, but let's do a little math. In the US about 0.35% of young people (under the age of 20) have Type 1 diabetes. About 0.3% of those who take insulin for type 1 diabetes develop brittle diabetes. This equates to roughly .001% of young people (1 in every 100,000 individuals). And if that wasn't enough, at the end of 2021, a clinical trial using stem cells cured its first test patient of brittle diabetes. Treatment may not be cheap - but if we have people in the United States that cannot receive a cure to a life threatening disease because they cannot afford it, it is clearly a reflection on our society that seems to really value life only when it is a fetus ...

Finally -

3 hours ago, DT_ said:

I have one last question for you. At what age do most people finish college?

I don't know where to find this data. The average age of college students in 2019 seems to have been 26.4, but this includes all students including post-grad students. It is also the average age of students and not the average age of students at graduation. I recognize that I am not helping with a statistic like this (I was back taking classes from 2020-2022 to help me alleviate work stress related to the pandemic).

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, DT_ said:

I would honestly like to see studies controlling for education and unplanned pregnancies. If a man wants to get married right after college at age 22, would he have an increased risk of divorce?

This is a shrinking group. Most students do not complete college in four years ... but since you asked nicely, here is a relatively high level study:

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2010/10/07/the-reversal-of-the-college-marriage-gap/

The section you are interested in starts on page 14. This doesn't address the question of unplanned pregnancies. But here is another study that discusses this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4801697/

That study explains its findings:

Quote

Intention status was associated with mothers’ marital transitions by child’s age two, both in analyses unadjusted and adjusted for confounding background characteristics. In adjusted models, among women married at conception, those with a birth resulting from an unwanted pregnancy were more likely (OR=2.2) than those with an intended pregnancy to transition out of marriage by the time their child was age two. Among women unmarried at conception, those with an unwanted pregnancy were less likely (OR=.4) than those with an intended pregnancy to marry before the child was age two.

In other words, unplanned pregnancies currently tend to reduce the likelihood of marriage (not increase it), and when there is a marriage, unplanned pregnancy makes it is more likely for the marriage to end within two years. There are a lot of references here to related studies - probably enough to answer your curiosity. One of the related and significant issues here is that marriage is simply becoming less common - and part of this research into this discusses the expectations that young people have. In the National Survey of Family Growth 2011-2015, one issue that stands out is that while a majority of young adults expected to marry, most of these also expected to cohabit first - and for a variety of reasons, the cohabitation never resolves into marriage. You might find this study of interest:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33814657/

[DT_]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Which must explain why the CDC reports that 20% of children in the Unites States are obese.

I think a large percentage of childhood obesity could be explained by the high prevalence of Gestational Diabetes, it becomes like a feedback loop. Obesity is still largely associated with older age. In Wisconsin, obesity prevalence among 12 to 17 was 14.8%, 18 to 24 was 22.4%, and 25 to 34 was 35.5%. https://www.wihealthatlas.org/obesity/age

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 Fully half of young single adults aged 18-29 lived with parents in 2020.

I need a reference. According to the data, 51% of men 18-29 are single compared to 32% of women 18-29. More specifically, it's 56% of men 18 to 25, 49% of men 26 to 33. Of women, it's 33.90% 18 to 25 and 28.10% 26 to 33. Do you think half of all single women 26 to 33 are living with their parents?

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/

https://datepsychology.com/how-have-relationships-changed-in-the-last-ten-years/

I'll read the rest of your post later.  Keep in mind that a large percentage of people having children after 26 is a problem. I don't think humans evolved to start a family after 26. 

Edited August 21, 2022 by DT_

[DT_]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

As this author notes, this means that a woman who waits to complete their degree will have a better chance of getting married than any woman who doesn't - across the board. At the same time, older men have an easier time finding someone to get married to because, unlike older educated women, they are more willing to marry someone with less of an education than themselves. The author notes that for his study, it was unclear whether they simply chose to remain unmarried or whether they couldn't find "the right one" (to use your term). Perhaps a better way to put it is that maybe the women were simply unwilling to settle, while men were.

Interesting.

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Find something better than an opinion blog.

It's making news.

https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/-the-rise-of-lonely-single-men-article-sparks-online-debate-146588741917

One study points out "growing individualism and reduced sociability" among young adults.

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 As this author notes, this means that a woman who waits to complete their degree will have a better chance of getting married than any woman who doesn't - across the board.

True, but would that always be the case? The percentage of single women is growing very fast. 

Edited August 21, 2022 by DT_

[Benjamin McGuire]

12 hours ago, DT_ said:

I think a large percentage of childhood obesity could be explained by the high prevalence of Gestational Diabetes, it becomes like a feedback loop. Obesity is still largely associated with older age. In Wisconsin, obesity prevalence among 12 to 17 was 14.8%, 18 to 24 was 22.4%, and 25 to 34 was 35.5%. https://www.wihealthatlas.org/obesity/age

A few points -

There seems to be some confusion on your part. Gestational Diabetes is a medical condition incurred by the mother (not the child). The two studies you linked to in the OP dealt with two entirely different things. One is the gestational diabetes incurred by the mother (it is a health condition for pregnant women). The second is diabetes in children. Both conditions (childhood diabetes and gestational diabetes) have minor correlations to the age of women at the time of pregnancy. But, there isn't any established correlation between the two of them. That is, gestational diabetes is not known to be connected to childhood diabetes. On the other hand, child obesity is correlated to child diabetes. Given the relatively low incidence rate of child diabetes (3.5 incidents per 1,000 children) versus the relatively high rate of child obesity (using your numbers, 148 per 1,000 in children aged 12-17 in Wisconsin), it is far more likely that obesity has a much, much higher impact on child diabetes than either the age of the mother or the incidents of gestational diabetes.

12 hours ago, DT_ said:

I need a reference. According to the data, 51% of men 18-29 are single compared to 32% of women 18-29. More specifically, it's 56% of men 18 to 25, 49% of men 26 to 33. Of women, it's 33.90% 18 to 25 and 28.10% 26 to 33. Do you think half of all single women 26 to 33 are living with their parents?

Sure. Here you go:

A majority of young adults in the U.S. live with their parents for the first time since the Great Depression

I don't want to downplay the impact of COVID on this statistic. But it should be noted that this figure has seen steady increases up through the end of 2019 (pre-pandemic), and the percentage of young people living with parents (in that age range) was at 47%. The 5% increase caused by the pandemic was largely about college students moving home while continuing school remotely. You can see from the charts in the study that the last peak (at 49%) came at the height of the depression. This was followed by a steep decline (to unprecedented numbers) following WW2, and then a steady increase since the 1960s. The pandemic bump isn't the sort of issue that either WW2 or the Great Depression represented - and there isn't any reason to believe that if these numbers decline back to pre-pandemic numbers that we won't see a continued steady increase in this figure consistent with pre-pandemic increases. We definitely will not see a sharp decline as we did with the end of WW2 without some other unforeseen event.

The number refers to both men and women. This increase has come consistently with a decline in singe person households for individuals in that age group: "Between February and July 2020, the number of households headed by an 18- to 29-year-old declined by 1.9 million, or 12%. The total went from 15.8 million to 13.9 million." The general increase of single person households continues to increase, but that is largely due to continued high divorce rates and mortality figures among baby boomers more than any other group.

12 hours ago, DT_ said:

I'll read the rest of your post later.  Keep in mind that a large percentage of people having children after 26 is a problem. I don't think humans evolved to start a family after 26. 

Humans didn't evolve to use smart phone either, and yet we do. Evolutionary change takes longer, but, humans adapt to their conditions. The whole point of my discussion is that starting a family after 26 is a response to conditions we have created. We won't fix this issue (assuming that it is a real issue) merely by encouraging people to get married and start families at a younger age - we need to change the conditions that cause this. And these trends are not new or recent - they reflect issues that have been occurring for my entire lifetime. A case in point - my paternal grandfather emigrated to the US in 1933. During the great depression, an uncle managed to get him a job working for Ford at the Rouge plant. By the mid-60s, he was making more than 300K a year (adjusted to today's dollars). He was a part of that generation where women did not work (unless you were a minority), where the man was paid a family wage, and at a time when having more children to work the family farm often still created an economic boost for the family. None of that exists anymore. To have any chance of a good paying job, a college education is a necessity. Wages versus cost of living generally assume the need for two incomes in a family. And since few Americans work a family farm, more children does not create an economic security blanket but an economic liability (especially when we consider the costs of education). The shift after WW2 was caused by women beginning to enter the work force in large numbers. This lead to more young people starting their own families, buying their own homes. But wage stagnation (when adjusted for inflation, college graduates make no more today than they did 50 years ago), and rising costs make the current situation less tenable for young people today. It is these kinds of issues that encourage young people to marry later and start families later.

 

9 hours ago, DT_ said:

True, but would that always be the case? The percentage of single women is growing very fast. 

Yes, it would seem to be so. Something may change int he future - but you have to remember that this trend is caused by two issues. The first is that women are getting married when they are older, and the second is that young people are getting married far less frequently. At some point, what we may find is that the only people achieving marriage are those that have completed school - while young people who don't simply cohabitate. So unless more young people start getting married (and we as a society find a way to make this happen), this will always be the case.

To draw a disturbing (but useful) comparison. In the past several years, the group of people committing suicide that grew the fastest was young girls. During the pandemic, this statistic jumped 50%, much higher than any other group. But, the numbers are relatively low. Large increases in percentage document alarming trends but don't necessarily lead to super high headcounts. The rate can grow very quickly but, without that number being large to begin with, that growth is less surprising than the percentages suggest. If we saw big shifts (percentage-wise) among our largest groups of people, it would be far more startling. The single largest increase in family types in the US comes in cohabitation, not single women. And the single women group isn't terribly uniform. There is a large percentage of them that become single and then remain that way (divorce or death of spouse - and, although its shrinking, mortality rates for men still outpace mortality rates for women significantly). And finally, after divorce, women are far less likely to remarry than men are. So when we combine these factors with the fact that women are cohabiting at a much higher rate than in the past, we have to have a more nuanced grouping than just "single women". What you are really wanting to look at is the single women who have never married and are not cohabiting.

Finally, and this is the issue of the time it takes to understand this. We get snapshots with data that isn't always helpful. How many never married women this year will marry next year? We try to guess with trends, but our guesses don't always match reality - and even more of an issue, in looking at teenagers today, will be an entirely different generation of sociologists that look at them when they are reaching retirement age.

Edited August 21, 2022 by Benjamin McGuire

[3DOP]

My Church permits the faithful to eat and drink what they like, while cautioning that all good things become evil, when moderation is not maintained.

I question the goodness of the Word of Wisdom in its rigor. God gives us many goods that are easily abused. A great part of growing in virtue comes through learning how to use every good. My Church denies that alcohol, coffee, and tobacco are inherently evil. Like every other good, they can distract us from the Supreme good, if we develop an inordinate love for the inferior good. 

In my opinion, unless it can be established that these prohibited substances are always and everywhere evil, they should be allowed with the usual cautions. Moderation in all things.

People are easily drawn to allow money, sports, video games, family, and every other good to become the supreme good in their lives. We can lawfully prohibit that which is always evil. But not that which is good when used in moderation. Of course family is a greater good than coffee, but Jesus told the young man who couldn't follow him because a family member had died, "Let the dead bury their dead." Family had become a good, that was too great for this young man. Every good should be permitted with the knowledge that it can be abused. 

 

[DT_]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

A few points -

There seems to be some confusion on your part. Gestational Diabetes is a medical condition incurred by the mother (not the child).

That's why I bring it up, "Babies have a higher risk of developing obesity and type 2 diabetes later in life."  https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gestational-diabetes/symptoms-causes/syc-20355339

Quote

The second is diabetes in children.

There's a 10% increase of type 1 odds per every 5-year increase in maternal age.

https://diabetesjournals.org/diabetes/article/59/2/486/25111/Maternal-Age-at-Birth-and-Childhood-Type-1

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Given the relatively low incidence rate of child diabetes (3.5 incidents per 1,000 children) versus the relatively high rate of child obesity (using your numbers, 148 per 1,000 in children aged 12-17 in Wisconsin), it is far more likely that obesity has a much, much higher impact on child diabetes than either the age of the mother or the incidents of gestational diabetes.

Childhood obesity doesn't cause type 1. Would you agree older age and risk factors largely associated with aging increase the odds of having a child with type 1? 

I'll come back to your post.

 

Edited August 21, 2022 by DT_

[DT_]

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

We won't fix this issue (assuming that it is a real issue) merely by encouraging people to get married and start families at a younger age - we need to change the conditions that cause this

Do you think encouraging young adults to date would help? There are studies concluding that young adults are dating less and it has nothing to do with the economic situation. "The authors find no evidence that trends in young adults’ economic circumstances, internet use, or television watching explain the recent decline". The study points to, "growing individualism and reduced sociability". 

There's another study pointing out that unemployed young adults who live with parents are dating less since 2017 compared to 10 and 20 years ago. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15579883211057710

As for fixing the economic conditions, I would completely agree.

 

Edited August 21, 2022 by DT_

[DT_]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

.I question the goodness of the Word of Wisdom in its rigor. God gives us many goods that are easily abused.

Drinking alcohol in moderation can cause health problems in the future, but I understand many people drink alcohol when socializing with family and friends. 

Edited August 21, 2022 by DT_

[3DOP]

9 minutes ago, DT_ said:

Drinking alcohol in moderation can cause health problems in the future, but I understand many people drink alcohol when socializing with family and friends. 

If drinking causes health problems in the future, it would be by definition, immoderate. A good God does not give another good, that would harm us in any way, if used in moderation. It would seem, that if all drinking of any amount or kind, leads to future health problems, we should conclude that alcohol is always and everywhere an evil. The difficulty is that Christian revelation seems to support a moderate use while roundly condemning immoderate use. If there is doubt about that claim, references can be provided.

Edited August 21, 2022 by 3DOP

[DT_]

On 8/18/2022 at 4:00 PM, BlueDreams said:

Along with From what I could find in a quick google search…most research is leaning to some form of environmental impact. The theories range: https://www.healthline.com/diabetesmine/type1-diabetes-growing-alarming-rate#Impacts-of-public-awareness-

Here's something very concerning, "Diabetes UK is warning that children born to women with gestational diabetes are six times more likely to develop Type 2 diabetes later in life."  https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about_us/news/gestational-diabetes-and-children

"Many babies whose mothers had gestational diabetes have no related health problems. But research has suggested that your baby may be at greater risk of developing obesity and or diabetes in later life. "  https://www.tommys.org/pregnancy-information/pregnancy-complications/gestational-diabetes/long-term-implications-gestational-diabetes

Being "over age 25" is a risk factor.  https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/preventing-gestational-diabetes#risk-factors

I honestly don't understand why society is turning a blind eye to this.   

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

It would seem, that if all drinking of any amount or kind, leads to future health problems, we should conclude that alcohol is always and everywhere an evil.

That's certainly the direction of the research:

Quote

A large new global study published in the Lancet has confirmed previous research which has shown that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption ...

The lead author of the study Dr Max Griswold, at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, said: "Previous studies have found a protective effect of alcohol on some conditions, but we found that the combined health risks associated with alcohol increases with any amount of alcohol.

"The strong association between alcohol consumption and the risk of cancer, injuries, and infectious diseases offset the protective effects for heart disease in our study."

And from this year:

Quote

The widely held notion that consuming small to moderate amounts of alcohol is good for cardiovascular health is not supported by the data, the World Heart Federation (WHF) says in a new policy brief.

In fact, the evidence is clear that any level of drinking can contribute to loss of a healthy life, the organization says.

"Over the past several decades, the prevalence of cardiovascular disease has nearly doubled, and alcohol has played a major role in the incidence of much of it," the WHF said in the brief.

"The portrayal of alcohol as necessary for a vibrant social life has diverted attention from the harms of alcohol use, as have the frequent and widely publicized claims that moderate drinking, such as a glass of red wine a day, can offer protection against cardiovascular disease," Monika Arora, member of the WHF advocacy committee and co-author of the brief, said in a news release.

"These claims are at best misinformed and at worst an attempt by the alcohol industry to mislead the public about the danger of their product," Arora continued.

 

Edited August 21, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That's certainly the direction of the research:

And from this year:

 

Hi Hamba Tuhan,

My confidence that moderate amounts of alcohol are good, has never depended on "scientific" studies so-called. I did not care when doctors began to say in my lifetime that a glass of red wine a day is healthy. I do not need medical people to know that moderate amounts of alcohol are beneficial mentally and spiritually, while being at least not harmful physically. Oh wait, there is this...a physical benefit:  "Do not still drink water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake, and thy frequent infirmities." (I Tim. 5:23) Look, I am not advocating that St. Timothy was given license to get drunk and neither was St. Paul. Notice it says, "a little wine". As a Christian, I hold that God's revelation should be the guide to my faith. Not that true science will ever contradict true faith. But that I have faith in my faith, with no faith in anybody's so-called science when it contradicts God's revelation.

Does anybody want to ask me to provide more scriptural references which affirm that sometimes, in moderation, alcohol is beneficial, or should Christians think that some other authority, such as science so-called, settles the matter? "Science" is like the wind anyway. It blows a different direction often enough to not depend on it always being the same. Today it is against God's revelation, tomorrow it affirms it. 

Moderation in all things. Hunting, swimming, grandchildren, flowers, sunsets, music, literature, and every good created interest and hobby can potentially lead us away from the Supreme Good. I will happily grant that the use of alcohol is among the more dangerous goods that God permits. But I cannot possibly concede that it is always and everywhere evil.

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by 3DOP

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

"Science" is like the wind anyway. It blows a different direction often enough to not depend on it always being the same. Today it is against God's revelation, tomorrow it affirms it. 

I would absolutely agree with that.

Quote

Moderation in all things.

I have never found this particular Pagan injunction to be very useful, to be honest.

Quote

Does anybody want to ask me to provide more scriptural references which affirm that sometimes, in moderation, alcohol is beneficial, or should Christians think that some other authority, such as science so-called, settles the matter?

The issue here, of course, is that we Latter-day Saints accept living prophets who, like their predecessors, provide us with revelation to match current circumstances. That means that we have our own extra-Biblical scriptural references that preceded but appear to be in alignment with the emerging scientific understanding.

This doesn't surprise us because we believe that God has an infinite number of things to teach us, and the fact that He does so patiently, 'line upon line', over vast periods of time and as circumstances change is both evidence of his mercy and good pedagogy.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[3DOP]

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I would absolutely agree with that.

I have never found this particular Pagan injunction to be very useful, to be honest.

The issue here, of course, is that we Latter-day Saints accept living prophets who, like their predecessors, provide us with revelation to match current circumstances. That means that we have our own extra-Biblical scriptural references that preceded but appear to be alignment with the emerging scientific understanding.

This doesn't surprise us because we believe that God has an infinite number of things to teach us, and the fact that He does so patiently, 'line upon line', over vast periods of time and as circumstances change is both evidence of his mercy and good pedagogy.

Good answer Hamba!

I think the injunction, which to my vexation, evidently has non-Christian origins, is not necessarily false on that account. Nevertheless, good find for you!

Tomorrow is also to my disappointment, Monday. I will be looking in, and perhaps commenting next weekend. Take care.

Rory

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Tomorrow is also to my disappointment, Monday. I will be looking in, and perhaps commenting next weekend. Take care.

Good luck for your working week! It's already Monday here, and I'm up to my eyeballs in writing briefings for budget estimates hearings. Clearly, I should not be posting, but sometimes I need a 'mental health break' ...

[Benjamin McGuire]

17 hours ago, DT_ said:

That's why I bring it up, "Babies have a higher risk of developing obesity and type 2 diabetes later in life."  https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gestational-diabetes/symptoms-causes/syc-20355339

I found some of the studies this was based on. One of these showed the risk of diabetes jumps from 0.024% (no gestational diabetes) to 0.045% (gestational diabetes) for children. Which is certainly a significant jump. But not by any stretch a common problem or even a high individual risk. One of the problems that I note with these studies (which isn't meant to detract from the findings in any way) is that the risk of diabetes in children jumps even higher for those that are born to parents (either parent) with diabetes. Of the studies I looked at on this question, few had any controls in place to look at this particular issue. Additionally, obesity in mothers creates a higher risk for diabetes in children. Since obesity also correlates to gestational diabetes, it may be difficult to actually sort out which variable is most responsible.

You ask:

13 hours ago, DT_ said:

I honestly don't understand why society is turning a blind eye to this.  

I don't dispute the fact that older women giving birth tend to have a higher rate of health complications for themselves and for their children. I don't dispute the fact that our population would trend in a healthier direction if women had children earlier. What I am suggesting is that our society has created other barriers that have given early childbearing a much greater opportunity cost than existed in the past - and these barriers are responsible for the trends of both later childbirth and later marriage that have been building for decades. Making the observation about health, and even discussing the increases in risks, isn't going to do anything to combat these barriers - which means that this discussion will have little to no effect on the trends we have observed. Society isn't a person. It doesn't 'see' things. It a complex set of conditions that change over time. There is no question that we would all be much healthier if high quality, healthy food, was easily obtainable by every human being. We would all be much healthier if we all had clean drinking water. We would all be healthier if we didn't have pollution in the air we breathe. So why does society turn a blind eye to this? You act surprised when society sees a nominal risk increase to individuals and more or less ignores it. The point of one of the two articles that you provided in the OP was not that we should have children at a younger age (and in that way try to limit the occurrences) but rather to work to identify when it may become a problem and try to treat it before it becomes a major issue. We are now looking at a potential cure for diabetes: https://connect.uclahealth.org/2022/01/07/first-person-seemingly-cured-of-type-1-diabetes/ . If there is a cure, the cost of a cure (relative to the number of children who have diabetes caused by gestational diabetes) is relatively insignificant versus the cost of changing society in ways that encourage earlier childbirth and earlier marriage.

My point remains - people don't simply choose to marry later or have children later as a simple choice or a matter of convenience. Our society has changed in ways that make these choices much more difficult. There is a much higher sacrifice connected to early marriage and early childbirth than there was fifty years ago. And individuals are concerned with these costs. If we want (as a society) to reverse these trends, we need to find ways to mitigate these costs. Unfortunately, there is very little interest in our society at taking the kinds of steps we would need to take to do so. And this is why society 'turns a blind eye'. It is also why advice from Church leaders isn't going to make all that much difference. One way that the Church could promote earlier marriage and earlier childbirth would be to find ways to encourage our younger generations to reach the point where marriage and childbirth come with less cost - by working to ensure that everyone gets a college education, to make that college education inexpensive enough (perhaps even free) so that economics do not deter getting that degree quickly. There are lots of things that could help reverse these trends. Are we likely to see any of them?

[jkwilliams]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I would absolutely agree with that.

I have never found this particular Pagan injunction to be very useful, to be honest.

The issue here, of course, is that we Latter-day Saints accept living prophets who, like their predecessors, provide us with revelation to match current circumstances. That means that we have our own extra-Biblical scriptural references that preceded but appear to be in alignment with the emerging scientific understanding.

This doesn't surprise us because we believe that God has an infinite number of things to teach us, and the fact that He does so patiently, 'line upon line', over vast periods of time and as circumstances change is both evidence of his mercy and good pedagogy.

Maybe Joseph F. Smith was a pagan.

“The Saints should not be unwise, but rather understand what the will of the Lord is, and practice moderation in all things. They should avoid excesses and cease from sin, putting far from them ‘the lusts of men’; and in their amusements and pastimes adopt a course that looks to the spirit as well as the letter, the intention and not the act alone, the whole and not the part, which is the meaning of moderation. In this way their conduct will be reasonable and becoming, and they shall find no trouble in understanding the will of the Lord.” (Gospel Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939, p. 239.)

As for the OP, I've been thinking about this a lot lately. My daughter and her husband recently stopped going to church. She's in the stage where "the church sucks," and she's not seeing a lot of positive things. I told her it's important to get the anger and hurt out, and later she'll be able to see more clearly the good and the bad. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by jkwilliams