A quarter of all kindergartners in Washington county aren’t immunized. Now there’s a measles crisis

OnWis97

oftenreading said:

Meltdown99 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

and same with my mom. polio at 4 years old (so one leg is basically an ornament). MS for the past 30. she's also one of the toughest hombres I have ever known. 

"weak". fuck that. 

That's terrible.  Sorry to hear that your Mom had to deal with that.  My Mom, RIP, could not tolerate those anti-vaxxers because she remembers 1st hand what polio was like.  And she always said if people saw 1st hand their opinion would change.

Exactly. Those who minimize the dangers of infectious diseases are those that were lucky enough not to live during the centuries where the average family lost at least one child to these diseases.

Ahhhh.  The good ol' days.

CM189191

oftenreading said:

CM189191 said:

oftenreading said:

CM189191 said:

Go Beavers said:

Not a ringing endorsement for Libertarianism  

It is a ringing endorsement for Darwinism though.

I'll play devil's advocate here. 

The number of vaccines is out of control.  Human bodies were not meant to be assaulted like this during the first 24 months.  It's traumatizing to infants, physically and emotionally.  It's also being driven by big pharma lobbying.  Any idea how much money is made vaccinating entire populations?  (it's a lot)

The anti-vaxxer movement is a knee-jerk overkill reaction to all of this.  There are way too many vaccines, but they shouldn't be eliminated entirely. 

First, that chart isn't completely accurate, particularly regarding the influenza vaccination, which is recommended yearly, not every six months.

Second, on what scientific basis do you say that the current schedule is "out of control" or excessive? Simply having more vaccines than 35 years ago isn't a reason; maybe the schedule in 1983 was too little. Which ones would you say are unnecessary?

There's no scientific basis to a claim that human bodies can't deal with this level of immunization. Everything an infant is exposed to from the time it's born is a new foreign antigen, and bodies deal with that very well. The immune system could handle far more immunization than the current schedule. 

CDC recommends 2 flu vaccines per year until 8 years old : https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxadmin.htm

What out of control or excessive might look like : 



"There's no scientific basis to a claim that human bodies can't deal with this level of immunization. "

This statement represents a big fucking problem with US Health Care.  Here we have to prove something is dangerous for public consumption.  Most other Developed Industrialized Nations require companies a product is safe for public consumption.  There's a lot of daylight between those standards.  

The human body is capable of enduring all sorts of trauma.  You hear about people who are on the autism spectrum, borderline personality disorders, or mild ADD.  Sometimes a traumatic event such as a head injury, severe illness, death of a loved one, etc is enough to push a person from borderline to certified diagnosed.  Now take 36 shots and give them all to 325 million Americans who live all across the mental and health spectrum. 

I am not an anti-vaxxer.  I do not think we have adequately weighed the cost-benefit analysis when we give twice as many shots as the average and have a terrible infant mortality rate.  

No, you're misrepresenting the available data on safety and efficacy.

And your infant mortality rate has little, if anything, to do with the presence of vaccinations and much to do with generally abysmal prenatal and postnatal care which is tied to the for-profit health insurance system, and lack of supports and education for new parents.

I am not misinterpreting.  I am not suggesting we have a higher infant mortality rate because we have more vaccines or there is a causal relationship there. 

I am saying that other countries are able to produce better results, without having to deliver so many vaccinations.  

CM189191

Halifax2TheMax said:

CM189191 said:

oftenreading said:

CM189191 said:

Go Beavers said:

Not a ringing endorsement for Libertarianism  

It is a ringing endorsement for Darwinism though.

I'll play devil's advocate here. 

The number of vaccines is out of control.  Human bodies were not meant to be assaulted like this during the first 24 months.  It's traumatizing to infants, physically and emotionally.  It's also being driven by big pharma lobbying.  Any idea how much money is made vaccinating entire populations?  (it's a lot)

The anti-vaxxer movement is a knee-jerk overkill reaction to all of this.  There are way too many vaccines, but they shouldn't be eliminated entirely. 

First, that chart isn't completely accurate, particularly regarding the influenza vaccination, which is recommended yearly, not every six months.

Second, on what scientific basis do you say that the current schedule is "out of control" or excessive? Simply having more vaccines than 35 years ago isn't a reason; maybe the schedule in 1983 was too little. Which ones would you say are unnecessary?

There's no scientific basis to a claim that human bodies can't deal with this level of immunization. Everything an infant is exposed to from the time it's born is a new foreign antigen, and bodies deal with that very well. The immune system could handle far more immunization than the current schedule. 

CDC recommends 2 flu vaccines per year until 8 years old : https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxadmin.htm

What out of control or excessive might look like : 



"There's no scientific basis to a claim that human bodies can't deal with this level of immunization. "

This statement represents a big fucking problem with US Health Care.  Here we have to prove something is dangerous for public consumption.  Most other Developed Industrialized Nations require companies a product is safe for public consumption.  There's a lot of daylight between those standards.  

The human body is capable of enduring all sorts of trauma.  You hear about people who are on the autism spectrum, borderline personality disorders, or mild ADD.  Sometimes a traumatic event such as a head injury, severe illness, death of a loved one, etc is enough to push a person from borderline to certified diagnosed.  Now take 36 shots and give them all to 325 million Americans who live all across the mental and health spectrum. 

I am not an anti-vaxxer.  I do not think we have adequately weighed the cost-benefit analysis when we give twice as many shots as the average and have a terrible infant mortality rate.  

What does the “infant mortality rate” include for causes of death? All causes or just those things for which they were immunized for? Further, wouldn’t you have to know total number of immunizations for a certain affliction, measles say, and then the number of corresponding deaths of those immunized for same? You can’t lump them all together and determine efficacy. How many children under 5 die from gun violence in Iceland and are they part of the score?
 

is your google machine broken?

brianlux

OnWis97 said:

oftenreading said:

Meltdown99 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

and same with my mom. polio at 4 years old (so one leg is basically an ornament). MS for the past 30. she's also one of the toughest hombres I have ever known. 

"weak". fuck that. 

That's terrible.  Sorry to hear that your Mom had to deal with that.  My Mom, RIP, could not tolerate those anti-vaxxers because she remembers 1st hand what polio was like.  And she always said if people saw 1st hand their opinion would change.

Exactly. Those who minimize the dangers of infectious diseases are those that were lucky enough not to live during the centuries where the average family lost at least one child to these diseases.

Ahhhh.  The good ol' days.

But seriously, who among us can look at this objectively?  I cannot, at least not fully.  I would be crushed if any of my 16 "kids" died from some disease in infancy. 

And yet, looking at it biologically from a biocentric viewpoint, our ability to stymie disease may not be in our own best interest as a species.  That ability is both quite unnatural and probably one the factors that will lead toward our specie becoming extinct earlier than it might have otherwise.   There is a good biological reason for disease and the culling of the weak individuals within all species.   We humans have a very hard time understanding and accepting that.

Halifax2TheMax

CM189191 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

CM189191 said:

oftenreading said:

CM189191 said:

Go Beavers said:

Not a ringing endorsement for Libertarianism  

It is a ringing endorsement for Darwinism though.

I'll play devil's advocate here. 

The number of vaccines is out of control.  Human bodies were not meant to be assaulted like this during the first 24 months.  It's traumatizing to infants, physically and emotionally.  It's also being driven by big pharma lobbying.  Any idea how much money is made vaccinating entire populations?  (it's a lot)

The anti-vaxxer movement is a knee-jerk overkill reaction to all of this.  There are way too many vaccines, but they shouldn't be eliminated entirely. 

First, that chart isn't completely accurate, particularly regarding the influenza vaccination, which is recommended yearly, not every six months.

Second, on what scientific basis do you say that the current schedule is "out of control" or excessive? Simply having more vaccines than 35 years ago isn't a reason; maybe the schedule in 1983 was too little. Which ones would you say are unnecessary?

There's no scientific basis to a claim that human bodies can't deal with this level of immunization. Everything an infant is exposed to from the time it's born is a new foreign antigen, and bodies deal with that very well. The immune system could handle far more immunization than the current schedule. 

CDC recommends 2 flu vaccines per year until 8 years old : https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxadmin.htm

What out of control or excessive might look like : 



"There's no scientific basis to a claim that human bodies can't deal with this level of immunization. "

This statement represents a big fucking problem with US Health Care.  Here we have to prove something is dangerous for public consumption.  Most other Developed Industrialized Nations require companies a product is safe for public consumption.  There's a lot of daylight between those standards.  

The human body is capable of enduring all sorts of trauma.  You hear about people who are on the autism spectrum, borderline personality disorders, or mild ADD.  Sometimes a traumatic event such as a head injury, severe illness, death of a loved one, etc is enough to push a person from borderline to certified diagnosed.  Now take 36 shots and give them all to 325 million Americans who live all across the mental and health spectrum. 

I am not an anti-vaxxer.  I do not think we have adequately weighed the cost-benefit analysis when we give twice as many shots as the average and have a terrible infant mortality rate.  

What does the “infant mortality rate” include for causes of death? All causes or just those things for which they were immunized for? Further, wouldn’t you have to know total number of immunizations for a certain affliction, measles say, and then the number of corresponding deaths of those immunized for same? You can’t lump them all together and determine efficacy. How many children under 5 die from gun violence in Iceland and are they part of the score?
 

is your google machine broken?

What’s the source of the table that you posted? It doesn’t have the supporting information that normally accompanies a table, as in a page full of explanation with “see table two.” Any suggestions on what I should google or could you be so generous as to provide a link?

PJPOWER

I’m more interested in these numbers:

Key facts

• Even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available, in 2017, there were 110 000 measles deaths globally, mostly among children under the age of five. 
• Measles vaccination resulted in a 80% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2017 worldwide.
• In 2017, about 85% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.
• During 2000-2017, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 21.1 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles

oftenreading

CM189191 said:

oftenreading said:

CM189191 said:

oftenreading said:

CM189191 said:

Go Beavers said:

Not a ringing endorsement for Libertarianism  

It is a ringing endorsement for Darwinism though.

I'll play devil's advocate here. 

The number of vaccines is out of control.  Human bodies were not meant to be assaulted like this during the first 24 months.  It's traumatizing to infants, physically and emotionally.  It's also being driven by big pharma lobbying.  Any idea how much money is made vaccinating entire populations?  (it's a lot)

The anti-vaxxer movement is a knee-jerk overkill reaction to all of this.  There are way too many vaccines, but they shouldn't be eliminated entirely. 

First, that chart isn't completely accurate, particularly regarding the influenza vaccination, which is recommended yearly, not every six months.

Second, on what scientific basis do you say that the current schedule is "out of control" or excessive? Simply having more vaccines than 35 years ago isn't a reason; maybe the schedule in 1983 was too little. Which ones would you say are unnecessary?

There's no scientific basis to a claim that human bodies can't deal with this level of immunization. Everything an infant is exposed to from the time it's born is a new foreign antigen, and bodies deal with that very well. The immune system could handle far more immunization than the current schedule. 

CDC recommends 2 flu vaccines per year until 8 years old : https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxadmin.htm

What out of control or excessive might look like : 



"There's no scientific basis to a claim that human bodies can't deal with this level of immunization. "

This statement represents a big fucking problem with US Health Care.  Here we have to prove something is dangerous for public consumption.  Most other Developed Industrialized Nations require companies a product is safe for public consumption.  There's a lot of daylight between those standards.  

The human body is capable of enduring all sorts of trauma.  You hear about people who are on the autism spectrum, borderline personality disorders, or mild ADD.  Sometimes a traumatic event such as a head injury, severe illness, death of a loved one, etc is enough to push a person from borderline to certified diagnosed.  Now take 36 shots and give them all to 325 million Americans who live all across the mental and health spectrum. 

I am not an anti-vaxxer.  I do not think we have adequately weighed the cost-benefit analysis when we give twice as many shots as the average and have a terrible infant mortality rate.  

No, you're misrepresenting the available data on safety and efficacy.

And your infant mortality rate has little, if anything, to do with the presence of vaccinations and much to do with generally abysmal prenatal and postnatal care which is tied to the for-profit health insurance system, and lack of supports and education for new parents.

I am not misinterpreting.  I am not suggesting we have a higher infant mortality rate because we have more vaccines or there is a causal relationship there. 

I am saying that other countries are able to produce better results, without having to deliver so many vaccinations.  

This statement represents a big fucking problem with US Health Care.  Here we have to prove something is dangerous for public consumption.  Most other Developed Industrialized Nations require companies a product is safe for public consumption.

That is one of the parts you are misinterpreting. It simply isn't true, and you are also ignoring reams of safety and efficacy data. Or are you asking for perfect safety with no risk? That doesn't exist anywhere in the world. 

And you comment about "better results without having to deliver so many vaccinations" is more than apples and oranges, it's apples and concrete. 

brianlux

PJPOWER said:

I’m more interested in these numbers:

Key facts

• Even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available, in 2017, there were 110 000 measles deaths globally, mostly among children under the age of five. 
• Measles vaccination resulted in a 80% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2017 worldwide.
• In 2017, about 85% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.
• During 2000-2017, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 21.1 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles

Again, not to be trolling but to add full perspective from a biological viewpoint, I think this statistic should be considered as well:

World population as of 2/15/19, 9:38 PST:  7,684,242,501

oftenreading

CM189191 said:

oftenreading said:

CM189191 said:

Go Beavers said:

Not a ringing endorsement for Libertarianism  

It is a ringing endorsement for Darwinism though.

I'll play devil's advocate here. 

The number of vaccines is out of control.  Human bodies were not meant to be assaulted like this during the first 24 months.  It's traumatizing to infants, physically and emotionally.  It's also being driven by big pharma lobbying.  Any idea how much money is made vaccinating entire populations?  (it's a lot)

The anti-vaxxer movement is a knee-jerk overkill reaction to all of this.  There are way too many vaccines, but they shouldn't be eliminated entirely. 

First, that chart isn't completely accurate, particularly regarding the influenza vaccination, which is recommended yearly, not every six months.

Second, on what scientific basis do you say that the current schedule is "out of control" or excessive? Simply having more vaccines than 35 years ago isn't a reason; maybe the schedule in 1983 was too little. Which ones would you say are unnecessary?

There's no scientific basis to a claim that human bodies can't deal with this level of immunization. Everything an infant is exposed to from the time it's born is a new foreign antigen, and bodies deal with that very well. The immune system could handle far more immunization than the current schedule. 

CDC recommends 2 flu vaccines per year until 8 years old : https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxadmin.htm

What out of control or excessive might look like : 



"There's no scientific basis to a claim that human bodies can't deal with this level of immunization. "

This statement represents a big fucking problem with US Health Care.  Here we have to prove something is dangerous for public consumption.  Most other Developed Industrialized Nations require companies a product is safe for public consumption.  There's a lot of daylight between those standards.  

The human body is capable of enduring all sorts of trauma.  You hear about people who are on the autism spectrum, borderline personality disorders, or mild ADD.  Sometimes a traumatic event such as a head injury, severe illness, death of a loved one, etc is enough to push a person from borderline to certified diagnosed.  Now take 36 shots and give them all to 325 million Americans who live all across the mental and health spectrum. 

I am not an anti-vaxxer.  I do not think we have adequately weighed the cost-benefit analysis when we give twice as many shots as the average and have a terrible infant mortality rate.  

Also, coming back to your comment about flu vaccine twice a year - no, the CDC does not recommend two vaccines a year until age 8. It says that if a child under age 8 has never been vaccinated, it should get two vaccines in the first year of vaccination. Thereafter it's the usual once a year.

PJPOWER

brianlux said:

PJPOWER said:

I’m more interested in these numbers:

Key facts

• Even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available, in 2017, there were 110 000 measles deaths globally, mostly among children under the age of five. 
• Measles vaccination resulted in a 80% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2017 worldwide.
• In 2017, about 85% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.
• During 2000-2017, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 21.1 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles

Again, not to be trolling but to add full perspective from a biological viewpoint, I think this statistic should be considered as well:

World population as of 2/15/19, 9:38 PST:  7,684,242,501

I get what you’re saying, but don’t understand what point you are trying to make?  You would rather those 21.1 million get naturally “culled”...Similar could be said with starvatiion, heart disease, etc.  why don’t we all just let those with a disease die off so we can be some  great disease free “master race” in the future or?  Again, Brian, I get the biology of it all, but I still think that those 21 million saved from the measles vaccine is a positive thing, not a negative.  And to put it into perspective, those numbers are only for the measles vaccine, not all vaccines combined.

brianlux

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

PJPOWER said:

I’m more interested in these numbers:

Key facts

• Even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available, in 2017, there were 110 000 measles deaths globally, mostly among children under the age of five. 
• Measles vaccination resulted in a 80% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2017 worldwide.
• In 2017, about 85% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.
• During 2000-2017, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 21.1 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles

Again, not to be trolling but to add full perspective from a biological viewpoint, I think this statistic should be considered as well:

World population as of 2/15/19, 9:38 PST:  7,684,242,501

I get what you’re saying, but don’t understand what point you are trying to make?  You would rather those 21.1 million get naturally “culled”...Similar could be said with starvatiion, heart disease, etc.  why don’t we all just let those with a disease die off so we can be some  great disease free “master race” in the future or?  Again, Brian, I get the biology of it all, but I still think that those 21 million saved from the measles vaccine is a positive thing, not a negative.  And to put it into perspective, those numbers are only for the measles vaccine, not all vaccines combined.

As I said earlier, I cannot even imagine the loss of one of my 16 extended family "kids" (I personally never reproduced), and I'm sure any sane, humane person would feel the same about theirs. 

My point is simply to encourage people to at least be cognizant of the whole perspective of nature's balances.  To see that life is more than just a human issue.  To understand that this planet cannot sustain 7.68 billion (and growing) humans.  In just the first 7 weeks of this year, the net gain in humans on the planet (births minus deaths) is about 10 million.  10 million more people in 7 weeks.  That needs to be considered and somehow addressed if we want to carry on as a species and not have our numbers reduced by some horrible tragedy.  Maybe if we consider these factors, we as a species will plan our lives more carefully, be more aware of the fate we hold in our hands. 

In any case, I'm not suggesting we kill our children or all die of cholera. 

Annafalk

If we think of ourselves as just another mammal like any other. All sorts of animals normally strive for maximal reproduction. It’s just that humans haven’t reached it’s peak yet. Even if we are capable of understanding that our world can’t keep feeding us much longer we won’t stop reproducing until something stops us.

HughFreakingDillon

Annafalk said:

If we think of ourselves as just another mammal like any other. All sorts of animals normally strive for maximal reproduction. It’s just that humans haven’t reached it’s peak yet. Even if we are capable of understanding that our world can’t keep feeding us much longer we won’t stop reproducing until something stops us.

that's an excellent point. 

brianlux

Annafalk said:

If we think of ourselves as just another mammal like any other. All sorts of animals normally strive for maximal reproduction. It’s just that humans haven’t reached it’s peak yet. Even if we are capable of understanding that our world can’t keep feeding us much longer we won’t stop reproducing until something stops us.

I think you're right, Anna, and I also think that is sad.  We are the one species capable of understanding, analyzing, and higher level decision making, yet we choose to leave our fate to chance.    How strange we are.

HughFreakingDillon

brianlux said:

Annafalk said:

If we think of ourselves as just another mammal like any other. All sorts of animals normally strive for maximal reproduction. It’s just that humans haven’t reached it’s peak yet. Even if we are capable of understanding that our world can’t keep feeding us much longer we won’t stop reproducing until something stops us.

I think you're right, Anna, and I also think that is sad.  We are the one species capable of understanding, analyzing, and higher level decision making, yet we choose to leave our fate to chance.    How strange we are.

not really, brian, when you think of it more along the lines as our innate instinct of survival of the species by way of multiplication, it makes sense to me. instinct is a pretty powerful thing to overcome. 

tbergs

HughFreakingDillon said:

tbergs said:

mookieblalock said:

tbergs said:

Thoughts_Arrive said:

Stupid antivaxxers. 

How many billios of people live on the planet again? It'll all be ok. It's a great chance for pharma to push people to get even more vaccinations, even if you aren't at risk. :money:

This guy isn’t interested in a cure for cancer. If you’re meant to die, you will die.

A lot of truth to that, but at least the in-between is mine We all have options and will decide what to do with them. Each plays the part on both the world and the human race's existence. 

pretty safe bet your opinion would change if you had a loved one you call "weak". 

getting a disease is not a "weakness". my daughter was stronger at 6 years old than most grown men. no bullshit. 

Pretty sure you don't know if I have so that's really not for you to judge. I stand behind my opinion. It's reality. I will say that weak is not the best term to describe it. It's highly complex and complicated. Anyone who has fought off or lived with a disease is a not a weak person. That takes a lot of strength, both mental and physical. Genetics plays a huge part and none of us get to choose the hand we're dealt at birth. I would assume every one of us has someone, or multiple someone's, who suffer from a disease of some shape or form. I would never wish it on anyone, but throwing vaccines at every single sickness we could get is not a solution in my eyes. I think some vaccines are more necessary than others, but do not think any of them should ever be required.

We have done a lot in the last 20 - 30 years to find ways to push limits in food production, disease control and life expectancy, but it's not all good. I'm with Brian, there's a lot more here to think about when it comes to the long term.

HughFreakingDillon

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tbergs said:

mookieblalock said:

tbergs said:

Thoughts_Arrive said:

Stupid antivaxxers. 

How many billios of people live on the planet again? It'll all be ok. It's a great chance for pharma to push people to get even more vaccinations, even if you aren't at risk. :money:

This guy isn’t interested in a cure for cancer. If you’re meant to die, you will die.

A lot of truth to that, but at least the in-between is mine We all have options and will decide what to do with them. Each plays the part on both the world and the human race's existence. 

pretty safe bet your opinion would change if you had a loved one you call "weak". 

getting a disease is not a "weakness". my daughter was stronger at 6 years old than most grown men. no bullshit. 

Pretty sure you don't know if I have so that's really not for you to judge. I stand behind my opinion. It's reality. I will say that weak is not the best term to describe it. It's highly complex and complicated. Anyone who has fought off or lived with a disease is a not a weak person. That takes a lot of strength, both mental and physical. Genetics plays a huge part and none of us get to choose the hand we're dealt at birth. I would assume every one of us has someone, or multiple someone's, who suffer from a disease of some shape or form. I would never wish it on anyone, but throwing vaccines at every single sickness we could get is not a solution in my eyes. I think some vaccines are more necessary than others, but do not think any of them should ever be required.

We have done a lot in the last 20 - 30 years to find ways to push limits in food production, disease control and life expectancy, but it's not all good. I'm with Brian, there's a lot more here to think about when it comes to the long term.

you're right, I don't know for sure. that's why i said it was a pretty safe bet. 

so eradicating diseases is bad? I understand the issues with overpopulation and the "bubble" loads of people live in with regards to constant hand washing and staying inside and telling their kids to get out of the mud and sanitizing the fuck out of everything, but that's just to avoid every day sicknesses that likely will not kill you anyway. 

I think overpopulation is the issue. people need to stop having 7 kids. they only did that in the old days so they had working hands in the fields (and no birth control existed). there's no need for that today. I had two. Maybe I am contributing to the problem. I don't know. 

I don't know the answer. But letting people die needlessly is an incredibly callous way to go about it. 

Go Beavers

Annafalk said:

If we think of ourselves as just another mammal like any other. All sorts of animals normally strive for maximal reproduction. It’s just that humans haven’t reached it’s peak yet. Even if we are capable of understanding that our world can’t keep feeding us much longer we won’t stop reproducing until something stops us.

What slows us is how expensive it is to have kids in a modernized country with a high standard of living. 

oftenreading

Go Beavers said:

Annafalk said:

If we think of ourselves as just another mammal like any other. All sorts of animals normally strive for maximal reproduction. It’s just that humans haven’t reached it’s peak yet. Even if we are capable of understanding that our world can’t keep feeding us much longer we won’t stop reproducing until something stops us.

What slows us is how expensive it is to have kids in a modernized country with a high standard of living. 

That might slow some individual families, but overall, whenever a country becomes "modernized" with a higher standard of living the birth rates drop, even where cost of living is not really high. Birth rates naturally drop when infant and child survival improves and where woman have at least some access to education.

brianlux

oftenreading said:

Go Beavers said:

Annafalk said:

If we think of ourselves as just another mammal like any other. All sorts of animals normally strive for maximal reproduction. It’s just that humans haven’t reached it’s peak yet. Even if we are capable of understanding that our world can’t keep feeding us much longer we won’t stop reproducing until something stops us.

What slows us is how expensive it is to have kids in a modernized country with a high standard of living. 

That might slow some individual families, but overall, whenever a country becomes "modernized" with a higher standard of living the birth rates drop, even where cost of living is not really high. Birth rates naturally drop when infant and child survival improves and where woman have at least some access to education.

Yes, education really makes a difference that way!