population decline

[YGIFS 19,450]

Which may be slightly, just narrowly, related to opiate addiction which itself is a result of Pharma abuse, shitty overwatch, lack of addiction services (everybody who uses drugs is a thug who gets what's coming to them in the prison population, amirite?), and again-lack of pre-emptive healthcare to address issues before they spiral out of control.  I don't think 50,000 Americans just jumped outta bed in January of 2021 and thought, "Hey, new drugs pouring from down South...let's go get 'em before they run out!"  and then died.  I think it's like a spiral effect.  Again, like so many other preventable deaths in this country, we just can't ever know what could possibly be causing them.  We don't have decades and hundreds of thousands of case studies to review.  There's just no way to know what the rest of the world has grasped for a long, long while.

[CHIEF 5,087]

7 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Which may be slightly, just narrowly, related to opiate addiction which itself is a result of Pharma abuse, shitty overwatch, lack of addiction services (everybody who uses drugs is a thug who gets what's coming to them in the prison population, amirite?), and again-lack of pre-emptive healthcare to address issues before they spiral out of control.  I don't think 50,000 Americans just jumped outta bed in January of 2021 and thought, "Hey, new drugs pouring from down South...let's go get 'em before they run out!"  and then died.  I think it's like a spiral effect.  Again, like so many other preventable deaths in this country, we just can't ever know what could possibly be causing them.  We don't have decades and hundreds of thousands of case studies to review.  There's just no way to know what the rest of the world has grasped for a long, long while.

I have a buddy that is a Merck rep, in Austin. We lived by each other in the early 2000s. He was the biggest Vioxx rep in Austin, and always had samples. Vioxx was recalled (biggest recall ever, highest monetary fine ever) around 2005. It was deemed as the cause of a few heart attacks, thus, the human cost was considered to outweigh the benefits. What did the FDA and doctors go back to prescribing? Opiates. Back to the highly addictive prescriptions that Vioxx and other nsaids were designed to replace.

Vioxx was a wonder drug, non-addictive, non-hallucinogenic, just felt normal with no pain. I don't think there was any pain that a 50mg Vioxx couldn't overcome. I swear you could have an arm blown off, take a Vioxx, and go to work the next day. The FDA, in my opinion, really fucked up. The opiate addiction, in this country, will end up killing many 1000x over of people that would have died from heart attacks from nsaids like Vioxx.

https://www.medicalerroraustralia.com/medical-disasters/10-worst-drug-recalls-in-history/

CHIEF

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

 

[CooterBrown 18,012]

[AUS-97HORN 11,762]

call me nuts... but if you want women to have more kids Mr ILL'in you might want to, you know, feed them

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/30/upshot/2023-year-in-review.html

 

Quote

 

Based on data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, this chart shows the fertility rates of all 38 O.E.C.D. countries — a common shorthand for the developed world. Just a glance showed that every country except Israel had fallen below the ratio of 2.1 children born for every woman, what’s called the “replacement rate.” The chart also showed that no one had really bounced back.

The reason we were looking at this? China announced in January that its population was beginning to shrink. The question we set out to explore was whether there was anything China could do about declining fertility rates, and if any other countries had successfully reversed the trend.

Some developed nations did manage to push their rates up for a little while — like Sweden, as we ended up writing about. But targeted efforts had only modest effects. Once you cross the threshold, there seems to be no going back. —Francesca Paris

 

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

1 minute ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/30/upshot/2023-year-in-review.html

 

 

Women enjoy having a life that isn't just being a mom and pumping out kids. Who knew?

[LTbear 4,169]

On 3/8/2023 at 5:07 PM, Wulaw Horn said:

All that same shit was written by Malthus about if the earths population ever hit a billion or two man. Nothing new under the sun. Beside, as I’ve said many times, we’ve hit peak population or will shortly in our lifetimes so no worries dude. 

And more species are going extinct now than at any other time in earth history that wasn't a mass extinction event 

That we have innovated doesn't making carrying capacity magically go away, it simply pushes it upward. The concept is rock solid, in every species ever studied, from bacteria on up. Yes, it's great that our own innovations have allowed us to get more out of less. No, it doesn't mean the earth could sustain 50 billion of us. And it absolutely doesn't mean the earth could sustain that many with enough room left over for anything else. These are not hard concepts yet you seem to believe technology is some sort of fucking magic. 

[Denton Cooley 25]

 

another area that needs to be investigated. Why are younger people getting more cancer? Has to be some kind of environmental insult. 

[Neonmoon 38,129]

5 minutes ago, Denton Cooley said:

 

another area that needs to be investigated. Why are younger people getting more cancer? Has to be some kind of environmental insult. 

It’s probably a little more complicated than that 

 

[YGIFS 19,450]

First of all "Environmental Insult" is a great band name.  

Second-cancer is ticking back up because of the shit in our air, food, and water.  

Third-forced procreation is the only solution.

Or scratch all three, the Earth is thinning our herd whether we like it or not.  She's always done this for billions of years despite whatever bullshit we wanna cling to.  She's fucking had it and I don't blame her. 

[WBT 20,572]

24 minutes ago, Denton Cooley said:

another area that needs to be investigated. Why are younger people getting more cancer? Has to be some kind of environmental insult. 

obesity

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

Spitballing, but having food desserts for fresh vegetables, fruits, and non-processed consumables doesn't help. The pushback against health reforms by certain lobby groups may also be less than ideal. Access to regular monitoring of health through well-checks, etc is important. As  noted above, environmental impacts from air, water, sun exposure, etc may have effects. So many variables. One positive from that data was the cervical cancer rates in females is dropping, and it seems to be due to the HPV vaccine as it is carried forward into the older age groups each year. The data showed that as of 2022, 76% of teens had received at least one dose and 63% were up-to-date. But overall, Americans could stand to eat healthier and have access to clean water and regular medical care.

Another item that the ACS data discusses is that Texas, with a higher number of uninsured population (17%) has a higher mortality rate and lower life expectancy as compared to states (Massachusetts for example at 2%) with lower numbers of uninsured. To compare states of similar population numbers, California has a mortality rate of 156.3 while Texas has 172. Florida, home of the retirees and sun worshipers has a mortality rate of 165.3, essentially between them. (Those numbers were for males btw).

Edited January 19 by Mrs Whiggins

[Incredulity 11,671]

15% of those cancers, the largest singularly defined type, prostate cancer.  
 

[tx 3 putt 76,958]

Earlier and better screening 

[KYHorn 17,058]

On 12/30/2023 at 3:20 PM, Schulz2.0 said:

Women enjoy having a life that isn't just being a mom and pumping out kids. Who knew?

There's some of that for sure, but women report wanting far more children than they actually have. To me, that indicates there is room for policies to make childbearing and raising children easier. Of course there are many other factors involved, including the difficulty of finding marriageable men and fathers. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

food desserts

All desserts are food desserts. 

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

1 hour ago, KYHorn said:

There's some of that for sure, but women report wanting far more children than they actually have. To me, that indicates there is room for policies to make childbearing and raising children easier. Of course there are many other factors involved, including the difficulty of finding marriageable men and fathers. 

Plenty of industrialized countries have tried various schemes to raise birth rates. They've all underperformed. A lot of young women don't want any children. Some want 1 or 2.  Very few actually want more than that. Kids are expensive as shit and a big time sink.

[HookEm 2,467]

Let's be honest, children are a beating. They are a blessing. But my goodness they are also a beating.  \Father of 3 teenagers

[bschoolprof 6,254]

5 hours ago, Denton Cooley said:

 

You mean states with higher populations will have more new cancer cases????

[MissingInAction 25,076]

It amazes me how many people still smoke cigarettes these days.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,199]

10 hours ago, YGIFS said:

First of all "Environmental Insult" is a great band name.  

Second-cancer is ticking back up because of the shit in our air, food, and water.  

Third-forced procreation is the only solution.

Or scratch all three, the Earth is thinning our herd whether we like it or not.  She's always done this for billions of years despite whatever bullshit we wanna cling to.  She's fucking had it and I don't blame her. 

Agree.  I  view the population decline as a correction more than a problem

[Neonmoon 38,129]

5 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

It amazes me how many people still smoke cigarettes these days.

Asians love smoking 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,512]

10 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Earlier and better screening 

Agree but earlier and better screening isn’t going to lower the cancer rate. It should lead to better outcomes.

[956 Worldwide 34,715]

6 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

It amazes me how many people still smoke cigarettes these days.

It is going to be “interesting” to see the long term effects of vaping and the societal shift on weed smoking (formerly done socially/in private) becoming a thing people do basically all the time, everywhere. 

[Parliament 14,260]

And the legalization of marijuana.  Spliffs are all unfiltered.

[locodos 5,387]

How about the lack of enforcement on emission controls on cars/trucks.  We really need inspection and enforcement nation wide.  

[Boss Hogg 808]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It is going to be “interesting” to see the long term effects of vaping and the societal shift on weed smoking (formerly done socially/in private) becoming a thing people do basically all the time, everywhere. 

 Cancer? Meh. 
 

The effects of widespread, regular THC consumption on mental health? That’s an experiment we seem intent on running. 
 

And full disclosure I’m an occasional (once/week) smoker. 

[956 Worldwide 34,715]

Just now, Boss Hogg said:

 Cancer? Meh. 
 

The effects of widespread, regular THC consumption on mental health? That’s an experiment we seem intent on running. 
 

And full disclosure I’m an occasional (once/week) smoker. 

Yeah, that’s one I wonder about too. I fully support legalization/decriminalization. 
 

But I think we need a pretty big stigmatization campaign like we did with cigarettes and public drunkenness. Getting baked all the time in public is not conducive to social cohesion and probably will have a lot of negative effects on the individual level. 
 

You can responsibly partake in alcohol and cigarettes while still pushing for some social restraint around their use in public and we should be doing that with weed, too. 

[tx 3 putt 76,958]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Agree but earlier and better screening isn’t going to lower the cancer rate. It should lead to better outcomes.

that stat is discussing diagnosis 

id be curious to see the mortality rate 

[Incredulity 11,671]

59 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Yeah, that’s one I wonder about too. I fully support legalization/decriminalization. 
 

But I think we need a pretty big stigmatization campaign like we did with cigarettes and public drunkenness. Getting baked all the time in public is not conducive to social cohesion and probably will have a lot of negative effects on the individual level. 
 

You can responsibly partake in alcohol and cigarettes while still pushing for some social restraint around their use in public and we should be doing that with weed, too. 

agreed.

I always shook my head at the hardcore legalization advocates who would go absolutely berserk around any notion that marijuana was addictive.   Yeah, yeah anecdotal but I have personal experience with many individuals who are addicted to marijuana.  Maybe it doesn't meet some technical definition, but is sure as fuck meets the practical one. 

[HookEm 2,467]

I wonder if the rise in cancer is simply a result of people living longer.  A ton of men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough. Doesn't mean it will kill them though.

[Brisketexan 105,139]

Just now, HookEm said:

I wonder if the rise in cancer is simply a result of people living longer.  A ton of men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough. Doesn't mean it will kill them though.

I think the report was noting a rise in cancer rates among younger people.  My hypothesis is that it's a combination of 1) much, much better diagnostics (especially for slow-growing cancers that may not show symptoms for years, like prostate cancer) and 2) yes, more carcinogens being in and around our food, air, and water.

And yes, the OVERALL cancer rate of society is definitely influenced by longer life spans.  Live long enough, you'll get cancer.  When people were dying at age 45, cancer was a much smaller player in the "cause of death" arena.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,512]

I'm sure that our continued improvement in cancer mortality rates can lead to high cancer rates since being "cured" of cancer at 55 creates the scenario of some people to have a different cancer later in life. 

[Denton Cooley 25]

16 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

It’s probably a little more complicated than that 

 

Almost certainly. 
 

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I'm sure that our continued improvement in cancer mortality rates can lead to high cancer rates since being "cured" of cancer at 55 creates the scenario of some people to have a different cancer later in life. 

This could be part of the gross numbers, but the novel trend is more young people getting cancer. 
 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I think the report was noting a rise in cancer rates among younger people.  My hypothesis is that it's a combination of 1) much, much better diagnostics (especially for slow-growing cancers that may not show symptoms for years, like prostate cancer) and 2) yes, more carcinogens being in and around our food, air, and water.

And yes, the OVERALL cancer rate of society is definitely influenced by longer life spans.  Live long enough, you'll get cancer.  When people were dying at age 45, cancer was a much smaller player in the "cause of death" arena.

If you forced me to make some kind of total speculative guess I would say some food additives or even microplastics could be at play. It would also be wrong to totally dismiss one elephant in the room as a possible contributing factor. The immune system is your primary defense against cancer cells early on. 

[Brisketexan 105,139]

Just now, Denton Cooley said:

It would also be wrong to totally dismiss one elephant in the room as a possible contributing factor. The immune system is your primary defense against cancer cells early on. 

Is this where you want to go on a rant about the harm "the jab" causes to the immune system?

Because....think REALLY carefully before you do.  Because the cited survey demonstrates a rise in diagnosis rates that was ongoing WELL BEFORE the COVID vaccine was even invented.  In other words, the slope is strongly upwards for years up to 2020...and since then, it has just continued the previous trend.  There's no "spike" that would correlate with the entry of the COVID vaccine into the mix.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

13 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

All desserts are food desserts. 

Mea culpa on that one. I'm blaming the second martini.

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

that stat is discussing diagnosis 

id be curious to see the mortality rate 

The original tweet posted by Denton Cooley is from Axios and they just pulled a little bit of info. If you're interested in a much more detailed report, the stats I was using in my post came from here: https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21820 which is where the Axios article got their data as well. It's from the American Cancer Society. The will have mortality rates and more. It's where I was reading about the HPV vaccine and the lower cervical cancer rates among women of certain age groups. Cervical cancer is still a concern for women and is slightly higher in the older age groups (prior to vaccine availability)

 

In addition, one of the cancer types that was increasing among younger people (age <50) was colorectal cancer.

Edited January 19 by Mrs Whiggins

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Is this where you want to go on a rant about the harm "the jab" causes to the immune system?

Because....think REALLY carefully before you do.  Because the cited survey demonstrates a rise in diagnosis rates that was ongoing WELL BEFORE the COVID vaccine was even invented.  In other words, the slope is strongly upwards for years up to 2020...and since then, it has just continued the previous trend.  There's no "spike" that would correlate with the entry of the COVID vaccine into the mix.

Know what wasn't rising until 2020 but now is super high?  Kids being named Kobe.  So you can't act like the jab has had no downstream effects.

[wildcat09 29,354]

9 minutes ago, Denton Cooley said:

Almost certainly. 
 

This could be part of the gross numbers, but the novel trend is more young people getting cancer. 
 

If you forced me to make some kind of total speculative guess I would say some food additives or even microplastics could be at play. It would also be wrong to totally dismiss one elephant in the room as a possible contributing factor. The immune system is your primary defense against cancer cells early on. 

Oh yeah, a report showing an increase in certain cancers in younger people compared to 1995 obviously indicates that covid vaccines are giving people cancer. 

You fucking idiot.

[Macanudo 12,979]

3 hours ago, BeardIP said:

This.

Most high-income countries are struggling to keep birthrates up. France announced yesterday it would make parental leave better after its birthrate fell to the lowest since World War II. But reversing birthrate trends can cost governments a lot, even to achieve a minuscule change. It's very expensive for minimal results. Here is an article about Sweden's investments and minimal return: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/upshot/china-population-decline.html

(and this is topical because I was reading up about this because yesterday China announced it's population fell by 2.1 million to 1.4 billion last year, according to China’s National Bureau of Statistics. The fall was partially driven by a Covid surge that pushed the death rate up 6.6% to 11.1 million people last year, outpacing the birthrate, which dipped 5.7%, to 9.02 million.)

And these are the numbers China is admitting to.  It's probably far, far worse.

[956 Worldwide 34,715]

13 minutes ago, Denton Cooley said:

Almost certainly. 
 

This could be part of the gross numbers, but the novel trend is more young people getting cancer. 
 

If you forced me to make some kind of total speculative guess I would say some food additives or even microplastics could be at play. It would also be wrong to totally dismiss one elephant in the room as a possible contributing factor. The immune system is your primary defense against cancer cells early on. 

GTFO out of here with this incredibly stupid shit. 

[wildcat09 29,354]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Is this where you want to go on a rant about the harm "the jab" causes to the immune system?

Because....think REALLY carefully before you do.  Because the cited survey demonstrates a rise in diagnosis rates that was ongoing WELL BEFORE the COVID vaccine was even invented.  In other words, the slope is strongly upwards for years up to 2020...and since then, it has just continued the previous trend.  There's no "spike" that would correlate with the entry of the COVID vaccine into the mix.

Take a look at his posting history. It's literally 100% antivax bullshit. 

[956 Worldwide 34,715]

3 hours ago, BeardIP said:

This.

Most high-income countries are struggling to keep birthrates up. France announced yesterday it would make parental leave better after its birthrate fell to the lowest since World War II. But reversing birthrate trends can cost governments a lot, even to achieve a minuscule change. It's very expensive for minimal results. Here is an article about Sweden's investments and minimal return: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/upshot/china-population-decline.html

(and this is topical because I was reading up about this because yesterday China announced it's population fell by 2.1 million to 1.4 billion last year, according to China’s National Bureau of Statistics. The fall was partially driven by a Covid surge that pushed the death rate up 6.6% to 11.1 million people last year, outpacing the birthrate, which dipped 5.7%, to 9.02 million.)

Countries become high income in large part because the emancipate women to work outside of the home and have reproductive control; this will always lead to lower birth rates because women prefer not to always be pregnant. High income citizens also prefer to invest heavily in fewer children. 

[Newdoc 3,440]

Cancer rates and deaths from cancer prior to population procreation are a blip. And maybe a slightly bigger blip in life expectancy overall. We have gotten much better at keeping cancer patients alive for a lot longer.Our population (with the developing world catching up) is actively trying to kill itself. Obesity and premature death from related comorbidities. This too, may or may not affect population growth in young generations when speaking about "replacement."  However, our epigenetics and lifestyle could affect fertility rates significantly.

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

25 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Know what wasn't rising until 2020 but now is super high?  Kids being named Kobe.  So you can't act like the jab has had no downstream effects.

Now this!

[UTexasFight 9,450]

4 hours ago, Boss Hogg said:

 Cancer? Meh. 
 

The effects of widespread, regular THC consumption on mental health? That’s an experiment we seem intent on running. 
 

And full disclosure I’m an occasional (once/week) smoker. 

 Nothing at all to worry about

More Teens Who Use Marijuana Are Suffering From Psychosis

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/marijuana-depression-psychosis-869490d1#:~:text=Cannabis has become more potent,consumption of other illicit drugs.

[KYHorn 17,058]

16 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Now this!

Yeah that type of jabbing has definitely caused some issues.

[nbmishoid 949]

6 hours ago, Incredulity said:

agreed.

I always shook my head at the hardcore legalization advocates who would go absolutely berserk around any notion that marijuana was addictive.   Yeah, yeah anecdotal but I have personal experience with many individuals who are addicted to marijuana.  Maybe it doesn't meet some technical definition, but is sure as fuck meets the practical one. 

Yet the addictive effect is not deadly.  

[DixonHur 11,304]

7 hours ago, BeardIP said:

This.

Most high-income countries are struggling to keep birthrates up. France announced yesterday it would make parental leave better after its birthrate fell to the lowest since World War II. But reversing birthrate trends can cost governments a lot, even to achieve a minuscule change. It's very expensive for minimal results. Here is an article about Sweden's investments and minimal return: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/upshot/china-population-decline.html

(and this is topical because I was reading up about this because yesterday China announced it's population fell by 2.1 million to 1.4 billion last year, according to China’s National Bureau of Statistics. The fall was partially driven by a Covid surge that pushed the death rate up 6.6% to 11.1 million people last year, outpacing the birthrate, which dipped 5.7%, to 9.02 million.)

Curious.  Why does it matter that the population is shrinking.  Is it just because it fucks with consumerism?  

Personally, I think the world would be better off with fewer people.

[Incredulity 11,671]

42 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

Yet the addictive effect is not deadly.  

As nicotine or…?

nevermind I really don’t give a shit