SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
LaminatorX
on Friday February 21 2014, @03:00AM
from the totally-getting-snipped-for-my-birthday-this-year dept.
from the totally-getting-snipped-for-my-birthday-this-year dept.
robingHood writes:
"New Scientist Magazine reports on findings that suggest that delaying fatherhood may increase the risk of fathering children with disorders such as Apert syndrome, Autism and Schizophrenia. The article reports that 'although there is a big increase in risk for many disorders, it's a big increase in a very small risk. A 40-year-old is about 50 per cent more likely to father an autistic child than a 20-year-old is, for instance, but the overall risk is only about 1 per cent to start with.' In other words: time to start mating before those tadpoles turn into toads."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Delayed fatherhood linked to Schizophrenic kids
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 44 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Most of our lives are about proving something, either to ourselves or to
someone else.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday February 21 2014, @05:09AM
I see there is a lot of bitterness in your comment, which I'm just going to ignore. You should know that there are also men who don't want kids. I am intentionally childfree (as distinguished from "childless" -- a term that suggests lack). I always knew I didn't want to have kids and so I didn't. I got cured of my ability to cause infantile infestations in females 10 years ago, and it was probably one of the very best decisions I ever made.
As for extinction, we're growing our population exponentially -- if there is an extinction event for humans, I would bet it is much more likely to be caused by overbreeding rather than the few like me who choose to avoid the whole parenthood bit.
(Score: 4, Informative) by iNaya on Friday February 21 2014, @07:16AM
>> we're growing our population exponentially
That is no longer true. Population growth rates globally, and especially in Western countries have been dropping for years. In some countries, such as Japan, Russia, and Germany, it is negative.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Friday February 21 2014, @11:06AM
-1 misleading.
For every child that's not been born in Japan, Russia, and Germany, a dozen have been born in India, Indonesia, Nigeria, or even China[*]
Population growth rates globally have been dropping, indeed, but whilst that rate remains above zero, even by the tiniest fraction, we've *still got exponential growth*.
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. (google that)
[* That dozen figure is completely pulled from arse, it's probably enormously higher, probably three figures, I'm just playing it safe.]
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by iNaya on Friday February 21 2014, @11:13AM
Imagine this equation:
y = 2x
As x (time), increases, y (population) increases. In this function the growth rate of y is ALWAYS above zero and constantly decreasing. This is a linear function, not an exponential one.
(Score: 1) by FatPhil on Friday February 21 2014, @11:19AM
Nope, that growth rate tends to 0.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by FatPhil on Friday February 21 2014, @11:21AM
Oh, and did I mention that the greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday February 21 2014, @08:10PM
Oh, and did I mention that the greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.
Do you know of any other species that is better at it? Any other species that can do math at all?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday February 22 2014, @12:20PM
Out of the species that have developed birth control - all of them apart from the humans.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by iNaya on Friday February 21 2014, @11:24AM
You are correct. The growth rate tends towards zero.
It also always stays above zero. And it is also not exponential.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by FatPhil on Friday February 21 2014, @10:46AM
+1 for childfree. Or "childfree by choice" when talking to people unfamiliar with the concept that some of us have no interest in making little clones of ourselves. Fortunately the term seems to be gaining some traction, so it doesn't need the full description so often.
We have more money left at the end of the month, and *way* more time all the time, than our peers who have sprogged. Then again, we're now living in a nett-NPG country, and most of our peers are not breeding either. (The last country I lived in was breederific in comparison.)
Don't get the impression that I'm a baby-murderer who opens his car door to take out prams on the pavement as he drives down the road. I'd be willing to bet that the 2nd largest recipient of my charitable donations for the last few years have been a chain of childrens homes.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by Sir William on Friday February 21 2014, @08:04PM
If you don't want people who choose to have children to be disparaging to you for your child free choice, then you probably should choose a different term than breeder. Most find it offensive.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday February 22 2014, @12:02PM
Infinitive: breed;
Agent noun: breeder
Are you saying that breeding is offensive to them?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves