3 ms·
I did not see any conspiracy theories in the article. I saw a reasonable explanation of the incentives involved, and why those incentives resulted in no new opt
by scott_s 11y ago
I did not see any conspiracy theories in the article. I saw a reasonable explanation of the incentives involved, and why those incentives resulted in no new option for male birth control.
There is a scientific barrier, but I think the article provides good evidence that it wasn't until the past two decades that some of the fundamental research related to that has been done. That is, because of the above-mentioned incentives, no one bothered doing some of the basic science necessary.
- XorNot 11y agoExcept the basic science still hasn't found what needs to be done. Broadly it's kind of obvious: we either need a truly reversible vasectomy (not possible due to immunological reasons), a method to inactivate sperm production, or a method to inactivate sperm. There are massive biological science barriers to implementing either of those two options - we essentially got really lucky with the female hormone pill that it works at all. It's a blunt, simple instrument that luckily works really well. That's not at all true for men - it will take new advances in technology before we identify any suitable targets.
- pixl97 11y ago>we essentially got really lucky with the female hormone pill that it works at all. Not quite as lucky as you think. The female reproductive system runs in cycles and is in many different states at different times. We happened to figure out how to use the switches that nature already has. Men, on the other hand, have one state. On, all the time, from puberty till death.