6 ms·

A big part of our social circle consists of recent immigrants from Korea (< 10 years) - my wife included (I've been here 30+ years). But it does seem to affect

A big part of our social circle consists of recent immigrants from Korea (< 10 years) - my wife included (I've been here 30+ years). But it does seem to affect Korean-Americans that have been here longer too. Even amongst our close family, my cousin is affected, two of her cousins are affected. All three were born and raised in Korea to adulthood and came here within the past 10 years. My cousin has an American (Caucasian) husband, her two cousins have born-in-the-USA Korean-American husbands. Interestingly enough, our friends of other nationalities don't seem to be as affected - or maybe they just don't talk about this subject as openly? Either way, I have not noticed the twins phenomenon there.

lettergram 4y ago
To be honest, this sounds environmental in nature… I wouldn’t be surprised if this is intentional. That said, all I have is the constant drum of “the world is over populated” by leaders around the world to back up my reasoning for potentially being intentional. Plenty of non-intentional possibilities as well.
- Thorrez 4y ago
  What do you mean intentional? If people are intentionally trying to limit births, why would that lead to a large amount of fertility procedures?
  - lettergram 4y ago
    > If people are intentionally trying to limit births, why would that lead to a large amount of fertility procedures? Those fertility procedures are not the desired way to go about having a baby. The vast majority of the time it's a procedure of last resort (i.e. can't get pregnant another way). These procedures are expensive and often don't work. It could be intentional that a government, organization or pharmaceutical / chemical company is knowingly sterilizing / making it more difficult to conceive. This could either be through a willingness to look the other way (i.e. a side effect) or intentional (North Korea for instance may do some sabotage or government is intentionally pushing population reduction) For instance, the US government gives funding to Planned Parenthood which provides birth control, abortions, and other drugs to support people looking to not have children. This organization advertises and gives a lot of birth control out for free or low fees. That's an overt intentional act of reducing population growth. Similarly, a concern I have is purposefully downplaying the risks of long-term birth control via "the pill". Then having policies that make that pill easy to acquire (without being knowledgeable of said side effects) AND with the ability for minors to obtain them without parental awareness. Those are intentional policies intended to reduces fertility.
    - tcj_phx 4y ago
      > Similarly, a concern I have is purposefully downplaying the risks of long-term birth control via "the pill". Depo-provera - the monthly injection of medroxyprogesterone - was temporally associated with my friend's first psychotic break. Medroxyprogesterone causes cortisol deficiency; psychosis is associated with an inability to produce cortisol... "The pill" uses fake hormones to shut down ovulation. But the doctors are trained to tell women their hormonal cycles are being 'regulated' with 'hormones, so that's what women get told. Tragic.
      - collegeburner 4y ago
        a bunch of girls i know had their depression massively improve after getting off it as well and their sex drives really improved. women are really complicated hormonally and messing with their hormomes is dangerous. tbh i think a consequence of mostly men designing the pill is that people didn't really realize that.
    - mavhc 4y ago
      But allowing people to decide when to have children via birth control doesn't reduce the population, it just means the children have better lives as their parents can afford them and don't need to rely on welfare.
      - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
        It does the first, with the potential of the second.
        mavhc 4y ago
        The only reason to want population growth is to have more people to pay taxes, if they're unwanted unaffordable children they're not going to be paying more taxes than they cost the state in benefits.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      > It could be intentional that a government, organization or pharmaceutical / chemical company is knowingly sterilizing / making it more difficult to conceive. This could either be through a willingness to look the other way (i.e. a side effect) or intentional (North Korea for instance may do some sabotage or government is intentionally pushing population reduction) For others reading, remember that no evidence is being provided for this hypothesis. > For instance, the US government gives funding to Planned Parenthood which provides birth control, abortions, and other drugs to support people looking to not have children. This organization advertises and gives a lot of birth control out for free or low fees. That's an overt intentional act of reducing population growth. You've provided no basis for this claim that Planned Parenthood provides birth control, abortions, or other drugs as part of a US program to intentionally reduce population growth.
- jdkoeck 4y ago
  > That said, all I have is the constant drum of “the world is over populated” by leaders around the world to back up my reasoning for potentially being intentional. You might want to consult with a professional, that’s paranoid thinking.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    You do know the US government and governments around the world have straight sterilized women before; without their knowledge? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_Amer... I’m not even saying that nefarious. Have you heard of planned parenthood? The government gives them money to aid in reducing fertility. Particularly in populations that would find children “burdensome”. It’s not a stretch to consider the idea the government, organization or company might knowingly hide side effects of something detrimental. Alternative the government could say, urge it’s medical staff to hand out “the pill”. Schools already urge students to use condoms and give them out in some cases. Just as an example: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-school-district-oks-teachers-giving-condoms-to-students-as-young-as-sixth-graders/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-school-district-oks-teac... You’d have to be a different kind of crazy to think it’s not possible lol
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - jasonfarnon 4y ago
    A quick google search leads me to an NYT article: "In the last several days, the British government’s environmental adviser declared it “irresponsible” to have more than two children. And Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, asserted that including contraception in the stimulus package could reduce government spending." If China wanted to reduce population in 2022, would it announce a mandatory one-child-policy? Or would it use any number of other more subtle techniques to reduce fertility? So OPs remark doesn't sound very paranoid to me. It sounds unjustified--I can think of a million innocent reasons fertility is decreasing.

lettergram 4y ago

To be honest, this sounds environmental in nature… I wouldn’t be surprised if this is intentional. That said, all I have is the constant drum of “the world is over populated” by leaders around the world to back up my reasoning for potentially being intentional. Plenty of non-intentional possibilities as well.

Thorrez 4y ago
What do you mean intentional? If people are intentionally trying to limit births, why would that lead to a large amount of fertility procedures?
- lettergram 4y ago
  > If people are intentionally trying to limit births, why would that lead to a large amount of fertility procedures? Those fertility procedures are not the desired way to go about having a baby. The vast majority of the time it's a procedure of last resort (i.e. can't get pregnant another way). These procedures are expensive and often don't work. It could be intentional that a government, organization or pharmaceutical / chemical company is knowingly sterilizing / making it more difficult to conceive. This could either be through a willingness to look the other way (i.e. a side effect) or intentional (North Korea for instance may do some sabotage or government is intentionally pushing population reduction) For instance, the US government gives funding to Planned Parenthood which provides birth control, abortions, and other drugs to support people looking to not have children. This organization advertises and gives a lot of birth control out for free or low fees. That's an overt intentional act of reducing population growth. Similarly, a concern I have is purposefully downplaying the risks of long-term birth control via "the pill". Then having policies that make that pill easy to acquire (without being knowledgeable of said side effects) AND with the ability for minors to obtain them without parental awareness. Those are intentional policies intended to reduces fertility.
  - tcj_phx 4y ago
    > Similarly, a concern I have is purposefully downplaying the risks of long-term birth control via "the pill". Depo-provera - the monthly injection of medroxyprogesterone - was temporally associated with my friend's first psychotic break. Medroxyprogesterone causes cortisol deficiency; psychosis is associated with an inability to produce cortisol... "The pill" uses fake hormones to shut down ovulation. But the doctors are trained to tell women their hormonal cycles are being 'regulated' with 'hormones, so that's what women get told. Tragic.
    - collegeburner 4y ago
      a bunch of girls i know had their depression massively improve after getting off it as well and their sex drives really improved. women are really complicated hormonally and messing with their hormomes is dangerous. tbh i think a consequence of mostly men designing the pill is that people didn't really realize that.
  - mavhc 4y ago
    But allowing people to decide when to have children via birth control doesn't reduce the population, it just means the children have better lives as their parents can afford them and don't need to rely on welfare.
    - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
      It does the first, with the potential of the second.
      - mavhc 4y ago
        The only reason to want population growth is to have more people to pay taxes, if they're unwanted unaffordable children they're not going to be paying more taxes than they cost the state in benefits.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    > It could be intentional that a government, organization or pharmaceutical / chemical company is knowingly sterilizing / making it more difficult to conceive. This could either be through a willingness to look the other way (i.e. a side effect) or intentional (North Korea for instance may do some sabotage or government is intentionally pushing population reduction) For others reading, remember that no evidence is being provided for this hypothesis. > For instance, the US government gives funding to Planned Parenthood which provides birth control, abortions, and other drugs to support people looking to not have children. This organization advertises and gives a lot of birth control out for free or low fees. That's an overt intentional act of reducing population growth. You've provided no basis for this claim that Planned Parenthood provides birth control, abortions, or other drugs as part of a US program to intentionally reduce population growth.
jdkoeck 4y ago
> That said, all I have is the constant drum of “the world is over populated” by leaders around the world to back up my reasoning for potentially being intentional. You might want to consult with a professional, that’s paranoid thinking.
- lettergram 4y ago
  You do know the US government and governments around the world have straight sterilized women before; without their knowledge? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_Amer... I’m not even saying that nefarious. Have you heard of planned parenthood? The government gives them money to aid in reducing fertility. Particularly in populations that would find children “burdensome”. It’s not a stretch to consider the idea the government, organization or company might knowingly hide side effects of something detrimental. Alternative the government could say, urge it’s medical staff to hand out “the pill”. Schools already urge students to use condoms and give them out in some cases. Just as an example: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-school-district-oks-teachers-giving-condoms-to-students-as-young-as-sixth-graders/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-school-district-oks-teac... You’d have to be a different kind of crazy to think it’s not possible lol
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- jasonfarnon 4y ago
  A quick google search leads me to an NYT article: "In the last several days, the British government’s environmental adviser declared it “irresponsible” to have more than two children. And Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, asserted that including contraception in the stimulus package could reduce government spending." If China wanted to reduce population in 2022, would it announce a mandatory one-child-policy? Or would it use any number of other more subtle techniques to reduce fertility? So OPs remark doesn't sound very paranoid to me. It sounds unjustified--I can think of a million innocent reasons fertility is decreasing.