5 ms·
Male birth control breakthrough safely switches off fit sperm for a while
- CarRamrod 2y ago[flagged]
- marziply 2y agoWhy 'no'? Care to elaborate or did you just want to throw your baseless opinion out into the wild?
- CarRamrod 2y agoHey so basically I'm just not gonna take it (the male birth control pill)... I know... UGH I know... It's just that I'm not gonna take it is all HAHAHAHAHRHAHAHA HARAHARHARH
- 000ooo000 2y agoIn mice.. >Of course, it remains to be seen if this target molecule could have the same impact on human sperm.
- bruce343434 2y agoThere should be a requirement to add (mice) to the HN title when it concerns research on mice, just like the (year) annotations on old materials.
- A_D_E_P_T 2y agoTFR is already way below replacement all over the world. In some countries (e.g. Chile, S.Korea,) it's under 1.0. In others (e.g. Germany, Italy,) TFR has been consistently sub-replacement for over 50 years. This should give us all pause. The very last thing the world needs is another way to reduce fertility. This invention is worse than that "powdered alcohol" thing from a few years ago. If anything, given declining sperm fitness in men worldwide, governments ought to consider finding the reverse of this molecule -- a STK33 activator -- and adding it to the water supply.
- tecleandor 2y agoThis is for people who do NOT want to have children. Are you suggesting to force people into having children?
- keiferski 2y agoThis is a viewpoint that always comes up in these discussions, and I find it to be one entirely lacking in nuance. Society is not comprised of entirely free individuals that evaluate every decision rationally and carefully before making any action. It is full of powerful forces (corporate, religious, ideological, political, etc.) that seek to influence people and push them toward one thing or another - or merely to make everything more chaotic. This state of affairs has gotten even more complicated in the last ~half century, where we now have billion dollar corporations entirely focused on influencing your behavior. It’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that society could be more conducive to having children, promote ideas that encourage having children, not fund things that discourage having children, and so forth - without that somehow being equivalent to “forcing people to have children.”
- bruce343434 2y ago> without that somehow being equivalent to “forcing people to have children.” Are we reading the same comment chain? Quoting GP: > governments ought to consider finding the reverse of this molecule -- a STK33 activator -- and adding it to the water supply.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- nkrisc 2y agoYou want people to have more children? Pay for child care and make wages (single income households) keep up with costs.
- lambdaxyzw 2y agoI don't agree with the GP at all, but I think it was pretty much established that money is not the primary reason people have less children. Perhaps obvious example, in general it's the rich countries that have problems with replacement rate and the poor countries pick up the slack (and not the other way around). For a more direct example, the populist government in my country started giving out money, no strings attached, to people with children, and the fertility didn't change at all (even declined a bit). So I think it's pretty clear we need other solution if we want to fix that.
- rusk 2y ago“It’s okay baby my fit sperm are switched off for a while”
- znpy 2y agoNgl this will likely bring parity in reproductive freedom across next generations.
- gedy 2y agoAt the rate we are going the next generations won't be the one who care about reproductive freedom
- EnigmaFlare 2y agoDo you mean they might vote for forced reproduction to combat collapsing birthrates?
- gedy 2y agoNo, there'll be no need to force if people who prioritize low fertility are gone in a few generations. Those left will be ones who don't.
- techjamie 2y agoHow many generations is "a few?" Contraceptives have been used for thousands of years, and people still want to do the boogie without the baby. The Romans literally picked a plant to extinction that was, reportedly, a very effective contraceptive that would allow reproduction once it was stopped. Ancient Egyptians had a mix that utilized crocodile dung because croc dung has spermicide qualities. I don't want to know how they figured that out.
- gedy 2y agoMy comment is not saying "contraceptives = bad", just commenting on the irony of OP saying "next generations" having even more reproductive freedom when many countries are below replacement levels of fertility even before new techniques like male contraceptives. To your point, he effectiveness of modern contraceptives is far beyond croc dung and the peoples who used them in past had much higher fertility levels than modern users.
- hnpolicestate 2y agoA solution with unknown risks for a problem effectively solved by condoms.
- marziply 2y agoIs that a problem? Condoms are not a perfect solution.
- elric 2y agoThat's a bit of a hot take ... in the same vein it's also solved by abstinence, but that's hogwash for much the same reason as your statement. Not only do condoms have a negative effect on pleasure, they also require more planning, and even with proper use (which in itself is less easy than it sounds), they can still fail (they can tear, or come off at inoppprtune moments).
- onetoo 2y agoBy that logic, female birth control pills also have no value.
- rusk 2y agoFemale as substantial bearer of risk, is in control
- generic92034 2y agoAnd that is the reason male birth control most likely will never replace the other variants. Which woman wants to rely on the man taking care of birth control?
- lambdaxyzw 2y agoOne that trusts her partner? What kind of question is this. I can't imagine my long term partner, now fiancee, wouldn't trust me with something so important to us both. Why even be in a relationship at this point.
- 2y ago
- reify 2y agoSwitch off sperm for a while? I cant see any men falling for that nonsense. What happens if it doesn't switch back on again? How many times can you switch them off? Do you switch them off before sex and switch them back on after sex? Men's sperm count and quality have declined over the years and is still in decline. Do we need to risk our precious sperm any further. Don't mess with nature! We have sperm for a reason.
- lukan 2y ago"Don't mess with nature! We have sperm for a reason." Yeah, to make babies, babies, babies. But not everyone wants that every time.
- DeathArrow 2y agoFemale birth control is much more efficient. One male birth control and 100 females not under birth control has 100 more pregnancy risk than 100 males and one female not under birth control.
- elric 2y agoIt's nice to have the option to do both. Hormonal contraceptives aren't 100% reliable. Having a bout of diarrhea can render them ineffective. It's easy to miss a pill.
- thefz 2y agoI am sorry, what?
- panda-giddiness 2y agoThat logic doesn't make any sense unless you assume there are 100 men to every woman on earth, or alternatively, that women have 100 times more sexual partners than men. Evidence suggests otherwise. Or put another way: you're comparing one group where 1/200 is on birth control to another group where 99/200 is on birth control. Obviously the group that has almost 100 times more people on birth control is more "efficient". That has nothing to do with sex. But to address the issue of efficiency, I would expect male birth control is more "efficient", as women can only carry a few children at a time while men can theoretically impregnate dozens or even hundreds of women in the same period. But I find the quibbling over efficiency to be missing the point. Male contraception offers peace of mind to some. It has nothing to do with efficiency.
- tzs 2y ago> That logic doesn't make any sense unless you assume there are 100 men to every woman on earth, or alternatively, that women have 100 times more sexual partners than men. Evidence suggests otherwise. Even if men and women have the same number of sexual partners female birth control will be more efficient if that number is more than one. Consider a hypothetical group of 1000 men and 1000 women that consists of 500 monogamous couples, using no birth control and frequently having sex. If you randomly pick half the men and give them male birth control or randomly pick half the women and give them female birth control then you'll but the number of births approximately in half. For that group then male and female birth control are equally efficient. Consider a similar group, 1000 men and 1000 women, but without monogamous couples. Each person has a dozen partners they regularly have sex with. In that group giving 500 women birth control will cut the number of births in half. Giving 500 men birth control will lower the number of births some but not much. For that group female birth control is more efficient.
- mrweasel 2y agoFor couples I can see this being useful, for random hookups I would not assume that a woman would trust a dude telling her that "he's on the pill". I can't see a woman giving up control of pregnancies to a man she only just meet. Then there's also the lack of protection against STDs, which would still make a condom the preferred solution. For couples it could be a really good alternative. Birth control isn't without risks for women and way to many stay on them despite obvious heath issues. If this new solution where then man takes the birth control is better in terms of health risks is yet to be seen, but it would allow couple to share the burden/risk.
- zajio1am 2y ago> I would not assume that a woman would trust a dude telling her that "he's on the pill". I can't see a woman giving up control of pregnancies to a man she only just meet. Well, neither i would trust the woman i just met telling me that 'she is on the pill'. It is better if both sides have independent way to avoid unwanted parenthood. > Then there's also the lack of protection against STDs, which would still make a condom the preferred solution. Which is unreliable as the only birth control. People depending on condom often rush for levonorgestrel after condom failure. So IMHO a preferred solution is both sides on pills and condom just for STD protection.
- iteria 2y agoIt's good protection for men from female birth control failure, condom failure, and so on. I don't think the intention is that now that men have birth control, women would stop using theirs, but that men could feel secure that they have the same kind of reproductive control that women have.
- davidguetta 2y agoThese are the EXACT same arguments that for the female pill. Not to say its bad but its true
- readthenotes1 2y agoThe female pill is 93% effective (as used). A male pill will still help prevent unwanted pregnancy
- dr_dshiv 2y agoA reversible vasectomy would be real cool. I want to get one but I’ve heard some stories…
- sambazi 2y agoi supposed it is relatively straight forward to extract directly from the testicles and go with in-vitro fertilization and implantation for planned parenthood
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y agoThere are a whole bunch of stories about people with permanent pain after a vasectomy, that's a lot more terrifying.
- AlexErrant 2y agoI consulted on some tech for this company https://www.thereversalclinic.com/ https://www.thereversalclinic.com/ I'm not in medicine and can't speak to how effective it is, but I'm guessing there's a reason why he's still in business.
- thefz 2y agoSo much ignorance in this discussion. Lots of misogyny, catholic "quiver full" arguments and overall obtuse comments. I hoped for the crowd in here to be more open minded.
- delichon 2y agoI am a nutcase on personal freedom and would never vote for limitations on reproductive rights. But this may be a case where my ideology is in conflict with the thriving of our species. A big fraction of our nosedive in fertility is due to reproductive control. Accidental births are more feature than bug for those of us who believe that human action is a net positive and that improved living standards and economic growth are good. I don't really know how to reconcile this with support for individual rights. Except where authoritarianism is even worse, and I'm not sure that's a given.
- shrimp_emoji 2y agoWe'll still be fine for a century or two, and then we'll figure out how to grow ready-made, superhuman, sexless adults in pods, which is the new meta anyway. Our biology is reaching EOL.