Hacker News Reader

Comment by chaostheory | Hacker News Reader

The only thing they left out in the article is what the effect of pollutants like BPA have on the birthrate. Currently, BPA, an artificial estrogen, is nearly everywhere from food, receipts, and now even clothing. PFAS, BPS, and a host of other pollutants are almost as widespread in many countries that experienced any decent amount of industrialization

View on HN

Is there some evidence that these chemicals are more present in countries with lower birthrates?

Plastic, plastic byproducts, etc. are some of the cheapest and most readily available materials in the world, including in developing countries. The much stronger predictor here seems to be HDI and industrial maturity.

Nearly country in the world is now affected by low birthrates. Most developing countries aren’t spared by lower trending birthrates. The exceptions lie in Central Africa. The prevalence of these hormone disrupters aren’t limited to developed countries.

> Most developing countries aren’t spared by lower trending birthrates

Most developing countries are developing. The countries that are developing more slowly (or are somewhat stagnant) are the ones that have the highest birthrates[1].

[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-vs-hum...

Yes, but even their birthrates are trending lower because they likely have the same pollutants if not more of them being exposed to their respective populaces. You have to look at trends and not just the current rates. It makes sense that they’re also affected, since developing countries do a large portion of manufacturing for developed countries

The age depopulation bomb is affecting everyone but Central Africa.

https://www.endocrine.org/topics/edc/what-edcs-are/common-ed...

This explanation may make sense if people were complaining about an inability to have kids despite wanting them. But physical infertility is not alleged here.

Those hormones could very well affect the desire to have kids too.

Our brains and hormones are poorly understood.

"We don't understand it" is the absence of an argument, not positive evidence that these chemicals make people not want to have children.

I agree that it's a frustrating counter argument since it is so vague and poorly understood but we really don't know a lot about how hormones effect decision making outside of a few very crude ones.

It is a mostly non-existent argument but it's still something that's important to consider.

If you must have a child hormones will have little to do with it. Reproduction can be made into a very routine robotic like activity, like going to the gym.

I'm not certain where this is really coming from. There are certainly ways to ignore people's consent and physically force pregnancy but this article is focused on whether people are choosing to have children or not. Would you mind clarifying your statement? It's very difficult to read what you're getting at.

Also, just technically speaking, we know there are hormones that absolutely can prevent you from being able to get pregnant - that's what the pill is.

True, but most developed nations have easy access to IVF and/or other conception medical services.

Another question might be...what % of couples can get pregnant without artificial means? And how is that changing over time?

For perspective there are estimates out there that IVF will be involved in 10% of pregnancies in the near future. Some of that is it getting better, cheaper, and more accessible obviously...but we are talking about something (pregnancy) that's technically "free".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8722744/#:~:tex....

Correct. South Korea's low birth rate is primarily out of personal choices, although likely impacted by high cost of living and weirdly kid-unfriendly cultural norms.

It affects physical fertility

https://www.endocrine.org/topics/edc/what-edcs-are/common-ed...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com