>Compared to our ancient ancestors, we are shorter, slower and we have been losing mental capacity for thousands of years. And just this week, a groundbreaking study that discovered that large numbers of human males in the western world may soon be incapable of reproducing made headlines all over the planet…
...
>Humans could become extinct if sperm counts in men from North America, Europe and Australia continue to fall at current rates, a doctor has warned.
>Researchers assessing the results of nearly 200 separate studies say sperm counts among men from these areas seem to have halved in less than 40 years.
...
>The 185 studies that the researchers took their data from were all conducted between 1973 and 2011. Dr. Hagai Levine was one of the lead scientists involved in the study, and he found that for men in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, sperm concentrations declined by 52.4 percent during the study period, and total sperm count declined by a whopping 59.3 percent.
...
>“Eventually we may have a problem, and with reproduction in general, and it may be the extinction of the human species.”
...
>“We think this is being caused by a heating of the sperm from the phone and by electromagnetic activity.”
...
>Findings going back to 2002 show that the human mutation rate is at least 100 mistakes (misspellings) per person per generation. Some scientists believe the rate is closer to 300.
...
>DNA mutations are passed from one generation to another, and each generation has more mutations than the previous generation.
>This process appears to be accelerating, and at some undetermined point in the future human DNA will become so corrupt that the human race simply will not be able to continue.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/scientists-warn-that-the-countdown-to-the-extinction-of-the-human-race-is-accelerating
Lots of links for the claims are in the article. There is a chance the West (or humanity) is slowly killing itself with its advancements (as well). Implying more primitive societies have better breeding chances.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 36877C12F80F6B75031208F58CABC034-118114.jpg (115.3 KB, 960x540, Apocalypse-Earth-Hand-Public-Domain.jpg)
wtf I love scientists now
It doesn't mean that its the end of the human race anon, that's what media puts as a headline to make people read the news in the first place, also despair makes people expend more money.
What it means is that we are getting closer to the point where we will be forced to evolve by our own hand.
This problem just means that more money will be thrown into research, maybe in the genetics area, this will lead to humans reproducing in an entirely artificial way and also means a more specialized breed of humans, genetically altered.
What it means is that we are getting closer to the point where we will be forced to evolve by our own hand.
This problem just means that more money will be thrown into research, maybe in the genetics area, this will lead to humans reproducing in an entirely artificial way and also means a more specialized breed of humans, genetically altered.
>>54779
>compared to our ancient ancestors, we are shorter, slower and we have been losing mental capacity for thousands of years.
Stopped reading right there. This was obviously written by a retard without even a basic understanding of anthropology. Why are you shitting up our board with this pseudo-intellectual headline grabber written for sub-90 IQ Facebook users?
Board quality matters and if you keep shitting up the board with low effort, and meaningless threads like this it will decline even faster.
>What it means is that we are getting closer to the point where we will be forced to evolve by our own hand
Human evolution is accelerating, not decelerating. That being said, I am all for eugenics. It would catapult us up the evolutionary ladder.
https://archive.is/HOYBe
>compared to our ancient ancestors, we are shorter, slower and we have been losing mental capacity for thousands of years.
Stopped reading right there. This was obviously written by a retard without even a basic understanding of anthropology. Why are you shitting up our board with this pseudo-intellectual headline grabber written for sub-90 IQ Facebook users?
Board quality matters and if you keep shitting up the board with low effort, and meaningless threads like this it will decline even faster.
>What it means is that we are getting closer to the point where we will be forced to evolve by our own hand
Human evolution is accelerating, not decelerating. That being said, I am all for eugenics. It would catapult us up the evolutionary ladder.
https://archive.is/HOYBe
File (): 83895F2F0EC7A353B7BB3A774C7DC19A-553115.png (540.2 KB, 1072x1073, 1496441543519.png)
>>54779
Sounds like Jewish lies to try and lead to a female dominated society tbqh. I'd like to see their research because their surveyed locations are all in locations with majority older men then younger men meaning its likely that this is just due to age. Also the articles blame on cell phones while they claim that this has been observed for the last 40 years, the same 40years in which we have gone from a baby boom to a rather old population while cell phones have only been around for around 20 years. So overall I question their data analysis and doubt their findings to be significant.
Sounds like Jewish lies to try and lead to a female dominated society tbqh. I'd like to see their research because their surveyed locations are all in locations with majority older men then younger men meaning its likely that this is just due to age. Also the articles blame on cell phones while they claim that this has been observed for the last 40 years, the same 40years in which we have gone from a baby boom to a rather old population while cell phones have only been around for around 20 years. So overall I question their data analysis and doubt their findings to be significant.
File (): 5421D074E20FD8B31128513DB847F654-266614.png (260.4 KB, 1080x1150, downvoted.png)
>>54796
Can I have your email address? I'd like to run all posts by you so this board never has to debate or discuss articles. They simply know you have vetted it for them.
Thank you.
P.S. There is nothing superior or intellectual about finding a mistake in an article and outright dismissing the whole lot.
Fuck off.
Can I have your email address? I'd like to run all posts by you so this board never has to debate or discuss articles. They simply know you have vetted it for them.
Thank you.
P.S. There is nothing superior or intellectual about finding a mistake in an article and outright dismissing the whole lot.
Fuck off.
>>54799
Thank you for a rational and reasonable response :) I enjoy articles being dissected and analysed.
Thank you for a rational and reasonable response :) I enjoy articles being dissected and analysed.
>>54779
Problem #1: judaic multiculturalism. Enough said.
Problem #2: technology as a whole. The creation of mechanical implements, factories, industrial lines, and mass industry as a whole has reduced the societal pressure to create offpsring by (depending on the level of a region's technology) by 40-95% alone due to needing less unskilled AND skilled labor. The fewer hands and minds are needed, the lower the genetic pressure to have offspring. Look at Japan: the birth rate has declined due to extreme over-mechanization and reliance on technology. Not only that, what the fuck DO the mass amounts of electromagnetic waves do to humans?
Problem #3: synthetics. The moment that the first semi-synthetic product was derived from oil, for a shitty rope that's still used today, destroyed the competition between all oil, chemical, and textile companies. Previously those companies battled for land, patents, and rights in the courtrooms, though overnight this "miracle product" was to destroy (approximately) 60 million jobs across the world over the next 110+ years. Cheaply derived semi-synthetics and synthetics from oil and various substrates were allowed massive subsidies which were termed "loans.. that did not need to be paid back due to the (worldly) need for them and their usage". Thus, the chemical-textile-oil complex became the fourth (or perhaps fifth) worldwide organized mafia. The first to profit was the biggest chemical industrial company, whom originally needed to produce massive quantities of various acids, Dow Jones. In order to create this new interconnected conglomerate empire, the help of Andrew Mellon, "the Father of Yellow (scandalous or muck raking) Journalism", was enlisted to declare war on these paper, wood, hemp, cotton, ink & dyes, which would eventually spread to more than 2,000 products. Mellon himself owned vast tracts of prime forest land, much of which he ordered raped and destroyed to suit his burgeoning need to be ultra rich. He was also owned by a kike.
Problem #4: pharmaceuticals. Pick a single week in the past 20 years and you will find at least one recall of some brand name 'medicine'. The continued overuse of 'modern medicines', particularly antibiotics, is causing more and more destructive genetic mutations to begin occurring.
Problems #5 & 6: toxic chemicals & heavy metals. These two are the most unreported and insidious. If you can't pronounce the name of a specific compound or component.. it's going to cause severe genetic damage at least, and kill you at most. Here are a few of teh most common:
-Aluminum: a well known and highly dangerous neurotoxin, yet it's used in soda cans, food tins, and it's substrates are used as binding agents in many tablets.
-Arsenic: long used as a pesticide and herbicide across the southern US, particularly Commiefornia. The chemical-textile-oil complex bribed portions of the federal government for it's use even though it was a known toxin.
-Cadmium: a toxic, radioactive metal that bioaccumulates in the human body quickly. Yet, according to the FDA it's "perfectly safe to consume a small amount daily". Many chinese products shipped to the EuroZone and the US contain trace amounts of industrial cadmium, especially children's toys, baby formula, and seafood.
-Lead: there are no uses for lead which are not toxic to some degree.
tl;dr: shit's bad.
Problem #1: judaic multiculturalism. Enough said.
Problem #2: technology as a whole. The creation of mechanical implements, factories, industrial lines, and mass industry as a whole has reduced the societal pressure to create offpsring by (depending on the level of a region's technology) by 40-95% alone due to needing less unskilled AND skilled labor. The fewer hands and minds are needed, the lower the genetic pressure to have offspring. Look at Japan: the birth rate has declined due to extreme over-mechanization and reliance on technology. Not only that, what the fuck DO the mass amounts of electromagnetic waves do to humans?
Problem #3: synthetics. The moment that the first semi-synthetic product was derived from oil, for a shitty rope that's still used today, destroyed the competition between all oil, chemical, and textile companies. Previously those companies battled for land, patents, and rights in the courtrooms, though overnight this "miracle product" was to destroy (approximately) 60 million jobs across the world over the next 110+ years. Cheaply derived semi-synthetics and synthetics from oil and various substrates were allowed massive subsidies which were termed "loans.. that did not need to be paid back due to the (worldly) need for them and their usage". Thus, the chemical-textile-oil complex became the fourth (or perhaps fifth) worldwide organized mafia. The first to profit was the biggest chemical industrial company, whom originally needed to produce massive quantities of various acids, Dow Jones. In order to create this new interconnected conglomerate empire, the help of Andrew Mellon, "the Father of Yellow (scandalous or muck raking) Journalism", was enlisted to declare war on these paper, wood, hemp, cotton, ink & dyes, which would eventually spread to more than 2,000 products. Mellon himself owned vast tracts of prime forest land, much of which he ordered raped and destroyed to suit his burgeoning need to be ultra rich. He was also owned by a kike.
Problem #4: pharmaceuticals. Pick a single week in the past 20 years and you will find at least one recall of some brand name 'medicine'. The continued overuse of 'modern medicines', particularly antibiotics, is causing more and more destructive genetic mutations to begin occurring.
Problems #5 & 6: toxic chemicals & heavy metals. These two are the most unreported and insidious. If you can't pronounce the name of a specific compound or component.. it's going to cause severe genetic damage at least, and kill you at most. Here are a few of teh most common:
-Aluminum: a well known and highly dangerous neurotoxin, yet it's used in soda cans, food tins, and it's substrates are used as binding agents in many tablets.
-Arsenic: long used as a pesticide and herbicide across the southern US, particularly Commiefornia. The chemical-textile-oil complex bribed portions of the federal government for it's use even though it was a known toxin.
-Cadmium: a toxic, radioactive metal that bioaccumulates in the human body quickly. Yet, according to the FDA it's "perfectly safe to consume a small amount daily". Many chinese products shipped to the EuroZone and the US contain trace amounts of industrial cadmium, especially children's toys, baby formula, and seafood.
-Lead: there are no uses for lead which are not toxic to some degree.
tl;dr: shit's bad.
File (): DBEE2933B77575ECCC7DA46230283647-52998.jpg (51.8 KB, 697x960, nervous.jpg)
>>54802
>entire article is based on a stupid fucking premise that isn't anywhere near to correct
Yes, of course I dismissed it. If they don't understand basic anthropology, why would I listen to what they have to say about related topics?
>Thank you for a rational and reasonable response :) I enjoy articles being dissected and analysed.
My problem is not with your desire to "dissect and analyze" content. My problem is with the stupid fucking content you provided. I don't really have a desire to "dissect and analyze" articles that are CNN-tier obvious misinformation. If you need this shit spoonfed to you, Facebook or Reddit might be a better place for you to have political discussions.
>entire article is based on a stupid fucking premise that isn't anywhere near to correct
Yes, of course I dismissed it. If they don't understand basic anthropology, why would I listen to what they have to say about related topics?
>Thank you for a rational and reasonable response :) I enjoy articles being dissected and analysed.
My problem is not with your desire to "dissect and analyze" content. My problem is with the stupid fucking content you provided. I don't really have a desire to "dissect and analyze" articles that are CNN-tier obvious misinformation. If you need this shit spoonfed to you, Facebook or Reddit might be a better place for you to have political discussions.
>>54805
Maybe you should report my posts. If I get banned then I will stop contributing. I am sure you'll pick up the slack because you are superior to me. Thanks.
No.
Maybe you should report my posts. If I get banned then I will stop contributing. I am sure you'll pick up the slack because you are superior to me. Thanks.
No.
>>54804
Thanks. The only quibble I have is Japan birthrates fell from 1948 when they allowed abortion for any reason. The rest I have no knowledge or passing knowledge of.
Thanks. The only quibble I have is Japan birthrates fell from 1948 when they allowed abortion for any reason. The rest I have no knowledge or passing knowledge of.
I don't see the decline as a big problem. We are several magnitudes more people now than just a few decades ago. The problem is that some people can't stop reproducing because they don't know what sustainability is.
But I think before we will see any sever degradation of DNA, antibiotics as an example will no longer be effective. When this happen natural selection will kick in again and those suited for life will live on. As it is now we are keeping bad genes alive.
But I think before we will see any sever degradation of DNA, antibiotics as an example will no longer be effective. When this happen natural selection will kick in again and those suited for life will live on. As it is now we are keeping bad genes alive.
>>54809
That is a good point. If we reproduce with people who need medicine to stay alive we perpetuate the problems. How can one be both civilised and natural? The only answer would seem to be eugenics then.
That is a good point. If we reproduce with people who need medicine to stay alive we perpetuate the problems. How can one be both civilised and natural? The only answer would seem to be eugenics then.
>>54810
As long as there is no natural way, except the occasional Darwin award, for natural selection eugenics is needed. We do it all the time when if comes to livestock because we know it is good practice to do it. But when it comes to ourself the laws of nature suddenly isn't applicable any more.
As long as there is no natural way, except the occasional Darwin award, for natural selection eugenics is needed. We do it all the time when if comes to livestock because we know it is good practice to do it. But when it comes to ourself the laws of nature suddenly isn't applicable any more.
>>54811
Sadly we aren't intellectually advanced enough for that. So much religion still which would be greatly offended and more. It would seem therefore that nature will eventually take back what we have mismanaged.
Sadly we aren't intellectually advanced enough for that. So much religion still which would be greatly offended and more. It would seem therefore that nature will eventually take back what we have mismanaged.
>>54804
It does look bad for human health, specially since everything can kill us in subtle ways now, even tap water.
But that wouldn't mean that we are going to get more resistant to these things within generations?
Is that not how evolution works?
It does look bad for human health, specially since everything can kill us in subtle ways now, even tap water.
But that wouldn't mean that we are going to get more resistant to these things within generations?
Is that not how evolution works?
>>54812
We probably could do it, and do it right, but anyone who would try to implement it would be labelled as evil. So next best thing is to wait for antibiotics to stop working, but the downside is that you could easily die from an infected wound no matter how "good" your genes were at that time.
We probably could do it, and do it right, but anyone who would try to implement it would be labelled as evil. So next best thing is to wait for antibiotics to stop working, but the downside is that you could easily die from an infected wound no matter how "good" your genes were at that time.
>>54810
Almost every woman i know takes the excuse of "womyn being more prone to illness" to shove as much medicine on their bodies as they physically can.
Its really a complex matter
Almost every woman i know takes the excuse of "womyn being more prone to illness" to shove as much medicine on their bodies as they physically can.
Its really a complex matter
>>54813
I do think nature would find a way. But that could mean still that a massive die could occur long term. Between then and now I am sure humanity would be desperate enough to use technological means too.
Maybe it would be an interesting project for us all to look in depth to these claims and see what stands or falls? I can't dig further now because I need sleep, but I'd gladly join the community in a deeper look into this.
I do think nature would find a way. But that could mean still that a massive die could occur long term. Between then and now I am sure humanity would be desperate enough to use technological means too.
Maybe it would be an interesting project for us all to look in depth to these claims and see what stands or falls? I can't dig further now because I need sleep, but I'd gladly join the community in a deeper look into this.
File (): EDE79A0DA652C8FE79E7C28323DB4A59-5539344.png (5.3 MB, 1280x720, 5fb1c79f86daa06993b23fdafdeaf3fe.png)
>>54816
While it may be a neat topic to discuss about over a cup of coffee i do not think it is worth a serious look over anon.
Its really irrelevant for us as there is nothing to be done, except if you are a scientist working with genetics or something, and even then we are talking about more than 20 years into the future.
I do not think its worth the time.
While it may be a neat topic to discuss about over a cup of coffee i do not think it is worth a serious look over anon.
Its really irrelevant for us as there is nothing to be done, except if you are a scientist working with genetics or something, and even then we are talking about more than 20 years into the future.
I do not think its worth the time.
>>54834
Figures it seems like the type of research made to push an agenda. Like trying to fund more science in artificial sperm allowing the kikes to take males out of the picture in general.
Figures it seems like the type of research made to push an agenda. Like trying to fund more science in artificial sperm allowing the kikes to take males out of the picture in general.
>>54779
Sounds like a load of crap to me. I think that studies that come forth with giant apocalyptic predictions get way too much coverage just so the media can make a quick buck with clickbait.
Sounds like a load of crap to me. I think that studies that come forth with giant apocalyptic predictions get way too much coverage just so the media can make a quick buck with clickbait.
>>54813
The term that you're looking for is micro-evolution, that is, small genetic adaptions of one's descendants. To a small amount, yes, humans will adapt. This goes against Darwin's evolution hypothesis which directly implies that an entire species adapts and mutates over time, which is flat out retarded.
The issue here is that most of our world is heavily contaminated: PCB's, CFC's, heavy metals, artificial toxins. This doesn't even take into account our oceans. Of the unknown number of toxic components in RoundUp, only glyphosate is saline based, which means it simply DOES NOT break down over time. Adding to that, it has a half-life of 180-230 days on land. This led to the various dead zones on the US east coast and across the world, after which the many die offs of plankton have caused the ocean food chains to be damaged or degrade to painfully low levels. The one good part of this unreported disaster is that it's exposed the judaic agenda for what it is: an attempt at exterminating all but the kikes.
The term that you're looking for is micro-evolution, that is, small genetic adaptions of one's descendants. To a small amount, yes, humans will adapt. This goes against Darwin's evolution hypothesis which directly implies that an entire species adapts and mutates over time, which is flat out retarded.
The issue here is that most of our world is heavily contaminated: PCB's, CFC's, heavy metals, artificial toxins. This doesn't even take into account our oceans. Of the unknown number of toxic components in RoundUp, only glyphosate is saline based, which means it simply DOES NOT break down over time. Adding to that, it has a half-life of 180-230 days on land. This led to the various dead zones on the US east coast and across the world, after which the many die offs of plankton have caused the ocean food chains to be damaged or degrade to painfully low levels. The one good part of this unreported disaster is that it's exposed the judaic agenda for what it is: an attempt at exterminating all but the kikes.
28 replies | 6 files | 13 UUIDs | Archived