"Why Do We Have More Boys Than Girls?"

Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2014-10-26 00:49

Video here. Interesting little educational video on the topic. The entire MinuteEarth channel looks pretty interesting; I'll have to watch a few more of their vids. Anyway, an article here discusses localized unexplained (but theorized) reductions in M:F birth sex ratios in certain parts of the world, including the US and Japan. The most likely culprit appears to be industrial chemicals in the environment affecting men's sperm production rates as well as how many X vs. Y chromosome-bearing sperm cells men are producing, when no other cause such as selective sex abortion, etc., can explain it.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Pre and post natal care for infants has been nearly revolutionary in the past ten years. Premature babies now live.

It remains to be see how this will impact the gender balance in years to come: more boys born and now they survive.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by ThomasI on Sun, 2014-10-26 08:45

Here in the FW, yes. But in poor developing countries, there's a scarcity of such. If high stress and deprivation leads to higher birthrates for girls (i.e., more girls than boys are born), the human race's aggregate ratio may remain at M:F 1.01:1 *unless* feminine infanticide and anti-female selective abortion is stopped or reduced enough so that it no longer skews the ratio so significantly in more populous parts of the planet. Today in countries where it was more acceptable in the past, the message vs. it is making progress so that, thankfully, this is happening a lot less. How it finally affects adult male survival in years hence remains to be seen. But for the FW, the outlook for improved survival rates for males is improving, so long as pollution, selective male fetus abortions, or other male life-destroying or lifespan-reducing factors stay fixed or are reduced. If they increase, the net result may be a wash or a wait-and-see, which I suppose is what we need to do anyway.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2014-10-26 14:56

Yes, you are right, Matt. Excellent points

In fact, your argument regarding feminine infanticide made me think....

Go to a feminist and ask: "Does a woman have the right to terminate a pregnancy if she wishes? Is it her decision alone?"

And they will, of course, say "yes!"

Now ask them: "Does a woman have the right to terminate a pregnancy if she does not want female babies?"

I wonder.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by ThomasI on Sun, 2014-10-26 16:05

Actually the feminist establishment has pronounced on this; at least, the western FE has. They have declared the right to abort for any reason trumps any distaste they have for the fact that female fetuses are the ones most often aborted in many parts of the world. (I wonder though if they'd feel the same way if female fetus-selective abortions were as popular in the US as they are in, say, China. I am guessing not. They'd undoubtedly be very upset about it.)

Of course it does make its own sense when you believe fetuses don't represent human beings until or unless the mother (well, would-be mother, perhaps call her the proto-mother) decides to say so. It's sort of like Schrödinger's cat. It's alive or dead only after checking to see if it is. Likewise, a fetus is or isn't a human being until the proto-mother decides it. At least, for feminists. For the US legal system, this is determined by the Congress, statehouses, state supreme courts, and/or SCOTUS, altogether or apart, in agreement with each other or not. It depends in what year you live.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2014-10-26 22:25