Same commenter here. Limping along and suffering to some extent describes the human condition (certainly in aging), and it's exacerbated by numerous industrial products. (And mitigated by some -- occasionally the same ones.) I don't see any real difference between "Some people have been crippled, probably for life, by jab side effects" and "Some people have been crippled, probably for life, by statin side effects." In either case, it's a hardship for those individuals, and as you note, sometimes also for relatives who have to take over housework or providing for a family, and in either case the sufferers deserve reasonable sympathy in my book.
Likewise, fertility rates had already been affected by industry -- sperm counts in industrialized nations are half what they used to be, and many couples suffer from infertility. Postponing reproduction to later ages is responsible for some of that, but so are endocrine-disrupting chemicals dumped in our food and water. If a few more people have fertility problems as a result of ill-timed or ill-advised jabs, it will be sad for those individuals (and lucky for some, in states where even serious problem pregnancies can't be terminated), but when we have *eight billion* people on this planet, their disappointment will be no more devastating for the human race than the much more common incidence of people who have few or no children by choice.
By the way, I know there is much groaning about the demographic winter in some quarters, e.g., China with 1.4 billion people lifting all limits on reproduction -- I don't agree. The planet can't hold an infinite number of people, so the population must peak and decline at some point. We should want it to happen before we eat the planet down to bedrock then starve en masse. Better that some geezers die a little younger because the health system was stretched than that a horde of children should die really young.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2025-03-03 01:10 am (UTC)Likewise, fertility rates had already been affected by industry -- sperm counts in industrialized nations are half what they used to be, and many couples suffer from infertility. Postponing reproduction to later ages is responsible for some of that, but so are endocrine-disrupting chemicals dumped in our food and water. If a few more people have fertility problems as a result of ill-timed or ill-advised jabs, it will be sad for those individuals (and lucky for some, in states where even serious problem pregnancies can't be terminated), but when we have *eight billion* people on this planet, their disappointment will be no more devastating for the human race than the much more common incidence of people who have few or no children by choice.
By the way, I know there is much groaning about the demographic winter in some quarters, e.g., China with 1.4 billion people lifting all limits on reproduction -- I don't agree. The planet can't hold an infinite number of people, so the population must peak and decline at some point. We should want it to happen before we eat the planet down to bedrock then starve en masse. Better that some geezers die a little younger because the health system was stretched than that a horde of children should die really young.