Comments
[deleted] t1_j9frf84 wrote
[deleted]
shaggellis t1_j9gcz73 wrote
Then launch a new meteor into space with a colony and tunnel system in it.
buadach2 t1_j9gq79k wrote
When humans dies out, I expect naked mole rats to rise up and take over, such a superior genetic branch.
Broflake-Melter t1_j9ijcyt wrote
they've evolved eusociality. Makes you wonder what life would be like for humans if we had done the same.
[deleted] t1_j9eyp2s wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9f0mv7 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j9hmwp7 wrote
[deleted]
MrBrightsighed t1_j9fxez4 wrote
I’d be pissed if I was born and my parents were 70
Dragmire800 t1_j9gj5ae wrote
Yeah but if they’re paying for this at 70, they’re probably loaded, and you’ll have a large inheritance by the time you’re 20
antimeme t1_j9h3ut5 wrote
...unless they spent their entire fortune in fertility treatments.
lobsterbash t1_j9gmzus wrote
Graduate from college, pay off the debt, aaand... that's it. Still can't afford a house. It'll take a large inheritance just to live like people did a few generations before.
Marianations t1_j9iz9nx wrote
Unless your parents are Millennials or Gen Z
Joe4o2 t1_j9gz8tk wrote
I teach elementary school. You would not believe how many old guys, late 60s through 70s, have 5-8 year old children.
It’s insane
Ishpeming_Native t1_j9ikfsm wrote
What's really insane is that those guys found women to marry who were still young enough to have kids. We're talking an age gap of at LEAST 20 years, if not 30 or more. I'm 76, and if I had a 10-year-old to take care of right now I'd probably die. And I'm not joking at all. Taking out the garbage is about all I can handle. (Emphysema is not fun, people.)
Logical_Reading_189 t1_j9hechi wrote
Have to explain to the store clerk you are looking for baby diapers and not adult? That’s gotta be hell every time
[deleted] t1_j9hjrjk wrote
[removed]
Joe4o2 t1_j9hjx5k wrote
I’m gonna be 30 this year, and my daughter turns 2 the month before. Young parents exist!
[deleted] t1_j9fmrki wrote
[removed]
CochinNbrahma t1_j9g72s2 wrote
Fertility treatments are going to be prohibitively expensive. Older people with money attempting to have 1-2 kids is not why the human population has grown exponentially & continues to do so.
leonardo201818 t1_j9gjfzv wrote
Populations are declining across the world. China, Japan, and Russia face serious problems over the next 20-30 years due to their aging population. There’s not enough young people to support the economy.
Scyfer327 t1_j9glf85 wrote
It's because young people don't want to have kids, nothing to do with infertility
Educational_Hawk1236 t1_j9gtf2n wrote
It's both. People are delaying the decision to have kids until later in life, then if they decide they want them they often can't have them because of fertility issues. It's more on the side of "don't want to have kids" than it is infertility, but the contribution of infertility isn't insignificant.
Nero_PR t1_j9h5qb1 wrote
Me and my partner are just thinking of not having kids at this point now that we are past or late 20s. It's just too expensive and we don't want our parents to help with supporting our children if we decide to have any. We both don't have the best relationship with our families, especially from my partner's side.
We'll probably invest in our careers, hobbies, and traveling instead of having a family.
AnDraoi t1_j9h3xra wrote
This is not a solvable problem without automation otherwise the population has to permanently grow to support the economy which isn’t realistic unless we’re settling in space
[deleted] t1_j9ggn2z wrote
[removed]
thunderstormin15 t1_j9fv37w wrote
There are individuals who suffer from premature menopause and have a reduced ovarian reserve. I think these sort of advances would be beneficial for those individuals or perhaps those who have undergone chemotherapy treatment.
I do agree that by and large menopause is a conserved process in humans which limits our reproductive window. This is beneficial as we may be able to extend this reproductive window but we cannot reverse other adverse effects of aging. To continue to reproduce older contributes to poorer health in those individuals in my opinion and makes children orphans earlier in life.
[deleted] t1_j9gwar9 wrote
[removed]
zachtheperson t1_j9gomuy wrote
I think it might be the opposite. Having the choice to wait longer to have kids could actually remove any rush people might have since they don't have to worry about "missing out," because they waited too long.
beverlykins t1_j9gemr4 wrote
Agree. It's not a popular opinion but the last thing this planet needs is more humans than can only be conceived through fertility treatment.
Listen2Tosh t1_j9hfjls wrote
I’m with you, there are plenty of children out there that need love and a stable home.
beverlykins t1_j9jkmad wrote
Wow and the orig comment was deleted. Wonder if they folded to the (harmful) procreative norm.
added_chaos t1_j9gu1my wrote
Like we need more people here
hiiiiiiimpaul t1_j9ghplg wrote
Capitalism intensifies
[deleted] t1_j9hapno wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9fbvs9 wrote
[removed]
cspinasdf t1_j9ftghy wrote
I mean economically quite a few countries need an increase to fertility, or an increase to immigration and most countries don't want that.
EmpathyZero t1_j9fw8iy wrote
I can understand those countries using this tech. But they can also put in place incentives for young people to have 3+ children. Honestly I think large scale immigration is a bad thing for any country.
But we also have an over population issue. Typical human behavior. We have starvation and obesity epidemics. We also simultaneously have over population and dwindling populations.
ToLorien t1_j9g3bal wrote
Yeah I don’t think an increase in fertility would do much to help dwindling populations. I think most are dwindling because as women become more educated and able to be financially independent they choose to have less children or none at all. Also, with inflation today it’s becoming less of an option for the middle class as both parents have to work full time while child care is a whole mortgage payment or more monthly. I don’t care if I have viable eggs until I’m 50 I’m still not able to support a kid financially. and I’m not directing this at you just adding to the conversation.
EmpathyZero t1_j9g80bb wrote
I understand. I think it’s varies greatly by country.
ghostinthekernel t1_j9g6sat wrote
It has nothing to do with incentives, incentives like giving land or money to make children only work on the lower strata of society, the strata that already makes too many children. You think the reason why a successful lawyer does not make more than 1 or 2 children is because he/she is not getting enough money or wants a piece of land? The more educated and wealthy a society is, the fewer its population reproduces. That is because more educated people are more cautious with sexual intercourse, they also tend to be more knowledgeable on and inclined towards the use of contraception, and they are also more aware of the long term investment and commitment associated with having children.
If you want to generally have people make fewer children, you have to educate and raise from poverty to a wealthy standard of living the rest of the world population. However this will probably cause those countries to have a baby-boom at a certain point, like the west had, and so the global population will increase for a few decades even more before the following generations start reconsidering making children because the cost of living is too high due to the too many retired people.
You would end up anyway in a bad scenario, like many European countries are in right now, where there are not enough young people to pay taxes to the government to cover retired people, so the younger generations will have to work and pay huge taxes until they are 75.
curiosityasmedicine t1_j9fs2x3 wrote
Ikr? This sounds like an awful thing to me and the last thing we should be focusing scientific research on.
[deleted] t1_j9fq6dt wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9frhwh wrote
[removed]
Sculptasquad t1_j9f2yyz wrote
Yeah cause that is what the planet and humanity needsright now: more geriatric mothers...
[deleted] t1_j9f5tue wrote
[removed]
SapphoTalk t1_j9fbxzx wrote
Older women are more established, have more resources, and have more freedom to make good decisions on who they'll choose as their child's father. Skewing the birth age up is good for everyone.
Sculptasquad t1_j9fr4cy wrote
Except an increased risk of:
Preeclampsia.
Gestational diabetes.
Premature birth or low birth weight.
Expecting twins.
Miscarriage.
Down syndrome or other genetic disorders.
Cesarean section (c-section).
Stillbirth.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22438-advanced-maternal-age
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/getting-pregnant/in-depth/pregnancy/art-20045756
Valyrian_Kobolds t1_j9g9cji wrote
I mean isn't the idea of researching fertility options later in life to reduce the likelihood of those problems?
aledba t1_j9ha75p wrote
Our (human) eggs age and die out. Naked Mole Rat eggs do not. The aging is what causes the high risk of problems. I don't know how someone could alter a female sex fetus's DNA to stop her being born with all of her eggs.
Valyrian_Kobolds t1_j9hafl6 wrote
Or perhaps they find a hormone that can provoke growth of new cells. Or something else. Hence why it's research and not a product yet
Sculptasquad t1_j9gklbz wrote
Not really.
Fertility research is related to the process of getting a woman pregnant. Not necessarily preventing any and all complications of pregnancy and carrying a child to term.
[deleted] t1_j9fssc5 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9fl9ew wrote
[removed]
HoboScabs t1_j9fnmbk wrote
Not for the increased chances of the baby coming out of that old ass cave all fucked up.
But this great if they can help otherwise infertile women have the children they desire.
wowthatssorude t1_j9fqbhy wrote
Missing the entire point of the science they’re studying
And then being so confident while being a dunce.
Priceless
HoboScabs t1_j9fqhae wrote
It's my specialty
Conchobar_the_nude t1_j9jjg3q wrote
>Not for the increased chances of the baby coming out of that old ass cave all fucked up.
What chance? Increased by what?
chrisdh79 OP t1_j9ewn41 wrote
From the article: “This animal is the opportunity to think about and develop new techniques or potential targets for making new drugs, because their [reproductive] cells have the same program that we have in mice and humans, but they’re behaving differently,” says Miguel Angel Brieño-Enríquez at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania.
Native to East Africa, naked mole rats (Heterocephalus glaber) live for up to 37 years and form underground colonies with social structures similar to those of bees, including a single queen that produces offspring for her entire life. By contrast, mice only live for about four years and their fertility starts dropping when they are only 9 months old.
Curious about these differences in reproductive lifespans, Brieño-Enríquez and his colleagues looked at the ovaries of naked mole rats under a microscope when the animals were 1, 5, 8, 15, 28 and 90 days old. They used advanced staining and testing techniques to identify the different kinds of cells they saw. In particular, they were looking for germ cells that can divide and mature into oocytes – or eggs – through a process known as oogenesis.
In humans, mice and other mammals, oogenesis only occurs before birth and, in some species, shortly afterwards, leaving newborn females with a limited lifetime supply of eggs. Those eggs gradually die over time, leading to reduced fertility with age.
In the naked mole rats, though, Brieño-Enríquez and his colleagues found large numbers of germ cells at every stage of life they tested, with numbers steadily increasing throughout the first week of life. At 8 days old, the naked mole rats had an average of 1.5 million egg cells – 95 times more than 8-day-old mice, says Brieño-Enríquez.
3sp00py5me t1_j9grxjt wrote
Weren’t we looking at moleras for a source of a cure for cancer as well?
What do these wrinkly little sacks know that we don’t??
Taoistandroid t1_j9hs67m wrote
The cure is simple, live underground and get almost no uv damage.
TheFastCat t1_j9gooq5 wrote
I am now imagining old women that look like naked mole rats attempting to conceive. Sex in the city 4 plot line?
KittyL0ver t1_j9gisfd wrote
This will hopefully help women with diminished ovarian reserve and premature ovarian failure. With POF egg quality is also reduced in addition to quantity, whereas with DOR usually egg quality is the same as you’d expect of similar aged women with no fertility problems. Hopefully this research will help with both quality and quantity.
-downtone_ t1_j9fd1da wrote
I wonder if this has an effect on mutation given the difference between having a preset supply made at once, versus this variation which may result in some mutation being they are generated at different times throughout life.
zachtheperson t1_j9gottv wrote
In the hypothetical scenario where we were able to drastically slow down aging, having technology to also extend the length of human fertility would be fantastic.
Without it, someone living until 500 would still feel pressure to have kids when they're 20-40. However, with it they could easily space out any kids they have over their longer lifespan, likely leading to a healthier population.
Aitolu t1_j9jkox7 wrote
A happy ending? Definitely NOT feasible.
threadsoffate2021 t1_j9k2pa6 wrote
And you'll also be living on a planet with 50 billion humans. In a sardine can.
zachtheperson t1_j9kumq4 wrote
Again, not necessarily. If humans had the ability to space out children throughout their longer lifetimes, I think the population would remain pretty stable.
threadsoffate2021 t1_j9mpulo wrote
You're giving humans too much credit. Check out the quiverfull cult. Those people alone could grow to 50 billion within 500 years with that tech.
praise_H1M t1_j9gj7lk wrote
Oh cool. So not only will people be living longer, but now there will be more of us to share the already shrinking resources we have. So cool.
mydoghasocd t1_j9ibh2e wrote
It’ll be more like women will put off having babies until…well, forever.
Broflake-Melter t1_j9ijab2 wrote
FYI, when discussing sex in Naked Mole Rats, it's important to distinguish between female workers and queens.
tattooed_debutante t1_j9ip9jq wrote
Women need way way better fertility support.
AutoModerator t1_j9ewh58 wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_j9fgxm4 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9fwgqa wrote
[removed]
Mounta1nK1ng t1_j9g39fj wrote
Why my baby look like a naked mole rat?
[deleted] t1_j9g8jtj wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9gaz6j wrote
[removed]
Fool_Apprentice t1_j9gd3ih wrote
Yeah, but your kids might end up looking pretty gross.
rjolivet t1_j9gfhbp wrote
I guess people prefer to be sterile rather than give birth of a naked mole.
[deleted] t1_j9gi55r wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9gxqhk wrote
[removed]
ETVG t1_j9he30f wrote
Before these mole rats where discovered as the first mamals living like ants or bees in a colony a scientist made a prediction about the posibility of such mamals based on evolutionary theory.
kompootor t1_j9hf6t3 wrote
Thanks New Scientist asst. copy editor for getting straight to the point in the subhead, and thanks New Scientist senior editors for then missing it literally everywhere else. You never fail to disappoint, except seemingly always.
I'm not dissing the research by the way. But "we have to be cautious about the excitement level" regarding menopause seems to be quite the understatement. It seems all they're saying is it's another cool thing about the naked mole rat and it also might be usable as a model in future research.
AnonymousPussyNommer t1_j9hm95x wrote
Arnt these guys basically impervious to cancer too
maddmannmatt t1_j9ii86m wrote
Great. More humans. Just what the world needs….
sreevisakh t1_j9is2m9 wrote
Normal people can't even afford the cost of raising kids. Not that I'm against STEM in general or research that improves quality of life for everyone - please find cheaper medicines or affordable commodities.
[deleted] t1_j9iv3ep wrote
[removed]
qtjedigrl t1_j9jdied wrote
At first I read 'eggs' as 'eyes' and I thought I had missed some very important part of anatomy classes
IzTea_1X t1_j9jkzgq wrote
Dr. Sebi was infertile with 26 and made children in his 80's but mole rats will surely have something valuable.
juxtoppose t1_j9gp58m wrote
Was just saying to my friends the other day “ You know what we don’t have enough of? “, “People, not enough people on this planet, let’s put our heads together and bring all sorts of science disciplines to bear on the problem of their not being enough people “.
trav5270 t1_j9gzhec wrote
Can almost guarantee this will lead to no improvements in human fertility
UncleJulz t1_j9h6twk wrote
There’s 8 billion people on earth. There’s larger problems than infertility.
Paper-Fish t1_j9glrrz wrote
8 billion people on this rock already, do we really need more?
secrets9876 t1_j9h4w8v wrote
We already can't support the people we have. Let's not make more.
philippotgieter t1_j9gug2x wrote
You want to make humans more fertile? 8billion, are we not enough?! Edit: ..oh wait, there is money to be made from the poor sods that can't have kids!
malepitt t1_j9ewt34 wrote
At the zoo, reading the signage about naked mole rats in front of their display (transparent tunnel system), I gradually came to the conclusion that they are not from Earth.