New discovery could help feed millions (w/Video)

How about some "ratopause" for New York City?

About the drop in human fertility, I think it was a British movie, if not, another Hollywood idea already...

Children of Men.

Let's not make that a reality!

I hope this is studied in detail. The thought of putting something in close proximity to the food supply of millions that causes sterility is disturbing. Oops, we just accidentally sterilized the population of Asia....

It's non-toxic so it doesn't kill, but renders women sterile.

So mice eat it, what happens to the animals who eat a lot of mice? Then the animal that eats those animals? I just hope the Eco system can take the cut in tasty mice for other animals and that this chemical doesn't reach us.

It comforting to know we're investigating other avenues of wiping ourselves out slowly.

Isn't kind of ironic that the mice population has grown because we provide large fields of food for them. For rats in large cities we provide tons and tons of garbage all nicely packaged in plastic containers.

But yes we can't do without the large cities and food so we have to do something. Responsibly used this is a humane way to control the problem.

What is a little disturbing is they discovered a way to control fertility while researching ways to "alleviate diseases associated with menopause". Were they trying to speed up the test subjects to the menopause stage?

About the drop in human fertility, I think it was a British movie, if not, another Hollywood idea already...

Children of Men.
Let's not make that a reality!

Or you could read "The Douglas Convolution" by Edward Llewellyn where a contraceptive induces sterility.

It's non-toxic so it doesn't kill, but renders women sterile.

So mice eat it, what happens to the animals who eat a lot of mice? Then the animal that eats those animals? I just hope the Eco system can take the cut in tasty mice for other animals and that this chemical doesn't reach us.

It comforting to know we're investigating other avenues of wiping ourselves out slowly.

That raises some questions:
1) Are the metabolites of this drug biologically active? If so, what is their activity and do they accumulate in the body tissues or environment?
2) Does this drug require long term exposure? If so, can it migrate in to the food chain?
3) What other species does it affect and at what levels? We don't want a 50% reduction in mice to lead to the destruction of an endangered meal worm.

1. How long does VCD persist in the environment? By what process does it break down?
2. Are VCD's effects passed through generations?
3. At very low levels, what are the effects? Is it a mutagen? Teratogen? Carcinogen?
4. Does VCD mimic the effects of any natural hormones?

im not sure if we need more food. more food = more people = more trouble. Then again, its easy for me to talk, living in the west.

if evolution has taught us anything, the rats that have the greatest resistance to this infertility treatment will end up dominating the next generation of rodents, who in turn will have an enhanced fertility/ability to resist infertility. So if it doesn't work completely, it won't work at all.

im not sure if we need more food. more food = more people = more trouble.

Don't you malthusians ever get tired of being wrong?

More food means less people working as subsistence farmers which leads to lower fertility rates because it means that basic education becomes affordable and if there's anything that hurts fertility rates it's access to education by women.

Your prefered mode of population reduction(the starvation of ~90% of humanity down to some completely imaginary notion of a carrying capacity based on artificially limiting technology to the bronze age) would lead directly to the deforestation of every square inch of the planet as hungry people fan out and farm anything that can possibly be farmed.

Sounds like very dangerous stuff, worse than a normal poison. If misused could silently do damage to the environment or human populations. The effects might not be found out until years later by which time it would be too late.

Don't you malthusians ever get tired of being wrong?

More food means less people working as subsistence farmers which leads to lower fertility rates because it means that basic education becomes affordable and if there's anything that hurts fertility rates it's access to education by women.

Quoted so it will be read again. Soylent hit the nail on the head in regards to more food being available.

Everyone has great points of concern and counterpoints. Any one of these scenarios or predictions could become a reality. The use of any toxin that has any potential to make its way into the human body should first have a counter-agent (antidote) developed. Regardless of the adjectives that are used to make it sound benign, there is a very real concern that something that was discovered as a toxin in humans is being used in another mammal. Yes, there is minimum infectious dose requirements, nonetheless large scale incorporation of a toxin at the lower end of a food chain is bound to find its way up the chain. I am all in favor of responsible use of scientific research, but just like the scare of Thalidomide we have to remember the lessons of the past, long term research is necessary BEFORE application of a chemical agent outside of a test environment. No amount of modeling can ever compensate for the test of time.

Whats to say this chemical isn't already being utilized to control human growth. If this chemical can have this effect on all female animals (humans and rodents), shouldn't the first agenda be to halt introduction of this chemical into society?

Just another form of genocide?

How about releasing genetically engineered rodents that would cause infertility to offsprings. Nope, that's too easy.

non-toxic ... hahaha, who are you kidding.

Whats to say this chemical isn't already being utilized to control human growth. If this chemical can have this effect on all female animals (humans and rodents), shouldn't the first agenda be to halt introduction of this chemical into society?

Just another form of genocide?

How about releasing genetically engineered rodents that would cause infertility to offsprings. Nope, that's too easy.

non-toxic ... hahaha, who are you kidding.

Governments stand to lose more than they gain by eliminating populations, even rival ones, especially through the introduction of fertility reduction agents.

Eroding the potential tax base and work force isn't in the cards of any government.

Muslim extremists use it on already low fertility Western societies or, alternatively, certain non-Muslim groups who are concerned about the high-fertility of certain extremist prone nations like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia pursue the plot. Whichever the case, the victim finds out and all Hell breaks loose.

Interesting, when quoting scenarios, Sean W could only come up with situations dealing with Muslims committing terrorist attacks. Since he is in that line of thought, here's another scenario:

The U.S. or Israel decide, regardless of morality, that this stuff should be sprayed on a helpless Muslim population, such as against Iraqis or Palestinians. Considering these two countries recent track records, that seems more likely, now doesn't it?

The biological effects of VCD have been studied for some time. If you try googling 4-Vinylcyclohexene diepoxide a few things will stand out:

- 4-Vinylcyclohexene diepoxide is produced by epoxidation of 4-vinylcyclohexene with peroxyacetic acid (IARC, 1994) [source]

- Repeated dosing of rats with the ovotoxic chemical, 4-vinylcyclohexene diepoxide (VCD) destroys primordial and primary ovarian follicles via apoptosis (physiological cell death) by accelerating the normal rate of atresia. (Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 1999) [mechanism]

- 4-Vinylcyclohexene diepoxide can be absorbed through the skin of rodents. (IARC, 1994) [transdermal]

- induced squamous cell carcinomas of the skin in most males and females. Regarding internally induced neoplasia, both benign and malignant tumors of the ovaries were caused by dermal exposure of 4-VCHD in female mice (toxsci.oxfordjournals.org 2006) [skin carcinoma risk, et al]

- mutagenic in bacteria and caused gene conversion and mitotic crossing-over in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
(IARC, 1994) [potential for long-term pervasive impact]

- This product is not readily biodegradable in a biological wastewater treatment plant and it may be toxic (tedpella.com 1996) [doesn't self-destruct in a timely fashion]

All this suggests that if VCD becomes a common biocide (like DDT) in third world venues then we may be in for some interesting times. [VCD may then be redubbed 'Vaginal Conception Deactivated'. Artificial uterus-es anyone?]

All this suggests that if VCD becomes a common biocide (like DDT) in third world venues then we may be in for some interesting times. [VCD may then be redubbed 'Vaginal Conception Deactivated'. Artificial uterus-es anyone?]

I'd rather like to not become Tleilaxu just yet.

- induced squamous cell carcinomas of the skin in most males and females. Regarding internally induced neoplasia, both benign and malignant tumors of the ovaries were caused by dermal exposure of 4-VCHD in female mice (toxsci.oxfordjournals.org 2006) [skin carcinoma risk, et al]

- mutagenic in bacteria and caused gene conversion and mitotic crossing-over in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
(IARC, 1994) [potential for long-term pervasive impact]

- This product is not readily biodegradable in a biological wastewater treatment plant and it may be toxic (tedpella.com 1996) [doesn't self-destruct in a timely fashion]

-From Escherplex

Whoa, you sure can talk some shit, Masked Man. That makes my head hurt. Lets have two steps back on this subject, huh? That's at least 4 major red flags on this compund. Who's going to have the go ahead on applying this stuff? The govts of Indonesia and India?

The most powerful and yet unacknowledged rule of human behavior is the rule of unintended consequences - they will usually be greater than the intended ones.

We shouldn't repeat history of DDT, which killed some insects - but it stopped the reproduction of carnivorous birds, which resulted into increase of rodent population.

Indeed we shouldn't. Effectively banning DDT for all uses, including combating malaria in the third world is one of the greatest humanitarian disasters in history. It has so far killed tens of millions and dragged down the economies of some of the poorest countries on Earth.

The racist component of this crime shouldn't be forgotten either; the west erradicated their malaria mosquitos with DDT and then pulled up the draw bridges when DDT was no longer needed.

Luckily cooler heads have prevailed and DDT is making a come-back. It is being actively supported by the WHO until better alternatives come along.

(It's also interesting to note that most bird populations grew in the US during the heaviest period of DDT use).

I get it. Her plan is to use technology to kill off and reduce all the other inedible animals in the world and make more room for more humans. Her thinking goes back to the 1950's.

I get it. Her plan is to use technology to kill off and reduce all the other inedible animals in the world and make more room for more humans. Her thinking goes back to the 1950's.

I get it. Your plan is to kill off 90% of humanity so you can try to turn back technology to before the neolithic. Your thinking goes back to 19th century romanticism.

4-vinylcyclohexene diepoxide, or VCD, typically used in manufacturing rubber tires, polyesters and plastics.

I would be interested in knowing how much of this compound is already in the environment - is there any of it left in the materials after manufacture?



Why I ask is that in products such as many plastics, there are small and possibly significant amounts of plasticizer which eventually leach out. For example, one of current concern is Bisphenol A, and while whether it is a problem of not is still being investigated, many people are concerned about plastics made with it (especially those used with babies) and researchers are concerned if its presence might be affecting their experiments (unrelated to the plasticizer).

@slotin: more likely candidates for that scenario are the pseudoestrogens (such as Bisphenol A) which have been used in the plastics industry for a long time. But that's another potential horror story.

Whats to say this chemical isn't already being utilized to control human growth. If this chemical can have this effect on all female animals (humans and rodents), shouldn't the first agenda be to halt introduction of this chemical into society?

Just another form of genocide?

How about releasing genetically engineered rodents that would cause infertility to offsprings. Nope, that's too easy.

non-toxic ... hahaha, who are you kidding.

Governments stand to lose more than they gain by eliminating populations, even rival ones, especially through the introduction of fertility reduction agents.

Eroding the potential tax base and work force isn't in the cards of any government.

To be honest, this is not about governments. Afterall, the government is composed of the country's constituency. Also, considering that Hitler had a form of government and so did other previous genocides, I fail to see your logic.

What this about is naive scientists giving "expert" opinions as to the possible side effects of such a chemical introduction into the wild. There are better ways to achieve the goals they are trying to achieve; some are far better.

To be honest, this is not about governments. Afterall, the government is composed of the country's constituency.

So the majority of America consists of overweight, white, elderly offspring of liquor bootleggers and other criminal suspects?

The biological effects of VCD have been studied for some time. If you try googling 4-Vinylcyclohexene diepoxide a few things will stand out:



- 4-Vinylcyclohexene diepoxide is produced by epoxidation of 4-vinylcyclohexene with peroxyacetic acid (IARC, 1994) [source]



- Repeated dosing of rats with the ovotoxic chemical, 4-vinylcyclohexene diepoxide (VCD) destroys primordial and primary ovarian follicles via apoptosis (physiological cell death) by accelerating the normal rate of atresia. (Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 1999) [mechanism]



- 4-Vinylcyclohexene diepoxide can be absorbed through the skin of rodents. (IARC, 1994) [transdermal]



- induced squamous cell carcinomas of the skin in most males and females. Regarding internally induced neoplasia, both benign and malignant tumors of the ovaries were caused by dermal exposure of 4-VCHD in female mice (toxsci.oxfordjournals.org 2006) [skin carcinoma risk, et al]



- mutagenic in bacteria and caused gene conversion and mitotic crossing-over in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

(IARC, 1994) [potential for long-term pervasive impact]



- This product is not readily biodegradable in a biological wastewater treatment plant and it may be toxic (tedpella.com 1996) [doesn't self-destruct in a timely fashion]

This is certainly something we should be very careful about.

im not sure if we need more food. more food = more people = more trouble.

Don't you malthusians ever get tired of being wrong?

More food means less people working as subsistence farmers which leads to lower fertility rates because it means that basic education becomes affordable and if there's anything that hurts fertility rates it's access to education by women.

Where is he wrong? More food = more people. Or are you trying to say that more food = less people?

Your prefered mode of population reduction(the starvation of ~90% of humanity...

And where did you get this from?

Where is he wrong? More food = more people. Or are you trying to say that more food = less people?

That's sophistry. More food doesn't necessarily mean more people. Female education is a greater driver of reproduction. More female education = fewer children.

He's saying more food = less farmers, less farmers= less large households operating as subsistence farming steads.