Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Delayed Fatherhood May Be Linked To Certain Congenital and Mental Disorders

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the guess-I'll-just-have-to-have-mutants dept.

Medicine 192

New submitter optimus_phil writes "New Scientist magazine reports on findings that suggest that delaying fatherhood may increase the risk of fathering children with disorders such as Apert syndrome, autism and schizophrenia. The article reports that 'although there is a big increase in risk for many disorders, it's a big increase in a very small risk. A 40-year-old is about 50 per cent more likely to father an autistic child than a 20-year-old is, for instance, but the overall risk is only about 1 per cent to start with.'"

cancel ×

192 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46314945)

You should be first at Fatherhood.

Re: Yes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315171)

And you should be first to suck my dick. Dumbass

In other news.. (3, Funny)

AlanS2002 (580378) | about 8 months ago | (#46314947)

You have a 100% chance of dying over time.

Re:In other news.. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#46314975)

There are substantially more and less pleasant ways of reaching that end, with what we call 'medicine' having a considerable focus on nudging our trajectory...

Re:In other news.. (1)

rusty0101 (565565) | about 8 months ago | (#46314985)

Not necessarily in a substantially more pleasant way of reaching that end.

Re:In other news.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315149)

Speaking of medicine, how much of that risk increase is due to the advanced age of the father, and how much is related to the extra medical procedures he was subjected to ? I would think a 50 year old father has underwent allot more CT scans, radiographs, MRIs, and has taken allot of genotoxic pills during his lifetime than a 30 year old father.

About 1% of US cancers are linked to CT scans and the strong magnetic field of the MRI was proven genotoxic in mice.

Re:In other news.. (1)

Sique (173459) | about 8 months ago | (#46315373)

I would consider this influence very small, probably not even noticeable right now, compared with the risk due to the higher age of the father. It is a far cry from an 1% increase of risk (which is just a link, not a known causal connection right now) for cancer by the CT and MRI scans one gets during life, and the 50% increase in risk for autism, especially when we know already about the increased health risks for the child if the woman is 10 years older. It would be rather surprising if an older father doesn't add to the risk for the health of a child.

Re:In other news.. (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#46315669)

Speaking of medicine, how much of that risk increase is due to the advanced age of the father, and how much is related to the extra medical procedures he was subjected to ?

And how much of it is because Aspies have difficulty with relationships, and get married later in life, after both their social skills and finances have improved? The correlation may be backwards. It may not be older fathers creating autism, but autism creating older fathers.

disclaimer: I got married when I was 43.

Re:In other news.. (2, Interesting)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 8 months ago | (#46315013)

More to the point, the way the world is going, a kid born today as a very high chance of leading a life of debt, unemployment, poverty, starvation, war, and whatever else the future has in store, before dying.

As far as we're concerned, my s.o. and I, the best time for fatherhood is never, as we reckon giving life today isn't really a gift.

Re:In other news.. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315043)

But consider what potential your children might have. For all you know, you could father a genius who brings peace and harmony to the world. Or you could father the greatest genocidal maniac of all time who finally puts the world out of its misery.

Re:In other news.. (1)

scarboni888 (1122993) | about 8 months ago | (#46315677)

Ahhh.... so easy to take that gamble with *someone else's* life now isn't it?

Re:In other news.. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 8 months ago | (#46315717)

You mean as apposed to ending the life before it begins?

It is not someone else's life until such time it begins and can survive on it's own. At that point, it is not a gamble but destiny of sorts.

Re:In other news.. (3, Insightful)

scarboni888 (1122993) | about 8 months ago | (#46315755)

The unborn are in a place of peace. Who are we to disturb that?

Every year 2,000,000 people on this planet commit suicide and untold others make the attempt.

Why bother taking the chance of subjecting some poor unfortunate soul to what amounts to misery and suffering? What gives you the right, especially in a day and age when effective and safe sterilization methods exist?

Because it was done to you, maybe? I would hope not.

Every day millions of unfertilized eggs get flushed down the toilets. There's nothing sad about that now is there?

Re:In other news.. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 8 months ago | (#46315839)

The unborn are in a place of peace. Who are we to disturb that?

Well, that is if you are some sort of whackjob that thinks that which does not exist does exist. But then you would have to have some sort of doctrine or religion explaining the purpose of the existence before the existence and deviation from that doctrine or religion would be the only way you could say "Who are we to disturb that?".

Every year 2,000,000 people on this planet commit suicide and untold others make the attempt.

And what is your point? People are able to make their own choices.

Why bother taking the chance of subjecting some poor unfortunate soul to what amounts to misery and suffering? What gives you the right, especially in a day and age when effective and safe sterilization methods exist?

I'm sorry to put it to you this way but nature gives me the right. survival of the fittest and life goes on. If I wanted to be religious on your, then it is a moral duty to multiply. If you do not want to participate in either natural selection or religion decree, that is fine, the world may be better off without your genes swimming in the pool. But don't expect others to give up on what is either a 6000+ year old obligations or a natural obligation that has existed for millions of years.

Every day millions of unfertilized eggs get flushed down the toilets. There's nothing sad about that now is there?

Nope, it's part of life. why do you bring it up?

I was asked to pass on this note... (-1)

tlambert (566799) | about 8 months ago | (#46315047)

More to the point, the way the world is going, a kid born today as a very high chance of leading a life of debt, unemployment, poverty, starvation, war, and whatever else the future has in store, before dying.

As far as we're concerned, my s.o. and I, the best time for fatherhood is never, as we reckon giving life today isn't really a gift.

I was asked to pass on this note...

Too bad; I had your second kid pencilled in to fix everything in 2060; my next opening is for a North Korean kid in 2117, unless, you know, her prospective parents feel the same way you do.

Love,
God

No idea what it means, do you?

Re:I was asked to pass on this note... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315055)

Children are collect calls from God. Will you accept the charges?

Re:I was asked to pass on this note... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315727)

I just realized one of the reasons Christians don't approve of gays so much. Because they hate the competition for the faggoty things they say.

Re:I was asked to pass on this note... (4, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 8 months ago | (#46315093)

Consider this alternative.

  • Excellent choice. You had been scheduled to be the parents of the world's next Hitler but your decision to not procreate will spare untold misery and suffering.
    #Deity

Basically, some things in life are enormous responsibilities that you should face with your eyes open. If you think that you shouldn't have children or own a gun or fly a plane, you're probably right.

LK

Re:I was asked to pass on this note... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315133)

Hitler was a necessary part of God's plan to create the European Union.

Re:I was asked to pass on this note... (1)

someone1234 (830754) | about 8 months ago | (#46315157)

But, some say the EU should be nuked from orbit.

Re:I was asked to pass on this note... (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about 8 months ago | (#46315207)

"But, some say the EU should be nuked from orbit."

Catalans, Basques, Scots etc who want their own little piece of Geography for some nostalgic reason or other.

Re:I was asked to pass on this note... (0)

mikael (484) | about 8 months ago | (#46315277)

More because they feel they can manage their own land resources better than the Eurocrats in London or Brussels can.
As an example, have a look at the situation in Somerset and Devon. Eurocrats pay farmers to cut down trees and clear land, but those trees helped remove water from the ground. Then the Eurocrats fund a scheme to return the rivers to their natural state and create a bird sanctuary. But those rivers helped remove heavy rainfall from the ground. Result? Third world living conditions for thousands of people for weeks.

http://www.theguardian.com/env... [theguardian.com]

And to discover the Higg's Boson! (1)

IgnorantMotherFucker (3394481) | about 8 months ago | (#46315699)

Almost forgotten these days is that CERN wasn't established to discover anything. Much like the Olympics, it was established to give World War II's former enemies something peaceful to do with each other, in hopes of preventing World War III.

Re:I was asked to pass on this note... (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 8 months ago | (#46315767)

If you think that you shouldn't have children or own a gun or fly a plane, you're probably right.

Same could be said for getting out of bed in the morning, driving a car, having sex, going to crowded public places, etc.

Re:In other news.. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 8 months ago | (#46315063)

I have a somewhat more optimistic view of the future than you seem to -- I do think we're heading for a low point in some areas right now, but I also think these things often go in cycles and that since most people are basically decent human beings we will learn to deal with the problems and fix them with time. There will be more later, but that's life.

Personally, I wonder how much the kinds of health effects we're discussing here make a difference compared to the potential benefits of having parents who are a bit older. For example, if older parents tend to be more financially secure, they can probably afford a better home in a safer neighbourhood and a safer model of car. Maybe they can afford better educational toys or more books or to take their children to more places and given them more positive experiences as they grow up. More mature and experienced parents can also share the benefits of that experience with their children, perhaps giving the kids a head start in academic life or more emotional support when they have to deal with difficult situations.

There's got to be some sort of balance here. Very young parents don't tend to do well by their kids, because they can't. Maybe they lack sufficient resources to care for them properly, and maybe they are still barely more than children themselves emotionally. On the other hand, relatively old parents tend to have kids with more health problems as we've been discussing, and obviously at some point in your life you can no longer mother a new child at all. The interesting thing to me is how to figure out what gives kids the best outcomes under different circumstances, so would-be parents can make informed decisions based on seeing the whole picture.

Re:In other news.. (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 8 months ago | (#46315143)

There is most certainly value in some property of post-child rearing folk (grandparents?), otherwise natural selection would not have seen fit to suffer our relatively long life spans in relation to our metabolism and fertility age. I think evolution hasn't had time to account for the trend of young parents not being so close to their own parents. I also think that will change with time- our species will become better at having offspring later in life as it becomes less common to be very close to your extended family in our societies.

Re:In other news.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315167)

our species will become better at having offspring later in life as it becomes less common to be very close to your extended family in our societies.

Either that or schizophrenia will just be considered normal. Who said that? Good point, me. I agree.

Re:In other news.. (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 8 months ago | (#46315219)

I've heard it suggested that one of the major evolutionary advantages humanity has over other species is middle age. Most of us will have a significant period in our lives when we are no longer producing children but still able to work productively and to help younger people to develop.

Re:In other news.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315155)

There's got to be some sort of balance here. Very young parents don't tend to do well by their kids, because they can't. Maybe they lack sufficient resources to care for them properly, and maybe they are still barely more than children themselves emotionally. On the other hand, relatively old parents tend to have kids with more health problems as we've been discussing, and obviously at some point in your life you can no longer mother a new child at all. The interesting thing to me is how to figure out what gives kids the best outcomes under different circumstances, so would-be parents can make informed decisions based on seeing the whole picture.

I've always wondered if we may be better off looking outside the box here on childbearing ages.

I think most of us would be in agreement that biologically speaking, young parents are preferred. They have the best quality genetic material, and in the case of the mother childbirth is easier (at times significantly so) on a younger mother than an older mother. And yet at the same time, older parents are socially and economically secure in a way that most young parents cannot match, essentially making them better caregivers.

Meanwhile there's no reason to believe that parents (as an average) are going to start getting younger again. And I'd actually be surprised if they stopped getting older for at least the next little bit, as we continue to stretch out that early insecure adulthood phase through increasingly rigorous and time consuming education and career building phases.

So what if instead of trying to find a less-than-ideal balance, we decouple child creation and child rearing entirely? Admittedly I wager this idea is completely infeasible, but it's an interesting thought to me all the same.

The idea is essentially this: what if we made adoption the preferred method of starting a family rather than procreation? Older parents, socially, emotionally, and financially secure, could adopt healthy children produced by young parents. This provides them with the biological benefits of younger parents, with an added kicker that an adopted child is going to be less disruptive to one's career than bearing a child directly, especially in the mother's case.

Meanwhile on the supply side we essentially incentivize young couples to have children so that they may be adopted through this system. The ideal age would probably be the late teens, so you'd have the young parents graduate high school and then spend the next 2-3 years producing children. The young parents would be compensated, and from there they could start college at 20-21, with the ability to use that compensation to help cover the lofty costs of college. Finally, in 10-20 years when their own lives are secure, they can become the older parents that adopt children through the very same system.

This plan has some pretty big flaws, not the least of which is that there's an extremely strong preference among parents to raise children that are biologically theirs and not adopted, so on that basis alone I don't really think such a plan would work. But socially and biologically this seems like it would be a win-win; you get all the biological benefits of young parents and all the social benefits of old parents, minimizing the problems that either scenario alone comes with.

As a soon to be married woman I'm facing that all too familiar dilemma about career and family. Biologically speaking it's best if I don't wait much longer to start a family, but I know long term it would be better for my family if my career was farther along so that I don't miss out on lifetime earnings and career advancement. The above is probably just a frustrated uterus talking, but given the number of women who are in the same predicament like me, it does make me wonder if some method of decoupling child making and child rearing is the best way to go here.

Re:In other news.. (2)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 8 months ago | (#46315231)

I'm not sure how effectively a complete separation would ever work, given the strength of parent-child bonding in humans. I do think you're on to something there, though.

I've sometimes wondered whether we've lost some useful structure relatively recently, as a side effect of the easy travel and communication over long distances we enjoy today. Having a local community or extended family where children are not only raised by their parents but also supported by others of their parents' generation, who collectively have both broader experience to share and more reliable survival rates, seems like it has a lot of evolutionary value. That value isn't necessarily carried over to having just parents, professional teachers at school, and maybe professional childcare help to bridge the gaps, with other people the parents know and trust not necessarily living nearby or being regular in-person visitors who can develop relationships with children.

As another little piece of food for thought, if we're considering the idea that having children later has an advantage in terms of parents' greater maturity and means, we should also consider whether having them earlier has an advantage in terms of support from the grandparent generation, whose means and maturity will typically be greater still.

The Kid Bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315549)

Well another variation of your suggestion is to make it common practice to store your eggs/sperm when you are young, preferably in a way that doesn't increase birth defects beyond that of being old parents (otherwise what's the point), and use them when you want to have children when you are older. The problem with this is most young people wouldn't think ahead... that's why it would have to be common practice (or make it part of the standard check-up?). I really don't see how it would be accepted except for smart young people who plan ahead... maybe that's a good thing ;)

Posting Anon to keep moderation

Re:The Kid Bank (3, Funny)

sumdumass (711423) | about 8 months ago | (#46315751)

Screw that. I stored them so I can have clones made to harvest organs from as I age. I will likely live forever with the hopes of an entirely new body. And as soon as we can transplant a brain, 15 years later I will finally be able to get laid in high school.

Re: In other news.. (1)

BESTouff (531293) | about 8 months ago | (#46315783)

Just leave your kids to their grandparents, so you can still see them as often as you wish. Best of both worlds.

That was the case with my father (2)

IgnorantMotherFucker (3394481) | about 8 months ago | (#46315243)

I have Bipolar-Type Schizoaffective Disorder [warplife.com] .

My father's part-time job during high schools was performing mineral assays for the Sierra Nevada, California gold mining industry, so he was accepted to study chemistry at UC Berkeley with wild enthusiasm, right out of high school at the age of eighteen.

Unfortunately he realized just before the last day to withdraw without any grades being recorded, that he'd blown off his entire first term of school by partying with the UCB marching band. He played the sax in the marching band, and was always heavily into music. So he withdrew just before the deadline. When I was a boy, he quite sadly told me that his Berkeley transcripts just say he "attended". No grades, no credit, no fails, but he is recorded to have attended.

He returned home to Grass Valley, and took up the traditional trade of the men in his side of the family, that of carpentry.

When he was twenty-three or so, he joined the Navy as an enlisted man. The Navy sent him to study EE at the U of Idaho, in a program meant for enlisted men who were recognized to have leadership potential. He wasn't actually in the U of I's NROTC, but he studied along with the NROTC students.

When I was born in 1964, he had a BSEE and was a lieutenant in the Navy.

In 1970, a couple of his fellow officers were visiting our home. "Your father is very smart," one of them said to me. "You should ask him questions."

One of my happiest memories is of a contest he proposed, where he and I spent all day long attempting - but both of use failing! - to make working telephones out of random stuff we found lying around the house.

I was accepted to study Astronomy at Caltech in 1982. I was the third coauthor on some Astrophysical Journal articles during the Summer of 1983, as a result of my summer job with Jeremy R. Mould, who is now regarded as the world's most highly-cited Astronomer. I later changed my major to Physics.

I was PERSONALLY tutored in Quantum Mechanics by Richard Feynman.

I was forced to leave the Institute due to my mental illness, but transferred to University of California Santa Cruz, where I earned a BA in Physics. I received an Energy Department grant to write my undergraduate - UNDERGRADUATE now! - thesis at CERN, in Geneva. My advisor Clem Heusch was searching for non-conservation of Lepton number. That was very exciting work; had Clem found what he was looking for, he would have earned the Nobel Prize, and my name would have been on the paper.

I've been a coder now for twenty-six years. My resume [warplife.com] is seven pages long.

Could I have done all that had I been born before my father joined the Navy? There's no way to really know but for sure I had many advantages over what I would have had available to me, had he fathered me much younger than he did.

Re:That was the case with my father (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315425)

I was PERSONALLY tutored in Quantum Mechanics by Richard Feynman.

Oh yeah? Well I graduated with honors from public schools, I was taught by nobodies, my resume is barely one page long, and I've never ever been able to find a real job in the real world. Thank you very much for your anecdotal evidence that social connections make the difference between success and failure. I know this, and yet I still refuse to join LinkedIn. Fuck you very much, SocialMotherFucker.

You brought a smile to my weary eyes. (1)

IgnorantMotherFucker (3394481) | about 8 months ago | (#46315605)

But I should say, other than being well-taught by my father, it wasn't any kind of connection that got me into Caltech.

An ex-girlfriend of mine at Tech was from a deeply impoverished family. When her father broke the bad news that he could not pay her fees anymore, so she would have to leave Caltech, she burst into tears. Someone advised her to consult the financial aid office, who fixed her right up.

She went on to earn a PhD in Mathematics, and is now a cryptologist for the NSA. Sorry but I feel it would be a bad idea to tell you her name.

Re:In other news.. (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 8 months ago | (#46315795)

Very young parents don't tend to do well by their kids, because they can't. Maybe they lack sufficient resources to care for them properly, and maybe they are still barely more than children themselves emotionally

News to me. If you're still behaving petulantly by your late teens, you have no one to blame but yourself (and maybe your parents, maybe because they were too old, ironically). Maybe that's because so many Americans are too busy focusing on being temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

Where I live (not in the US), it is very common for people to marry and start families in their very early twenties and sometimes even late teens. There is no insurmountable financial strain to speak of, but that has more to do with a stable economy, good financial planning skills and a general satisfaction with life.

My sister is 25 with children of 3 and 1. She is a stay-at-home mom and her husband pulls in between about 30-35k a year. Yes, money is tight, but they are financially responsible with no major debts outside of the mortgage and car loan. They are incredibly happy with a very good outlook on life.

Consider this: younger parents have more energy and are still that stage of life where lack of sleep less of a problem, so they can keep up with their kids and give them the full attention they need. Their families are stronger and collectively larger for longer. I'm in my late twenties and both sets of grandparents are still around.

So you think the better balance is to have older parents cause a greater chance of life-long afflictions in their children rather than younger adults to just stop being oversized children and give their kids the best possible biological chance at good health?

Re:In other news.. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315199)

"More to the point, the way the world is going, a kid born today as a very high chance of leading a life of debt, unemployment, poverty, starvation, war, and whatever else the future has in store, before dying."

You're talking about the US I guess.

Re:In other news.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315461)

I think so.

I guess I am at odds... I think I have a very unique datalogger / HMI design and would like to build it... a nice building became vacant down the street from me, but I could not afford it.. guess what moved in? A reverse-mortgage banker. I would like to build something, but just get flak from taxing authorities... but bankers seem to provide such a needed business to our society - printing money out of thin air, charging interest on it, and now encouraging debt in our parents by taking the last of a family's assets.

Not only is today's younger generation going into debt big time with these damned student loans, these same students can look forward to the bankers wooing their parents with yet more debt to repay obligations that will require yet more "creation" of dollars to satisfy. This whole thing stinks, but all the people who seem to be able to legislate the environment seems to be in bed with these guys. I hate to see young kids starting off on their first job getting paid barely enough to pay the interest on all the loans they took out just to make them suitable for employment - then have our lawmakers give ear to owners of the means of production that they need to increase immigrant workers that can work cheaper.

Someone try to do the same thing they are doing and the first thing you see is "intellectual property" lawsuits fly as the wealthy, "working with" Congress to pass law, codifies intellectual property as defensible for the purpose of maintaining an artificial monopoly, but not of all that much value when it comes to assessment of property tax.

If I printed money, its counterfeiting, but if a bank does it, its adding liquidity to the market. If I loan something I do not have, its theft. If a bank does it, its fractional reserve lending. This giving of authority to coin law to our Congress is backfiring big time - I fear in the very near future, all we will have is the ownership class and the debtors - all on welfare - with few having the resources to even gather up the tools to do a job - that is if anyone will even be able to do a job without violating some special rightsholder's virtual property as defined by lobbied congressional lawmakers.

Re:In other news.. (1)

smallfries (601545) | about 8 months ago | (#46315315)

But on the bright side, it is unlikely that your negative views on continuing the human race will be passed onto another generation.

Your child is unlikely to be born a slave (1)

IgnorantMotherFucker (3394481) | about 8 months ago | (#46315629)

If you murder someone, your male children are unlikely to die for your crime in a Vendetta.

Yes that's the original meaning of Vendetta. Renaissance Italian courts decreed them. Fuck up bad enough, and any male from the offended party's family, had the right to murder any male from three successive generations of the offending party's family - but only when that right was provided by a court of law!

If you have the wherewithal to post to Slashdot, then the life expectancy of your children is likely to be around seventy years. While there are parts of the world that have not made much progress in life expectancy, people in those parts of the world tend not to have computers or Internet.

I reiterate the points that some others have made: your children could be the ones to bring peace and prosperity.

I myself am deeply in debt, profoundly mentally ill, totally busted broke even if I weren't in debt, but I know a great deal, mostly learned through hard-won experience. So I work to educate others, for the most part mostly [warplife.com] through [warplife.com] my writing [warplife.com] , all of which is available online for free, none of which earns me a penny.

Re: In other news.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315715)

Such defeatist, weak-minded people have no business being parents anyhow.

Re:In other news.. (-1, Flamebait)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 8 months ago | (#46315787)

As far as we're concerned, my s.o. and I, the best time for fatherhood is never, as we reckon giving life today isn't really a gift.

And I thank you for removing your genes from the gene pool.

Re:In other news.. (3, Interesting)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 8 months ago | (#46315141)

In other news, Children with older fathers and grandfathers 'live longer' [bbc.co.uk] And quote:

It might be possible that the advantage of receiving long telomeres from an old father is more than offset by the disadvantage of higher levels of general DNA damage and mutations in sperm

Actually, no (3, Informative)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 8 months ago | (#46315191)

Mortality has only been the case for about 90% of humans ever born. Statistically speaking, you have a 10% of living forever.

Re:Actually, no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315305)

Actually, it's about 6.66%.

Re:In other news.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315197)

Based on previous collected data on other organisms. Based on the observations I have made of my own organism the chance of death is 0%!

Re:In other news.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315269)

There was this article. i forget the exact headline but it was something like "X food increases your chance of death by 10%".....no it doesnt. every single human, every single animal, every single plant has exactly 100% chance to die. no more, no less. exactly and unequivocally 100% :)

Re:In other news.. (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 8 months ago | (#46315759)

Also, correlation != causation.

Is delayed fatherhood the cause, or is there an underlying root cause that also leads to delayed fatherhood.

In other words, are fathers who are statistically more likely to sire children with these problems also subject to behavioral or other biases that lead them to more often have children later in life?

correlation, causation, not the droids, etc (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46314951)

On the other hand, maybe waiting until you're 40 to have a kid is a symptom of the genes responsible for these disorders.

Re:correlation, causation, not the droids, etc (3, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 8 months ago | (#46315003)

More likely a sign of the effect of society on the decision of having a child: either the couple is poor and decides they can't offer the child a good life, or they're still student and they prefer to wait until they're done with their studies and have stable jobs and incomes... that sort of thing.

Re:correlation, causation, not the droids, etc (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315029)

Good luck finding a job after earning a college degree in Obama's America. If you're even slightly educated, you're too pricey to be employable. Might as well start that family now, because you won't get a better chance later either when you become too old to be employable.

Re: correlation, causation, not the droids, etc (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315173)

Poor waiting to have kids? Not in America! They are the ones popping out babies so Obama keeps paying their welfare checks.

Re: correlation, causation, not the droids, etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315205)

At least someone is sensible enough to be fruitful and multiply. Live long and prosper, welfare mothers. Our future depends on you.

Re: correlation, causation, not the droids, etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315227)

A future of crime, violence, drugs, sex, and recklessness. And this future will be almost entirely black. Oh how excited I am!

Re: correlation, causation, not the droids, etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315437)

White people have chosen to enrich themselves rather than their progeny. Selfish white people will be the death of their race, and they will deserve it.

Re: correlation, causation, not the droids, etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315503)

And when there are no whites left, watch the world enter the stone age. Good luck having them invent or even be able to repair the technology that's around them. So watch what you wish for...

Re: correlation, causation, not the droids, etc (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315595)

for most of recorded history, europe was the backwater of the world. it was only after the Turks finally destroyed the Eastern Roman Empire did the scientists and artists from there move to Europe to jump start the renassaince. only because the eastern peoples' governments screwed their countries at the time did europe get ahead

Re: correlation, causation, not the droids, etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315829)

Why is this modded troll?
This is exactly what happens. Poor people are less likely to use contraception and because of that are more likely to have more children earlier in their life.
Usually it's due to less education and the expectation that the girls get out of the house as soon as possible.

Re:correlation, causation, not the droids, etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315561)

As is having enough resources / wherewithal at age 40 to have them diagnosed. Or perhaps there was a commonly used chemical carcinogen 30 years ago that confounded the results. It's hard to say and I'd be cautious about advising men to have children earlier in life because of this data. (That said, I doubt that a potential 0.5% absolute increase in risk is going to affect most men's decision, especially given that women have a much stronger incentive to have children early.)

Academic researchers know all about that (1)

IgnorantMotherFucker (3394481) | about 8 months ago | (#46315689)

I expect that if you read the actual journal paper, it will go to great length to measure and state just what the correllations are, but is unlikely to do more than suggest avenues of further research into the cause.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if a paper were to claim a cause based purely on a correlation, then the peer reviewers would kick it back. It just wouldn't get published until it stopped making that claim.

It seems reasonable that genetic damage caused by aging could be the cause. For example it is well-established that our Telomeres become damaged with age. But that's the best one can hope for - a reasonable speculation.

Instead the actual cause could be something that is correlated with age. For example high blood pressure is common in older people, so they are advised to eat less salt. Maybe eating less salt makes your children Schizophrenic or Autistic. Young people tend to eat a lot of salty food you see. Now this is a contrived example, but it could work that way, where some other factor that is correlated with age is the actual cause.

On the other hand, I repeatedly point out online, that smoking a lot of marijuana before your brain finishes forming at the age of twenty-five, increases your chance of become Schizophrenic as an adult. Note that the actual cause of this has not been established, but the correlation has been established for many years.

Quite commonly, I am met with the response that those who are predisposed to later become Schizophrenic, like to smoke dope when they are young.

The people who respond to me this way just pull this statement out of their asses. We do not know yet, whether those who are in any way predisposed to become Schizophrenic, also tend to smoke more pot. We only know that they tend to become Schizophrenic after they have done a lot of the evil weed.

and the risks of marriage delays parenthood (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46314963)

With a 50% divorce rate in the US, if you have children and you're the primary wage earner, it is likely you
1) Pay for kids that you only get to see 20% of the time
2) Pay your ex-spouse for his'/her's decision/ability to make less money than you do
3) Pay your ex-spouse's legal bills so that person can cause you as much pain as possible in court
I think it is a horrible deal.
And the legal system becomes the other person's weapon to abuse you.
Miss a payment, and you're screwed.
If you want children, donate your source code.
If you want to raise kids, date someone who has nice kids.

Re:and the risks of marriage delays parenthood (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#46314995)

Makes you wish for the good old days, when people didn't defer marriage because the social costs of doing so were overwhelmingly high, and divorce rates were low because they were hard to get...

Re:and the risks of marriage delays parenthood (3, Insightful)

Calydor (739835) | about 8 months ago | (#46315107)

Yes, because being locked into an unhappy and possibly abusive relationship for life is so much better.

If your spouse wants to drag you through hell in the legal system, what do you think it'll be like to be forced to keep on living with them?

Re:and the risks of marriage delays parenthood (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#46315119)

Just in case I didn't make it sufficiently clear, I was attempting sarcasm there. The 'good old days' weren't. Hence the heavy drinking and high levels of coercive violence.

Re:and the risks of marriage delays parenthood (0)

Calydor (739835) | about 8 months ago | (#46315123)

One of those cases where you can't be sure if something is serious or sarcasm. I'm glad we at least agree.

Re:and the risks of marriage delays parenthood (2)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (895364) | about 8 months ago | (#46315285)

We need the sarcasm font to be made into a standard.

Re:and the risks of marriage delays parenthood (2, Insightful)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 8 months ago | (#46315357)

Makes you wish for the good old days, when people didn't defer marriage because the social costs of doing so were overwhelmingly high, and divorce rates were low because they were hard to get...

You mean, the good old days when families actually were more stable, and tended to be happier?

No, don't throw me in the brier patch! Anything but that!

Re:and the risks of marriage delays parenthood (1)

houghi (78078) | about 8 months ago | (#46315211)

If you want children, donate your source code.

Court Says Craigslist Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support [slashdot.org] . So that is not a real option. So if you are male, you are out of luck.

Having kids as a male is a bit like the beta slashdot version. You are fucked and have no influence on the outcome.

Re:and the risks of marriage delays parenthood (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315347)

If you want children, donate your source code.

Court Says Craigslist Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support [slashdot.org] . So that is not a real option. So if you are male, you are out of luck.

Having kids as a male is a bit like the beta slashdot version. You are fucked and have no influence on the outcome.

Donate sperm anonymously!

Re:and the risks of marriage delays parenthood (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315447)

Women don't want anonymous sperm. It might be from a loser.

Re:and the risks of marriage delays parenthood (2, Insightful)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (895364) | about 8 months ago | (#46315351)

There are two reasons for that.

1: Feminism is reacting to the historical fact that it has usually been the reverse that was true. It is only contraceptives which have managed to change this.

2: This is compounded, and this is where it probably gets "too complex" for a lot of people, by the fact that this behavior IS inherently sexist. Of course, here a lot of people fail to understand that the famous "patriarchy", which feminists decry, is also sexist toward men.

Women, it says, are all harmless victims who cannot abuse children. Women are perfect parents who should stay home and care for their children. Men are child abusers and rape monsters and are not fit to care for children.

Note that there's some overlap between a certain subset of feminists (known as radical feminists) and conservatives to confuse the matter further.

Re:and the risks of marriage delays parenthood (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315353)

If you want to donate sperm, go to a fucking sperm bank.

Re:and the risks of marriage delays parenthood (1)

will_die (586523) | about 8 months ago | (#46315407)

Please go read about that case. It was ruled that way because the donor did not go through the legal method to donate sperm.

Re:and the risks of marriage delays parenthood (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315417)

If you want children, donate your source code.

Court Says Craigslist Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support [slashdot.org] . So that is not a real option. So if you are male, you are out of luck.

Gee, if only there were an entire industry designed around allowing men to donate their sperm while legally shielding them from responsibility for that donation.

Re:and the risks of marriage delays parenthood (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315741)

Do NOT under ANY circumstances donate your source code. There have been recently the legal beginnings of a precedent that says that a sperm donor can be held liable for child support if the donation recipient falls on hard times, or otherwise loses the man who had been acting as the father and provider.

Family courts care about only one thing - the welfare of the child - and family law allows them to make any decision necessary to that end, no matter how asinine it may be. It is well within the power of a family court judge to compel the revelation of the donor's identity and compel him to contribute to the financial burden of raising the child he fathered.

Re:and the risks of marriage delays parenthood (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 8 months ago | (#46315773)

Or, don't marry until you can tell the difference between an evil witch and a good hearted princess.

Optimal age for women (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46314977)

is after 55, by that time you'll have made your fortune. Time is money! Don't waste valuable time on children until you have lots of money.

So guys, don't delay that task. (1)

rusty0101 (565565) | about 8 months ago | (#46314989)

Become a father at your earliest opportunity! Onset of puberty being optimal it appears.

Disclaimer - this is to be taken in a sarcastic vein.

Re:So guys, don't delay that task. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315049)

I have to wonder if these articles are published with the thought of driving up teen pregnancy. Just last week I saw an article saying that mentally-challenged women have a better chance of conceiving than regular women.

After the TP explosion of the 90s/00s, I know a lot of people don't even want to think about kids until their mid-30s. Add immigration to the mix, and some couples don't even want to parent at all.

"Won't someone please think of the children?"

Re:So guys, don't delay that task. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315071)

Career women are making a habit of waking up one day and suddenly realizing they forgot to do something: have children while they still could.

Re:So guys, don't delay that task. (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 8 months ago | (#46315777)

What are the paternity laws effects for minor fathers?

It's all in the egg (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315081)

A woman's egg. Gets all of them at birth (pre-natal not considered). Keeps them until they rot. About 25 years. After that, you rolls your dice and you takes your chances. Always be scared when an older worman (26 and up) is pregnant. There is a good chance what pops out won't be what is considered normal. Probably destined to be republican, or at least mildly retarded.

Hitler's father was 51 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315101)

That explains Adolf.

Actually, Alois Schicklgruber was quite abusive (5, Informative)

IgnorantMotherFucker (3394481) | about 8 months ago | (#46315169)

Swiss Child Psychologist Alice Miller [alice-miller.com] devoted twenty years to treating the very worst kinds of child abuse, then decided to stop all treatment of actual patients in hopes of putting a permanent end to that child abuse by writing a great many profoundly insightful books.

Her book For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty In Child-Rearing And The Roots Of Violence has just four chapters. One of the chapters makes a pretty good case for Adolf Hitler, World War II, NAZI Germany and the Holocaust all being to the fact that Alois Schicklgruber beat the young Adolf Schicklgruber every single day of his young life.

One day when he was thirteen or so - I don't clearly recall when - Adolf stood stoically and calmly for his beating, then at the end of it, told his father how many times his father had hit him, thanked him then calmly walked away. Everyone who witnessed this thought Adolf had gone insane. Perhaps he had.

Most of Miller's books are hugely popular with mental health professionals. Powells [powells.com] always has a whole bunch of copies of each book on its shelves in Portland, Oregon.

Quite likely you can find For Your Own Good in any decent bookstore.

I expect they've been translated to many languages. I'm not sure but I think Miller's Mother Tongue was German. She spoke English, but not very well, so the English-language editions of her books are all translated by experts.

Re:Actually, Alois Schicklgruber was quite abusive (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315189)

The very best way to put a permanent end to child abuse is total genocide. Hitler was a pansy and not nearly ambitious enough.

Explains (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315147)

All the 90 year old with those 12 year old graduating from University...
~(COUGH)~ PRO BABY MAKING PROPAGANDA BULLSHIT....

Bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315165)

People who want kids are the ones with the disorder!

Re:Bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315183)

Kill all humans!

What Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315213)

What a bunch of crap. All the men in our family had late children either planned or not and none of them have had these issues. We've broadened our definition of certain diseases so much we're just looking to categorize everyone as defective so they get special treatment for being unexceptional. What idiocy.

women over 40 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315241)

women more aged than taught youngins also make bad babies. downs syndrome, etc. i recommend pumping out babies at 25 or 30. your life might not be on track yet but if you're planning on babies, sacrifice one of the parents career for a few years.

There are also significant risks to old mothers. (1)

queazocotal (915608) | about 8 months ago | (#46315341)

So, if you are an older father, seeking to reduce their childs risks, simply pick an 18 year-old wife.

For the sake of the children.

http://pediatricbioscience.com... [pediatricbioscience.com]

Re:There are also significant risks to old mothers (1)

g00ey (1494205) | about 8 months ago | (#46315499)

I'm still doubtful with this research because how common is it that a 40 something male marries a 20 something female and have children with her? I think such couples are too unusual to yield any statistical significance to such a research.

According to a Wikipedia article the "Average age difference between couples in developed world is between two to three years, with the female partner being younger". The article supporting this statement can be found here [cairn-int.info] .

Re:There are also significant risks to old mothers (2)

Lairdykinsmcgee (2500904) | about 8 months ago | (#46315501)

I am a 24 years old male and in a serious relationship with someone who is 38 (female). Our situation is, of course, rife with stigma and expected impracticalities, but one of the larger ones we have faced is the dilemma of at some point having a child. We are both aware of the extensive research done on maternal age in relation to congenital problems and disorders, but we were always under the assumption that paternal age doesn't present too much risk. Obviously, my being young does not exactly 'decrease' the risk of the development of congenital disorders, but certainly it seems to not 'increase' that risk. Looking forward, it's a precarious and frightening decision for us to make for a number of reason, the risks involved with maternal age certainly being one of them.

Re:There are also significant risks to old mothers (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 8 months ago | (#46315515)

FFS, adopt. Unless your genetics are so precious that they must be preserved, why would you want to fire that old cannon anyway?

Pre-U.S. Civil War President John Tyler (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 8 months ago | (#46315459)

There are two living grandsons of John Tyler [dailymail.co.uk] .
Which proves nothing, because this sort of discussion is not about proving things.
What I want to know about the research is how much dope the old coots under consideration did. I submit that the quality of life lived may have as much impact as the quantity, but not quite get teased out as well in the research.

"Just" 1% ? (5, Insightful)

cellocgw (617879) | about 8 months ago | (#46315533)

Personally I view a significant cogitative or social defect that has a one-percent chance of ocurring to be unacceptably high. That's several kids in each class year in any medium-sized elementary school.

So, yes, I would consider an increase from 1% to 1.5% to be important. Granted, reducing the base probability would be far more useful than dealing with the age-related increase, but either way, these are large numbers compared with, say the usual "cancer risk increases by 5x" headlines which ignore the base risk being maybe 1E-6.

Re:"Just" 1% ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315687)

Oh yes... if the Common folk wont fit the compulsory schooling and mandatory "free" slave of bank concept... then of course there's something inherently wrong with their brains and they need to be medicated or some how eradicated...

What humans are SUPPOSED to do (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315721)

Humans are SUPPOSED to start reproducing the moment they reach puberty. That is what is good for the gene pool.

The fact that we haven't been doing that for the last 50-100 years is the reason we're seeing an absolute explosion in the rates of cancer and other genetic disease.

I just found out I've got no sperm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46315731)

Wife and I have been trying forever. Finally got tested. Apparently it's still possible if we want to go through IVF, but do I want to pass on this and other problems to a future kid?

It hit me a lot harder than I realized it would. I guess I need to suck it up and figure out what I want to do.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?