"STRESS R US" or how stress has evolved to reduce our population
- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
You may now find the 212pg. monograph, “STRESS R US”, in the MAHB Library, including color cover images, often referred to in the text, and the 4 page Topic List (51 topics), which will allow easy navigation of the text. The author is a retired neuropsychiatrist, who searched for 40yrs., with the help of his patients, to create an entirely novel Stress Physiology Model of Anxiety and Clinical Depression, to replace the outdated Medical Model. An historical review of the work of the earliest stress researchers, a group of American East-coast Neurologists, is included. Ever hear the terms “Neurasthenia” or “Nervous Exhaustion”? Stress diseases have been well described for 150yrs. The author contends that “Stress” is another word for our Human Population Regulation Mechanism. Were it not for modern technological medicine constantly coming up with life sustaining treatments, the human population would be a fraction of its current size. However, no technology will stop the increasingly prominent Endocrine System from turning off reproduction due to high population densities. Animal research models predict an on-coming 90% cataclysmic die off, if we continue to refuse to control our ever more ecosystem burdening human populations.
-
I see the correlation between human stress and reproductive changes. It amazes me how we humans think that we are different from all other animals. Furthering the comparison, though, research on non-human animals found an increase in non-heterosexual activity when individuals encountered high stress levels. Would it follow that the growing acceptance of homosexuality in our society is actually an unconscious response to the increasing levels of stress in our society, including environmental degradation, crowding, concern about global climate change, etc.?
Of course, I realize that there are taboos about talking about homosexuality as anything other than a normal thing, which I believe it is. However, if environmental stress was resulting in lower fertility rates, lower testosterone levels and increased feminization of males, we should probably be trying to understand it better – rather than denying the possibility. If our young people are less interested in producing children, we should probably know about it, also. However, there are so many taboo topics that much of our research is focused in narrow areas that leave many major avenues uninvestigated.
These ideas do suggest the possibility of a human population crash. However, would it be spread evenly or be focused among some populations and demographic groups more than others?
-
Earon makes an excellent point, which is covered in some detail in the 212pg. earlier version of this work. My homosexual patients were generally more comfortable with the population density stress model I’ve proposed than any other to explain to themselves their sexual orientation. The central theme of my monograph is that we have evolved a population reduction mechanism, based in the endocrine system, which is activated by high population densities. Infertility is its primary effect on reproduction, apparently by Cortisol inhibiting GNRH production, and, thus, the huge upswing in infertility and its treatment. Homosexuality might well serve a similar biological function, and this model is less moralistic than any other I know. In fact, we might wish to consider rewarding all couples for limiting their reproduction. I have come to view nearly all medical illness as the result of the same effect, and our death rates would be huge were it not for multiple heroic medical and public health interventions.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.