A paper from Peking University went viral

In the past few days, a paper from Peking University has gone viral.

The title is quite eye-catching: "A Prospective Cohort Study Based on 500,000 Chinese Men and Women: The Association Spectrum of Offspring Quantity with All-Phenotype Diseases and Mortality Risks."

But by the time it reached the media, it was reduced to just one phrase: .

Isn't this asking for criticism? Young people today are reluctant to even get married, and you expect them to have three or four children? Thus, the comment section exploded:

"Have 30 children, and the death register owes you two pages!"

"I suggest the experts demonstrate first; if they can have ten, I’ll admit defeat."

"Raising four kids, you'd have to line up to hang yourself."

The criticism feels justified, but it’s directed at the wrong people.

I carefully read the original text, and the researchers are actually quite wronged. They clearly stated - this study only proves that there is a "relationship" and cannot prove "who causes whom."

It's like saying there's a connection between mental illness and not having children. But whether it's the lack of children that leads to mental illness, or mental illness that leads to not being able to find a partner is unclear.

Furthermore, women having three or four children have lower mortality rates. But is it possible that those who can have three or four children are inherently healthy? And those who die from complications or postpartum depression never had a chance to be included in your "500,000 sample"!

What do you call that? Dead people can't talk.

The researchers also admit that the sample of childless individuals is too small, and outpatient data was not recorded. But the media doesn't care about this; they only want a sensational point. Thus, "there is a relationship" turned into "having three children leads to longevity," and the rigor of academia became a trumpet for promoting childbirth.

In my opinion, this isn't an academic issue; it's a matter of journalistic ethics.

What’s even more heartbreaking is that this research hides a "cause and effect reversal" pit.

Women who can give birth to three or four children, besides being healthy, must also come from wealthy families. Only with money can they afford to raise children, see a doctor, and live long.

This isn't about the number of children affecting health; it’s economic strength determining lifespan. But if you remove the variable of "wealth" and only discuss having children, isn't that just playing tricks?

It's like someone saying, "People who ride Maybachs every day live longer"; obviously, they ride Maybachs because they are rich, and only the rich can take good care of their health. Try making an ordinary person ride a Maybach every day; the car loan will crush you first.

Researchers may understand this logic, but they can only hint at it.

This reminds me of the population predictions made by rocket scientists in the 1980s.

They calculated that if the fertility rate remains at 3.0, China's population would reach 4.264 billion by 2080. Thus, they strongly advocated for a one-child policy.

Looking back now, isn't that ridiculous? If the entire population stood still, they would still be stacked like Jenga blocks. But at that time, they had to calculate this way; if it wasn't exaggerated, how could it seem urgent to control the population?

Later in 2014, another expert predicted that once the two-child policy was relaxed, the annual birth population would surge to 49.95 million. The actual peak was only 17.86 million, not even half.

You see, population prediction models are limited by the historical context and data assumptions and may not fully reflect the complex social reality.

Every era has its own population science. In the 1980s, you were told to have fewer children; now you are told to have more. Conclusions follow the trend. As for whether it’s scientific, who cares?

But this time is different.

Today's young people are not like those obedient ones from back then. When you conduct research saying "having three children leads to longevity," their first reaction is not "I must hurry to give birth," but rather "How much bride price did this expert receive?"

Why? Because they truly have a cow to tend.

Experts casually write papers, but women really have to give birth! After having children, who takes care of them? Do they keep their job? Who pays the mortgage? Who covers the formula costs?

These real issues are not mentioned in the paper.

The media is even more absurd, directly writing that there is a correlation as the best reproductive plan. As if not having three or four children is irresponsible to one’s own life.

In fact, this study from Peking University isn’t that outrageous. It honestly stated its limitations and clearly wrote "does not represent causation."

The problem lies in the fact that some people insist on using it as a weapon.

The government needs to promote childbirth, the media needs traffic, and experts need research topics. Only women need to bear all of this in reality.

So every time I see such trending topics, I want to advise those researchers: If your conclusions seriously contradict the public's intuition, don’t be too quick to blame "public opinion not understanding science"; take a look back to see if you’re standing at the wrong angle.

The public is not foolish. They can distinguish between what is science and what is a con disguised as science.

The minority does not represent the truth, and awakening does not equal correctness.

Childbearing has a significant impact on women's physical and mental health, requiring adequate social support rather than merely advocating for quantity.

What about you? You don't even leave a responsible party.

Academics belong to academia, and people's livelihood belongs to the people. Don’t let the numbers in the ivory tower become a mountain pressing down on ordinary people.

Researchers please maintain your bottom line, and media personnel please have a bit of conscience.

As for how many children lead to longevity?

I only know to first live like a person before discussing whether to have children.

Ignoring individual choices may ultimately place more pressure on ordinary families.