4 ms·

In terms of literally ending the human race, this seems a bit of hyperbole. The statistic that matters is the percentage of women who want to have children but

In terms of literally ending the human race, this seems a bit of hyperbole. The statistic that matters is the percentage of women who want to have children but cannot. I didn't see that pointed to as a trend, and if it actually did become worrisome, those who have virile sperm can donate so those women can still become pregnant.

ironmagma 6y ago
It’s not okay if you’re just scraping the bottom of the barrel for viable sperm. All of human evolution, there has been a wide variety of males to choose from, of whom only a small percentage reproduce. That’s how we evolve. If we are arbitrarily eliminating say half of all the males due to environmental reasons from the pool, that’s a big problem for our ability to evolve.
- taylodl 6y ago
  Environment pressure is a huge force in Natural Selection. If the changing environment makes it so that 50% of males can't sire offspring then Natural Selection is working, right? I'm not following how this is "bottom of the barrel", this appears to be simply how Nature works.
  - ironmagma 6y ago
    Yes, but historically the environmental limitations have likely been a bit more meaningful than, "this group of males unknowingly bought product X which unknowingly contained contaminants from a grocery store," or "this group of males live near an airport."
    - taylodl 6y ago
      Natural Selection is going to select for who's best able to survive in a man-made world. We already see that happening with animals. I'm not entirely sure this is a bad thing but simply how the entire ecosystem is evolving.
      - ironmagma 6y ago
        Right, that's how things are, but it's not probably what should be. Man-made contraptions are hardly long-term stable or hospitable to life, including our own. Additionally, IVF bypasses natural selection since it is artificial.

4 ms·

In terms of literally ending the human race, this seems a bit of hyperbole. The statistic that matters is the percentage of women who want to have children but

by 11thEarlOfMar 6y ago

ironmagma 6y ago
It’s not okay if you’re just scraping the bottom of the barrel for viable sperm. All of human evolution, there has been a wide variety of males to choose from, of whom only a small percentage reproduce. That’s how we evolve. If we are arbitrarily eliminating say half of all the males due to environmental reasons from the pool, that’s a big problem for our ability to evolve.
- taylodl 6y ago
  Environment pressure is a huge force in Natural Selection. If the changing environment makes it so that 50% of males can't sire offspring then Natural Selection is working, right? I'm not following how this is "bottom of the barrel", this appears to be simply how Nature works.
  - ironmagma 6y ago
    Yes, but historically the environmental limitations have likely been a bit more meaningful than, "this group of males unknowingly bought product X which unknowingly contained contaminants from a grocery store," or "this group of males live near an airport."
    - taylodl 6y ago
      Natural Selection is going to select for who's best able to survive in a man-made world. We already see that happening with animals. I'm not entirely sure this is a bad thing but simply how the entire ecosystem is evolving.
      - ironmagma 6y ago
        Right, that's how things are, but it's not probably what should be. Man-made contraptions are hardly long-term stable or hospitable to life, including our own. Additionally, IVF bypasses natural selection since it is artificial.