5 ms·

Phthalates Threaten Humanity’s Ability to Reproduce

98 points by mustafa_pasi 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
adamcstephens 6y ago
At least this article doesn’t make the absurd claim a recent Guardian article did. That reproduction could go to zero.
- mustafa_pasi 6y ago
  That is why I chose this one. The news is making the rounds again under the title, "Human penises are shrinking because of pollution", but unfortunately all articles from the major news sites are of very poor quality.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    Wow, what a title. It's like it was hand crafted to get the toxically masculine on board with environmental protection.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
      What does that have to do with toxic masculinity?
      - klyrs 6y ago
        Very rough caricature: nothing is scary (including/especially harm to others) until it threatens the wellbeing of one's penis.
      - tenebrisalietum 6y ago
        It might be that toxic masculinity is correlated with an obsession over penis size or sometimes at least talking about it, or thinking that it matters when it doesn't.
      - nielsbot 6y ago
        Guessing it's because "Huge penises are more manly!" ergo, Save our penises! ergo, Stop pollution!
      - bopbeepboop 6y ago
        It’s just casual misandry. The misandrists are thinking the only reason men would be concerned with damage to their bodies due to chemicals is because men have “toxic masculinity”. Misandry is popular in some circles.
- oji0hub 6y ago
  Well, at the current rate of decline, it could.
trhway 6y ago
>biological factors don’t necessarily affect people’s genders then what gender is if not biology? Does it mean it is nurture instead of or as a significant addition to nature?
- DoktorDelta 6y ago
  As I understand it, Gender is the socio-cultural aspect, and Sex is the biological term.
  - monkeycantype 6y ago
    But they aren’t, at least in our present culture decoupled, so people have a sense of whether the feel aligned in form and physiology with their gender identity. We’re going to find out in future decades as people experiment with gender identity and physical transformation how much this can be deconstructed, how much of what we think of as gender is an association of things that often went together in the past, how much is about social perception, how much is about your own feeling of inhabiting your body, and how much is a free space for you to author
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      They aren't completely decoupled, no. But historically gender has varied wildly while sex hasn't, so it's intrinsically significantly decoupled from sex itself. Since the extent of that coupling is currently unknown the scientists provide an answer that reflects the uncertainty. What we know for sure is that it's at least significantly decoupled, and almost certainly not completely decoupled.
  - vehemenz 6y ago
    That's one way to cash out the distinction, but "gender" can also mean sex. This usage (at least in English) dates back to the 13th century. At best, it's ambiguous. You can't really know what someone means by "gender" without context, such as the mentioning of the sex/gender distinction. "Gender" has become somewhat of an auto-acronym.
  - 6y ago
monkmartinez 6y ago
Did she really replace AGD or anogenital distance, with Taint and Gooch? My goodness, I laughed like a 12 year old when I read that!
- nielsbot 6y ago
  "gooch"? Am I a square for never having heard that?
  - monkmartinez 6y ago
    Depends? Playing baseball and getting hit in the gooch with a bad bounce is common occurrence. If you never played baseball or a sport where you are not gratuitously hit by object or person the gooch isn't really in the popular vernacular. Come to think of it, I wonder what Cricket players call it... lol.
- PeterWhittaker 6y ago
  Surprising but welcome: Some of us are fine with technical terms, others have their eyes glaze over. Using common slang makes the polysyllabic immediately apprehensible. (I laughed too. Especially considering taint t'aint been a word all that long, eh?)
astrange 6y ago
A counterpoint thread to the part about sperm count: https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1372178337016201224 https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1372178337016201224 Some points are that it's going back up again and is largely caused by poor sleep health. Beyond that, I haven't looked this up but what is the actual relationship between lower sperm count and fewer children? I mean, you have maybe 2-3 children and millions of sperm, surely they are not linearly related. Effects on mothers could matter a lot more, but also maybe they just don't want to do it.
- oji0hub 6y ago
  > what is the actual relationship between lower sperm count and fewer children? I mean, you have maybe 2-3 children and millions of sperm, surely they are not linearly related. Indeed they are far from it. If you "only" ejaculate a few million, you are practically infertile. Even with reproductive assistance like IUI, the chance of conception is something like 1% at a level of 2 million sperm post wash (i.e. when they've selected the most viable sperm).
- oji0hub 6y ago
  Interestingly, the guy who presents the counterpoints starts by saying he didn't read the book. > And I have not read Count Down yet, though it's on my to-do list.
reactspa 6y ago
I actually find it quite funny that humans have planned their own obsolescence. What's funnier is that whatever "safe" substitute humans will devise will prove to be more harmful a couple of generations hence.

98 points by mustafa_pasi 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

adamcstephens 6y ago

At least this article doesn’t make the absurd claim a recent Guardian article did. That reproduction could go to zero.

mustafa_pasi 6y ago
That is why I chose this one. The news is making the rounds again under the title, "Human penises are shrinking because of pollution", but unfortunately all articles from the major news sites are of very poor quality.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  Wow, what a title. It's like it was hand crafted to get the toxically masculine on board with environmental protection.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    What does that have to do with toxic masculinity?
    - klyrs 6y ago
      Very rough caricature: nothing is scary (including/especially harm to others) until it threatens the wellbeing of one's penis.
    - tenebrisalietum 6y ago
      It might be that toxic masculinity is correlated with an obsession over penis size or sometimes at least talking about it, or thinking that it matters when it doesn't.
    - nielsbot 6y ago
      Guessing it's because "Huge penises are more manly!" ergo, Save our penises! ergo, Stop pollution!
    - bopbeepboop 6y ago
      It’s just casual misandry. The misandrists are thinking the only reason men would be concerned with damage to their bodies due to chemicals is because men have “toxic masculinity”. Misandry is popular in some circles.
oji0hub 6y ago
Well, at the current rate of decline, it could.

trhway 6y ago

>biological factors don’t necessarily affect people’s genders then what gender is if not biology? Does it mean it is nurture instead of or as a significant addition to nature?

DoktorDelta 6y ago
As I understand it, Gender is the socio-cultural aspect, and Sex is the biological term.
- monkeycantype 6y ago
  But they aren’t, at least in our present culture decoupled, so people have a sense of whether the feel aligned in form and physiology with their gender identity. We’re going to find out in future decades as people experiment with gender identity and physical transformation how much this can be deconstructed, how much of what we think of as gender is an association of things that often went together in the past, how much is about social perception, how much is about your own feeling of inhabiting your body, and how much is a free space for you to author
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    They aren't completely decoupled, no. But historically gender has varied wildly while sex hasn't, so it's intrinsically significantly decoupled from sex itself. Since the extent of that coupling is currently unknown the scientists provide an answer that reflects the uncertainty. What we know for sure is that it's at least significantly decoupled, and almost certainly not completely decoupled.
- vehemenz 6y ago
  That's one way to cash out the distinction, but "gender" can also mean sex. This usage (at least in English) dates back to the 13th century. At best, it's ambiguous. You can't really know what someone means by "gender" without context, such as the mentioning of the sex/gender distinction. "Gender" has become somewhat of an auto-acronym.
- 6y ago

monkmartinez 6y ago

Did she really replace AGD or anogenital distance, with Taint and Gooch? My goodness, I laughed like a 12 year old when I read that!

nielsbot 6y ago
"gooch"? Am I a square for never having heard that?
- monkmartinez 6y ago
  Depends? Playing baseball and getting hit in the gooch with a bad bounce is common occurrence. If you never played baseball or a sport where you are not gratuitously hit by object or person the gooch isn't really in the popular vernacular. Come to think of it, I wonder what Cricket players call it... lol.
PeterWhittaker 6y ago
Surprising but welcome: Some of us are fine with technical terms, others have their eyes glaze over. Using common slang makes the polysyllabic immediately apprehensible. (I laughed too. Especially considering taint t'aint been a word all that long, eh?)

astrange 6y ago

A counterpoint thread to the part about sperm count: https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1372178337016201224 https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1372178337016201224 Some points are that it's going back up again and is largely caused by poor sleep health. Beyond that, I haven't looked this up but what is the actual relationship between lower sperm count and fewer children? I mean, you have maybe 2-3 children and millions of sperm, surely they are not linearly related. Effects on mothers could matter a lot more, but also maybe they just don't want to do it.

oji0hub 6y ago
> what is the actual relationship between lower sperm count and fewer children? I mean, you have maybe 2-3 children and millions of sperm, surely they are not linearly related. Indeed they are far from it. If you "only" ejaculate a few million, you are practically infertile. Even with reproductive assistance like IUI, the chance of conception is something like 1% at a level of 2 million sperm post wash (i.e. when they've selected the most viable sperm).
oji0hub 6y ago
Interestingly, the guy who presents the counterpoints starts by saying he didn't read the book. > And I have not read Count Down yet, though it's on my to-do list.

reactspa 6y ago

I actually find it quite funny that humans have planned their own obsolescence. What's funnier is that whatever "safe" substitute humans will devise will prove to be more harmful a couple of generations hence.