This debunking... really isn't. To pick a random example: > For starters, no one knows what an “optimal” sperm count is. The World Health Organization sets a r

This debunking... really isn't. To pick a random example: > For starters, no one knows what an “optimal” sperm count is. The World Health Organization sets a range of “normal” sperm count as from 15 to 250 million sperm per milliliter. (Men produce about 2 to 5 milliliters of semen per ejaculation.) But it isn’t clear that more is better. Above a certain threshold — 40 million per milliliter, according to the W.H.O. — a higher sperm count does not mean a man is more fertile. It doesn't follow from this that there is no sperm-count crisis. Since the marginal energy cost of more sperm is pretty small, you'd expect that evolution would build a generous safety margin on the sperm count required to achieve reproduction, and we can be in a "crisis" if we're shrinking that safety margin even if it hasn't reached zero yet. e.g, suppose the threshold is 25MM/mL and a "normal" count is 100MM/mL; a decrease to 40MM/mL can be a crisis even if it hasn't had any visible effects yet. Not to mention that whole paragraph completely disregards the possibility that falling sperm counts are as much a symptom of declining health as a cause of problems unto themselves.