6 ms·

Testosterone and sperm counts have been decimated in modern times. Plus we are already seeing the vast majority of countries heading to births below replacement

Testosterone and sperm counts have been decimated in modern times. Plus we are already seeing the vast majority of countries heading to births below replacement rate, yes even Africa. This could get deadly serious in terms of sustaining complex systems and ensuring resource production that can maintain relative comfort and security for everyone. I don't understand why this isn't a topic being vigorously discussed, even if it's not to fix things but even just to prepare for a shortage of new workers and tax payers.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
I doubt lower sperm counts or health, if true, have anything to do with lower fertility rates. The topic gets danced around because the biggest change is women achieving independence and being able to completely control when and if they have a child, and incentivizing them to want to have children means quite a bit of wealth transfer, or rolling back their independence and access to birth control. Obviously, men would also need to be convinced to have children too, but that seems secondary.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  It's so ridiculously Orwellian (or should I say Atwoodian?) that I can't imagine anyone except in the most deranged countries is going to roll back access to birth control. The obvious long-term solution is that we do nothing and the fact that a desire for children is partially genetic solves the problem on its own.
  - abathur 3y ago
    Thought exercise: functionally speaking, how similar is ~compromising the quality of high-school sex education (i.e., getting rid of it, making it elective, giving parents any control or veto over the curriculum, converting it to an abstinence-only curriculum, ensuring it's taught by prudes, etc.) to rolling back access to birth control? (Edit: not really directed at parent poster. Just something you made me think of...)
    - DoingIsLearning 3y ago
      I am all for thought experiments but this discussion is fairly disturbing. How about: - 12 month parental leave for fathers and mothers - 20 days minimum payed holiday - paid sick leave - Free childcare - Insurance covered 15 days assistance at home post partum with a post-natal caregiver - Child stipends up to the age of 18 years old None of this is ground breaking in many developed countries. So much work yet to do in implementing pro-child policies and yet your first step is entrapping teenagers into a pregnancy and a lifelong commitment?
      - lovich 3y ago
        Oof, each one of those sounds like it might cost more than 10 dollars, much less all together. Guess I’m going to vote for going with the dystopian choices or the more palatable one of sticking our heads in the sand and not deal with the problem until it’s a catastrophe
      - abathur 3y ago
        You seem to be imagining that I support the undermining of sex-ed. I am merely pointing to the dots. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education_in_the_United_...
      - nightski 3y ago
        That's going to be very rough on small business. I think it all sounds fantastic don't get me wrong, but most mom and pop shops can't float employees for 12 months while paying in full for their child care and other services.
        scotty79 3y ago
        It's usually mostly tax funded
        bzzzt 3y ago
        That's why we pay taxes in the EU...
  - nobody9999 3y ago
    >It's so ridiculously Orwellian (or should I say Atwoodian?) that I can't imagine anyone except in the most deranged countries is going to roll back access to birth control. My country is, apparently, one of the most deranged then. While all forms of contraception are currently legal across my country, it's harder to gain access to it in some places than it is in others: https://www.glamour.com/story/birth-control-laws https://www.glamour.com/story/birth-control-laws However, some places in my backwater country have attempted (but not yet succeeded) to limit various forms of contraception, despite its legality[0] nationwide since 1965: https://stateline.org/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control/ https://stateline.org/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-tar... And hundreds of elected representatives in the national government voted against[1] and finally blocked[2] nationwide legislation ensuring access to contraception. What's more, some members of our highest court have indicated that they'd like to revisit the issue[3] with an eye towards revoking such access. I wish I didn't live in such a backwards country. :( [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut [1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/house-republicans-voted-against-birth-control-protections_n_62d84d4be4b03dbb9913f86d https://www.huffpost.com/entry/house-republicans-voted-again... [2] https://www.help.senate.gov/chair/newsroom/press/republican-senator-blocks-bill-to-codify-americans-right-to-contraception- https://www.help.senate.gov/chair/newsroom/press/republican-... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/contraception-supreme-court-clarence-thomas-griswold/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/contracep... (https://archive.is/dvON8 https://archive.is/dvON8 )
  - wly_cdgr 3y ago
    The United States is literally in the middle of doing exactly that right now. And I don't think too many reasonably impartial observers would put the US in the top few dozen most deranged countries, for all its many serious flaws and faults.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    While the GOP now literally has candidates in its primaries that explicitly position themselves in favor of "maybe some people should have access to abortion sometimes and we shouldn't put people in prison for it", prior to the catastrophic failure of its so-called culture war, the GOP actually had very vocal factions explicitly framing contraceptives as abortion - starting with the "morning after" pill, which literally prevents impregnation rather than inducing abortion in any sense of the word, but up to and including the regular "pill", which simply prevents ovulation at all. Sure this is still not at the level of banning all forms of contraception, but it's not a long shot and given the historically evident incremental nature of this combined with the focus on "abstinence only" sex ed (i.e. no sex outside marriage, i.e. no need for easy access to condoms or any other OTC contraceptives) I don't think this can be dismissed as a "slippery slope" fallacy either.
    - jtbayly 3y ago
      You are spreading misinformation about basic scientific facts. You should do some more study. The Pill prevents birth via two major methods. One way is preventing ovulation, yes. The other main way is by preventing the fertilized egg from successfully implanting. That is also how the morning-after pill works. A fertilized egg has its own unique DNA, and begins development and dividing immediately. By the time it implants, it is made up of 200-300 cells. Yes, this is, objectively speaking, an abortion.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
        A blastocyst that doesn't implant is not a pregnancy.
        jtbayly 3y ago
        A blastocyst that is intentionally prevented from developing further by making the uterine environment inhospitable is precisely the same thing both in intent and outcome as what happens with a medication abortion (RU-486): “RU-486 works by blocking the action of the hormone progesterone, which is needed to support the development of a fertilized egg.” (From https://www.britannica.com/science/abortion-pregnancy https://www.britannica.com/science/abortion-pregnancy ) The pill works at times by thinning the uterine lining, which is needed to support the development of a fertilized egg. You can talk about what changes have or haven’t taken place in the body of the mother, but these are the same thing, just accomplished by two different means. We have other means as well.
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    > a desire for children is partially genetic While true, any western reduction in birth rates can be trivially explained by changes in child-raising. Children's critical hours of self-raising/peer-raising have been sharply degraded thru danger-culture & the erasure of free-roam areas. All of that is being forcefully replaced with adult micromanagement. In short, we've swapped much of the joy with stress and stunting.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- nprateem 3y ago
  Women can only "completely control when and if they have kids" if they have no criteria about the father or have the money to pay for artificial treatments. I know several women who couldn't meet anyone to have kids with.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    True, I guess the matchmaking market not clearing is also becoming an issue.
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Capricorn2481 3y ago
    This is a completely deranged and disgusting partisan rant, and paints a much rosier picture of what reproduction throughout most of history was like. If you think sexual exploitation is only enabled by contraception, you have completely drank the Kool aid. It is also laughable to claim this is actually the take that doesn't patronize women. I can assure you plenty of people have slept around throughout history, it's just that the men would abandon their children. Contraception has saved women from the diseases and consequences of the predatory men in their life The weird stuff about sexual confusion is also unwarranted. You might think this is a measured take, but it's Q-ANON level nutso.
    - yamazakiwi 3y ago
      >Gen-Z are fapping in their parents basements. Yeah this person is not living in reality. I don't believe any modern argument framed around generations are poignant, accurate, or worth discussing seriously. People just use this pop-topic to signal, its so boring. These conversations are brimming with generalizations and bias.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    This is preposterous. If people want to have children, they are free not to use contraception. To suggest that demographic decline is a bad thing while also suggesting that it is due to people voluntarily not having children would be to suggest that people should be forced against their will to have children, which is horrifying.
  - yamazakiwi 3y ago
    >notice how many Westerners today respond to big families; instead of joy, it is often disgust or horror I don't want to live in a world where everyone is forced to be excited that you wanted spread your seed 10 times. Bringing more mouths into the world is not automatically incredible, magical, or special. A lot of people showcase cynicism towards family life because family is a very personal thing, no one should be expected to jump for joy except hopefully the family, friends, or small community.
- lossolo 3y ago
  > the biggest change is women achieving independence and being able to completely control when and if they have a child Ye, data seems to support that https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location... Between 1961 and 1974 in USA birth rate per woman dropped from 3.6 to 1.8. The early 1960s witnessed the approval and widespread availability of effective oral contraceptives (birth control pills). This revolutionary advancement in contraception allowed women greater control over their reproductive choices and family planning. The 1960s marked a period of cultural and social change, characterized by the rise of the women's liberation movement and changing attitudes toward women's roles and family dynamics. Many women began to prioritize education, careers, and personal pursuits over traditional roles as homemakers and mothers. As educational opportunities expanded for women, more of them pursued higher education and entered the workforce. This often delayed the age at which women married and had children, which in turn contributed to smaller family sizes.
oezi 3y ago
There is enough research to show that testosterone is still much higher in modern societies than in tribal communities. Likely linked to the abundance of calories in modern societies.
- hnbad 3y ago
  There's also a very wide range for "healthy" testosterone levels. Turns out endocrinology is more complicated than looking at one value and saying higher is gooder. Fertility is not directly linked to testosterone levels or even meaningfully so: when my wife and I were trying for a kid, my doctor actually suggested that despite my T-levels being a bit low he would suggest delaying any treatment for that until after our family planning was complete, my testosterone levels weren't affecting my fertility (tho other complications can arise) but increasing them actually would have had a chance of impacting it negatively. FWIW we have a healthy son now.
watwut 3y ago
> Plus we are already seeing the vast majority of countries heading to births below replacement rate, yes even Africa This has nothing to do with sperm counts. This has all to do with people not wanting to have the kids in the first place.
hnbad 3y ago
Oh no. Maybe we should finally do something about our system being set up to expect an ever increasing supply of new workers then? Even without declining birth rates that doesn't sound very sustainable given the finite resources of the planet? For a start, we'd need to find a way to run industry without expecting an ever increasing growth of profits (i.e. surplus value) and structure society in a way so we don't let individuals hoard resources at the expense of everyone else. If we didn't try to squeeze water from stones, maybe that would also allow industry to sacrifice some cost efficiency (i.e. ability to generate surplus value) in order to use safer materials and cleaner processes that don't poison us and improve our survivability and fertility? Heck, we might even create circumstances that make it easier for people to raise a family and have more support if they want to have children while at the prime age for both working and reproducing rather than having companies literally pay for their high value employees to freeze their eggs and sperm to delay having kids until they're less economically useful. Oh sorry, I just did an anti-capitalism again. Nevermind all that, line must go up. Let's find ways to make more kids. Maybe Elon Musk has the answer after all and we just need to have billionaires sire more children with their female employees until the net population growth rate looks better.
goodpoint 3y ago
> This could get deadly serious in terms of sustaining complex systems Citation needed. Of all problems of this planet, underpopulation is not one of them.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  Yeah we don't need more people. Arguably the amount of people we have now is leading to global ecological damage, even collapse. "complex systems" -- whatever those are; global trade was a thing long before industrialization -- will survive slow declines. Japan is still a modern country even with a demographic decline.
AlecSchueler 3y ago
Just as a side note, Africa isn't a country and has widely varying demographics throughout.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

I doubt lower sperm counts or health, if true, have anything to do with lower fertility rates. The topic gets danced around because the biggest change is women achieving independence and being able to completely control when and if they have a child, and incentivizing them to want to have children means quite a bit of wealth transfer, or rolling back their independence and access to birth control. Obviously, men would also need to be convinced to have children too, but that seems secondary.

AbrahamParangi 3y ago
It's so ridiculously Orwellian (or should I say Atwoodian?) that I can't imagine anyone except in the most deranged countries is going to roll back access to birth control. The obvious long-term solution is that we do nothing and the fact that a desire for children is partially genetic solves the problem on its own.
- abathur 3y ago
  Thought exercise: functionally speaking, how similar is ~compromising the quality of high-school sex education (i.e., getting rid of it, making it elective, giving parents any control or veto over the curriculum, converting it to an abstinence-only curriculum, ensuring it's taught by prudes, etc.) to rolling back access to birth control? (Edit: not really directed at parent poster. Just something you made me think of...)
  - DoingIsLearning 3y ago
    I am all for thought experiments but this discussion is fairly disturbing. How about: - 12 month parental leave for fathers and mothers - 20 days minimum payed holiday - paid sick leave - Free childcare - Insurance covered 15 days assistance at home post partum with a post-natal caregiver - Child stipends up to the age of 18 years old None of this is ground breaking in many developed countries. So much work yet to do in implementing pro-child policies and yet your first step is entrapping teenagers into a pregnancy and a lifelong commitment?
    - lovich 3y ago
      Oof, each one of those sounds like it might cost more than 10 dollars, much less all together. Guess I’m going to vote for going with the dystopian choices or the more palatable one of sticking our heads in the sand and not deal with the problem until it’s a catastrophe
    - abathur 3y ago
      You seem to be imagining that I support the undermining of sex-ed. I am merely pointing to the dots. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education_in_the_United_...
    - nightski 3y ago
      That's going to be very rough on small business. I think it all sounds fantastic don't get me wrong, but most mom and pop shops can't float employees for 12 months while paying in full for their child care and other services.
      - scotty79 3y ago
        It's usually mostly tax funded
      - bzzzt 3y ago
        That's why we pay taxes in the EU...
- nobody9999 3y ago
  >It's so ridiculously Orwellian (or should I say Atwoodian?) that I can't imagine anyone except in the most deranged countries is going to roll back access to birth control. My country is, apparently, one of the most deranged then. While all forms of contraception are currently legal across my country, it's harder to gain access to it in some places than it is in others: https://www.glamour.com/story/birth-control-laws https://www.glamour.com/story/birth-control-laws However, some places in my backwater country have attempted (but not yet succeeded) to limit various forms of contraception, despite its legality[0] nationwide since 1965: https://stateline.org/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control/ https://stateline.org/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-tar... And hundreds of elected representatives in the national government voted against[1] and finally blocked[2] nationwide legislation ensuring access to contraception. What's more, some members of our highest court have indicated that they'd like to revisit the issue[3] with an eye towards revoking such access. I wish I didn't live in such a backwards country. :( [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut [1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/house-republicans-voted-against-birth-control-protections_n_62d84d4be4b03dbb9913f86d https://www.huffpost.com/entry/house-republicans-voted-again... [2] https://www.help.senate.gov/chair/newsroom/press/republican-senator-blocks-bill-to-codify-americans-right-to-contraception- https://www.help.senate.gov/chair/newsroom/press/republican-... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/contraception-supreme-court-clarence-thomas-griswold/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/contracep... (https://archive.is/dvON8 https://archive.is/dvON8 )
- wly_cdgr 3y ago
  The United States is literally in the middle of doing exactly that right now. And I don't think too many reasonably impartial observers would put the US in the top few dozen most deranged countries, for all its many serious flaws and faults.
- hnbad 3y ago
  While the GOP now literally has candidates in its primaries that explicitly position themselves in favor of "maybe some people should have access to abortion sometimes and we shouldn't put people in prison for it", prior to the catastrophic failure of its so-called culture war, the GOP actually had very vocal factions explicitly framing contraceptives as abortion - starting with the "morning after" pill, which literally prevents impregnation rather than inducing abortion in any sense of the word, but up to and including the regular "pill", which simply prevents ovulation at all. Sure this is still not at the level of banning all forms of contraception, but it's not a long shot and given the historically evident incremental nature of this combined with the focus on "abstinence only" sex ed (i.e. no sex outside marriage, i.e. no need for easy access to condoms or any other OTC contraceptives) I don't think this can be dismissed as a "slippery slope" fallacy either.
  - jtbayly 3y ago
    You are spreading misinformation about basic scientific facts. You should do some more study. The Pill prevents birth via two major methods. One way is preventing ovulation, yes. The other main way is by preventing the fertilized egg from successfully implanting. That is also how the morning-after pill works. A fertilized egg has its own unique DNA, and begins development and dividing immediately. By the time it implants, it is made up of 200-300 cells. Yes, this is, objectively speaking, an abortion.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
      A blastocyst that doesn't implant is not a pregnancy.
      - jtbayly 3y ago
        A blastocyst that is intentionally prevented from developing further by making the uterine environment inhospitable is precisely the same thing both in intent and outcome as what happens with a medication abortion (RU-486): “RU-486 works by blocking the action of the hormone progesterone, which is needed to support the development of a fertilized egg.” (From https://www.britannica.com/science/abortion-pregnancy https://www.britannica.com/science/abortion-pregnancy ) The pill works at times by thinning the uterine lining, which is needed to support the development of a fertilized egg. You can talk about what changes have or haven’t taken place in the body of the mother, but these are the same thing, just accomplished by two different means. We have other means as well.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > a desire for children is partially genetic While true, any western reduction in birth rates can be trivially explained by changes in child-raising. Children's critical hours of self-raising/peer-raising have been sharply degraded thru danger-culture & the erasure of free-roam areas. All of that is being forcefully replaced with adult micromanagement. In short, we've swapped much of the joy with stress and stunting.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nprateem 3y ago
Women can only "completely control when and if they have kids" if they have no criteria about the father or have the money to pay for artificial treatments. I know several women who couldn't meet anyone to have kids with.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  True, I guess the matchmaking market not clearing is also becoming an issue.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
[flagged]
- Capricorn2481 3y ago
  This is a completely deranged and disgusting partisan rant, and paints a much rosier picture of what reproduction throughout most of history was like. If you think sexual exploitation is only enabled by contraception, you have completely drank the Kool aid. It is also laughable to claim this is actually the take that doesn't patronize women. I can assure you plenty of people have slept around throughout history, it's just that the men would abandon their children. Contraception has saved women from the diseases and consequences of the predatory men in their life The weird stuff about sexual confusion is also unwarranted. You might think this is a measured take, but it's Q-ANON level nutso.
  - yamazakiwi 3y ago
    >Gen-Z are fapping in their parents basements. Yeah this person is not living in reality. I don't believe any modern argument framed around generations are poignant, accurate, or worth discussing seriously. People just use this pop-topic to signal, its so boring. These conversations are brimming with generalizations and bias.
- kibwen 3y ago
  This is preposterous. If people want to have children, they are free not to use contraception. To suggest that demographic decline is a bad thing while also suggesting that it is due to people voluntarily not having children would be to suggest that people should be forced against their will to have children, which is horrifying.
- yamazakiwi 3y ago
  >notice how many Westerners today respond to big families; instead of joy, it is often disgust or horror I don't want to live in a world where everyone is forced to be excited that you wanted spread your seed 10 times. Bringing more mouths into the world is not automatically incredible, magical, or special. A lot of people showcase cynicism towards family life because family is a very personal thing, no one should be expected to jump for joy except hopefully the family, friends, or small community.
lossolo 3y ago
> the biggest change is women achieving independence and being able to completely control when and if they have a child Ye, data seems to support that https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location... Between 1961 and 1974 in USA birth rate per woman dropped from 3.6 to 1.8. The early 1960s witnessed the approval and widespread availability of effective oral contraceptives (birth control pills). This revolutionary advancement in contraception allowed women greater control over their reproductive choices and family planning. The 1960s marked a period of cultural and social change, characterized by the rise of the women's liberation movement and changing attitudes toward women's roles and family dynamics. Many women began to prioritize education, careers, and personal pursuits over traditional roles as homemakers and mothers. As educational opportunities expanded for women, more of them pursued higher education and entered the workforce. This often delayed the age at which women married and had children, which in turn contributed to smaller family sizes.

oezi 3y ago

There is enough research to show that testosterone is still much higher in modern societies than in tribal communities. Likely linked to the abundance of calories in modern societies.

hnbad 3y ago
There's also a very wide range for "healthy" testosterone levels. Turns out endocrinology is more complicated than looking at one value and saying higher is gooder. Fertility is not directly linked to testosterone levels or even meaningfully so: when my wife and I were trying for a kid, my doctor actually suggested that despite my T-levels being a bit low he would suggest delaying any treatment for that until after our family planning was complete, my testosterone levels weren't affecting my fertility (tho other complications can arise) but increasing them actually would have had a chance of impacting it negatively. FWIW we have a healthy son now.

watwut 3y ago

> Plus we are already seeing the vast majority of countries heading to births below replacement rate, yes even Africa This has nothing to do with sperm counts. This has all to do with people not wanting to have the kids in the first place.

hnbad 3y ago

Oh no. Maybe we should finally do something about our system being set up to expect an ever increasing supply of new workers then? Even without declining birth rates that doesn't sound very sustainable given the finite resources of the planet? For a start, we'd need to find a way to run industry without expecting an ever increasing growth of profits (i.e. surplus value) and structure society in a way so we don't let individuals hoard resources at the expense of everyone else. If we didn't try to squeeze water from stones, maybe that would also allow industry to sacrifice some cost efficiency (i.e. ability to generate surplus value) in order to use safer materials and cleaner processes that don't poison us and improve our survivability and fertility? Heck, we might even create circumstances that make it easier for people to raise a family and have more support if they want to have children while at the prime age for both working and reproducing rather than having companies literally pay for their high value employees to freeze their eggs and sperm to delay having kids until they're less economically useful. Oh sorry, I just did an anti-capitalism again. Nevermind all that, line must go up. Let's find ways to make more kids. Maybe Elon Musk has the answer after all and we just need to have billionaires sire more children with their female employees until the net population growth rate looks better.

goodpoint 3y ago

> This could get deadly serious in terms of sustaining complex systems Citation needed. Of all problems of this planet, underpopulation is not one of them.

red-iron-pine 3y ago
Yeah we don't need more people. Arguably the amount of people we have now is leading to global ecological damage, even collapse. "complex systems" -- whatever those are; global trade was a thing long before industrialization -- will survive slow declines. Japan is still a modern country even with a demographic decline.

AlecSchueler 3y ago

Just as a side note, Africa isn't a country and has widely varying demographics throughout.