Sperm counts are declining. Scientists have pinpointed the main causes(euronews.com)
euronews.com
Sperm counts are declining. Scientists have pinpointed the main causes
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/04/26/sperm-counts-are-declining-scientists-believe-they-have-pinpointed-the-main-causes-why
80 comments
The article isn't very good. It mentions some stuff and doesn't follow up on it (smoking - aren't smoking rates way down?) and alludes to the fact that they're talking about men over 40, saying quality decreases at that age, but it should hypothetically decrease later. All told I didn't learn much.
> smoking - aren't smoking rates way down?
This article just lists the major factors leading to low sperm counts that were seen by researchers who were reviewing a bunch of different studies. Smoking rates can be declining and still contribute to the problem. You can see the impact here: https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-023-0...
This article just lists the major factors leading to low sperm counts that were seen by researchers who were reviewing a bunch of different studies. Smoking rates can be declining and still contribute to the problem. You can see the impact here: https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-023-0...
Strongly declining in N America and Europe, but big elsewhere. Could still be impacting the global decline
Smoking what? Tobacco? Weed? One is down, one is up.
How many Smoky bars or cloudy restaurants have you stepped into lately? Smoking all together is way down. Pollution is way down. The claims of the article don't make sense.
I keep seeing this and reports of decreased sexual drive and I always notice one environmental factor lacking from the studies, population. I go out to more rural areas and can't help but notice that people don't seem to have issues making babies in those areas, big families are quite common and most adults seem to have kids. Perhaps there is a biological factor and these things decrease in response to living in a high population area, increased pollution and high population density do go hand in hand. Anyone know if there have been any studies on this?
There are a bunch of surveys on people not having kids. It’s economics. Money (or lack thereof) is the thing.
One might think “well city dwellers have more money!” But a huge issue is housing. There’s a supply issue and a cost issue there that simply is a non-issue for rural populations.
Searching for some genetic reason is one thing, but “we cant make a comfortable living space for future children” is just a major point that comes up in surveys and just makes sense.
One might think “well city dwellers have more money!” But a huge issue is housing. There’s a supply issue and a cost issue there that simply is a non-issue for rural populations.
Searching for some genetic reason is one thing, but “we cant make a comfortable living space for future children” is just a major point that comes up in surveys and just makes sense.
Some of the worst places to live in the world (Somalia, Sudan, Gaza, etc) also have the highest birth rates. I'm sure the lack of birth control contributes here, but I still feel like we're missing a piece of the puzzle. In any case, "comfortable living space" is something only wealthy first-world couples think about before having children -- and those couples usually end up childless whether or not they have that space.
Fertility rates in most developed countries go down, not up, as couples get richer. Poor couples think they'd have more kids if only they had more money, a bigger house, access to good schools, etc. but the couples who have all that stuff are actually having fewer kids than anyone else.
Fertility rates in most developed countries go down, not up, as couples get richer. Poor couples think they'd have more kids if only they had more money, a bigger house, access to good schools, etc. but the couples who have all that stuff are actually having fewer kids than anyone else.
We have more pieces of the puzzle now. The more industrialized a nation, the less the fertility. Even developing nations are no longer safe. Every area but central Africa is affected now that includes China and India. We are living in a slow and boring version of Children of Men, except it’s men who are infertile and not women
The more industrialized the nation the more women are able to control how many kids they have, and in many cases have to have fewer because they need to be able to work full time.
This isn't "children of men", this is educated workers choosing to not have kids and instead have a higher standard of living.
This isn't "children of men", this is educated workers choosing to not have kids and instead have a higher standard of living.
Your theory would work if this didn’t occur in paternalist societies in developing countries where the sexual revolution didn’t occur. Yet it’s still happening there.
The root cause isn’t socioeconomic
The root cause isn’t socioeconomic
> It’s economics. Money (or lack thereof) is the thing.
That's a big one. My formerly inexpensive region now requires 3-4 typical incomes to keep the lights on. We're so many decades past the "One Income, One Family" ideal that even the Fed can't envision a world without everyone working at least one job.
There's a second factor. Between my parents generation and my kids generation - the amount of time required for parenting has gone up ~10 fold. We're about as close to 24/7 parenting as is (even theoretically) possible.
That's a big one. My formerly inexpensive region now requires 3-4 typical incomes to keep the lights on. We're so many decades past the "One Income, One Family" ideal that even the Fed can't envision a world without everyone working at least one job.
There's a second factor. Between my parents generation and my kids generation - the amount of time required for parenting has gone up ~10 fold. We're about as close to 24/7 parenting as is (even theoretically) possible.
It’s not socioeconomics
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
The number of children goes down as income increases.
There is a biological component
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
The number of children goes down as income increases.
There is a biological component
Replying to myself since your comment is dead.
I mentioned income because of your comment regarding “the lack of money as the main cause of declining birthrates”
If you look at Canada, its birthrate started going down when its economy was good and housing was cheap during the 1950s, which was before the sexual revolution. Theirs also started and progressed later eg abortion there wasn’t even legal until 1988.
If you look at other countries, birthrates are going down even in countries where the sexual revolution never occurred
Edit: you also can’t ignore BPA, a synthetic estrogen, that is everywhere especially in food products which use plastic containers. PFAS chems aka Teflon are also everywhere and now they’re even finding traces of gore Tex inside human bodies
The root causes are not socioeconomic
I mentioned income because of your comment regarding “the lack of money as the main cause of declining birthrates”
If you look at Canada, its birthrate started going down when its economy was good and housing was cheap during the 1950s, which was before the sexual revolution. Theirs also started and progressed later eg abortion there wasn’t even legal until 1988.
If you look at other countries, birthrates are going down even in countries where the sexual revolution never occurred
Edit: you also can’t ignore BPA, a synthetic estrogen, that is everywhere especially in food products which use plastic containers. PFAS chems aka Teflon are also everywhere and now they’re even finding traces of gore Tex inside human bodies
The root causes are not socioeconomic
Absolutely wild that you link “income goes up, children goes down” as an argument that it’s not socioeconomics!
Income is part of socioeconomics! That graph obviously does not agree with my explanation, but it’s an argument against a biological component.
Income is part of socioeconomics! That graph obviously does not agree with my explanation, but it’s an argument against a biological component.
I earn decent money and I can't imagine trying to raise a family in the shoebox I live in. I would have to sacrifice a significant portion of my monthly savings to afford a better living situation (ie. essentially condemned to being a lifelong renter), and that's before considering the other costs of raising a family.
Is there a reason that you don't leave if that is how you feel about it? As a software engineer who left a big city, even though you may end up with a 50% pay cut, your purchasing power actually increases significantly. A lot of people end up stuck in a situation like this due to other factors, like family, but far more people live with this mentality without anything that really ties them to the city except fun and the perception of better economic prospects.
Full time working from home doesn't work for me/my head, I need to go into the office a few days a week. I don't think I would thrive in a fully remote job, and I haven't seen a single job listing for a software developer outside of the major cities. In Australia for context.
I also genuinely like living in the city, not for the "fun" but because of the convenience. Everything I need is within a few minutes walk of my apartment.
I also genuinely like living in the city, not for the "fun" but because of the convenience. Everything I need is within a few minutes walk of my apartment.
No amount of personal wealth in the countryside makes it so that I can walk to the supermarket and to a couple other places. Urban life is appealing to many for reasons beyond fun, and for a lot of reasons that aren’t solvable in rural areas by purchasing power.
To your point I think there’s a lot of that which is more manageable than expected, and there are a lot of spectrums to navigate there
To your point I think there’s a lot of that which is more manageable than expected, and there are a lot of spectrums to navigate there
I think about this a lot, as I live in a big city, and it's a hard sell. I can walk to everything I need, and am an easy train / uber / car ride to anything that walking isn't practical for (e.g. big grocery store run).
My parents live in rural WA, and it's about a 30 min drive into town for, like, anything. Go to the gym? drive. Groceries? drive. Meet friends for coffee or beer? Drive. I was there for Christmas, and even a light snow made getting into town dicey. Meanwhile, it snows heavily where I live and outside of bitter winds necessitating a beard it never stopped me from getting anywhere.
My parents live in rural WA, and it's about a 30 min drive into town for, like, anything. Go to the gym? drive. Groceries? drive. Meet friends for coffee or beer? Drive. I was there for Christmas, and even a light snow made getting into town dicey. Meanwhile, it snows heavily where I live and outside of bitter winds necessitating a beard it never stopped me from getting anywhere.
Go to your local historical farm and look at what people used to live in. Or find a documentary on YouTube about any area where people still live in mud huts, tents, or other tiny houses. They manage to raise kids .
You would be reported to CPS for doing some of the things that parents used to let their kids do in the 1950s. The standard for raising children has changed quite a bit.
National statistics indicate that 1 in 3 children will have CPS called on them during their childhood.
National statistics indicate that 1 in 3 children will have CPS called on them during their childhood.
Just "managing" is not particularly inspiring. I can have a very comfortable life without raising a family, or I can have a life of "managing to raise kids".
That's exactly the conundrum, and why birth rates are so low.
In the past, people were happy to (or did it because of social expectations or lack of contraceptives) "manage to raise kids".
Nowadays, people expect and even demand a "very comfortable life". The two aren't really compatible for most people except very high earners.
In the past, people were happy to (or did it because of social expectations or lack of contraceptives) "manage to raise kids".
Nowadays, people expect and even demand a "very comfortable life". The two aren't really compatible for most people except very high earners.
I think it's not having enough money to meet current lifestyle expectations. It's technically possible to raise a family of nine in a two-bedroom dwelling with three beds, and one of my great-grandparents grew up in such a household, but to live like that today would be considered child abuse.
People prefer to view this as a lack of money due to increasing cost of living or stagnant wages because those are more comfortable to talk about, but an increasing standard of living raises the awkward question of whether it's even a good thing to have more (or any) kids.
People prefer to view this as a lack of money due to increasing cost of living or stagnant wages because those are more comfortable to talk about, but an increasing standard of living raises the awkward question of whether it's even a good thing to have more (or any) kids.
People bang on and on about the money aspect, but the reality is that the income bracket to go from just covering the bills in urban areas to being wealthy enough to be able to foster a child and not take a serious haircut on quality of life (and yes, with space and other concerns taken into account) is quite large.
Do you have kids?
Because the reality is that if you did and you lived in an urban area, you are friends with many couples with kids, and no one is going past two, because they cant afford it without critical haircut to QoL.
And often this is families making 3x mean wages . with at least 1 parent working as an engineer or FAANG job.
I ask again. Are you a parent?
Because the reality is that if you did and you lived in an urban area, you are friends with many couples with kids, and no one is going past two, because they cant afford it without critical haircut to QoL.
And often this is families making 3x mean wages . with at least 1 parent working as an engineer or FAANG job.
I ask again. Are you a parent?
We’re not “going past two”, but it’s not money holding us back. I’m the sole earner in my household, which consists of myself, my wife, and our two daughters. My income puts us right at 4x the mean household income for the county where we live.
My wife is already primarily a homemaker, and even with the two kids I have to move things around for work to pitch in when there are scheduling conflicts. The problem isn’t money - it’s time and energy. For us to have more children, we’d almost have to hire domestic help.
My wife is already primarily a homemaker, and even with the two kids I have to move things around for work to pitch in when there are scheduling conflicts. The problem isn’t money - it’s time and energy. For us to have more children, we’d almost have to hire domestic help.
Correct. And that happens to be our situation too.
isnt that dependent on money?
isnt that dependent on money?
It's dependent on expectations. You could raise kids in the past with much less money + time because they would be expected to entertain themselves (and probably would spend a bunch of time outdoors getting into trouble). Today you would get CPS called on you for that.
Given current expectations for raising kids, yes, it's a time+money sink. Then again, I think America over-parents on the whole, so altering expectations can also help.
Given current expectations for raising kids, yes, it's a time+money sink. Then again, I think America over-parents on the whole, so altering expectations can also help.
You are making my point. Parent did that too.
The latter said "almost as if we would need domestic help" its exactly a factor of money.
Lets not kid ourselves. There is no education that is happening in the timesink that is food prep, showering, securing and hustling kids to and fro activities. Rural kids are far more independent, better prepared and more likely to eat better than their urban counterparts. The elders, in fact, help each other and the younger ones,and therefore make the large family a force multiplier in the rural areas.
Add on top of that the lack of cheap living space for a large family, and its a death sentence for the large family in an urban setting.
You cannot multiply a driver. Or a car. Or another room for a 3rd child. And if you could scale it up, it comes down to money anyway.
Time is money. A large family is just more money.
The latter said "almost as if we would need domestic help" its exactly a factor of money.
Lets not kid ourselves. There is no education that is happening in the timesink that is food prep, showering, securing and hustling kids to and fro activities. Rural kids are far more independent, better prepared and more likely to eat better than their urban counterparts. The elders, in fact, help each other and the younger ones,and therefore make the large family a force multiplier in the rural areas.
Add on top of that the lack of cheap living space for a large family, and its a death sentence for the large family in an urban setting.
You cannot multiply a driver. Or a car. Or another room for a 3rd child. And if you could scale it up, it comes down to money anyway.
Time is money. A large family is just more money.
I think we agree?
No, but having lived in less populated areas for most of my life, I’d say it is a common observation —- by the local population —- that there isn’t anything better to do in many rural places than reproduce.
Once when visiting Honduras, I was having a casual conversation with a local construction worker and we got to talking about family.
I told him I had 7 kids. He looked at me with all sincerity and asked "You don't have a television?"
We have a TV. We believe children are a blessing from God and we'll take as many blessings as He'll give us. Many of my fellow country bumpkins believe as I do. I think religion has a big impact on the differences between rural and urban family reproduction.
I told him I had 7 kids. He looked at me with all sincerity and asked "You don't have a television?"
We have a TV. We believe children are a blessing from God and we'll take as many blessings as He'll give us. Many of my fellow country bumpkins believe as I do. I think religion has a big impact on the differences between rural and urban family reproduction.
I'll add that a lot of people in rural places are uneducated when it comes to sex and are more likely to deny their own kids that education growing up so you predictably end up with more accidental pregnancies and younger parents in rural places
This comment is mostly based on my own personal anecdotal experience, but that is mostly elitist nonsense. These people don’t know the difference between Sauterne and Riesling, they don’t have the most up-to-date received wisdom and luxury beliefs, but they know by and large where babies come from.
A lack of comprehensive sex ed and abstinence only "education" is more common in rural areas and is associated with higher rates of teen/unplanned pregnancies. It's also likely that when unplanned pregnancies occur people in urban areas are more likely to seek abortions.
There are a lot of smart people in rural areas. They may look dumb and speak slow, but get to know them and you eventually discover they have a PhD.
It's not a question of being smart, it's about education. People in rural areas tend to have less education and are more likely to have inadequate sexual education (abstinence only sex ed programs for example) than people in urban environments.
PhD is the highest level of education. Despite your bias, farmers do value education, and have a lot more than you think.
They are more religious, but that is not the same as uneducated.
They are more religious, but that is not the same as uneducated.
It isn't my bias, but simply true I'm afraid that people in rural areas are (statistically speaking) less educated than those in urban areas. See for example https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/emp...
The education gap between rural and urban settings is a subject of much concern and unfortunately the tendency towards religious views has led to increased ignorance about sex as comprehensive sex ed is more likely to be rejected in rural areas replaced by "abstinence only" programs which result in higher rates of unplanned/teen pregnancy and even where comprehensive sex ed is offered, religious parents are much more likely to forbid their children from attending.
The education gap between rural and urban settings is a subject of much concern and unfortunately the tendency towards religious views has led to increased ignorance about sex as comprehensive sex ed is more likely to be rejected in rural areas replaced by "abstinence only" programs which result in higher rates of unplanned/teen pregnancy and even where comprehensive sex ed is offered, religious parents are much more likely to forbid their children from attending.
It still your bias making a blanket statement that the data you link doesn't really back up. Sure there is less educated people in rural areas, but it isn't that much less.
"education is the enemy of entrepreneurship.
the belief that university knowledge generates economic wealth stems more from superstition than empiricism. Empirical investigation shows no evidence that raising the general level of education raises a country's income level.
But we know the opposite is true, that wealth leads to the rise of education - that's not an optical illusion"
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
the belief that university knowledge generates economic wealth stems more from superstition than empiricism. Empirical investigation shows no evidence that raising the general level of education raises a country's income level.
But we know the opposite is true, that wealth leads to the rise of education - that's not an optical illusion"
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
It's got less to do with "university knowledge" and more to do with the fact that rural areas have less comprehensive sex ed and higher rates of teen/unplanned pregnancy as a result.
Is this based on any experience or research of yours or is it just the bias that it sounds like?
It's based on abstinence only sex ed being more common in rural areas and also linked to higher rates of unplanned/teen pregnancies.
Thats nonsense.
If we lived in a rural area. We would have half dozen kids. We even fantasies about it with my SO. But my SO has no interest in living in a rural area, so that is that.
If we lived in a rural area. We would have half dozen kids. We even fantasies about it with my SO. But my SO has no interest in living in a rural area, so that is that.
It's not as if that's the only reason there are more kids in rural areas, but if you did move to a rural area and had a bunch of kids your children would (statistically speaking) be more likely to have sex at a younger age than children in urban areas, they'd be less likely to have comprehensive sex ed in school and more likely to have abstinence only education which means they'd be more likely to have unplanned/teen pregnancies, and I suspect they'd be less able or less likely to abort unplanned pregnancies than their urban peers as well.
It could be a “cultural” bias in the types of people who live in cities. A lot of young professionals might move to cities because it enables a lifestyle they’ll enjoy (not to mention well-paying jobs), and that lifestyle probably doesn’t include kids (at least for a period) for many. Whereas someone who wants kids may move further out to the countryside where it’s significantly cheaper to raise them.
> I keep seeing this and reports of decreased sexual drive and I always notice one environmental factor lacking from the studies, population. I go out to more rural areas and can't help but notice that people don't seem to have issues making babies in those areas, big families are quite common and most adults seem to have kids.
I have lived in a variety of rural areas for a number of decades and haven't seen this at all. I have 5 kids; I've seen very few families my size or larger - and nearly all of them were at church.
I have lived in a variety of rural areas for a number of decades and haven't seen this at all. I have 5 kids; I've seen very few families my size or larger - and nearly all of them were at church.
It would not surprise me if fertility corresponded with eschatology.
Population size is correlated with a million other things, so considering population alone isn’t that helpful unless you have a specific way to tie it to causally to fertility. In the article, for instance, they say pollution is a contributing factor. Pollution is likely correlated with population.
If it's pollution, which pollution?
This study lists the likely suspects (scroll down for the table), but is not quantitative enough to show which have the highest impact.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7807371/
My guess: it's lead from gasoline- we've contaminated all top-soil with it. The effects are going to be around for a long time.
This study lists the likely suspects (scroll down for the table), but is not quantitative enough to show which have the highest impact.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7807371/
My guess: it's lead from gasoline- we've contaminated all top-soil with it. The effects are going to be around for a long time.
This wouldn't make sense, lead content in blood has been falling from about 15ug/dl in the 1970s to 1-2ug/dl in 2007[1]
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797860/
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797860/
From the linked study (https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-023-0...):
> We included 190 studies in our analysis. In the group of associated health conditions, varicocele (MD = 13.62%, CI: 9.39–17.84) and impaired glucose tolerance (MD = 13.75%, CI: 6.99–20.51) had the most significant increase in SDF. Among malignancies, testicular tumors had the highest impact, with a maximum of MD = 11.3% (CI: 7.84–14.76). Among infections, the overall effects of both Chlamydia and HPV were negligible. Of lifestyle factors, smoking had the most disruptive effect on SDF – an increase of 9.19% (CI: 4.33–14.06). Different periods of sexual abstinence did not show significant variations in SDF values. Age seemed to have a more drastic effect on SDF from age 50 onwards, with a mean difference of 12.58% (CI: 7.31–17.86). Pollution also had a detrimental effect – 9.68% (CI: 6.85–12.52).
> We included 190 studies in our analysis. In the group of associated health conditions, varicocele (MD = 13.62%, CI: 9.39–17.84) and impaired glucose tolerance (MD = 13.75%, CI: 6.99–20.51) had the most significant increase in SDF. Among malignancies, testicular tumors had the highest impact, with a maximum of MD = 11.3% (CI: 7.84–14.76). Among infections, the overall effects of both Chlamydia and HPV were negligible. Of lifestyle factors, smoking had the most disruptive effect on SDF – an increase of 9.19% (CI: 4.33–14.06). Different periods of sexual abstinence did not show significant variations in SDF values. Age seemed to have a more drastic effect on SDF from age 50 onwards, with a mean difference of 12.58% (CI: 7.31–17.86). Pollution also had a detrimental effect – 9.68% (CI: 6.85–12.52).
I only read the article, not the paper.
I didn’t see stress mentioned.
Perhaps it is difficult to define/measure or lack of consensus measures across studies?
I didn’t see stress mentioned.
Perhaps it is difficult to define/measure or lack of consensus measures across studies?
Do we have a good amount of data for speed counts in the past? I have never had a count and I assume unless you are in a situation with fertility issues , are donating or part of this study a count has never been done.
Sometimes it becomes difficult to say that anarcho-primitivists have no good argument at all.
I'm not for living in the forest and obviously, technology has a lot of benefits, but maybe technology should be used in moderation, when one can clearly demonstrate it has a lot of benefits and very little costs.
I'm not for living in the forest and obviously, technology has a lot of benefits, but maybe technology should be used in moderation, when one can clearly demonstrate it has a lot of benefits and very little costs.
Its been said[1] that the Amish are one of the few societies that are actually masters of their technology, because they take a deliberate approach to evaluating whether a technology supports their deeper values. Most of humans don't/won't/can't make the same stand that the Amish take.
[1] https://calnewport.com/approach-technology-like-the-amish/
[1] https://calnewport.com/approach-technology-like-the-amish/
The Amish exist because the government allows them to. If they didn't have a modern US military defending them, they could be easily conquered by almost any country.
The point I'm trying to make is that technology is a bit like prisoner's dilemma. If you don't advance, you will be destroyed by those who do even though we might all be better off with less tech. As an example of this, consider CRISPR babies.
The point I'm trying to make is that technology is a bit like prisoner's dilemma. If you don't advance, you will be destroyed by those who do even though we might all be better off with less tech. As an example of this, consider CRISPR babies.
[deleted]
> If they didn't have a modern US military defending them, they could be easily conquered by almost any country.
It doesn't help that they're pacifists either
It doesn't help that they're pacifists either
> If they didn't have a modern US military defending them, they could be easily conquered by almost any country.
i mean, isn't that true of everyone in the US who isn't armed to the teeth?
also, i wouldn't be so sure they don't have some kind of weapons and ammo stored away.
i mean, isn't that true of everyone in the US who isn't armed to the teeth?
also, i wouldn't be so sure they don't have some kind of weapons and ammo stored away.
Part of my point is that if we all lived like the Amish, we wouldn't have a modern military.
There were once non-pacifist Anabaptist sects as well as pacifist ones. The latter are still with us, but the former stopped existing centuries ago.
That's really interesting to consider.
The Amish certainly set a bar that few besides Richard Stallman can match.
However, I do feel strongly that people I know are pretty deliberate about bringing each new piece of technology into their lives. This is true for folks in the industry, "tech enthusiasts" outside the industry, and relative luddites.
I think that after the tech explosion(s) of the 90s and 2000s folks are keenly aware that each new piece of tech represents a burden of some sort: recurring time and/or money costs.
This might not be the kind of deeply principled attitude displayed by the Amish (or RMS) but I do think people are pretty thoughtful and skeptical about new tech.
Ironically some of the exceptions I've seen are within the tech industry itself. Engineers who ought to know better are quick to embrace things that seem like obvious lock-in traps.
The Amish certainly set a bar that few besides Richard Stallman can match.
However, I do feel strongly that people I know are pretty deliberate about bringing each new piece of technology into their lives. This is true for folks in the industry, "tech enthusiasts" outside the industry, and relative luddites.
I think that after the tech explosion(s) of the 90s and 2000s folks are keenly aware that each new piece of tech represents a burden of some sort: recurring time and/or money costs.
This might not be the kind of deeply principled attitude displayed by the Amish (or RMS) but I do think people are pretty thoughtful and skeptical about new tech.
Ironically some of the exceptions I've seen are within the tech industry itself. Engineers who ought to know better are quick to embrace things that seem like obvious lock-in traps.
> Most of humans don't/won't/can't make the same stand that the Amish take.
And when they do, they are seen as zealots, or something somehow unattainable. See how many here talk about GNU, FSF, etc.
And when they do, they are seen as zealots, or something somehow unattainable. See how many here talk about GNU, FSF, etc.
Their hypothesis that pollution, varicocele and insulin resistance are the main contributors seems sound because the first and the last have been increasing proportionally during the same time frame as the effect in question.
What a worthless article. Smoking, drinking, age all things everyone knew, and then "pollution." We clicked the link yo know what kind of pollution!
Wasnt there a research article recently at top of HN, which concluded that the sperm count losses were directly related to office jobs and in particular....sitting?
I wonder what the sperm count was like in Rat Park?
I suspect sitting is one factor.
It is bad for prostate/nerve health. circulation. and by simply being incompatible with exercise.
If you're older, try a standing desk and see if peeing and other things improve. (might take a few weeks)
It is bad for prostate/nerve health. circulation. and by simply being incompatible with exercise.
If you're older, try a standing desk and see if peeing and other things improve. (might take a few weeks)
This literally does not matter if it doesn't effect fertility in a way which reduces the number of children you can father from the number desired.
I'm deeply suspicious of sperm count research reporting in the media, because the reality is a whole lot of western masculinity culture (because that's what I'm familiar with) is utterly obsessed with penis-related metrics as a proxy for "worth as a human being" for men.
I'm deeply suspicious of sperm count research reporting in the media, because the reality is a whole lot of western masculinity culture (because that's what I'm familiar with) is utterly obsessed with penis-related metrics as a proxy for "worth as a human being" for men.
Back this up with some actual research, please. Otherwise, we're just telling old wives' tales.
I can't prove this, but I think it may be related based on some personal experience. Everything seems better down there is I stand more
How are there 27k studies?
It's plastic, but it will take another 20 years before the lawsuits get any traction.
It gave me the impression that there's not a consensus that sperm counts prior to 30 years ago have been declining steadily, let alone agreement on the overall causes. The Euronews article seems to be a write-up of one meta-analysis rather than an overview of the current state of knowledge.