Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 1001 posts

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#311

Post by someweirdperson »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #273
DevX101 wrote: post #158

The thesis of the book 'Countdown' is that this is largely due to widespread plastic and other endocrine disrupting chemicals. I believe this is one of the most important risks to humanity, after climate change, and global war. So far, I've taken some lifestyle changes to combat this: 1) Threw out all of my teflon cooking pans 2) Refuse to consume food in heated plastics 3) Throw out teabags (they have plastics). Use…

Regarding tea bags, sometimes I see plastic tea bags which are crazy, as they must have a weak structure/large surface and the hot water surely washes out a lot of plastic. I am assuming the normal paper tea bags I get in Germany with a metal clip should be plastic free though, or am I missing something? Yes we are down to discussing tea bag brands now but as you are saying, it's an emergency :-(

Tea bags are a useless convenience.

In bulk tea is not only significantly cheaper (not as bad as the tea capsule mark-up, which is in a league oo its own), but also waste is reduced to nothing (only the tea itself, which is perfectly organic).

Rinsing a reusible tea holder doesn't take more time than it takes to dispose off the paper tied to the end separately.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#312

Post by deelowe »

highwaylights wrote: post #135
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #34

> Swan also recommends reducing exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals by being a savvy consumer Most hygiene products get away with listing diethyl phthalate as 'Parfum'. What we need is not savvy consumers what we need is regulators to get serious.

I agree with you, but I don't know how helpful this will end up being. Endocrine disruptors are airborne and globally ubiquitous in the form of micro-plastics. All drinking water in the world is contaminated with it. [1] I'm really not meaning to be dramatic on this, but we've completely missed the boat on this one while we were arguing about climate change, and it's much too late to do anything about it now.[2] I'll…

As another commenter pointed out, plasticizers are not plastics. It's disingenuous to link health issues with plasticizers to microplastics. Additionally, we should not extrapolate concerns with BPA plastics releasing chemicals when placed under specific stressors (e.g. heat) to all plastics in the environment. There have been no studies I'm aware of that link microplastics to endocrine disruption. Even the first article you linked specifically states that the primary concern with microplastics is likely a physical (not chemical) one.

The slowdown in population growth has been a topic of world leaders for quite some time. This isn't a topic of interest because world leaders are somehow concerned about the cause (e.g. chemicals in the environment). In fact, the cause is well known and due to fairly straight forward anthropologic factors. As quality of life improves, population growth declines. This happens in nature as well. Populations under stress tend to reproduce more. World leaders are interested in modeling/understanding this as it has macroeconomic effects (e.g. Japan's decade long struggles with stock market decline). This is also why the US and the west in general has went so heavy on quantitative easing for the past decade. They are trying to stave off deflation. Unfortunately, COVID and the associated supply shocks caused that plan to go off the rails a bit...

Finally, I'm not sure what climate change policy has to do with any of this.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#313

Post by idlehand »

someweirdperson wrote: post #222
anon291 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a Catholic and fairly traditionally minded and am surprised by what you're saying since at my church, couples in this age range are on their fourth or fifth kid by the time they're 30. Even amongst the newest married couples, most are expecting within the first year. I understand we have different beliefs and such but since we're all in the same environment, how do we explain the simultaneous existence of the see…

> are on their fourth or fifth kid by the time they're 30. That's the difference. Couples that plan explicitly typically don't plan their firstborn before 30.

My wife and I plan to have all our kids before 30. We're doing well above average financially, and we want to be young while our kids are young. She is currently pregnant with our first.

It helps that she is not very career-minded, I have the opportunity to work from home, and I'm working a role where I earn well and never need to do overtime.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#314

Post by 2-718-281-828 »

willcipriano wrote: post #6
pmoriarty wrote: post #3

Great news for people like me who don't want to reproduce.

Do you intend to become elderly? Perhaps not so great news in 50 years when you are looking for a nursing home.

I'll rather hang myself then going to a nursery home now and even more so in the future. I'm living a happy life and looking forward to tomorrow - and yet I am dead serious about that. I've seen enough people in those places. Did you notice that one thing you learned while growing up and maturing was that you started to notice when the party is over and it's time to leave instead of hanging on until the very dire end - it's the same thing with life.

Also neither is yourself getting children or other people getting some a guarantee for a dignified existence in a future nursery home nor is such utilitarian thinking a good basis for deciding on whether or not to bring someone into the world.

Humans will eventually go the way of the Dodo - and that's okay. Because we are not special. Not at all.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#315

Post by badRNG »

zug_zug wrote: post #151

So this trend has been going on for a while now, I looked a bit into it about 5 years ago here's what I found: - Tons of popular and legal products/chemicals are "endocrine disruptors"[1] (fancy term for mess with hormones). - The FDA/EPA doesn't deny that, they don't themselves even really require tests for long-term health effects in humans (too difficult). Instead they give animals a 1000x+ dose and look for immed…

> My bet is within 20 years we'll see it as the more immediate problem than global warming.

I don't want to diminish the importance of a paradigm shift in how regulators treat various chemicals, but I don't think this will be anywhere near as severe and immediate threat as climate change.

Ultimately, if there is a substantial pool of people who's fertility is not adversely impacted by some yet to be identified chemical, then it will be those people who's genes will pass on. Within a generation we as a species will have developed resistance to at least the impact on fertility by some unregulated chemical.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#316

Post by karaterobot »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #34

> Swan also recommends reducing exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals by being a savvy consumer Most hygiene products get away with listing diethyl phthalate as 'Parfum'. What we need is not savvy consumers what we need is regulators to get serious.

Consumers can voluntarily reduce their exposure to phthalates AND the industry can be regulated. Regulators aren't going to save consumers if consumers refuse to get educated or practice restraint.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#317

Post by dagw »

miroljub wrote: post #281
devmor wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, it's not true. It's more like a decade's salary. Full IVF generally ranges from $10-15k USD. Median worldwide income is about $900 USD.

It costs that much only in the USA, not everywhere. In many parts of the world, it's either way less expensive, or even covered by health insurance (at least a few tries).

It costs that much only in the USA

Costs a good $10k in Sweden and Denmark as well. Don't know about the rest of Europe.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#318

Post by waltbosz »

devmor wrote: post #264
scient wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats absolutely not true.

You're right, it's not true. It's more like a decade's salary. Full IVF generally ranges from $10-15k USD. Median worldwide income is about $900 USD.

This is a curious observation which spawns so many new questions in my mind.

What is the cost of living in the places of the world where $900 USD is average income of its populace.

From which I would ask: in those parts of the world, where does and income of $900 USD put someone in terms of poverty or prosperity. What is their social mobility?

Then I would ask: do the people living in these parts of the world feel the same urge to be parents as people living in rich countries like the US? Are the more social pressures in rich countries that make parenthood a desirable goal?

Is there a correlation between a country's wealth and conception rate ?

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#319

Post by guywithahat »

uwagar wrote: post #261

hope the covid vaccine isnt the reason

Well the article doesn't mention covid or the vaccine, it talks about lowering sperm counts as a multi decade incident. Although I have heard reports that either the vaccine or getting covid can impact sperm count

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#320

Post by idlehand »

AlgorithmicTime wrote: post #59
kneebonian wrote: post #39

It is interesting, I have a friend group that consists of about 5 married couples all of whom have been having issues conceiving and have been trying for a while now, but are still having issues. Curiously enough my wife and I just had our 4th and every time we've conceived within two months (even when I was hoping it would take a little longer). From what I hear our friends story is not unusual and many in our age b…

Interesting. Our first took about 4 or 5 months? I think my wife stopped her birth control at the end of July and we conceived in December. Our second took 2 months, my wife stopped her birth control in September and we conceived in November. We're both in our mid-30s. Anecdotally, my wife's sister and her husband have been trying for almost a year? And they've had one miscarriage and nothing else.

I think a higher rate of miscarriages also limits post-30s fertility for many women. A miscarriage is at least one and often multiple months of time lost, while the clock is ticking.
Post reply on HN