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

461–470 of 1001 posts

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#461

Post by balaji1 »

Arete314159 wrote: post #95
bhouston wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your sperm does reset ever 75 days. Depending on the problem, it may be fixable. Exercise and raising testosterone will have a meaningful effect. Also check the various products you are using for endocrine disruptors and also you can go organic in terms of food (avoids pesticides, which are suspected of playing a role.)

I am not a man, but this reminds me of a time years ago when I started to have allergic reactions to things several times a day. My allergist put me on a strict elimination diet of triggers. I could only use unscented products for bathing and laundry, organic food only, and I even had to get rid of my teflon pans and use only stainless steel or cast iron. It sucked but it did seem to help, maybe you could try somethi…

Is there any anecdotes or data about the impact of sitting too much? And screen time?

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#462

Post by iamthepieman »

Aeolun wrote: post #425
yumaikas wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, a lot of people may not have the financial option to have had kids younger. Like, the last 15 years have included two "completely upend your life" level crises, along with a lot of smaller crises that could have swept up someone.

I dunno, kids may be incompatible with a lot of lifestyles, but I wouldn’t call them inherently expensive. You just have to adjust your expectations.

We estimated that it costs 1.5 million to raise our kids just based on opportunity cost. If we factored in increased health insurance rates, and all the other expenses around having multiple children including needing to own a bigger car and house, factor out the tax credits in the US, it's more like 2.25 million. This is for a very moderate salary estimation for the non-working spouse.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#463

Post by waboremo »

Aeolun wrote: post #425
yumaikas wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, a lot of people may not have the financial option to have had kids younger. Like, the last 15 years have included two "completely upend your life" level crises, along with a lot of smaller crises that could have swept up someone.

I dunno, kids may be incompatible with a lot of lifestyles, but I wouldn’t call them inherently expensive. You just have to adjust your expectations.

>adjust your expectations

That's just another way to say they're inherently expensive. If they weren't, why are you adjusting your expectations?

I do think we exaggerate greatly how expensive kids are, for the most part the "exchange" is in time and not money. However, they are still a noticeable cost especially in countries with not great support systems.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#464

Post by Aeolun »

PakG1 wrote: post #406
ridgered4 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had some fertility issues as well and while IUI and time worked for the two children we have IVF was looked into. Before the whole thing I didn't understand why people didn't just adopt. But once looking into the sky high costs and uncertainty of adoption I understood why IVF is popular. It is expensive and uncertain as well, but much less so.

Adopting is hard. I've tried to convince my wife that we should adopt because I've always wanted to adopt anyway, but she's scared I'm not taking it seriously enough. She says with adoption, you need to emotionally commit more than you would with your own blood because the natural instinct isn't there. She's scared I can't handle the responsibility and she might be scared of it too. She said we can have the talk agai…

I’m always surprised that they think they’re the only ones that care. Just because it doesn’t show in the same way doesn’t mean I don’t care.

My wife’s care consists of endlessly fuzzing over every little detail of their appearance when going out. Mine consists of ensuring he’s happy and fed.

Personally my issue with adoption is that I do not want to be in a position where I treat my own child and the adopted one differently. Don’t know if it’d happen, but I don’t want to try.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#465

Post by rsj_hn »

afavour wrote: post #450
Aeolun wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, kids may be incompatible with a lot of lifestyles, but I wouldn’t call them inherently expensive. You just have to adjust your expectations.

I dunno how you can say that. When children are young you have two options: - both parents work, you pay for childcare - one parent drops out of the workforce, takes care of children at home neither of these is cheap. Decades ago it was realistic for one parent's salary to cover the whole family but these days salary stagnation and increased costs of e.g. housing makes it much more difficult.

That's assuming you live alone or have no nearby friends/relatives who can watch your child. Most of the world somehow has kids without spending huge sums, because they have children when they are much younger and rely on nearby family to help, just as you will gladly help your children, etc.

This is how civilization propagates. The idea that only the wealthiest can afford to have kids by living in pure isolation and hiring teams of nannies and specialists is contradicted by the practice of opening one's eyes, looking around, and observing much poorer people having kids just fine.

But it requires making sacrifices. Those societies in which few are willing to make the sacrifices necessary die out, and healthier societies take their place.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#466

Post by hospadar »

I imagine a personified planet earth loling at this great news

"Hey killer asteroid, this is earth"

"What's up earth?"

"You can hold off, I think the humans are actually going to take care of themselves pretty soon"

"Cool, I'll do another orbit for a million years"

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#467

Post by mschuster91 »

rconti wrote: post #449
BeFlatXIII wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a societal problem when the rational individual choice (to provide your children the best head start) is to wait until your fertility declines to have children.

It seems fairly natural that a couple in most societies (current and historical) would be better able to provide for their children the older they are. The main exception I can think is family support; having younger grandparents and great grandparents could be an advantage, I guess? I'm not sure I'd look at a society where people have lots of children so they can put them to work and say "yeah, this is the way socie…

> It seems fairly natural that a couple in most societies (current and historical) would be better able to provide for their children the older they are.

When I was born in 1991 and my sister in 1995, a simple police officer and a nurse in half-time could provide for two children with ease, in one of what was even back then one of the most expensive cities in Germany. Today, me (IT worker) and my s/o (public health administration) can barely afford a flat and two cats.

Fuck that shit, we need rent controls, higher wages and higher taxes on the rich. Then people like me are not forced to wait until 35 that they can start having children.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#468

Post by netjiro »

Aeolun wrote: post #425
yumaikas wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, a lot of people may not have the financial option to have had kids younger. Like, the last 15 years have included two "completely upend your life" level crises, along with a lot of smaller crises that could have swept up someone.

I dunno, kids may be incompatible with a lot of lifestyles, but I wouldn’t call them inherently expensive. You just have to adjust your expectations.

Even in super socialized Sweden the first child costs around 180 000 USD (2021) [1] for the median example family. Second child is probably less expensive.

[1] https://seb.se/privat/livet/att-skaffa-barn/sa-paverkar-ett-...

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#469

Post by biomcgary »

Years ago, I published a paper suggesting that humans have genomic evidence of strong selection pressure on some sex hormone pathways. So, I am quite curious about whether sperm counts are plummeting solely because of environmental changes (e.g., human created hormone influencing toxins, including "the pill") or also because natural selection in humans has drastically changed with the advent of modern society.

In species with highly promiscuous females, sperm counts tend to go up as a response to competition among males (and their cellular representatives). However, in societies that have birth control as the norm, pregnancy is primarily a result of conscious choice (stable relationship, financial status, etc). Consequently, sperm count is under drastically less selection pressure because you have multiple shots on goal without much reproductive consequences, so to speak.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#470

Post by tomwojcik »

prmoustache wrote: post #376
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.

10-15k is nothing compared to the million your kid will cost you until its 20y birthday.

You live in a bubble.
Post reply on HN