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

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#841

Post by dsfyu404ed »

p3rls wrote: post #809
SoftTalker wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the water delivered to your house probably ran through miles of PVC pipe. What's a few feet more? I just run the water for 10 seconds or so (feel for it to get colder) before I drink.

What? Are you suggesting that most in the United States that most people have miles of water mains with PVC on the other side of the meter? Most PVC is not rated for potable water. In many localities (like nyc) it's a code violaton to use PVC on anything. I am a professional plumber. Btw, fun fact for you non-plumbers, pex as we know it was invented by a hardcore nazi.

Most small water mains (like the 4"-6" stuff that runs down a residential street) are PVC in my region.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#842

Post by lisper »

tomp wrote: post #797
lisper wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is an emergency No, this is hope. Converting the entire biomass of earth into homo sapiens is not the goal.

Sperm count is falling in wild animals as well.

That may be, but that is not what TFA was about. It was about human sperm counts dropping, and that is absolutely not an emergency. Humans are in no danger of going extinct.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#843

Post by TeMPOraL »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #353
badRNG wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 chemic…

Ultimately, if there's a substantial pool of people who are not existentially threatened by global warming...

In both cases, a substantial part of this pool depends on the modern institutions and global supply chains for survival, which are existentially threatened by both climate change and population reduction.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#844

Post by grepsci »

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…

I'm fascinated by this. I think the desire to make the necessary lifestyle changes is there, but I question the practicality.

I want to have my foods and beverages untouched by plastics, but how realistic is this currently?

I want to buy bread that's not wrapped in plastic. Is the alternative really to make your own? Even then, can you ensure the ingredients you're sourcing for your own bread starter for example, also not contained in plastic?

Perhaps it isn't feasible to eliminate all plastics in your life, but it begs the question what is good enough to reverse this and it probably starts with what you're consuming.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#845

Post by TeMPOraL »

DevX101 wrote: post #392
propogandist wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which tea bags don't do this?

I wouldn't use tea bags at all. Use a metal loose leaf tea infuser and buy loose leaf tea. I use this: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00X50NUU4

I bet $10 this is actually covered in a very thin layer of plastic because it's what seems to happen to some metal products in the food space (see e.g. "aluminum" cans).

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#846

Post by tdaltonc »

Knufen wrote: post #478

I did my Master Degree in Organic Chemistry where we tried to develop a male contraceptive pill. I spend a lot of time studying sperm so here is a short list of thing to avoid regarding sperm quality (not ranked): 1. Eating and drinking from plastics (This includes aluminum cans which are plastic lined) [a] 2. Heating food in ANY type of plastic [a] 3. Caffein intake [b] 4. Sugar intake [c] 5. NOT exercising regularl…

Those all have measurable effects.

But at a population level, which of those are actually driving meaningful fertility decline?

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#847

Post by Aeolun »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #476
Aeolun wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dif…

"They"?

Potentially the reverse is true.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#848

Post by Aeolun »

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.

> makes it much more difficult

It’s unpleasant to live with 5 people on 20sqm, but if people can do it in Africa we can certainly do it in the US.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#849

Post by TeMPOraL »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #822
dham wrote: post #769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use glass. I never understood plastic containers. Basically just use shit that existed 50 years ago for food. Iron pans, store in glass, butter, lard. If you spill stuff on a couch just live with it. Buy leather. Too many things are made because people are lazy. If you have kids don't have nice stuff, it's very easy.

> If you have kids don't have nice stuff, it's very easy. An unexpected upshot is that in a functional household you can let them play like actual children, without the cloying anxiety and constant shrieks of "For Gods sake Tristan and Tarquin, not on the Louis Vuitton !!"

Which is also a disincentive (however small) for having kids - just as you finally start being able to afford something nice, you have to wait until your kids are ~15+ years old. Only then, you have a small window of opportunity, some 10 years maybe, before your offspring spawns children of their own...

(Myself I prefer the approach of "have nice stuff, just don't sweat it when kids damage it - it's still just stuff".)

Also, your point doesn't work in context of GP's comment taken as whole, i.e. of reverting back to products used 50 years ago: a big value plastics bring as a material family is safety - when you replace your plastics with glass and metals, your home doesn't turn into a "functional household you can let them play like actual children" - it turns into a hazardous environment where children can maim themselves with every other object they touch.

Like, the other day my 14 m.o. accidentally dropped the bottle she was drinking from straight onto her foot, and cried for a minute. If that bottle was made of glass, we'd have to take her to a hospital for an x-ray.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#850

Post by Aeolun »

waboremo wrote: post #463
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.

>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.

Kids aren’t inherently expensive. The only thing they really need that you cannot provide without already being set up for it (a farmer) is food.

Everything else (sports, school, toys, etc.) is expectation.

Post reply on HN