Scientists warn of sperm count crisis • Hacker News Board

Re: Scientists warn of sperm count crisis

#71

Post by eliasmacpherson » Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 9:50 AM UTC

bcoates wrote: post #55

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Malthus' warning was heeded, the Irish Famine that occurred less than ten years after his death may have been avoided. Ireland's population of 8 million, to Britain's 14 million, dropped by estimates of 25% through disease, emigration and starvation. This was on the doorstep of the dominant British Empire. Saying the Malthusian crisis will not ever happen is hubris.

The Irish Famine was caused by a mixture of a routine crop failure and awful policies both leading up to and during the blight. Ireland's population was not extraordinarily large compared to its production capacity at the time. Crop failures haven't stopped happening, populations have risen quite a bit since the 19th century, but mass starvation still happens or doesn't happen entirely due to policy not a literal sho…

A man made Malthusian crisis is still a Malthusian crisis, crop failure and improper agricultural policy have a bearing on how big a population can subsist.

1% of the world's then population passed away in the Irish famine. Ireland's population is now 5 million and Britain's around 60. Ireland's population was extraordinarily large compared to the subsistence farmer's yields in 1845. Here's a chart:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IrelandEuropePopulation17...

Ireland may have been a net exporter of food during the famine, but I would hope you agree that policy can bring about a very literal shortage of food.

Re: Scientists warn of sperm count crisis

#72

Post by EthanHeilman » Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 12:48 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #25

EthanHeilman wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Isn't the current period the most peaceful in known history? [Citation needed]. Define current period and define peaceful? We haven't had a global conflict in 60-odd years (and yay for that), but we had two global conflicts in the last hundred years. We almost had a third (US vs PRC)and forth one (US vs CCCP) but it appears that nuclear war let cooler heads prevail. In the past two hundred years there is almost no p…

Quickie googled citation: http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143285836/war-and-violence-on-... It doesn't much matter what you choose as "current period", because war and violence has been on the decline for quite a long time. It's pretty annoying to try to have a factual discussion and get replies that are nothing but handwaving and anecdotes. Listing off the violent conflicts in the past century without offering any com…

That citation agrees with me rather than with you.

>"GOLDSTEIN: Well, no, because the past 100 years were - there was a big explosion of violence in the early part of the 20th century, but the 17th century was no picnic either. The Thirty Years' War destroyed a third of the population of Germany, and back through history there have been terrible wars much of the time."

>"And even in prehistoric times, as many as a quarter of the men in a society not infrequently died in wars. So it's actually a new thing and something that's developed in the least 60 years and especially the last 20 years. And we can talk about why it is, and Steven Pinker will have more to say about that also, but the big change is that people are finding other ways to solve their problems, not through war, and we're seeing an actual shrinking in the number of people killed worldwide."

That is to say that the source you found is making the claim that the reduction has happened in the last 20-60 years. Read that again: "So it's actually a new thing and something that's developed in the least 60 years and especially the last 20 years." Is that not the same thing I said: "We haven't had a global conflict in 60-odd years (and yay for that), but we had two global conflicts in the last hundred years." In fact what is said in this interview is pretty much what I said in my post.

>It doesn't much matter what you choose as "current period", because war and violence has been on the decline for quite a long time.

Yes it does, it really matters what you choose as your current period. Your own source backs me up on this.

>It's pretty annoying to try to have a factual discussion and get replies that are nothing but hand waving and anecdotes.

Large scale violence like WW2 is not really an anecdote but in fact a large chunk of data. I assumed that you were aware that most historians accepted that WW2 claimed the largest number of lives in human history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_...

Re: Scientists warn of sperm count crisis

#73

Post by Mz » Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 3:39 PM UTC

yason wrote: post #70

Mz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been called a troll (or treated like one). I am not. For that and other reasons, I am very reluctant to hang that on this person. HN is an actively hostile environment for some topics. Regardless, most people do not want to have a real serious discussion about a touchy topic like this, under any circumstance. That is the only piece I really take issue with. As someone who believes in a lot of things that would…

Comments like yours are exactly why I posted the original article. It's really nice to hear from someone at HN who sees beyond the controversy caused by a totally different mental model, as you put it. I'm surprised I wasn't downmodded more aggressively. I wouldn't have answered to this thread unless you had written these two comments of yours: HN certainly isn't the place for serious discussion about such topics and…

One problem with your original remark is that it is openly hostile to women while simultaneously failing to conform to the "scientific" model popular here. You managed to alienate pretty much everyone in one stroke.

If you posit a male-female dynamic, they must be complementary. If male energy is in crisis, so is female. The one requires the other to balance. I was a homemaker for many years. That is a dying role in modern America. But it is the logical and practical complement to the traditional masculine role of going out and conquering the world. It is routinely disrespected by the modern world. You decry what is being done to male energy while actively participating in the modern trend of pissing on the traditional maternal role.

It is no wonder you perceive a crisis. You are shooting yourself in the foot on this one.

Best of luck with sorting out whatever is on your mind.

Re: Scientists warn of sperm count crisis

#74

Post by bcoates » Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 4:00 PM UTC

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #71

bcoates wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Irish Famine was caused by a mixture of a routine crop failure and awful policies both leading up to and during the blight. Ireland's population was not extraordinarily large compared to its production capacity at the time. Crop failures haven't stopped happening, populations have risen quite a bit since the 19th century, but mass starvation still happens or doesn't happen entirely due to policy not a literal sho…

A man made Malthusian crisis is still a Malthusian crisis, crop failure and improper agricultural policy have a bearing on how big a population can subsist. 1% of the world's then population passed away in the Irish famine. Ireland's population is now 5 million and Britain's around 60. Ireland's population was extraordinarily large compared to the subsistence farmer's yields in 1845. Here's a chart: https://en.wikipe…

Massive subsistence farming in Ireland was not caused by the size of the population. If there were half as many people in Ireland in 1945, there would not be twice as much food to go around. The half-sized population would still have been packed into as little land as they could survive on. A crop failure would still mean starvation.

There was no surplus to fall back on, not because the population was so large that it overwhelmed reserves, but because the surplus wealth of Ireland was being systematically extracted so no such reserves could be built.

Re: Scientists warn of sperm count crisis

#75

Post by mikeash » Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 4:31 PM UTC

EthanHeilman wrote: post #72

mikeash wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quickie googled citation: http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143285836/war-and-violence-on-... It doesn't much matter what you choose as "current period", because war and violence has been on the decline for quite a long time. It's pretty annoying to try to have a factual discussion and get replies that are nothing but handwaving and anecdotes. Listing off the violent conflicts in the past century without offering any com…

That citation agrees with me rather than with you. >"GOLDSTEIN: Well, no, because the past 100 years were - there was a big explosion of violence in the early part of the 20th century, but the 17th century was no picnic either. The Thirty Years' War destroyed a third of the population of Germany, and back through history there have been terrible wars much of the time." >"And even in prehistoric times, as many as a qu…

> I assumed that you were aware that most historians accepted that WW2 claimed the largest number of lives in human history:

Largest number, but not largest proportion. A human alive during WWII was far more likely to survive that war than a human alive during the Mongol conquests or the An Lushan rebellion was to survive those. The Mongol conquests were about as deadly as WWII, yet happened in a world with only 1/5th of the population. Those two events killed 5-10% of the total world population, while WWII "only" killed about 3%.

This business where literally everyone who replies to disagree with me only looks at absolute numbers is getting pretty irritating. It just makes no sense.

Re: Scientists warn of sperm count crisis

#76

Post by yason » Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 5:24 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #73

yason wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments like yours are exactly why I posted the original article. It's really nice to hear from someone at HN who sees beyond the controversy caused by a totally different mental model, as you put it. I'm surprised I wasn't downmodded more aggressively. I wouldn't have answered to this thread unless you had written these two comments of yours: HN certainly isn't the place for serious discussion about such topics and…

One problem with your original remark is that it is openly hostile to women while simultaneously failing to conform to the "scientific" model popular here. You managed to alienate pretty much everyone in one stroke. If you posit a male-female dynamic, they must be complementary. If male energy is in crisis, so is female. The one requires the other to balance. I was a homemaker for many years. That is a dying role in…

It's not hostile to women unless you choose to interpret it in that light. I simply brought up that subjecting boys to feminine nursing for too long tends to make it more difficult for them to find the man within themselves later. I could have said the same about girls grown in a very male environment and managed to be hostile to men too :)

And of course I decry what has happened to male energy in such a short comment. I wrote about male energy because I didn't want to start by writing pages and pages on a subject like this. (See, still trying to keep it short.)

By the way, you are aware that traditional patriarchy is a dying scheme in the modern world as well and that traditional paternal role has been pissed on for a long time, too, aren't you? It all started in the 50's/60's and female energy is in crisis too, like you said!

For example, in the contemporary world, women in the worklife wear a highly masculine attitude because the current way of doing business is regrettably masculine only. Women in office jobs even dress like men. Now, when a woman comes home after work it will take a while until she can be in touch with her feminine side again. If she has a so-called modern husband who has already picked up the kids from school, looked after them while making dinner for everyone (these are traditional, parallel, stereotypical feminine activities) then she might have a hard time a) finding her feminine side to get in touch with her feelings and b) finding the masculine side in her husband so that she can relax in the trust the masculine provides for her, and just talk her feeling out to get rid of her working day stress.

Re: Scientists warn of sperm count crisis

#77

Post by lutusp » Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 5:33 PM UTC

bcoates wrote: post #26

lutusp wrote: post #2

What? This is being described as a "crisis"? It's the best news I've heard all year. We should celebrate! The world's population is completely out of control, all estimates of future environmental catastrophe turn out to be overly optimistic, we're drifting into a state of perpetual war because of population pressures, and someone laments a decline in sperm count without the slightest grasp of how funny that is? Read…

Wow, that Wikipedia article is awful, and a fantastic demonstration of how hobbyhorse subjects on Wikipedia tend to get filled with crap. Contra that shitty graph at the top of the article, population diverged from the historical trend of exponential growth in the 1950s. Worldwide birth rates have peaked. The largest cohort of babies the world has ever seen was in the 80s. The population is now growing solely due to…

> the Malthusian crisis has not happened, and will not ever happen.

Obviously a scientist talking -- or is it "astrologer"?

Avoid making ignorant predictions, especially about the future. :)

Re: Scientists warn of sperm count crisis

#78

Post by lutusp » Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 5:49 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #35

grannyg00se wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is depopulation a crisis?

The most immediate answer is that it makes a European-style system of social insurance for older people difficult when the ratio of working people to retirees decreases. The broader answer is that it upends economic expectations. Say I'm thinking of building an office tower. If I know there will be fewer workers in 10 years, instead of more, I'm less likely to build it. If I'm pricing stock in a company, and I know t…

> The most immediate answer is that it makes a European-style system of social insurance for older people difficult when the ratio of working people to retirees decreases.

Yes, but that system is unsustainable -- it requires constant growth, something the finite-sized earth cannot tolerate. It would be like nature creating a strategy that, to survive, requires the parent organism to have cancer.

The problem is that, instead of accepting and creating sustainable methods, we accommodate unsustainable growth rates by creating unsustainable social institutions.

Modern social institutions are a large-scale Ponzi scheme, a fraud that cannot go on forever.

Re: Scientists warn of sperm count crisis

#79

Post by Mz » Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 7:29 PM UTC

yason wrote: post #76

Mz wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem with your original remark is that it is openly hostile to women while simultaneously failing to conform to the "scientific" model popular here. You managed to alienate pretty much everyone in one stroke. If you posit a male-female dynamic, they must be complementary. If male energy is in crisis, so is female. The one requires the other to balance. I was a homemaker for many years. That is a dying role in…

It's not hostile to women unless you choose to interpret it in that light. I simply brought up that subjecting boys to feminine nursing for too long tends to make it more difficult for them to find the man within themselves later. I could have said the same about girls grown in a very male environment and managed to be hostile to men too :) And of course I decry what has happened to male energy in such a short commen…

I am a woman and I am sympathetic, but it sounded hostile to me. You are now dismissing that and blaming me instead of simply trying to clarify when I am the only person here taking you at all seriously. And given that I am having my head handed to me elsewhere on hn, I am not in a good frame of mind to bend over backwards to give you a receptive audience. If you would like to try again, I would be happy to give you a do-over. But, no, I am not going to make a serious attempt to engage this reply.

Again, best of luck with whatever is on your mind.

Re: Scientists warn of sperm count crisis

#80

Post by yason » Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 9:19 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #79

yason wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not hostile to women unless you choose to interpret it in that light. I simply brought up that subjecting boys to feminine nursing for too long tends to make it more difficult for them to find the man within themselves later. I could have said the same about girls grown in a very male environment and managed to be hostile to men too :) And of course I decry what has happened to male energy in such a short commen…

I am a woman and I am sympathetic, but it sounded hostile to me. You are now dismissing that and blaming me instead of simply trying to clarify when I am the only person here taking you at all seriously. And given that I am having my head handed to me elsewhere on hn, I am not in a good frame of mind to bend over backwards to give you a receptive audience. If you would like to try again, I would be happy to give you…

Well, thanks for telling me what bothered you. I think I was just surprised to see the question of hostility being brought up at all. Certainly my words can be read in as many ways as there are readers, thus in my head that question was sort of off-topic so I think I didn't pay attention to how important it was to you and possibly others.

I am not actively or passively hostile to women, at least to any such extent that I can recognize myself or that can be recognized by my friends, so the whole matter simply hasn't been on my radar at all.