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

171–180 of 1001 posts

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#171

Post by compiskey »

alexsereno wrote: post #104
ghiculescu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read both links. This one sounds like a bunch of woke people unhappy that mens health is getting attention. The other study sounds legitimate.

It’s going to be a real adjustment for a lot of these people to grasp that young American men are in really difficult situations socially, academically, and that it’s a key factor to underemployment, violence, etc… the concept of men’s health or men suffering feels like an attack to these people instead of a separate legitimate issue to other social topics they find important

Society made religion optional through scientific inquiry. It can make America optional too as no theory of science suggests it’s existence is immutable law.

It’s going to be a real adjustment for you to accept a lot of people are without sufficient this or that in our society and you’re not really going to bat for them.

You have freedom to choose without coercion. Nothing makes your sensibilities sacrosanct to anyone else.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#172

Post by anon291 »

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…

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 seemingly normal-to-hyper fertile?

Surely there is more than just 'its environmental'

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#173

Post by jehb »

willcipriano wrote: post #77
jehb wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comments feels a little ambiguous, and driving replies for two separate issues. At a societal level, is an imbalanced population pyramid a problem? Yes, and many countries are solving this by opening up immigration options. Should an individual opting not to have children be expected to have negative consequences in old age? IMHO, no.

> opening up immigration options Unless they are getting immigrants from off world, that is at best a game of musical chairs. Birth rates are plummeting globally.

This is misleading. Birth rates globally are still above replacement level. Even if they weren't, immigration still provides opportunities for people to move from areas of higher relative birth rate to areas of lower relative rate, should they choose to.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#174

Post by raspberry1337 »

compiskey wrote: post #85
ghiculescu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read both links. This one sounds like a bunch of woke people unhappy that mens health is getting attention. The other study sounds legitimate.

Quoted post unavailable.

The data being insufficient because it focuses on white men only, because that's where we have the earliest data, which is "colonial" and "white supremacist". Who's the mob again?

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#175

Post by abeppu »

vanderZwan wrote: post #100
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 genuinely hate this (meaning Swan's) take. The modern world is waaaay to complex to offload all responsibility to "consumers". They did it with sustainability, with sweat shops, with food, with cleaning products. It's ridiculous.

> Ultimately, Levine and Swan say that local and global actions are needed to reduce or get rid of these chemicals in our environments.

I think it's unfair to characterize Swan's take as trying to 'offload all responsibility to "consumers"'. Presumably the "get rid of these chemicals in our environments" doesn't just intend "our" to only mean some hyper-vigilant subset of the population. One can advocate for removing these from the marketplace while simultaneously having the stance that for now, in the world we actually live in, people can take some steps to limit their exposure. People are always going to ask "but what can I do _now_ to protect myself and my family?" and it's not unreasonable for an expert in the field to try to have an answer.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#176

Post by rubiquity »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #44
Inviz wrote: post #8

I had a test recently and I have 0% "normal" sperms, when 4%-14% is the normal range. Pretty radical. The doctor said to take vitamins, to get testosterone to normal level, and to excercise. In other words not much to do

>to get testosterone to normal level, How does one do that exactly?

Don't worry Chuck Norris, you have so much testosterone they were thinking of renaming it after you.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#177

Post by Vt71fcAqt7 »

compiskey wrote: post #12

But are they? https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/05/fears-over-fa...

>Study aims to quell fears over falling human sperm count

At least they are open about the fact that they have determined the conclusion beforehand.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#178

Post by Bubble_Pop_22 »

standardUser wrote: post #128
Bubble_Pop_22 wrote: post #86

Now we only need a vaccine against HIV and STDs in general and we can finally do away with condoms.

I can't remember the last time I talked to a gay man who wasn't on PrEP. It's arguable that in reasonably responsible circles, HIV these days poses little-to-no risk, even among sexually promiscuous people. And most other common STDs are completely curable. The big exception is herpes, the spread of which is not prevented by condoms.

> And most other common STDs are completely curable

So is the flu or COVID or the common cold, but they are inconveniences which can last for 20 days or more.

If a vaccine were to become availible then the inconvenience would be limited to the day of the shot.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#179

Post by OGWhales »

mhitza wrote: post #127
propagandist wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It must be environmental.

My bet is on the microplastics that have been found everywhere, from the arctic snow[1] down to the placenta of unborn babies[2]. They are known to be endocrine disruptors, however they only got their media spotlight (as far as I am aware) in the last ~4 years. Thus we're far away from being able to fully understand their effects on the human body. Fun part is that I have some crazy (non-scietifically backed) theorie…

I wonder how we can even determine what effects microplastics have on the human body when they are so prolific that every human on earth has them. Comparing with humans from the past has many challenges, so I guess the best we can do is comparing people that have more to those with less.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#180

Post by delecti »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #92
andai wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I reading this right that the average person has 86-96% abnormal sperm?

If normal is 86-96% “abnormal,” it would seem abnormal is normal and normal is abnormal. ;)

English certainly has a bad habit of conflating good/bad with common/uncommon.
Post reply on HN