I mentioned this story recently in a Dark Side but it needs more attention.
Within just a few generations, human sperm counts may decline to levels below those considered adequate for fertility. That’s the alarming claim made in epidemiologist Shanna Swan’s new book, Countdown, which assembles a raft of evidence to show that the sperm count of western men has plunged by more than 50 per cent in less than 40 years.
That means men reading this article will on average have half the sperm count of their grandfathers. And, if the data is extrapolated forwards to its logical conclusion, men could have little or no reproductive capacity from 2060 onwards.
These are shocking claims, but they’re backed by a growing body of evidence that’s finding reproductive abnormalities and declining fertility in humans and wildlife worldwide.
It’s difficult to say whether these trends will continue — or whether, if they do, they could lead to our extinction. But it’s clear that one of the main causes of these issues — the chemicals we’re surrounded by in our everyday lives — requires better regulation in order to protect our reproductive capacities, and those of the creatures with which we share our environment.
It could be another empty scare like all the others, but this seems like the opposite: a problem for which there’s a lot of hard evidence that is not being shilled at all.
If true, it would be a hell of a lot more dangerous than the things our rulers currently shriek about: climate change, systemic racism and Covid. None of those, after all, are seriously threaten the survival of the human race.
I do not propose panic and a massive overreaction that causes more harm than good – our usual strategy. Rather, this is an issue we should look into much more deeply and, if true, start considering practical, balanced, long-term solutions.
Doing squats and avoiding soy is not enough. As the article explains, a lot of the damage is done in utero.
Besides the >0 possibility of extinction, the story fascinates for other reasons. If true, or even somewhat true, then quite a lot of other weird things start to make sense.
For example, the birth rate. Sure, women are starting families later due to increased time spent in education, but they generally want more kids than they end up with. Perhaps married couples in their 30s are not able to pop out as many kids as they’d like, despite their best efforts, and maybe their grandparents in the same situation would have had more success.
It was not uncommon for the last babies of our old, huge families to be born to mothers over 40. Maybe declining birth rates in many parts of the world are partly caused by environmental chemicals reducing fertility.
For that matter, researchers have long been aware that the teen birth rate has fallen dramatically since the 1950s:
Sure, a lot of this is to do with sex education, abortion and culture, but could it also be because those teens still having a tryst in the back of a Datsun at Make-out Point might be dodging more bullets than their comparatively fecund grandparents?
Makes ya think.
One might draw attention to the fact that young people in general are having less sex these days, a puzzthat has been discussed on these pages before.
Yes, but might that also be related to low-T lads lacking the hormonal drive to leave the house and bust a move? Both things could be true.
Here’s the big one: our society has been through massive changes recently. It started slowly and now it’s accelerating. Non-universal standards of justice, ‘inclusivity’ über alles, gay stuff, trans stuff, that weird burst of 17th-wave feminism apropos of nothing and various bouts of hysteria that have presently peaked with Covid.
Could our diminished sexual dimorphism, feminized culture and general emotionality be related to embryonic exposure to weird hormonal chemicals?
Do you have a better explanation? If so, would it rule out this one as a contributory factor?
Even our faces are different:
Have a squiz at any random, old photo. Both the men and women look more masculine than today. The older the photo, the truer this is. Those 1920s flappers look like they could bite your head off.
The main problem with my whole, poorly-thought out theory is that it’s too perfect.
Life is messy and social change involves many factors operating at such a level of complexity that they are beyond our full understanding.
However, this chemical theory sums up everything that’s been going on lately.
Without it, the other factors thought to be involved seem to lack sufficient explanatory power. Sure people are eating more unfermented soy, but that much? Yes we’re not getting enough sunlight, but miners were never as hermaphorditic as we are. Most don’t get enough exercise, but even sedentary, dorky office workers of the 1950s could kick our teeth in. Hand-grip tests back this up.
It’s too neat.
If true, all our classical manospheric lore is of limited utility – neither futile nor a panacea. There’s only so much you can do with what you were born with.
Any successful restriction of harmful chemicals might have interesting sociopolitical outcomes.