The biggest story in the world?

I mentioned this story recently in a Dark Side but it needs more attention.

Long quote:

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.


  1. Stefan · July 5

    Atrazine in water and food. It’s a herbcide that prevents weeds and remains in water that is pumped to cities for consumption. Long-known to organic chemists, probably not known to many politicians.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. jewamongyou · July 5

    Sigh… Looks like it will be up to us geezers to go out and fertilize the young ladies. But in all seriousness, I’m inclined to believe that this phenomenon is far less pronounced among black Africans than other demographics; they’re still popping out babies like there’s no tomorrow.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I wonder if there is less chemical pollution in the Sahel. In Eritrea, even the rich eat very little processed food because it’s expensive. Or maybe testosterone in Africa is being reduced from a higher starting level.


  3. Wight of Leeds · July 5

    I wonder if giving testosterone supplements to boys entering puberty would be beneficial.


  4. luisman · July 5

    Low sperm count means less than around 40 Million sperm per ejaculate. As far as I remember biology, only one of them is needed to put a bunny in the oven. I think we’re still at least a million years away from reaching one single sperm per ejaculate.


    • According to the article, men need a certain sperm count to impregnate women the traditional way. Within a few decades, most couples may need fertility treatment to conceive a child.


  5. · July 6

    “Do you have a better explanation? If so, would it rule out this one as a contributory factor?
    Both the men and women look more masculine than today.”

    This is what Edward Dutton said, IIRC:

    1. Women certainly did not appear more masculine! Based on my casual observation and that of many I’ve talked to, men are being feminized and women are becoming more masculine. Though not sure if there are studies on hormones in females that support this.

    2. These phenomena are not happening in all developed countries. They are happening specifically in Wester ones.

    3. The change is too fast to be largely a result of natural selection.

    Based on these 3 observations, the cause must be cultural rather than due to something like plastics, food, or contamination of the water. The feminized culture affects the development of men, probably in childhood and during puberty, such that their system produces less masculinizing hormones such as testosterone. Not would I have guessed but we do know of things like chimpanzees/bonobos altering their hormones based on their status in the tribe and also based on the culture of the tribe. See Sapolsky’s work.


    • Johnny Caustic · July 6

      It may be the the women in those old photos weren’t more maculinized; but the men and the women had better jaw development. Jaw development is weaker in younger generations because we eat softer foods and too much sugar.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Wolf · July 7

        Could be right about the specifics of jaw development. But Dutton’s point is that if the cause was something in the food, water, air, etc., both sexes would likely see feminization. But the evidence only shows that the men have undergone feminization. My impression is that Western women have become hideously mannish. So this powerful argument indicates it is culture.


    • Gunner Q · July 6

      “Based on these 3 observations, the cause must be cultural rather than due to something like plastics, food, or contamination of the water.”
      I would put money on fatherlessness specifically. There were studies indicating that fatherless girls sexually mature faster, which makes biological sense since they don’t have a protector and can’t afford an extended childhood. Other hormonal effects of no father, for example on pregnant single mothers, is also a possibility.


      • Wolf · July 7

        An interesting hypothesis. But In that case we would see more feminization among ethnic groups which higher levels of fatherless. Black Americans, obviously. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Seems to be higher among Whites who I would guess are more susceptible to the feminist culture. You could argue that since African come from matriarchal cultures, they are adapted to fatherlessness and therefore don’t suffer the same consequences. But I think this is not accurate cause Black American families were relatively tight before the Civil Rights movement of the 60s.


  6. philebersole · July 8

    The information in your post might explain why certain women are attracted to irresponsible men like the one you profiled in your Alpha post, and even to abusive brutal men, who nevertheless are potent. These women have a drive to have children, and are attracted to men who can give them children.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. dickycone · July 8

    “…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.”

    I didn’t read the article, but if it’s mainly Western men who have declining sperm count, we’re a drop in the bucket anyway and it will just speed up the inevitable process of our being overwhelmed and wiped out by the swarthy hordes pushing up from the south.

    I used to think I had low sperm count and couldn’t get a woman pregnant. I even got tested when I was in the FSU because it was cheap, and the results were inconclusive. This and my general loathing of condoms and love of fornication when I could get it had me pretty convinced that I just couldn’t get a woman pregnant. Then I got together with a Latina and she got pregnant first time. I have a little gaggle of kids with her now and would probably have more if she were younger and I were richer. We might still have more because “the rhythm method” aka “Pope’s roulette” is the only method I have to prevent her getting pregnant yet again.

    Fecundity seems fine among the swarthy nations of the southern part of the planet. Latinas often have a lot of white blood and are generally superior to white women of pure European descent as wives and mothers. You see what I’m driving at, my pet theory about the rise of a new Gringo-Latina master race being the best bet for humanity’s future. It started as a joke, and of course it’s still mostly a joke, but increasingly less so the more I think about it.


    • Hmm, the article does say Western men. Important detail to miss. If the chemical exposure is a side effect of modernity than I suppose North Asian men are similarly afflicted.


      • dickycone · July 9

        If North Asian means Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, those would basically be the other branch of the “ice people,” if you believe the ice people/sun people theory, which I do. Basically that our ancestors grew up in harsh environments where the children of philanderers and absent fathers mostly just died of cold and starvation without a father around to provide for them and protect them, so those genes were largely bred out. Fathers who stayed with their children led to higher trust, more stable societies, and so on. But maybe all of that has come full circle now and is affecting our fertility.

        Do Filipinos seem to be having fewer children? Central Americans didn’t, last time I was down there, with the exception of Costa Rica, which is basically a European country outside of Europe. Almost every cab driver I knew in my wife’s country had multiple kids by multiple women. It was like they couldn’t help themselves. It seemed very rare for guys down there to stay faithful to their wives or live with all their kids. Sun people.

        The low bar Latino guys set is one of the aspects of my Gringo-Latina master race theory. If you don’t cheat on your spicy Latina and stick around to help raise the kids, you’re already quite the catch. Don’t be a drunk and don’t beat her up and you’re pretty much husband of the year. So much nicer than living with the average score keeping Gringa who cares about being a good feminist at least as much as she cares about you.

        Liked by 1 person

        • The fertility rate is falling everywhere except sub-Saharan Africa and Afghanistan:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s