This submission was made by a 5-year HN user with 14000 karma. Although I don't know if you've been more active with a different handle, which is certainly very possible, the account whose submission you're complaining about has been active 27 times as long as yours and has 91 times as much karma as yours... suggesting a history of reasonably good-faith contribution to HN.
Edit: it's true that his submissions aren't primarily about IT topics, but people continue to find them interesting.
It matters to me. The reasons the parent outlined are roughly the factors used for my personal trust rating when considering if I mind veering off topic momentarily while reading.
I had heard that sperm counts are dropping. What was news to me was that the decline is continuing, even accelerating, and also the concomitant drop in testosterone levels, starting even in utero.
The bit about AGD was also pretty crazy — followed by the bit about men becoming less male. Some fear-mongering there no doubt, but a topic which in this era is more likely to be met with scoffs of “good riddance” rather than alarm bells.
> followed by the bit about men becoming less male.
This is pretty obvious without any research (papers). The difference between my generation and our children is already staggering in this regard. Not sure if that's just change in culture or physiological though; maybe a bit of both?
I resisted the urge to joke that this finally explains millenials, because it’s exactly that response which leads to the dismissive reactions this trend is being met with.
A couple days ago I shared a NYT article with my wife because it was such a strange window into evolving gender standards [1] and the next day a friend of hers shared another story which took it to a whole new level [2].
I could not help but tie it all together in my mind with TFA and dropping testosterone levels, but god help me for admitting it here.
Where do you see that? I don't get that at all. It clearly sounds like his decision to wear dresses — the mother is just reflecting on the implications of that choice.
To me, it sounds like it’s got that tone. Like if your communist friend tells you, “My younger son just asked me why the proletariat allow the capital class to maintain a reserve army of labour. He also told me he wants to go to his third grade class dressed as Engels to protest the violence inherent in the system.”
Makes me a little ... queasy.
FWIW I’m not particularly bothered by the concept that a little kid may want to wear dresses. It’s just the tone in the story seems a bit ... not reputable.
I read it almost exactly halfway between what you two do: She read waay too much into one of her kid's specific preferences, and accidentally pushed him into dresses because of her own beliefs.
Take myself for example, and imagine what that mother would have thought: Up until ~14 I wore various old shirts from my parents to bed and on weekends, which were long enough to look like a dress on me, but it had nothing to do with liking dresses. It had to do with regular clothes being too stifling to be comfortable on the weekend, pajamas being too warm, and me not having confidence to just go around in only underwear.
How do you guys get past paywalls like #2? Seems increasingly more sites have paywalls and I can’t imagine people are subscribing to multiple news providers.
You can also make the argument just as easily if not easier that women are becoming more manly. Seems like these trends would be dominated by social change and it's silly to assume any kind of physiological difference without a solid study.
Yes, I agree with you. It seems to be a social thing. But it seems to be the case worldwide so maybe there is a physiological component; would like to see studied.
I see that young people today are absolutely behaving different than my generation but also than my parents and grandparents and great grandparents. I mean to say that my father, grandfathers and great grandfathers were all rather similar while they are all really different than the current generation. I think I like the current situation better. But yes, this needs solid studies if someone someone would be interested in finding the cause; not guessing or speculation.
> The difference between my generation and our children is already staggering in this regard. Not sure if that's just change in culture or physiological though; maybe a bit of both?
Said every parent about their children's generation since the dawn of human civilization..[0], [1]
Yeah , this is about a particular trait that is not in either of the linked articles though. You took what I said out of context which makes it a platitude.
My first thought was that this may also cast light on the rise of the trans rights movement. If men are becoming less male, surely this relates to so many people saying "I'm really a woman trapped in a man's body." or vice versa.
This may also help explain why trans people are so often met with open hostility as "freaks" etc. No, I am not defending their mistreatment.
But given how charged a topic that is, I imagine bringing it up will get my comment flagged to death, not taken seriously.
I'm a fairly traditionally feminine woman and spent a couple of decades as a homemaker and full-time mom. I am routinely met with open hostility from self proclaimed trans activists, feminists, etc.
I personally like "manly men" and that's also not a PC thing to admit to. So I will suggest it isn't just men the world is saying "good riddance" to. It's also women in some sense.
If you want to argue that, please stop and think before dismissively attacking me. People talk all the time about how gender is a social construct and is not merely the bits between your legs. I stayed home with my kids and that had a profound impact on how I think about many things. And the way I think is alien to that of career women and they are frequently openly hostile to it.
Oh, lots of different things. As best I can tell, the hostility is towards me personally, not a specific view per se.
I've been accused on HN of being transphobic for attempting to speak about women's issues. I don't really care to dig up a whole lot of examples to convince skeptics. I was homeless for nearly 6 years and only asking for help with trying to figure out how to make money online. I got damn little support and was actively dismissed, especially on a different forum that likes to imagine it is female friendly. I don't think it really is.
Anyway, those painful experiences made it quite clear to me that a lot of people literally would like to see me dead. I'm aware that callous indifference isn't something most people will take seriously as a form of attempted murder, so I don't actually want to talk about this. Additional hostile dismissal of my opinions of my experiences won't change my opinions and, ironically, are unlikely to be seen as supporting evidence for my point.
"Expressed Views" are interpreted by the people that read them. Plenty of people online mistakenly infer things in other people's posts and attack that instead. Or they imagine that the poster probably holds another position (which they may or may not) and attack that.
FWIW, I'm a manly-man, and I routinely attract aggression from non-cis folks because I've had kids and enjoy being a Dad. I think this is just par for the course, personally - if people did like having kids and being 'traditional' in their family future, they wouldn't be non-cis...
I spent 9 months being extremely supportive of a MtF trans youth in crisis who expected and demanded that I be totally accepting of who and what they were. Then they had a cow and shit all over me for mentioning that "pretty boys" weren't my cup of tea and reamed me out about how that's prejudice.
So their preferences and predilections must be unquestioningly validated. Mine? Just another BS excuse for the individual to heap more verbal abuse on me.
We eventually parted company. Last I heard, they are still telling lies about me to other people.
That's absolutely not the inclusiveness that so many people claim they want. It's hypocrisy. What they really want is to preserve the Lord Of The Flies pecking order where people on top get to shit all over people on bottom, but they want to be the people shitting on others, not the people being shit on.
It's not actually an attempt to create some lovely egalitarian society. It's more like a desire for revenge and that revenge is frequently aimed at individuals who didn't actually harm them.
What was the context for your "pretty boys" comment? Was it referring to MtF individuals or to men not conforming to traditional gender roles RE: their appearance?
We were most likely discussing someone who is a member of Hacker News that she wanted to encourage me to marry, never mind that she believed he was married to someone else (according to him at the time, he wasn't married, but he is a family man). So, basically, admitting that I didn't find him repulsive was a good excuse to heap verbal abuse on me. Par for the course for the relationship. There was no means for me to do anything right.
Out of respect for innocent bystanders, such as his children (including one that likely reads Hacker News), I don't want to discuss this any further.
Lord help me for even responding to this nonsense, but here I go. I'm trans, prior to starting hormones my sperm count was 91.90 million/mL (close to 1973 benchmark noted in the article.) Please don't spread harmful speculation.
> I'm a fairly traditionally feminine woman and spent a couple of decades as a homemaker and full-time mom. I am routinely met with open hostility from self proclaimed trans activists, feminists, etc.
> I personally like "manly men" and that's also not a PC thing to admit to. So I will suggest it isn't just men the world is saying "good riddance" to. It's also women in some sense.
I think, in this context, we need better and likely newer vocabulary. I don't believe that others would despise you or any other woman or man or an intersex person or someone in transition for liking certain characteristics (physical and/or behavioral) traditionally and historically associated with men.
The issue seems to be — while we're untangling all the discrimination, stereotyping and prejudices — that the current and older terms (like "manly man") reek of all these negative things that are being questioned (where newer ways are being sought to deal with). The impact of such broad terms is wider than what people may generally think of.
To make a comparison (which may be taken differently by different people), it's like using the "N" word and assuming that even a neutral or seemingly positive reference should be accepted by others.
Language is changing all the time and adapting to the times. In this particular case, I believe we should break down what something like "manly man" means into constituent parts and try to use decoupled (from the original term), yet concise and non-triggering, ways of expressing the same. It may not be easy. It may sound weird at first. But it's something we need as a society.
Lest this be dismissed as "oh, we just need new words to fix the world", I'd like to reiterate that the basis is to allow thoughts to change.
I didn't even think of these two terms together in this context and I don't think of those as synonyms, and my usual thoughts in this case are about the characteristics and attributes that are used to discriminate against those who don't seem to be "manly men" or those who seem to be "manly men", while society (or parents or others) wants them to be and fulfill what they (the others) think is their traditional role. Tradition is not set in stone. Nothing is. The clash is sometimes with certain behaviors, but it's also many a times with prejudiced associations that discriminate and affect others.
P.S.: I also believe that short pieces of written words and sentences can be misinterpreted online, and probably malice attribute to where there is none.
One thing that's odd is the "progressive" community thinks that people don't have a right to an "affectional preference" and if you prefer masculine men, or feminine women with flat stomachs, then there's something wrong with you.
What about trans-women that want to be called women? Who see being called "trans" or "man" as an insult?
Isn't this the same kind of gate-keeping as the people who insist trans-women are men?
neither side might accept the new vocab precisely because they are a) reinforcing the old concept, or b) reinforcing an inverted version of the old concepts. Neither wish to create a new category, just define the same old ones.
I have a similar explanation to this dropping hormone levels phenomenon.
It is simply just that it does not require to be a 'manly man' in these days to have the same amount of "success", as it required in the old times. For example, take the whole mating game. Earlier, you had to look good/manly, need some quick thinking, timing and wit to pick up women. But now those things are not so much required.
I think multiple factors have contributed to this. But I think the all encompassing one is capitalism. And things like these are the an emergent result, of trying to maximize profits, and thus it is molding the very source that it generate the profit from, namely the human population. Simply put, much less profits can be made from a manly (manliness being comprised of things like but not limited to, looks, having some individuality, own principles and views and a taste for independence) and intelligent population than it can be made from a feeble/stupid, but heavy earning population. I am not saying that there is some conspiracy that is trying to accomplish this. But it might be a case of a death by a thousand paper cuts. I mean, like every time you try to sell something to the public, by social conditioning, you might be inadvertently contributing to things like this...
"This may also help explain why trans people are so often met with open hostility"
should be >>>>>
"This may also help explain why trans people feel they are so often met with open hostility"
Thanks for being a home maker, which is the age-old proven roll for producing the best offspring - and society's future generations. It is merely the marketing of insecurity that allows so many to propose that "CEO" is so much more virtuous than "home maker" for a woman of child bearing age. None of the "modern alternatives" are alternatives at all - in that they've not been proven in the least to be comparable in effectiveness. And the people pushing hormones on pre-pubescent children because they're "questioning their gender" should be called out and ridiculed for the sake of these children's lives!
The fact that it isn't PC to admit that you like men ("manly men") is so ridiculous, but I agree that it is true (that is shunned). People are gaining political platform merely on the basis of the credential of being gay, trans, etc! Since when did wanting to have sex with a certain kind of person become so righteous?! This is all reminiscent of the culture of sexuality that the Greeks had during the final stages of their empire. The people who are mischaracterizing the issues we have with this generally as issues we have with them personally are not being intellectually honest. The destruction of the male & female gender roles, which balance and compliment each other - with no proposed alternatives with long-term studies - is suicidal for our civilization.
Thank you for speaking up... I think there are way more women who share your views & experience than almost anyone is admitting.
> I personally like "manly men" and that's also not a PC thing to admit to
there's nothing political about liking what you like. You don't need to justify yourself, your preferences or their reasonings to anyone. That's half the point of the sexual liberation movement.
> I'm a fairly traditionally feminine woman and spent a couple of decades as a homemaker and full-time mom. I am routinely met with open hostility from self proclaimed trans activists, feminists, etc.
for raising kids? i didn't realize investing in future generations was controversial. You have just as much right to exist and go about your life as they do or anyone else.
There's no longer any sexual liberation. Instead you are told that you need to be controlled from outside in order to not be taken advantage of. It's 50s once again?
> a topic which in this era is more likely to be met with scoffs of “good riddance” rather than alarm bells.
I'm not sure about that. The Internet "manosphere" (for lack of a better term; consider it the all-encompassing phrase for both harmless and not-so-harmless subcultures like weightlifting, PUA, redpillers, the alt-right, etc.) seems more obsessed with masculinity than anyone I can recall seeing in previous decades. "Plastics in the water are destroying men" has been a ha-ha-only-serious topic in those circles for a while now and this will only solidify it. For better or worse, there are enough people concerned about this stuff that I doubt it will get handwaved away.
It’s exactly those harmless and not-so-harmless subcultures obsessed with [toxic] masculinity who are the fringe groups which somehow (almost by osmosis) seem to corrupt this fairly shocking scientific line of inquiry.
It is unfortunate that this pretty serious issue is going to be somewhat "guilty by association", but I don't think it will get so bad that no one's going to care about it. Men are just, well, too invested in this stuff. I just wanted to allay concerns that nobody's going to care because it would be too "un-PC".
I’ve got a hypothesis that there is a set amount of testosterone possible in the world (or social group). More males = less to go around. It would make sense from a not-constantly-on-edge perspective as the amount of males per unit of territory goes up.
Just a hypothesis, could make for interesting research.
Your body is part of a global network of human beings, where social status and hormones are like, actual things that feed off each other. Here’s some research along those lines:
>“What you are seeing in a number of systems, other developmental systems, is that the sex differences are shrinking,” Swan told me. Men are producing less sperm. They're also becoming less male.
Is it possible that these phenomena relate to the seemingly explosive rise in transgenderism? Particularly MtF, which is much more common than the reverse. Perhaps for those with already low male:female hormone ratios, if they are tipped further by these endocrine disruptors, especially during development, they might really have a brain that feels more female.
All human Zygotes start out as female, and a burst of androgens makes some fetuses develop male sexual characteristics. If those androgens aren't released, the child retains female sexual presentation, even if they have XY chromosomes. As is commonly mentioned, this is why men have nipples even though they're not functional for men.
According to my very weak understanding, it's easier to prevent that from happening than it is to accidentally introduce enough xenoandrogens to cause a XX fetus to develop male sexual characteristics.
I would love a reliable way to measure Birth Control and SSRIs in the water, and compare it to decades ago. I feel like there's a good chance these are "sleeper issues" affecting global health (in addition to the plastics as discussed).
Maybe somewhere there's an ice core that's saved representative water from the decades?
Regarding estrogens from BC in the water, some fish findings are quite suggestive:
It would be quite difficult to determine if transgenderism is more common now than it once was, or if we're more open to recognizing and helping people who are transgendered.
By occam's razor, I have to wonder the same thing. Also it seems there is already some tenuous evidence that being exposed to artificial hormones in-utero can be correlated with transgenderism [1]
> Is it possible that these phenomena relate to the seemingly explosive rise in transgenderism?
No. Being transgender is not the result of having imbalanced hormone levels. The proof is the fact that giving trans women testosterone doesn't "cure" their gender dysphoria (it may actually make it worse), and same goes for giving trans men estrogen.
> Particularly MtF, which is much more common than the reverse.
Not true. This is an artifact of the fact that, for decades, sexologists were primarily only interested in studying MtF people, and that the transgender population was only measured in terms of who was allowed to transition (and, like the sexologists studying it, the doctors who prescribed hormones significantly favored MtF patients).
It turns out that when you remove the gatekeeping bullshit and actually measure the real trans population, not just the population of people allowed to medically transition, people transition in both directions at approximately the same rate (meaning the MtF population is about the same size as the FtM population).
I don’t have any links off the top of my head, but it’s generally accepted by the medical community at this point that the only effective treatment for gender dysphoria is to transition. I’d try to dig up links but I’m on mobile and the brief search I just did only talks about cross-sex hormone therapy (though the lack of quick info on same-sex hormone therapy itself is a big clue that it doesn’t work).
It’s both in that book. Otherwise the commanders’ wives would be able to get pregnant. But it is implied that the commmanders aren’t blamed when they’re the infertile ones.
There was an episode of Stargate where an alien race reduces human fertility by 98%. They do some shenanigans with time travel to tell themselves to not contact that world in order to prevent it.
Your link is for the second appearance of the Aschen, when SG-1 meets with a different civilization they've already pacified. The episode with the time-travel shenanigans is the first of the two episodes: https://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/2010_(episode)
In mammals generally testosterone levels and photoperiod are very closely linked. It would be surprising if our increasing use (abuse) or artificial light didn't sharply drop our testosterone levels.
In mammals generally? Sorry, couldn't resist - in truth your question is good because while "sleep" is repeated endlessly, not just in the news but often by researchers who aren't controlling for photoperiod - that's NOT what the research says. It's light that's key, controlling the master hormone melatonin. Which is also a stunningly efficient antioxidant, of supreme use in taking out the garbage - something not irrelevant to Alzheimer's. If you sleep into the light regularly,long sleeps, your lifespan actually shortens.
Eating meat is a manly-man activity and what no one wants out of study like this is to have their preconceptions challenged or to hear they might have to change their behaviour in any way.
This is something that baffles me. The biggest, strongest mammals are herbivorous - elephant, bull, bison... Even the best carnivorous animals meditate for a few hours and seek divine help before messing with these guys.
Definitely the former. HN doesn't take well to people making unsubstantiated assertions.
If you want to make a statement like this, don't bother unless you have evidence.
It's also usually better to frame it around the evidence, like "this study from UCLA found that higher consumption of animal products led to decreased testosterone levels". This way, the discussion will be focused on the evidence or the conclusion you drew from it.
>HN doesn't take well to people making unsubstantiated assertions.
ooooo..scary.
Tell something that fits with the hive mind narrative and HN will give you all its love without asking for no citation. (I mean, some one might ask for it, but HN will take care of flagging it and make it disappear). So do all forums where there is an ability for people to down vote stuff.
“The atom bomb works. Fission makes uranium explode.”
See how I didn’t need a citation?
It’s because the facts are not only well-understood, but a river of citation is ready to flow for you, and you would have to dig for verifiable evidence. You could pull up a youtube video, and watch facts unfold, as real world events from the past.
“My pets love me. I know this is true because I see it in them every day.”
You know what? Possible. But you couldn’t offer a citation, if you wanted to. And on top of that, there’s no easy way to discern what goes on inside an animal’s mind, or whether the situation changed and the statement no longer holds up.
“Animal products cause problems for those who consume them.”
Is a broad statement, enough to be useless.
“It’s been found that consuming animal products is associated with this specific problem.”
Better, but says who? And associated does not indicate cause and effect. It doesn’t even indicate a direct relationship.
“Consuming animal products causes this specific problem.”
How? Under what conditions? What’s the mechanism? Who can replicate these results? Why is it not universally applicable, when we can look back on history, and point to people living over 100 years, without encountering the specific problems mentioned?
> If you take men on a high-protein diet—”meat, fish, poultry, egg white[s]”—and switch them to a high-carb diet of “bread, vegetables, fruit, and [sugary junk,]” their cortisol levels drop about a quarter within ten days. At the same time, their testosterone levels shoot up by about the same amount.
> After the intake of cow milk, serum estrone (E1) and progesterone concentrations significantly increased, and serum luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and testosterone significantly decreased in men
I’m not sure what I’m meant to take from those links. Do you know of any direct studies comparing similar macros etc to isolate meat or any longer term analysis across similar target demographics?
The first one seems to be about low carb vs high carb - where was the meat + carb vs no meat + high-carb comparison?
The second seems to be specific to milk and not animal products in general.
It actually does, there is a documented event of it happening, but to be fair it is harmless for the majority of the population in resonable consumption :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18558591
A 60-year-old man was referred to the endocrinology clinic for evaluation of bilateral gynecomastia of 6 months' duration. He reported erectile dysfunction and decreased libido. On further review of systems, he reported no changes in testicular size, no history of testicular trauma, no sexually transmitted diseases, no headaches, no visual changes, and no change in muscular mass or strength. Initial laboratory assessment showed estrone and estradiol concentrations to be 4-fold increased above the upper limit of the reference range. Subsequent findings from testicular ultrasonography; computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis; and positron emission tomography were normal. Because of the normal findings from the imaging evaluation, the patient was interviewed again, and he described a daily intake of 3 quarts of soy milk. After he discontinued drinking soy milk, his breast tenderness resolved and his estradiol concentration slowly returned to normal.
Also there is a clear explanation of why so much plant products have hormonal disruptors in it, to modulate the fertility of herbivore, but it's not a story NutritionFact would tell you
Plants have physical and chemical mechanisms for defense from attack by animals. Phytochemical defenses that protect plants from attack by insects include antifeedants, insecticides, and insect growth regulators. Phytochemical options exist by which plants can modulate the fertility of the other major group of plant predators, vertebrate herbivores, and thereby reduce cumulative attacks by those herbivores. The success of such a defense depends upon phytochemical mimicry of vertebrate reproductive hormones. Phytoestrogens do mimic reproductive hormones and are proposed to be defensive substances produced by plants to modulate the fertility of herbivores.
So in huge quantities it rarely happens... soy is also completely optional and not necessary, so not a big concern. Avoiding animal products is laughably easy without soy.
My initial thought when I read the “the problem is right in front of us” interlude was, oh they’re gonna blame PornHub! Since masterbation decreases sperm count.
But when they got into the other physiological symptoms, that definitely isn’t gonna explain it.
Perhaps feminine isn't the right word, perhaps what I mean is a devaluation of masculine traits. In my opinion we live in a time of extreme obedience to law, taboo and shaming of physical violence (with instead an emphasis on social shaming via television/media), and a general fear of social confrontation and disagreement. Our focus instead is on acceptance of absolutely everyone and everything.
By some measures the world is more peaceful than it has ever been [1]. I guess I just think that so many of the issues we constantly discuss on these forums could easily be solved with a bit more political violence. Instead we let people like Ajit Pai get away with blatant corruption because of our complete unwillingness to take any real action to stop him.
Think about it. Alexander Hamilton died in a gun duel with someone. Can you even imagine something like that ever taking place in the modern day between politicians? Violence just simply is not allowed to be a solution for problems in the modern day even though it is often extremely effective. I'm not trying to argue for bombings or any sort of mass killings obviously, but that we just seem to be afraid of considering it as a solution to problems, even when that is the primary power our government has over us.
Violence just simply is not allowed to be a solution for problems in the modern day
I'm very confused. Are we in the same world?
so many of the issues we constantly discuss on these forums could easily be solved with a bit more political violence.
Wow. Such as? Can you be specific? What you are saying sounds fairly dark and ominous. You think duels were "extremely effective" solutions to problems? It certainly is not obvious to me that you're "not trying to argue for bombings or any sort of mass killings". Why would that be 'obvious' to any reader of what you've said? What sort of 'political violence' do you mean? I guess a lot more violence would be even better at times, to solve those pesky problems where the normal amount isn't so effective?
we just seem to be afraid of considering it as a solution to problems, even when that is the primary power our government has over us.
I don't see the logical connection between the two halves of that. At all. Is it that thing where people in the US seemingly can't abide the police having guns and people not having them?
Afaik the issue this thread is about is primarily an issue in modern western societies, so that is what I am referencing specifically. The article I linked suggests that violence is at near all time lows in such societies.
Wow. Such as? Can you be specific? What you are saying sounds fairly dark and ominous.
I literally gave an example in my post. Horrible corrupt politicians resurrecting from the dead to fake support for a massively unpopular policy? They are going to get away with literally no consequences. You don't see any issues with this?
You think duels were "extremely effective" solutions to problems?
Nope, I don't. This was an example of how violence has been de-emphasized. The fact that something like this feels simply unfathomable in the current day shows how far off we really are. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing a specific few of our politicians face off in a duel. Maybe then we could replace them with people not bought off by corporations.
What sort of 'political violence' do you mean? I guess a lot more violence would be even better at times, to solve those pesky problems where the normal amount isn't so effective?
I would prefer if it was used in situations where rule of law is proving to be ineffective. It just feels like the right to vote is not proving to be enough leverage in our current society. Take the Equifax hack. What basically amounts to criminal negligence of the data nearly every american gave them (essentially) unwillingly. These people are just going to walk? I'm not saying kill them or anything... but where are the protests? The broken windows? Why aren't there offices being stormed with protests? Like what is happening? The only possible explanation I can come up with is that people have been pacified. They've been taught that getting fucked over is just the normal way. Businesses and politicians are sociopathic and that's just the nature of the world. Don't do anything, don't fight back, just take it.
I don't see the logical connection between the two halves of that. At all. Is it that thing where people in the US seemingly can't abide the police having guns and people not having them?
Violence is an important tool to impart change. Why should the government be the only ones allowed to wield it? Is law enforcement truly the only incarnation of violence we are going to view as socially acceptable? Why should that be the case?
There aren't really any good evolutionary explanations for the decrease in sperm count. Changes in the distribution and frequency of any given genotype/phenotype literally takes generations to occur, and would require some kind of selective pressure (as you say, competition and medically induced fertility are possibilities). This is happening too fast and too uniformly.
When you take away selective pressure for a specific trait, organisms become weaker on average in respect to that trait; when a trait loses importance, populations divert their resources to different traits.
A selective pressure going away is as strong as a selective pressure appearing.
Eg. 100 years ago, 20% of children would die as infants. Imagine all of those children died of a mutation which causes half the usual sperm count, together with a lack of resistance to polio/cholora.
Now that polio/cholora don't exist, all those people survive, and within 3 generations, nearly everyone has at least a grandparent with that 'low sperm count' mutation.
> Eg. 100 years ago, 20% of children would die as infants. Imagine all of those children died of a mutation which causes half the usual sperm count, together with a lack of resistance to polio/cholora
That wouldn't be a steady state. A gene that powerfully negative, with no upsides, would decrease in prevalence by a significant amount every generation.
> Now that polio/cholora don't exist, all those people survive, and within 3 generations, nearly everyone has at least a grandparent with that 'low sperm count' mutation.
Everyone has an ancestor with the gene. But they only have a 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 chance of inheriting it from that specific ancestor. Generation to generation, the percentage of people with the gene will be almost identical. Just like eye and hair color.
Worth pointing out this trend is only unambiguously evident in the Western world, identified as U.S., Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.
Other parts of the world do not show a statistically significant trend, although the article suggests these data are not good enough to draw strong conclusions.
What's curious about that is if this is solely a first world problem, then it should be easy to compare our sperm counts to that of men in 2nd/3rd world countries. The lack of that data in this article is troubling.
He got one fact wrong in the intro: Women are more obese and overweight than men. I suspect the life expectancy gap may narrow because of this (just like the thigh gap closed!)
GQ... LOL! "We're going to take the women down with us." The same magazine that publishes about "toxic masculinity." There are plenty of virile men out there - but I imagine very few are journalists! Restricting calories, "soy boys," lack of exercise, lack of quality animal products - of course you're going to have a low sperm count! I would say, be honest - and tackle your mental and physical issues before your sperm count - and it will likely rise on its own. Besides, someone with poor mental and physical health shouldn't become a father or mother yet anyway.
My wife and I had one child. I know the time and date we conceived. We wanted more. Never happened. At 40 I asked her if she wanted to speak to a doctor to figure out why. We both did the math on it....cost and age of child at end of high school and said, no. I have friends that spent 100K on their offspring, and it was an emotional roller coaster. 2 kids later, happy, and a 3rd unexpected.
There is strong evidence fertility decreases if there is a lack of vitamin D, which would correlate with the thesis that fertility decreases for human kind in general (as we expose ourselves less and less to the sun):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28667465
Only those deliver are important and only woman by definition reproduce. For diversity, one day the female as a race can get each other X genes ... why need Y ...
The question is why we need male? Not totally sure actually even though I am male.
To generalise your question: Why do we need any differences in anything. Why we need multiple languages, cultures, races, etc. (Off course, this isn't something we could alter overnight, or if we should even contemplate altering, but just using it as an example)
I think we are all about information. Some information works better for survival of a species than other information. The knowledge that helps better, helps flourish. Bad knowledge dwindles the number of specimen. In effect, better and better information is passed down generations. Different cultures, languages, genders have different perspectives, ways of thinking about different things. More the variety there is, the more possibility is there for new thoughts, and different mental models. And the more the differences, the better are our chances of survival. Men have a different way of thinking about a lot of things than women (consider the choice of games in childhood). And so, I think, having both genders survive is better for our species than just one :)
No on can prove the specific reason, I'm sure any reason that is explored will get push back from businesses who have interests in that area, for example if it's because of sugar, mobile phones, pesticides or pollution, all those industries will fund counter claims. It's sad but that's the capitalist world we live in, the problem will get so bad even the owners of these businesses will be affected but foolish enough to continue for the pursuit of greed and profit, knowingly or unknowingly destroying the chance of future, healthy offspring.
I wonder how substantiated these numbers are but I can't deny that IVF facilities have been very very busy all over. In Canada, fertility treatment rate increased to 15.7% in 2011, up from 5.4% in 1984. It is a safe bet that 1 in 8 couples you know probably have visited fertility clinic[1].
Also, does this apply to China/India or just Western world? If no then I would worry about all the tech that has gotten in to our lives like plastic everywhere, RF radiation through wifi, chemical infested food and toys etc.
> plastic everywhere, RF radiation through wifi, chemical infested food and toys etc.
All of these are common in China as well. There is a lucrative business in importing baby formula from Western countries due to past food safety scandals.
But maybe the differing onset of that kind of pollution would still allow treating it as a natural experiment.
Those stats don't imply anything about fertility rates. IVF has gotten far more accessible and affordable since the early 1980s. The 1 in 8 stat was likely just as true in 1984, it just meant they'd been trying for a year without success. Now that gets you a referral to a clinic (and you're more likely to accept that referral).
This was a study that used data from circa 180 other studies; I wonder what the purpose of the other studies were and whether there's any selection bias here?
153 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 213 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14855796
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16245784
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15061484
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15109328
It's amazing that even gq is now spamming HN.
Edit: it's true that his submissions aren't primarily about IT topics, but people continue to find them interesting.
https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=pmcpinto
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17938276
And a few other times over the past week:
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=gq.com
The bit about AGD was also pretty crazy — followed by the bit about men becoming less male. Some fear-mongering there no doubt, but a topic which in this era is more likely to be met with scoffs of “good riddance” rather than alarm bells.
This is pretty obvious without any research (papers). The difference between my generation and our children is already staggering in this regard. Not sure if that's just change in culture or physiological though; maybe a bit of both?
A couple days ago I shared a NYT article with my wife because it was such a strange window into evolving gender standards [1] and the next day a friend of hers shared another story which took it to a whole new level [2].
I could not help but tie it all together in my mind with TFA and dropping testosterone levels, but god help me for admitting it here.
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/style/modern-love-he-aske...
[2] - https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/imagining...
Makes me a little ... queasy.
FWIW I’m not particularly bothered by the concept that a little kid may want to wear dresses. It’s just the tone in the story seems a bit ... not reputable.
Take myself for example, and imagine what that mother would have thought: Up until ~14 I wore various old shirts from my parents to bed and on weekends, which were long enough to look like a dress on me, but it had nothing to do with liking dresses. It had to do with regular clothes being too stifling to be comfortable on the weekend, pajamas being too warm, and me not having confidence to just go around in only underwear.
Kids don't put themselves in news articles. It's the parents who do it, but they always say the child spontaneously behaved that way.
I see that young people today are absolutely behaving different than my generation but also than my parents and grandparents and great grandparents. I mean to say that my father, grandfathers and great grandfathers were all rather similar while they are all really different than the current generation. I think I like the current situation better. But yes, this needs solid studies if someone someone would be interested in finding the cause; not guessing or speculation.
Said every parent about their children's generation since the dawn of human civilization..[0], [1]
0. http://mentalfloss.com/article/52209/15-historical-complaint...
1. https://www.bartleby.com/73/195.html
My first thought was that this may also cast light on the rise of the trans rights movement. If men are becoming less male, surely this relates to so many people saying "I'm really a woman trapped in a man's body." or vice versa.
This may also help explain why trans people are so often met with open hostility as "freaks" etc. No, I am not defending their mistreatment.
But given how charged a topic that is, I imagine bringing it up will get my comment flagged to death, not taken seriously.
I'm a fairly traditionally feminine woman and spent a couple of decades as a homemaker and full-time mom. I am routinely met with open hostility from self proclaimed trans activists, feminists, etc.
I personally like "manly men" and that's also not a PC thing to admit to. So I will suggest it isn't just men the world is saying "good riddance" to. It's also women in some sense.
If you want to argue that, please stop and think before dismissively attacking me. People talk all the time about how gender is a social construct and is not merely the bits between your legs. I stayed home with my kids and that had a profound impact on how I think about many things. And the way I think is alien to that of career women and they are frequently openly hostile to it.
Hostility towards what? I assume they attack a view you hold, rather than your being a stay-at-home mother.
I've been accused on HN of being transphobic for attempting to speak about women's issues. I don't really care to dig up a whole lot of examples to convince skeptics. I was homeless for nearly 6 years and only asking for help with trying to figure out how to make money online. I got damn little support and was actively dismissed, especially on a different forum that likes to imagine it is female friendly. I don't think it really is.
Anyway, those painful experiences made it quite clear to me that a lot of people literally would like to see me dead. I'm aware that callous indifference isn't something most people will take seriously as a form of attempted murder, so I don't actually want to talk about this. Additional hostile dismissal of my opinions of my experiences won't change my opinions and, ironically, are unlikely to be seen as supporting evidence for my point.
"Expressed Views" are interpreted by the people that read them. Plenty of people online mistakenly infer things in other people's posts and attack that instead. Or they imagine that the poster probably holds another position (which they may or may not) and attack that.
I was homeless for a long time and open about that. Plenty of people were openly contemptuous.
Sexism and classism are alive and well. They impact social behavior online as well as off.
I spent 9 months being extremely supportive of a MtF trans youth in crisis who expected and demanded that I be totally accepting of who and what they were. Then they had a cow and shit all over me for mentioning that "pretty boys" weren't my cup of tea and reamed me out about how that's prejudice.
So their preferences and predilections must be unquestioningly validated. Mine? Just another BS excuse for the individual to heap more verbal abuse on me.
We eventually parted company. Last I heard, they are still telling lies about me to other people.
That's absolutely not the inclusiveness that so many people claim they want. It's hypocrisy. What they really want is to preserve the Lord Of The Flies pecking order where people on top get to shit all over people on bottom, but they want to be the people shitting on others, not the people being shit on.
It's not actually an attempt to create some lovely egalitarian society. It's more like a desire for revenge and that revenge is frequently aimed at individuals who didn't actually harm them.
We were most likely discussing someone who is a member of Hacker News that she wanted to encourage me to marry, never mind that she believed he was married to someone else (according to him at the time, he wasn't married, but he is a family man). So, basically, admitting that I didn't find him repulsive was a good excuse to heap verbal abuse on me. Par for the course for the relationship. There was no means for me to do anything right.
Out of respect for innocent bystanders, such as his children (including one that likely reads Hacker News), I don't want to discuss this any further.
It isn't evidence that my thoughts are nutso and irresponsible behavior.
> I personally like "manly men" and that's also not a PC thing to admit to. So I will suggest it isn't just men the world is saying "good riddance" to. It's also women in some sense.
I think, in this context, we need better and likely newer vocabulary. I don't believe that others would despise you or any other woman or man or an intersex person or someone in transition for liking certain characteristics (physical and/or behavioral) traditionally and historically associated with men.
The issue seems to be — while we're untangling all the discrimination, stereotyping and prejudices — that the current and older terms (like "manly man") reek of all these negative things that are being questioned (where newer ways are being sought to deal with). The impact of such broad terms is wider than what people may generally think of.
To make a comparison (which may be taken differently by different people), it's like using the "N" word and assuming that even a neutral or seemingly positive reference should be accepted by others.
Language is changing all the time and adapting to the times. In this particular case, I believe we should break down what something like "manly man" means into constituent parts and try to use decoupled (from the original term), yet concise and non-triggering, ways of expressing the same. It may not be easy. It may sound weird at first. But it's something we need as a society.
Lest this be dismissed as "oh, we just need new words to fix the world", I'd like to reiterate that the basis is to allow thoughts to change.
Contrary to popular opinion, manly man and misogynistic asshole aren't actually synonyms.
P.S.: I also believe that short pieces of written words and sentences can be misinterpreted online, and probably malice attribute to where there is none.
What about trans-women that want to be called women? Who see being called "trans" or "man" as an insult?
Isn't this the same kind of gate-keeping as the people who insist trans-women are men?
neither side might accept the new vocab precisely because they are a) reinforcing the old concept, or b) reinforcing an inverted version of the old concepts. Neither wish to create a new category, just define the same old ones.
It is simply just that it does not require to be a 'manly man' in these days to have the same amount of "success", as it required in the old times. For example, take the whole mating game. Earlier, you had to look good/manly, need some quick thinking, timing and wit to pick up women. But now those things are not so much required.
I think multiple factors have contributed to this. But I think the all encompassing one is capitalism. And things like these are the an emergent result, of trying to maximize profits, and thus it is molding the very source that it generate the profit from, namely the human population. Simply put, much less profits can be made from a manly (manliness being comprised of things like but not limited to, looks, having some individuality, own principles and views and a taste for independence) and intelligent population than it can be made from a feeble/stupid, but heavy earning population. I am not saying that there is some conspiracy that is trying to accomplish this. But it might be a case of a death by a thousand paper cuts. I mean, like every time you try to sell something to the public, by social conditioning, you might be inadvertently contributing to things like this...
should be >>>>>
"This may also help explain why trans people feel they are so often met with open hostility"
Thanks for being a home maker, which is the age-old proven roll for producing the best offspring - and society's future generations. It is merely the marketing of insecurity that allows so many to propose that "CEO" is so much more virtuous than "home maker" for a woman of child bearing age. None of the "modern alternatives" are alternatives at all - in that they've not been proven in the least to be comparable in effectiveness. And the people pushing hormones on pre-pubescent children because they're "questioning their gender" should be called out and ridiculed for the sake of these children's lives!
The fact that it isn't PC to admit that you like men ("manly men") is so ridiculous, but I agree that it is true (that is shunned). People are gaining political platform merely on the basis of the credential of being gay, trans, etc! Since when did wanting to have sex with a certain kind of person become so righteous?! This is all reminiscent of the culture of sexuality that the Greeks had during the final stages of their empire. The people who are mischaracterizing the issues we have with this generally as issues we have with them personally are not being intellectually honest. The destruction of the male & female gender roles, which balance and compliment each other - with no proposed alternatives with long-term studies - is suicidal for our civilization.
Thank you for speaking up... I think there are way more women who share your views & experience than almost anyone is admitting.
there's nothing political about liking what you like. You don't need to justify yourself, your preferences or their reasonings to anyone. That's half the point of the sexual liberation movement.
> I'm a fairly traditionally feminine woman and spent a couple of decades as a homemaker and full-time mom. I am routinely met with open hostility from self proclaimed trans activists, feminists, etc.
for raising kids? i didn't realize investing in future generations was controversial. You have just as much right to exist and go about your life as they do or anyone else.
I'm not sure about that. The Internet "manosphere" (for lack of a better term; consider it the all-encompassing phrase for both harmless and not-so-harmless subcultures like weightlifting, PUA, redpillers, the alt-right, etc.) seems more obsessed with masculinity than anyone I can recall seeing in previous decades. "Plastics in the water are destroying men" has been a ha-ha-only-serious topic in those circles for a while now and this will only solidify it. For better or worse, there are enough people concerned about this stuff that I doubt it will get handwaved away.
Just a hypothesis, could make for interesting research.
joeytcheng.com
Is it possible that these phenomena relate to the seemingly explosive rise in transgenderism? Particularly MtF, which is much more common than the reverse. Perhaps for those with already low male:female hormone ratios, if they are tipped further by these endocrine disruptors, especially during development, they might really have a brain that feels more female.
I wonder why.
According to my very weak understanding, it's easier to prevent that from happening than it is to accidentally introduce enough xenoandrogens to cause a XX fetus to develop male sexual characteristics.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17939166
Maybe somewhere there's an ice core that's saved representative water from the decades?
Regarding estrogens from BC in the water, some fish findings are quite suggestive:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/birth-control-pill-threat...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160304092230.h...
It would be quite difficult to determine if transgenderism is more common now than it once was, or if we're more open to recognizing and helping people who are transgendered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_defects_of_diethylstilbe... - section: sexual differentiation
No. Being transgender is not the result of having imbalanced hormone levels. The proof is the fact that giving trans women testosterone doesn't "cure" their gender dysphoria (it may actually make it worse), and same goes for giving trans men estrogen.
> Particularly MtF, which is much more common than the reverse.
Not true. This is an artifact of the fact that, for decades, sexologists were primarily only interested in studying MtF people, and that the transgender population was only measured in terms of who was allowed to transition (and, like the sexologists studying it, the doctors who prescribed hormones significantly favored MtF patients).
It turns out that when you remove the gatekeeping bullshit and actually measure the real trans population, not just the population of people allowed to medically transition, people transition in both directions at approximately the same rate (meaning the MtF population is about the same size as the FtM population).
Interesting! I was wondering about this the other day. Do you have any links?
https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article-abstract/doi/10.1093...
Lay people need to understand that this is not just some off-the-cuff casual theory, but a very-well-researched 30-year-trend.
May have auto-play audio:
http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/2001_(episode)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110531162142.h...
Not really - for example most “manly-men” can agree heavy drinking decreases testosterone levels.
This is something that baffles me. The biggest, strongest mammals are herbivorous - elephant, bull, bison... Even the best carnivorous animals meditate for a few hours and seek divine help before messing with these guys.
Why is eating grass, not a manly-man activity?
If you want to make a statement like this, don't bother unless you have evidence.
It's also usually better to frame it around the evidence, like "this study from UCLA found that higher consumption of animal products led to decreased testosterone levels". This way, the discussion will be focused on the evidence or the conclusion you drew from it.
ooooo..scary.
Tell something that fits with the hive mind narrative and HN will give you all its love without asking for no citation. (I mean, some one might ask for it, but HN will take care of flagging it and make it disappear). So do all forums where there is an ability for people to down vote stuff.
See how I didn’t need a citation?
It’s because the facts are not only well-understood, but a river of citation is ready to flow for you, and you would have to dig for verifiable evidence. You could pull up a youtube video, and watch facts unfold, as real world events from the past.
“My pets love me. I know this is true because I see it in them every day.”
You know what? Possible. But you couldn’t offer a citation, if you wanted to. And on top of that, there’s no easy way to discern what goes on inside an animal’s mind, or whether the situation changed and the statement no longer holds up.
“Animal products cause problems for those who consume them.”
Is a broad statement, enough to be useless.
“It’s been found that consuming animal products is associated with this specific problem.”
Better, but says who? And associated does not indicate cause and effect. It doesn’t even indicate a direct relationship.
“Consuming animal products causes this specific problem.”
How? Under what conditions? What’s the mechanism? Who can replicate these results? Why is it not universally applicable, when we can look back on history, and point to people living over 100 years, without encountering the specific problems mentioned?
Given! Now, hop along your merry way!
Does it? As far as I can tell high levels of saturated fat increases testosterone levels.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-effect-of-animal-protei...
> After the intake of cow milk, serum estrone (E1) and progesterone concentrations significantly increased, and serum luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and testosterone significantly decreased in men
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19496976
The first one seems to be about low carb vs high carb - where was the meat + carb vs no meat + high-carb comparison?
The second seems to be specific to milk and not animal products in general.
[1] Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men: results of a meta-analysis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524224
[2] Soybean isoflavone exposure does not have feminizing effects on men: a critical examination of the clinical evidence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20378106
A 60-year-old man was referred to the endocrinology clinic for evaluation of bilateral gynecomastia of 6 months' duration. He reported erectile dysfunction and decreased libido. On further review of systems, he reported no changes in testicular size, no history of testicular trauma, no sexually transmitted diseases, no headaches, no visual changes, and no change in muscular mass or strength. Initial laboratory assessment showed estrone and estradiol concentrations to be 4-fold increased above the upper limit of the reference range. Subsequent findings from testicular ultrasonography; computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis; and positron emission tomography were normal. Because of the normal findings from the imaging evaluation, the patient was interviewed again, and he described a daily intake of 3 quarts of soy milk. After he discontinued drinking soy milk, his breast tenderness resolved and his estradiol concentration slowly returned to normal.
Also there is a clear explanation of why so much plant products have hormonal disruptors in it, to modulate the fertility of herbivore, but it's not a story NutritionFact would tell you
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1474615/
Plants have physical and chemical mechanisms for defense from attack by animals. Phytochemical defenses that protect plants from attack by insects include antifeedants, insecticides, and insect growth regulators. Phytochemical options exist by which plants can modulate the fertility of the other major group of plant predators, vertebrate herbivores, and thereby reduce cumulative attacks by those herbivores. The success of such a defense depends upon phytochemical mimicry of vertebrate reproductive hormones. Phytoestrogens do mimic reproductive hormones and are proposed to be defensive substances produced by plants to modulate the fertility of herbivores.
That’s about the time high speed pornography became available en masse. Coincidence?
But when they got into the other physiological symptoms, that definitely isn’t gonna explain it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11760788/
This study showed a 150% increase in testosterone seven days of abstinence.
Why. Why this self hate. What have we done to deserve this incredible vicious hatred?
What's that meant to mean?
When and where would you like to see more violence? I'd like to see less.
Think about it. Alexander Hamilton died in a gun duel with someone. Can you even imagine something like that ever taking place in the modern day between politicians? Violence just simply is not allowed to be a solution for problems in the modern day even though it is often extremely effective. I'm not trying to argue for bombings or any sort of mass killings obviously, but that we just seem to be afraid of considering it as a solution to problems, even when that is the primary power our government has over us.
[1] https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-29/world-actually-becomi...
I'm very confused. Are we in the same world?
so many of the issues we constantly discuss on these forums could easily be solved with a bit more political violence.
Wow. Such as? Can you be specific? What you are saying sounds fairly dark and ominous. You think duels were "extremely effective" solutions to problems? It certainly is not obvious to me that you're "not trying to argue for bombings or any sort of mass killings". Why would that be 'obvious' to any reader of what you've said? What sort of 'political violence' do you mean? I guess a lot more violence would be even better at times, to solve those pesky problems where the normal amount isn't so effective?
we just seem to be afraid of considering it as a solution to problems, even when that is the primary power our government has over us.
I don't see the logical connection between the two halves of that. At all. Is it that thing where people in the US seemingly can't abide the police having guns and people not having them?
Afaik the issue this thread is about is primarily an issue in modern western societies, so that is what I am referencing specifically. The article I linked suggests that violence is at near all time lows in such societies.
Wow. Such as? Can you be specific? What you are saying sounds fairly dark and ominous.
I literally gave an example in my post. Horrible corrupt politicians resurrecting from the dead to fake support for a massively unpopular policy? They are going to get away with literally no consequences. You don't see any issues with this?
You think duels were "extremely effective" solutions to problems?
Nope, I don't. This was an example of how violence has been de-emphasized. The fact that something like this feels simply unfathomable in the current day shows how far off we really are. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing a specific few of our politicians face off in a duel. Maybe then we could replace them with people not bought off by corporations.
What sort of 'political violence' do you mean? I guess a lot more violence would be even better at times, to solve those pesky problems where the normal amount isn't so effective?
I would prefer if it was used in situations where rule of law is proving to be ineffective. It just feels like the right to vote is not proving to be enough leverage in our current society. Take the Equifax hack. What basically amounts to criminal negligence of the data nearly every american gave them (essentially) unwillingly. These people are just going to walk? I'm not saying kill them or anything... but where are the protests? The broken windows? Why aren't there offices being stormed with protests? Like what is happening? The only possible explanation I can come up with is that people have been pacified. They've been taught that getting fucked over is just the normal way. Businesses and politicians are sociopathic and that's just the nature of the world. Don't do anything, don't fight back, just take it.
I don't see the logical connection between the two halves of that. At all. Is it that thing where people in the US seemingly can't abide the police having guns and people not having them?
Violence is an important tool to impart change. Why should the government be the only ones allowed to wield it? Is law enforcement truly the only incarnation of violence we are going to view as socially acceptable? Why should that be the case?
Less sperm competition and increased fertility due to medicine would both do that.
Not selective pressure, but lack of it.
When you take away selective pressure for a specific trait, organisms become weaker on average in respect to that trait; when a trait loses importance, populations divert their resources to different traits.
Eg. 100 years ago, 20% of children would die as infants. Imagine all of those children died of a mutation which causes half the usual sperm count, together with a lack of resistance to polio/cholora.
Now that polio/cholora don't exist, all those people survive, and within 3 generations, nearly everyone has at least a grandparent with that 'low sperm count' mutation.
That wouldn't be a steady state. A gene that powerfully negative, with no upsides, would decrease in prevalence by a significant amount every generation.
> Now that polio/cholora don't exist, all those people survive, and within 3 generations, nearly everyone has at least a grandparent with that 'low sperm count' mutation.
Everyone has an ancestor with the gene. But they only have a 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 chance of inheriting it from that specific ancestor. Generation to generation, the percentage of people with the gene will be almost identical. Just like eye and hair color.
Other parts of the world do not show a statistically significant trend, although the article suggests these data are not good enough to draw strong conclusions.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/03/30/3963849...
Fatherhood is the best startup I ever did.
Only those deliver are important and only woman by definition reproduce. For diversity, one day the female as a race can get each other X genes ... why need Y ...
The question is why we need male? Not totally sure actually even though I am male.
I think we are all about information. Some information works better for survival of a species than other information. The knowledge that helps better, helps flourish. Bad knowledge dwindles the number of specimen. In effect, better and better information is passed down generations. Different cultures, languages, genders have different perspectives, ways of thinking about different things. More the variety there is, the more possibility is there for new thoughts, and different mental models. And the more the differences, the better are our chances of survival. Men have a different way of thinking about a lot of things than women (consider the choice of games in childhood). And so, I think, having both genders survive is better for our species than just one :)
Also, does this apply to China/India or just Western world? If no then I would worry about all the tech that has gotten in to our lives like plastic everywhere, RF radiation through wifi, chemical infested food and toys etc.
1. https://resolve.org/infertility-101/what-is-infertility/fast...
All of these are common in China as well. There is a lucrative business in importing baby formula from Western countries due to past food safety scandals.
But maybe the differing onset of that kind of pollution would still allow treating it as a natural experiment.