Phytoestrogens actually make it harder to grow breasts because they compete for receptor space and then don't do a whole lot.
Similar effect with Estrone (E1) and Estrogen (E2). Many trans people switch from oral HRT to other methods that bypass first pass metabolism (which converts E2 into E1) because their E1 is too high and the desired breast growth doesn't materialize.
Regarding packaging, growing up condiments were in glass. Good luck finding mayonnaise or ketchup in glass jars now. (I am able to find glass for my peanut butter and jelly fix — the peanut butter is some kind of natural stuff that you have to hand-mix though.)
While cereal is still in boxes, the lining/bag for the cereal was waxes paper (or waxed foil/paper if it was Super Sugar Crisp, emphasis mine).
I would love to see a branding campaign by some food conglomerate that introduced a line of glass (or wax paper) packaging for their products. I would absolutely pay a little more for that (although I wish it were the default again of course).
> Good luck finding mayonnaise or ketchup in glass jars now.
I've never seen ketchup in glass, but mayonnaise is sold in glass in all supermarkets in the Netherlands, as well as small aluminium tubes and plastic squeeze bottles.
Heinz ketchup is available in glass bottles and various other, smaller, companies offer it as well. Glass is pretty popular for "bio-ish products", at least in Germany (even though CO2eq-wise it'll usually be quite a lot worse than plastic packaging).
(Brings forth their best George Carlin impersonation) Plastic!
...I mean, my understanding was that the elephant in the room is BPA and microplastics, but maybe all the other factors are not given enough attention.
I've long been wondering about plastic as well. Plastic wrapped food, plastic packaged food, drinks etc. A lot of these things are actually filled and sealed while warm and then heated in plastic, which means it leaks into the food. A sibling comment commented on all the hormones in dairy and other foods. I remember that there were even issues with the contraceptive pill in wastewater effects on aquatic life.
One thing I'd like to know is if the effect on east Asian societies is worse given how much more plastic they use than say European ones.
Somewhat unrelated but interesting is the focus on BPA. It is actually not proven that the other plastics are good, it just means we have data on BPA.
That's not really established by strong evidence. Most of it is cross sectional data without any clinically relevant endpoints. In other words, we have no idea if or how it affects any part of male fertility or testosterone production that humans actually care about. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7304337/
Anecdotally, if someone like John Carmack can drink 9 Diet Cokes per day without noticeable ill-effects over several decades, it's going to take strong evidence that he (and others like him) are major outliers in their resistance to BPA "damage" to convince people that a small amount of BPA in their foods and drinks is harmful enough to change their lifestyle and habits to avoid it.
My logic is that it is advantageous and desirable to use doubt-inducing statements such as "not established strong evidence" to defend profitable but harmful products.
Neither, I'm simply saying your argument applies just as well to harmful products as it does to harmless products, so I don't see how it can be used to argue for the harmfulness of any given product
There are mouse studies described towards the end, but they concentrate more on sperm production than hormones. (Also they were fed tiny bits of polystyrene, BPA only gets a smaller mention in the introduction.)
I don't want to throw out this idea but I think the much more obvious answer is people being sedentary and terrible sleep. Boys that are playing video games instead of running around outdoors. Playing video games until 3 am one night, waking up for school with 5 hours of sleep, then drinking massive amounts of energy drinks or other stimulants to stay awake.
> Strength levels seem to be decreasing in general.
This is one thing I have noticed, men in my parents's generation in their 50s were much stronger than my peers (and me). And I have been noticing I am a bit stronger than men in there 20s (on average). Of course I tossed out people who work out.
I have been seeing articles like this for a while, I personally believe this has to do with the environment and how the food we eat is grown.
Don’t you think it has more to do with a sedentary lifestyle vs a hands on lifestyle (lots more physical work 50 years ago, both out of the house and inside)
I would simply assume it has more to do with physical activity. If my dad isn't wrenching on a project VW in the garage he's bringing feed out to the horses, installing a new garage door on the shop or something of that nature.
I'm called upon to unscrew the difficult lids off jars, but other than that I expect I am underutilizing my muscles.
This is most certainly the primary factor. Muscles don't get built for no reason. I myself don't really exercise regularly, but I'll go in and out of periods doing physical projects like carpentry, landscaping, etc). When I start a project I'm definitely lacking strength. As I continue doing physical labor I get stronger, which leads to qualitative changes in my ability to do specific tasks.
Normally no, a 30 year old is supoosed to be stronger than a 50 year old. A 50 year old just has better skills and experience how to use his strength to compensate ..
Imagine a person that started serious strength conditioning at 40. He will be much stronger at 50 than average 18 yo football player if he „follows the program” ;) yes, it does accumulate a lot over time.
i think there is some truth to it. in my family men start out as quite slim during early adulthood and become more and more sturdy with age. arm width increasing significantly etc.
I wouldn't be so quick to do this either. Many gym goers focus on targeted muscle hypotrophy over strength training. The two aren't entirely decoupled (building muscle mass will increase your overall strength potential regardless of goals), but you can certainly look very strong (bulky and defined muscle mass) and not have much actual strength, especially for those who do few compound exercises.
I recently helped move a couch with a friend meeting your your prototypical "meat head" standards and they were struggling to lift their side and frequently resting. They squat and bench almost twice what I can, arms and back are notably larger, heck I wish I looked that muscular but alas, all I can do is easily move couches.
This is why I only squat and deadlift (each only once/week), then do pushups, pullups and situps. More of my time is spent running at the gym than any kind of lifting. I just want broad-range exercises that improve my health, I don't care about looking a specific way.
Stress and social status, society used to revolve around social status, if you were married and had a house and a decent job people respected you, your family was grateful, and apparently all these things boost your testosterone (heard it somewhere but not sure) today if you have these things some people will actually look down on you (according to the internet not sure again), and with the constant Ferris wheel of the news people can't seem to catch a break.
But wtf do I know, not a biologist, not a doctor, etc. just my 2 cents.
I encounter this in the tech field. Coworkers look down on married with children and will actually voice this out loud at work. I’ve had coworkers say that I am part of the problem, that we need to stop reproducing in order to reduce climate change. About 15% of my coworkers have specifically stated they are not having kids due to climate change or that bringing new kids into a falling apart world is cruel.
Anecdotal I know, but this seems to be a pretty common viewpoint in left coast tech circles. You can read comments on here along the same lines. Sure some social circles will have less or more than my rough 15% observation. Would be interesting to see the actual numbers.
I am unable to recall where i read this years ago, but testosterone is not just decreasing in males, it is also decreasing in mammals across the board in North America.
You seem to be referring to "interspecies hormonal interactions between man and the domestic dog" [1] which is about short-term hormonal changes during "a dog agility competition" – not the long term hormonal changes which the opening post is about.
>it is also decreasing in mammals across the board in North America.
North America is a big place and there are a hell of a lot of different mammals in it. Are there really enough people out there taking regular and reliable measurements of testosterone levels in a wide variety of species over a wide geographic area such that we have a representative sample?
Is it really a given that high testosterone leads to aggression? It can lead to dominance, but not necessarily violence.
The whole 'roid rage' thing has been shown to be the result of elevated estrogen levels (excess testosterone is converted to estrogen, which is why steroid users take an aromatase inhibitor).
It's not high test though, its excess test from intramuscular injections into the body. Without an external source of testosterone, the endocrine system will keep the two balanced (unless someone has some sort of illness or damage to the testi).
Balanced but defined by your genes. My natural balance may be higher in estrogen and DHT for example, than someone else’s. My receptors can be more or less sensitive to some hormones. That explains why some people can feel great and some terrible with same lab results.
You are making strong assertions that are not strongly supported by evidence. Strong emotional reactions can happen for all kinds of hormonal disruptions including both added testosterone and all of the indirect consequences of using it (such as excess estrogen or other imbalances of that may result)
Absolutely some people can do massive amounts of steroids and have no aggressive tendencies, but other people immediately have problems. Its rather notable in some circles, like masters sports where lots of men are on TRT
and who knows what subtle psychological effects are at play, decisions being swayed by your new hormone makeup. Would make for fascinating research delving deeper
Test is associated with aggression [1]. I have to admit, I don’t really understand aromatization. Perhaps it’s the high test resulting in high estrogen that leads to the aggression.
Testosterone increases whatever leads to a higher social status in a given society. So it can increase competitive but also cooperative behaviour depending on the circumstances.
This is why I think the drop in testosterone is such a problem for many men. Your brain does not optimize for success and SMV anymore.
"Based on these recent findings, we argue that the role of testosterone in human social behavior might be
best understood in terms of the search for, and maintenance of, social status."
but I have to say that these "where is the source" posts are tiring and more often than not just a lazy attempt to destroy an argument with zero effort.
> but I have to say that these "where is the source" posts are tiring and more often than not just a lazy attempt to destroy an argument with zero effort.
Reviewing the literature is separate and distinct from entering into argumentation.
Testosterone increases desire to maintain high social status.
If that can be achieved through aggression - a person going to do just that, if that is achieved through team play and compassion, the person would do it instead.
As Robert Sapolsky said, it is sad that in our society aggessive behaviour is the one that leads to success.
> Is it really a given that high testosterone leads to aggression?
I've spoken with researchers that actually administered testosterone to human subjects in experiments, and they found no effect: it doesn't seem to trigger aggression or violence, at least not in the short term. It probably is a bad idea to ascribe a range of complex behaviors to a single cause, and limit it to those behaviors as well.
Consider declining T levels an adaptation to a society moving past needing ooga-booga aggressive males regardless of cause. Does not seem like a bad thing per se.
High T has not been proven to be higher aggression. Conversely, frustrated men are more likely to be aggressive, and frustrated men tend to have lower levels.
Correlated. Just like squares are correlated to rectangles.
Proof that T causes high aggression in isolation, in humans, thus far, has not been decisive. There is no consensus on this. Looking at the absence of the inverse (low T decreases aggression) would tip a few things.
I'm entering "~2000" as a value here. I was going to use 1990. My argument doesn't need further precision, and I assume it either exists, or researchers are actively debating.
To have a global negative population growth rate could only happen in the case of a severe epidemic, something like the Spanish Flu did a 100 years ago (~100s of million died then).
This line of reasoning is dangerous, limiting our reproduction through social means is much less dangerous than if it’s in inflicted on humanity biologically.
Uncontrolled loss of reproductive ability could easily spiral and be the end of our species, that is assuming that we haven’t had the same affect on other species, which is not a given either.
“Children of Men” outlines what that might look like.
That line is tongue-in-cheek, the author agrees with you:
> Personally I see the decrease of testosterone levels more as a reaction to our changing environment than reason for concern. The world changes and we change with it.
When you see these school shooters that look like they are manic do you think they have high testosterone or low testosterone? Low testosterone leads to severe anxiety and depression in men as others have stated. I would not associate elevated (or normal) testosterone levels with violence, many of the PEDs that lead to violent outbursts are causing those outbursts due to the specific compound that is being used to raise testosterone, not the testosterone itself.
Phalates!! in plastics!!. Stop drinking bottle, avoid any food wrapped in plastic. Its almost impossible to do it fully, but if you seek whole foods and cook from scratch one can get close.
This is the correct answer. Professional societies of endocrinology all have been screaming about this for years.
It took too long for this to be listed here on HN. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of the causes of low test aren't even cultural (though this is an interesting and unique causal claim) - they're environmental due to endocrine disruptors being fucking EVERYTHING.
I joke that everytime I microwave my ice cream to make it softer that I increase my future child's chances of being a femboy. It's only a little bit joking...
The only expected role of the male in today's society is just to be present. To be there. What does this mean, no one knows. For this certainly there is no need of much Testosterone.
I somehow feel uncomfortable next to macho people if full display, it might be that it has become a non-adaptive trait?
This is definitely part of the issue, but probably not all of it. Excess adipose tissue absorbs fat soluble hormones of all types. Definitely not healthy.
> Other studies have shown that men’s testosterone levels drop when holding an infant, or even a baby doll, and that the level goes up again after divorce.
I see this as a significant component.
Both of my grandfathers had little to no relationship with their children. Some of it due to the fact that they spent more than half of their waking hours outside - usually working.
My father and generally men of his generation participated somewhat in child rearing, but not to a large extent.
Meanwhile I'm here changing diapers, bathing our child, playing with them etc. and this is also, gradually, becoming the norm.
As someone who's studied this quite a bit, I believe the answer is actually rather counterintuitive, and it is: changing culture.
While most people assume the direction of causality goes from testosterone to personality (higher testosterone leads to higher aggression), plenty of evidence shows it also goes in the opposite direction -- adopting aggressive/dominant attitudes, strength training and boxing, etc. leads to higher testosterone.
For my grandfather's generation, getting into fights (as adult men) was a thing that happened not infrequently. Having your manhood questioned was something you remained vigilant against. And yes, your handshake was firm because it showed dominance, the same way throwing around insults was a lot of the conversation. And it obviously went along with all of the sexism, homophobia, racism, etc.
But culture today is different. You work in teams, you get along, you're open to diverse points of view. You're rewarded for collaboration, not dominance. With most people you shake hands with, a firm handshake is going to freak them out, not assert confidence -- "what the hell is his deal?" Throwing around insults as the basis of conversation isn't how conversation works anymore.
So I'm actually pretty convinced it's changing culture that's leading to lower testosterone. And I see no problem with this either -- there seems to be a widely shared belief that this is a problem because it will somehow lead to more difficulty conceiving, lower reproductive success, etc. But there's zero evidence that men as a whole are having problems conceiving. And even if it did become a problem (which there are no signs of), it's obviously something evolution would fix real quick.
Generally speaking, exogenous testosterone causes a loss of fertility, perhaps counter-intuitively. Men on HRT typically have to pause treatment when they are trying to conceive.
That’s counterproductive, testosterone production is in the testes. Externally supplementing testosterone will actually signal the testes to stop/lower production of testosterone which also lowers production and quality of sperm.
Male fertility is definitely in a decline and has been for a while: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_infertility_crisis. And, if it's caused by environmental factors, it's not really something evolution can fix as it doesn't work quick enough.
Testosterone has been found to improve mood and cause pro-social behavior, not just aggression. I agree that your behavior (and further lifestyle) has an effect on your testosterone levels.
That's why I said "men as a whole having problems conceiving", but I could have been clearer. So to clarify:
Whether the supposed "male infertility crisis" is actually resulting in any significant real-world consequences is not even close to settled. The average level of sperm is still well within the range of having children without issue, with plenty of "extra room". Worries about a supposed "crisis" are really about extrapolating if it continues to fall linearly for many decades to come, as opposed to simply plateauing at a perfectly functional level.
In other words, it's kind of like saying there's a "handshake crisis" in that, because people are shaking hands with less force, at some point we won't have the strength to shake hands at all. Which is obviously ludicrous (for handshakes).
So whether this is a "crisis" or just a perfectly fine new equilibrium level really depends on whether you think it's caused by environmental poisons accumulating (and so things will get worse), or just a gentler culture that has no need for unnecessarily high testosterone or sperm counts, where everything's still well within "normal" range.
Total sperm counts have more than halved in the past 50 years to around 50 million. 15 million is considered infertile. Keep in mind there’s a wide variance between men and between each ejaculation and you only have a few chances per cycle.
My sperm counts ranged from 70 million to 12 million, so that means I already have more difficulty than I would if my own counts were doubled as at least some of the time my wife and I had sex I was “infertile.”
One more halving and a very large portion of the population will be considered straight up infertile, and the decline in sperm counts shows no sign of showing. Dogs also show the same decline.
Quite frankly I think it’s a far bigger crisis for humanity than global warming.
> "This “1 percent effect” includes the rates of declining sperm counts, decreasing testosterone levels and increasing rates of testicular cancer, as well as a rise in the prevalence of erectile dysfunction."
The article, and many with it, focuses on sperm count, testosterone levels and other things, but this does not necessarily mean that reproduction is going down. A much bigger cause is probably that couples decide they do not want to have kids or that couples form later today than before so the woman is close to 40 when they start to try.
Often it is also reported as if it is the end of the human race, but we forget that there are many solutions to this (in vitro, adoption, ...). And in absolute terms there are more babies born today than ever before.
I wonder whether it is true that we are less often "getting into fights" from the perspective of our body/CNS. Fewer fistfights, certainly. But - can our bodies tell the difference between a barfight and multiplayer videogame combat?
In multiplayer games we find the exact experiences you describe as declining: Questioning manhood, dominance dynamics, and simulated conflict which I imagine feels similar to our CNS (but: without physical exertion so maybe not?). There might be more conflict of this type for your average 20-something man, than in previous generations.
Perhaps it is the lack of strength training and physical exertion that is the major factor.
As a 20 year combat athlete I can assure you that a physical fight and video games feel totally different. In a real fight every muscle fiber struggles at it’s limit for survival - the intensity is all consuming both mentally and physically.
Yes, I agree there are differences. But as someone who has gotten into a variety of physical conflicts myself (including amateur combat sports) I'm sure you will agree that there are similar differences between real life altercations as well.
Our parents' generation were not getting into competition level fights down at the local pub. The vast majority of physical conflicts in bars are just shoving, posturing, and heightened adrenal response.
Do you think that you can come up with an example of a "diverse point of view" that isn't dictating to people what medical services they're allowed to have? That might be a better basis for comparison.
Do you think that you can come up with an example of a "diverse point of view" that isn't dictating to people what medical services they're allowed to have?
Alright, tell them you voted for Trump, or that you're happy Elon bought Twitter.
OT, but I'll say that. The implication of Elon's control of Twitter being bad for democracy is that whoever had control of Twitter before Elon also manipulated our democracy.
There was the guy booted from Google for publishing the document stating that gender unbalances in tech could be down to biological causes.
The OP comment is right, there isn't room for diverse opinions in workplaces, it's like it always has been. You agree with the current thing or you get booted. The current thing just changed.
It's funny that this is somehow forgotten when we're talking about men... if we allow women to abort children due to any reason, even financial ones or "i just don't want a kid now", paper abortions for men should be a thing too (sign a paper, give up all rights and obligation to/from the kid).
I'm pretty sure doctors can't do procedures without being on some kind of a "approved list" of procedures (since anything outside - eg. experimental procedures - take a LOT of paperwork and liability paperwork).
Men don't need permission to not-pay for unwanted kids either. Somehow we don't mind women wanting to get rid of unwanted responsibility, and we loathe men who do that, with both financial fines and even jail times.
> Women who abandon children after birth still face consequences.
If they abandon them "literally", sure. If they decide they don't want to care for the child and give it up for adoption, they don't face any. After a popped condom, they have many different ways to get rid of unwanted children, from a day after pill (plan B), to adoption after birth. A man is always one bad condom away from 20+ (up to 26 years in my country) of child support for an unwanted kid, while a woman has all the decision power to bring (or not bring) the child to life.
Men don't have nearly the same biological or societal obligations, should a condom fail. The law may compensate.
Those who think this is still unfair have other means besides condoms alone: withdrawal, vasectomy, alternative acts, even abstinence. And they can negotiate with their partners about other forms of contraception.
> Men don't have nearly the same biological or societal obligations, should a condom fail. The law may compensate.
Neither do women, if they don't want to, day-after pills are cheap, and even free in many countries, so are abortions (USA might be an exception here). Having a child in current times is a choice.
> have other means besides condoms alone: withdrawal, vasectomy, alternative acts, even abstinence
So do women. But if that fails, they have more options to still not-have a baby (to take a day-after pill/planB or abort...). In my country, vasectomy is even illegal before age 35 (same for women, no permanent steriliziation before that).
The "if you don't want children, don't have sex" sounds very anti-abortionist to me... but to you, it seems fine, if it's targeted towards men.
The problem with the position that you're attempting to justify is that you are creating a false dichotomy; aggrieved men cannot have sex without responsibility and so you feel it's within reasonable purview to apply arbitrary restrictions on what a women can do with their body.
I don't have to like your opinion, and I don't have much confidence that anyone here will change it. However, the reason I spoke up in the first place was to point out that the first step towards bodily autonomy is the acknowledgement of basic human equality.
The assertion that [you/men/the state] should have any input in whether to "allow" someone to make adult decisions about their body because of their sex is repugnant.
Go fight for men's rights, if you feel that is what you need to do... but leave women out of it. The opposite of women's rights is not men's rights.
> The assertion that [you/men/the state] should have any input in whether to "allow" someone to make adult decisions about their body because of their sex is repugnant.
You're changing my words here, I never said any of that, you know what I meant, and you're trying to make me look like a sexist by misrepresenting what I said, so don't.
A paper abortion is giving up all the rights and obligation toward the kid ON PAPER. You just sign a document.
The woman still has all the body autonomy and all the options, from a day after pill, abortion, adoption or raising the kid if she wants.
Yes, men should have rights too, both reproductive ones (paper abortions) and body autonomy (not being forced to die in a war). So don't be a sexist.
> If they abandon them "literally", sure. If they decide they don't want to care for the child and give it up for adoption, they don't face any
The parent meant that carrying a baby to term has consequences for women's health regardless of what happens to the child afterwards. There are short term, long term and permanent physical and mental (via physical hormone changes) effects. Especially if a cesarean is needed, recovery can take a long time.
How is this problem an opposite argument against women allowed to have an abortion? Surely these are two parallel issues that can be solved separately from each other.
By your logic women should not be able to abort because there's still kids in third world countries suffering from hunger.
> By your logic women should not be able to abort because there's still kids in third world countries suffering from hunger.
No, by my logic, if women have that option, men should be given a "way out" from unwanted kids too, even if it's due to financial or other non-medical reasons. Obviously men cannot physically abort, so a paper abortion (giving up all rights and responsibilities) would be a way out for them/us.
If we're talking about abortions as medical solutions (risky pregnancies, medical issues with the baby, etc...) then sure.
If we give half the population an option to get rid of a result of a five-minute mistake, for personal, financial and even for reasons such as "I just don't want one now", why not give that way-out to the other half involved in that five-minute fuckup? Otherwise we're literally talking about 20+ years of relatively huge consequences.
> if we allow women to abort children due to any reason, even financial ones or "i just don't want a kid now", paper abortions for men should be a thing too (sign a paper, give up all rights and obligation to/from the kid).
In some states this is legal, so long as there is someone else willing to step up and provide for the child. Consider that the child cannot provide for itself, and the father has equal obligation to do so. If he didn't intend to produce a child then he should have taken reasonable measures. Women technically have a final say because they take on more risk and physical labor to carry the child to term.
> If he didn't intend to produce a child then he should have taken reasonable measures.
Like what? A condom? That applies to women too, if they don't intend to have kids, use a condom (rape excluded). But we give them ther ways out too. If the condom pops, the next step would be a day after pill. That applies to women, men get no say in that. Abortion? Same. What reasonable measures does a man have after a bad condom?
Men don't get a say in abortion or pills because they don't have to carry the child inside their bodies.
Once the child is born their legal obligations are similar. Both are subject to child support if they want 'out', unless they agree to put the child up for adoption.
Arguably this means men need to plan ahead more or take additional precautions. I don't think that's unreasonable considering men will never have to pay the physical price of childbearing.
A woman doesn't even have to tell a man she's pregnant, and can give the baby away without the father even knowing (eg. if it's a one night stand).
Noone can plan for a popped condom, and pregnancy comes when aditional precautions fail, and they fail for both people involved, not just for men... but we then give only one of them an option to get rid of 20+ years of responsibilities.
> If the condom pops, the next step would be a day after pill. That applies to women, men get no say in that.
What I do (thankfully it has happened only a couple of times) is to buy the pill together with the woman at the next day and be present when she takes it. Trust, but verify.
By not having sex (where a guy cums inside them) if they don't want a baby.
By your logic, this solves all the problems, and we only need abortions in case of rape or medical issues with a wanted child.
But we both know that people will still have sex, create unwanted babies (well, still fetuses), and both people involved should have a right to get out of unwanted responsibilities.
If women let guys cum inside them without a condom, they share the same responsibility as the guy.
Pulling out doesn't work in many cases, and two condoms are dangerous (i have no idea why you are spreading the two-condom idea, it increases the chances of ripping).
So yeah, if women don't want kids, don't let guys cum inside them (rape excluded) so by your logic, they don't need abortions (except for rape and medical reasons), right?
> Don't spread your legs if you don't want a baby (abstinence). Don't have sex without a condom. Switch to oral, when the guy is close to finishing. Just do oral to not risk even that. Only have sex with people and at time you want to have a baby with/at.
This is like listening to an anti-abortionist.
But after people fail to do this, we give women an option to get out of a few decades of responsibility and financial burden, and men should have that right too.
> Weird that this is framed adversarially (men vs women) when it doesn’t have to
If women decide to either take a planB or or get pregnant and give birth to a baby, why should a man cary the financial consequences of that decision?
> In procreation men are involved, but women are committed
How? Women can get a pill or abort, men are commited to pay for 20+ years of something they didn't want.
> Do your part - don’t leave it to chance
So, would you tell women this? "You don't need abortions, just do you part, don't leave it to chance! Pull out, condoms, and double condoms!"? Also, double condoms are outright dangerous, so is pulling out.
> Be a man, take full ownership of your own financial future
Yes, this is the idea... you didn't want a kid, a mistake happened, you need a way out too. With modern medicine and some quick action, having a baby or not has become a fully womans choice.
And there are cases, where you don't even need to have sex to be forced to pay child support:
So, by your logic, we can forbid non-medical and non-rape abortions for women, becase if they just don't let men cum inside them, they won't have any problems with unwanted kids?
Social outcasts or those with bruised egos can change their ways and be welcomed back into groups they offended. Someone killed or maimed in a fight faces more permanent consequences.
Tolerance means accepting others will have points of views that may or may not be acceptable to you. By refusing to work with someone who holds different views makes them not very tolerant.
Not tolerating someone you view as intolerant makes you intolerant. That ends with everyone being intolerant which is where we are now as a society. That never ends well either.
Tolerating people who may not tolerate you allows you to raise above the situation. If you are tolerate to any idea and you see a red ball and Jim says the ball is yellow that doesn't change your opinion on the color. It allows you to maintain your viewpoint and allow others that may be different and incorrect in your view. Not allowing that would mean trying to convince Jim he is wrong or removing Jim from my circle.
Can't we let people hold views we deem incorrect ourselves?
Is anyone claiming people cannot hold differing views?
People can choose to not work or associate with others based on their views. We still defend their right to hold their views, just not the privilege of our company. This is technically intolerant. Still, even the law does not tolerate screaming 'Fire!' in a crowded theater.
In practice absolute tolerance will yield power to whomever shouts the loudest, or is the strongest, because it removes the right to not associate. (For fear of being called intolerant, on a technicality.)
> even the law does not tolerate screaming 'Fire!' in a crowded theater
That is not and has never been the law of the land. The quote comes from the dicta (commentary), not holding (ruling), of a case that prevented people from distributing flyers that opposed conscription into World War I. And that case was also eventually overturned.
Hair splitting. My point is there are limits to even the law's tolerance of speech: extortion, threats, defamation, etc.
Regardless of the legal definitions, if someone does falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded place they'll experience unpleasant consequences. Similarly if they proclaim their hatred of group X or civil right Y at job onboarding then they shouldn't be surprised to find themselves escorted out.
Consider a boss who has the view you must work through fire alarms. Or further someone who insists on shouting fire in a crowded office, then says they're just joking and hoping to get everyone some exercise. It is technically intolerant to refuse to work with them.
Yet it can make collaboration difficult if an employee loudly proclaims that half the population shouldn't have basic human rights over their own body. Yes, it's technically intolerant to refuse to work with them.
As a society we have to balance contradicting freedoms.
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them" - Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies.
Sorry to say, but intolerance is to be defeated, with words, with votes, with lawyers, with guns if (only if) it comes to that. Ask the Ukrainian people.
If you are coming after women's rights, their autonomy, their health you (your idea) shall not be tolerated.
You and Popper have very different notion of "intolerance". By intolerance here Popper means something which threatens open society and freedom of expressions, not "any opinions I don't like" (and if you read literally next few sentences you'll see Popper clarify that we should oppose ideologies which reject dialogue and propose violence instead, not any opinions you don't like). Your definition is in line with what Popper would see as fascist trait.
This is a really succinct point about the quote. You can oppose abortion whether it’s legal or not. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to live in a state like New York and oppose abortion whiles it legal just as you can live in other states where it is illegal and support it.
It's the same idea. Illegal abortion threatens society. I'm not a fascist for protesting it. The Democrats and their voters, and many Republicans are on the same opinion.
That's not what Popper says. Popper literally says, quote:
> I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
Again, not any ideology you don't like may be suppressed, but only those who use sticks and pogroms instead of arguments. What you are proposing is pure fascism and something Popper was vigorously against of.
Literally my argument. The whole thread started with why don't my co-workers respect my intolerant ideas if they are all about a diverse set of ideas, and I said that diversity doesn't include any ideas. I didn't suggest suppression. People countering your arguments is not suppression. People not wanting to listen to your intolerant ideas isn't suppression either.
The guns are only coming out when the law can't help, for example because the country is being attacked, like in Ukraine. Until that moment law and order is all we have, unless it's an authoritarian government, or if the law is against basic human rights.
Literally is. It's my argument. I don't want to criminalize this particular intolerance, I don't want to suppress it. I want to reject it and call it out. I don't have to unequivocally tolerate it. My tolerance doesn't have to be boundless. I should be generous with my tolerance, but I'm not when millions and millions of lives depend on it. This is the line. This far and not farther.
No, Popper there goes beyond that: he requires that people argue rationally and not tell followers to ignore rational arguments. That's too high a bar, IMO. The problem is the followers' use of violence. Initiating "preventative violence" against a mere speaker (who himself did no violent act) is immoral, even if an expedient way of preventing seemingly likely violence by followers. It puts the power of judging legitimate speech in a privileged group, and it is likely to be applied unevenly and primarily on political enemies.
The inability to treat people who happen to hold some opinion you think despicable as equals is far more threatening to society than any one bad take on a particular subject.
> It's the same idea. Illegal abortion threatens society.
While i am for unlimited legal on-demand abortions, this statement is obviously counter-factual. Most european countries have significantly restricted abortions relative to Roe vs Wade standard (usually to 12-14 weeks for on-demand abortions), and their societies exist just fine.
They would be misrepresenting the issue. Nobody is ripping anything, abortion is strictly regulated. There are gestational limits, usually 12 weeks, or up to 24 weeks under special circumstances, and only more for fetal impairment and such.
The vast majority of the people that hold that opinion have no scientific basis for the opinion they hold, nor do they have a seemingly have a clue about how dangerous pregnancy can be in some situations and that abortion is a lifesaving procedure.
It saves human lives to discount the opinions of the ignorant.
Other people can have different ideas about what is morally correct, and it isn't some barbaric idea that an unborn person should not be allowed to be killed. You may not agree with it with your moral calculus, but it shouldn't be unreasonable to see someone else's perspective. You really need to step out of your bubble and tune your hostility way down because it comes off as very childish
The argument is about making abortion illegal, I called it out as a barbaric idea, because it is. You are free to harbor such ideas, you are free to misrepresent the issue by calling a clump of cells an unborn person, and I'm free to call all of this out, especially because it is being forced on millions of women for no reason, ruining many lives.
It's reasonable to be angry under such circumstances. Adults are allowed to be angry too. I wish we would be angry about more things, instead of being complacent all the time.
Yes, continue shouting at everyone who has a different opinion than you that it is barbaric. I'm sure it will change hearts and minds and make everyone think you're a mature adult.
Different opinion, no, illegal abortion, yes, I'm shouting. The issue is bigger than me, or how I look.
Pregnancy is a risky business, evolution made it that way for humans, it's basically a biological war between the mother and the baby. There is no reason to let millions of women die for a religious doctrine if we can help it. Criminalizing abortion doesn't even save the unborn, it just causes unsafe abortions and much more women to die, along with the unborn.
In that ref., Popper fallaciously suggested that to allow tolerance is to allow violence, which is, I dare say to that great master, utter bull. Speech is not violence. The person who commits the first violent act, even if "incited" by mere speech, is the first who crosses the speech / violence divide, and the one on whom appropriate opprobrium should be applied. You needn't associate with intolerant speech if it bothers you; it's not intrinsically violent.
A world where we can guarantee no non-voluntary _physical_ violence is a better home for rational thought and human flourishing than today's or even a world in which we could somehow prevent speech that might lead to suicide. I can't see a way of enforcing those limits without some kind of judgement. The distinction between physical violence and speech is basically unambiguous. The distinction between acceptable and unacceptable speech is ambiguous, subjective, variable, and very likely to be abused. It leads to a police state, IMO. No state that is serious about freedom has hate speech laws, for example, even though there is much hateful speech, and it should be avoided. Just not with (physical) violence. Rather, freedom of association (including freedom of separation / non-association) and more speech.
Spoken like someone who has never experienced physical violence. I have and have seen far worse done to others. There is no comparison, not even close. Calling speech violence offends and minimizes the experience of those who have experienced violence.
Speech can absolutely incentivize violence. See the Rohingya genocide and the part Facebook played in it. See right-wing domestic terrorism in the United States. See Hitler and his radio.
People are not perfect, independent, rational creatures. They get affected by speech. They can develop new beliefs, even a new personality as a result of speech. They can end up doing things they wouldn't even dream doing as a result of speech.
I don't doubt that people are affected / persuaded by speech. But their physical actions are their own responsibility. My mother always used to tell me, "don't jump off the CN tower just because someone told you."
Incentivize / persuade is not identical to action. Action requires an individual act.
If we remove people from responsibility for their actions, then there is the obvious consequence that people will act more irresponsibly.
Curious your take on the American girl who convinced her friend to commit suicide over text message. The jury found her culpable because of those messages, as they evaluated it unlikely that the deceased would have done the act w/o her words.
"Hitting children make them stronger, mothers should be hit if they disagree with that"
If an individual says this they can be discounted, but what if we let an idea take root and spread to the point that it has a significant impact in a democracy? Will they vote in the removal of human rights? Will enough of a platform exist that every jury ends up being a hung jury?
> So I'm actually pretty convinced it's changing culture
You’ve talked about culture but haven’t given any evidence of the direction of causality. Do you have any or is this more opinion derived from the second last sentence - “zero evidence that men as a whole are having problems conceiving”?
The culture has changed because hormones, environment, food, medicine, etc have impacted the humans. It seems right to you, because you are a product of all those environmental changes.
Or, put more harshly, because males are more feminised, strong males are seen as intimidating, and this is perceived as a problem.
Without making a judgement about right or wrong, what I wonder about is 'what is more natural'?
My view is that the older way was more natural - plainly big aggra, big pharma, big governance, etc played less of a role in determining the environment (and therefore less of a role in determining human attributes) in the past.
I also can't help wondering whether this is by design - plainly a more feminised culture would be less problematic to those who control/run society. I'm sure 'they' took inspiration from books like brave new world, which very plainly lays out the idea of using everything at one's disposal to engineer a populace that is most amenable to following the governance structure.
Do naturalistic fallacies apply, when you are talking about nature itself? When you are saying that something is artificial because something really has been changed in the diet, environment, etc?
Perhaps you are disputing the idea that the environment has changed - with the widespread introduction of, say, plastics, massive use of medication that is re-imbibed in the water, by the use of petroleum based fertilisers, by the application of chemicals to crops, etc? Please say if that is your argument.
So, I'm not saying what is old is better. I'm saying the environment really has changed, perhaps by design. That is not fallacious.
I, too, suspect changing culture is an important factor. Culture influences aims, habits, attitudes, and dispositions, and these, in turn, can mobilize biological processes, like testosterone production, to adapt the body to the needs that are in principle expressed in those aims, habits, etc. However, we also have an objective need for testosterone in especially male biological processes and culture can spread deranged or deformed aims, habits, etc. that we easy to adopt and which then work to our detriment. You wouldn't say that a culture of anorexia would prove that we need to eat less.
Where culture is concerned, on the one hand, we have the meathead culture of the brute that worships a frankly comical and awkward aggression and machismo. On the other hand, we have a feckless, effeminate, and cowardly culture of indirectness, agreeableness, being "nice", and getting along and at any price. Both are profoundly stupid. Aggression, anger, strength, assertiveness and so on all have their place. All are necessary. Prudence tells us when expressing one or other other is appropriate and to what degree. Virtuous habits develop these, among other qualities, within us in a healthy and normative way. A culture like ours, however, has long vilified these qualities and aspects of who we are, not just their improper expression or their abuse, but categorically, celebrating their complete absence as a virtue. Curiously, doing so actually predisposes the populace to tyranny, domination, and manipulation because agreeable people will go to great lengths to go along to get along, to appease those who threaten them, and they will be ill equipped to respond to the threat.
Conflict avoidance is not some virtue at whose altar we must be prepared to sacrifice everything. That is what blackmailers say. "If everyone only did what I want, nobody would get hurt. Now look at what you made me do." By that logic, no one would ever get raped if they merely acquiesced, so it's the victim's fault. Sometimes we really do have to punch an asshole in the face and break his nose. Sometimes we do need to risk our own lives, or at the very least our comforts, for the sake of guarding or attaining a superior good.
So, I would characterize falling levels of testosterone as a sign of general demoralization, especially among men, rather than a sign of some emerging utopia of a new hippie brotherhood. Academic performance of men in school is dropping. Sperm count is dropping. When we measure a culture, we must measure it against human nature, not the other way around or according to some false ideal we have come to fancy.
A man used to be undressed without a knife in his belt. Literally you did not leave home without a sharp bit of metal in case you had to stick it into another human being, typically because they were trying to do the same to you.
Remember Romeo and Juliet? The Mont. and the Cap. boys were not lower class yobs. Fighting in the street with freaking swords was their golf.
- - - -
One of the unspoken fears that we men have is the knowledge that the women and children don't really need us. They like us and love us but they don't need us. Not in a civilized "Star Trek" world, which is the sane result that we are all striving for (right? right?).
With modern technology they don't even need us to reproduce.
In the extreme (usually only talked about in Sci-Fi and hyper-feminist manifestos) men are a luxury or a fetish.
(In case it's not clear, I'm putting this out there for the sake of stimulating discussion. I'm not a man-hater on anything like that. Heck I am a man, and I like being one. However, the point above still stands: once you break down traditional marriage in a technological society, men are not necessary.)
>Remember Romeo and Juliet? The Mont. and the Cap. boys were not lower class yobs. Fighting in the street with freaking swords was their golf.
I mean, they were also fictional characters in a dramatic play about murder and suicide. I'm not sure it's safe to extrapolate broad cultural trends from that.
> I'm not sure it's safe to extrapolate broad cultural trends from that.
Then it's a good thing that I'm not doing that. I'm not extrapolating, I'm referencing an example (however fictional, I don't think anyone has accused the Bard of a lack of verisimilitude?) that should be familiar to most people here.
Are you arguing that all those knives and swords were merely decorative? That men solved their problems with, I dunno, words rather than weapons?
Isn't that kinda the whole point of human history: learning to use words instead of sharp bits of rock or metal?
It's an interesting point because in Japan, men, especially in Tokyo, Osaka, are much more ok with being a effeminate in a way I don't think was always the case. Also being lazy, not really wanting to exercise etc is almost "cool".
a point for the local environment and activity side, though n=1…
after two years of covid, sedentary life, and existential stress, my t levels were hovering around 290-310, which is borderline “you need an injection or a patch or something” territory.
I got my ass off the couch and started lifting to max, and doubled those numbers in 4 months. my max weight also increased, but that’s beside the point here, since it’s not the absolute value of mass that matters.
Picking up things that are almost but not quite too heavy for your body is a powerful signal to lots of systems in your body, and hormonal regulation is absolutely one of them. It’s also good for bone density and a bunch of other things, so, win win.
Last week I got told by an endocrinologist that the current suggested average testosterone levels are too low and that he recommended almost doubling the average to his healthy patients.
Mine is currently hovering around 350. I'll gradually increase it to 600 and see how it feels and how my body reacts.
I think the clinical evidence for this is… limited, and no doctor is going to recommend a tanning bed or exposure to more sunlight. They should do a hormone panel to see why the T is low - could be an underlying thyroid issue or overproduction of something like aromatase which is converting too much T into estrogen or SHBG which prevents T from being utilized.
Treatments like HCG mono therapy to increase upstream hormone production might be used, but usually the easiest, most effective and simplest thing is exogenous injectable testosterone cypionate or test entheanate, injected once or twice weekly.
Things that increase testosterone levels that I know of: medication, reducing excess body fat (but not too much), frequent exercises and reducing stress.
But realistically, significant increase in testosterone levels is only achievable with medication. And that's REALLY not something you want to do without a doctor monitoring your frequent blood tests. Because there is always a price to pay when we intervene with medication. And you want that price to be the lowest possible.
I would wager that there are a multitude of factors involved in this.
First, humans are materially wealthier than ever before, and as such “the plague of paradise” becomes an issue. Without struggle, humans go soft. Look at the Mongolian conquerors as the most striking example of this. For all of us today, we don’t struggle in a physical manner to the same extent those before us did.
Second, all incentives in our daily lives push us toward peaceful, sedentary, and “soft” behavior. This reinforces the first.
Third, obesity is a problem. As noted in the OP, as obesity increases testosterone levels decrease. Given how much of the population is overweight, I’m not surprised by the lowering of testosterone.
Fourth, exercise. Many here have noted that earlier generations were far more active. Every doctor with whom I’ve ever spoken has stated that diet and exercise are required for health, and in my experience every part of my life improved by losing 50 lbs and getting moving every day.
Finally… levothyroxine is the second most commonly prescribed medicine in the USA. The thyroid is highly sensitive to radioactivity, heavy metals, PCAs, PBA, PFOAs, pesticides, and herbicides. These can all damage the thyroid or prevent the function of the thyroid and/or thyroid hormones. Thyroid mal/dysfunction has a vast array of effects on the body and can lead to a decrease in the function of many other parts of the body. While I don’t know if it will affect testosterone production, it wouldn’t surprise me at all. These pollutants can also cause autoimmune disorders which can damage the body (including the thyroid). If we already know that hormone production can be impaired by pollution, I don’t find it far fetched to think that this would include testosterone.
396 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 310 ms ] thread[0] - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PY_4S_dfUv4
Similar effect with Estrone (E1) and Estrogen (E2). Many trans people switch from oral HRT to other methods that bypass first pass metabolism (which converts E2 into E1) because their E1 is too high and the desired breast growth doesn't materialize.
I'm sure that made someone laugh :)
Regarding packaging, growing up condiments were in glass. Good luck finding mayonnaise or ketchup in glass jars now. (I am able to find glass for my peanut butter and jelly fix — the peanut butter is some kind of natural stuff that you have to hand-mix though.)
While cereal is still in boxes, the lining/bag for the cereal was waxes paper (or waxed foil/paper if it was Super Sugar Crisp, emphasis mine).
I would love to see a branding campaign by some food conglomerate that introduced a line of glass (or wax paper) packaging for their products. I would absolutely pay a little more for that (although I wish it were the default again of course).
I've never seen ketchup in glass, but mayonnaise is sold in glass in all supermarkets in the Netherlands, as well as small aluminium tubes and plastic squeeze bottles.
No escape from endocrine disruptors.
...I mean, my understanding was that the elephant in the room is BPA and microplastics, but maybe all the other factors are not given enough attention.
One thing I'd like to know is if the effect on east Asian societies is worse given how much more plastic they use than say European ones.
Somewhat unrelated but interesting is the focus on BPA. It is actually not proven that the other plastics are good, it just means we have data on BPA.
Anecdotally, if someone like John Carmack can drink 9 Diet Cokes per day without noticeable ill-effects over several decades, it's going to take strong evidence that he (and others like him) are major outliers in their resistance to BPA "damage" to convince people that a small amount of BPA in their foods and drinks is harmful enough to change their lifestyle and habits to avoid it.
Where is the logical fallacy?
There are mouse studies described towards the end, but they concentrate more on sperm production than hormones. (Also they were fed tiny bits of polystyrene, BPA only gets a smaller mention in the introduction.)
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-06...
This is one thing I have noticed, men in my parents's generation in their 50s were much stronger than my peers (and me). And I have been noticing I am a bit stronger than men in there 20s (on average). Of course I tossed out people who work out.
I have been seeing articles like this for a while, I personally believe this has to do with the environment and how the food we eat is grown.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-an...
I'm called upon to unscrew the difficult lids off jars, but other than that I expect I am underutilizing my muscles.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/13/4815909...
I wouldn't be so quick to do this either. Many gym goers focus on targeted muscle hypotrophy over strength training. The two aren't entirely decoupled (building muscle mass will increase your overall strength potential regardless of goals), but you can certainly look very strong (bulky and defined muscle mass) and not have much actual strength, especially for those who do few compound exercises.
I recently helped move a couch with a friend meeting your your prototypical "meat head" standards and they were struggling to lift their side and frequently resting. They squat and bench almost twice what I can, arms and back are notably larger, heck I wish I looked that muscular but alas, all I can do is easily move couches.
But wtf do I know, not a biologist, not a doctor, etc. just my 2 cents.
I have never encountered this phenomena.
Also: decent job? House?
Anecdotal I know, but this seems to be a pretty common viewpoint in left coast tech circles. You can read comments on here along the same lines. Sure some social circles will have less or more than my rough 15% observation. Would be interesting to see the actual numbers.
https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/09/13/estrogen-animal-produc...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-meat-consumption-pe... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/beef-and-buffalo-meat-pro... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/pig-livestock-count-heads https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/egg-production-thousand-t...
In most countries the numbers are growing.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00185...
North America is a big place and there are a hell of a lot of different mammals in it. Are there really enough people out there taking regular and reliable measurements of testosterone levels in a wide variety of species over a wide geographic area such that we have a representative sample?
The whole 'roid rage' thing has been shown to be the result of elevated estrogen levels (excess testosterone is converted to estrogen, which is why steroid users take an aromatase inhibitor).
Absolutely some people can do massive amounts of steroids and have no aggressive tendencies, but other people immediately have problems. Its rather notable in some circles, like masters sports where lots of men are on TRT
and who knows what subtle psychological effects are at play, decisions being swayed by your new hormone makeup. Would make for fascinating research delving deeper
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23843821/
This is why I think the drop in testosterone is such a problem for many men. Your brain does not optimize for success and SMV anymore.
https://www.zora.uzh.ch/58008/1/Testosterone_social_interact...
but I have to say that these "where is the source" posts are tiring and more often than not just a lazy attempt to destroy an argument with zero effort.
Reviewing the literature is separate and distinct from entering into argumentation.
If that can be achieved through aggression - a person going to do just that, if that is achieved through team play and compassion, the person would do it instead.
As Robert Sapolsky said, it is sad that in our society aggessive behaviour is the one that leads to success.
I've spoken with researchers that actually administered testosterone to human subjects in experiments, and they found no effect: it doesn't seem to trigger aggression or violence, at least not in the short term. It probably is a bad idea to ascribe a range of complex behaviors to a single cause, and limit it to those behaviors as well.
Has it not? it seems like there's pretty clear consensus that they are positively correlated.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23843821/
Proof that T causes high aggression in isolation, in humans, thus far, has not been decisive. There is no consensus on this. Looking at the absence of the inverse (low T decreases aggression) would tip a few things.
Does anyone know of solid research that analyzes a connection between that very big change, and anomalous physical changes like this?
1. 'The mind' and 'the body' have a 'relationship'.
2. 'The mind' is affected by the information age. [e.g.: 1]
3. Therefore if #2, then the 'relationship' has 'changed'.
Doesn't this give us a place to stand for what could be an interesting discussion, even if the discussion is a debate about #2?
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-goog...
I'm entering "~2000" as a value here. I was going to use 1990. My argument doesn't need further precision, and I assume it either exists, or researchers are actively debating.
1. I still don't get how the body is changed, yes the mind is related to the body but maybe not in this situation?
2. I genuinely didn't know what you were talking about, which is, I assume, the culture changes due to mass information being easily available.
The normal way to phrase that would be to reference the cause of the change not just the year.
It's like saying "the french people changed after 1332". Now if you said 1776 or 492 those are widely known events.
Finally the mind and body stuff in the beginning threw me off
Why is it a crisis? What's the problem? Things change. But why is it a bad change?
(Assuming it's possible to even say what a "normal" testosterone level is).
This would not really be good for anyone.
Why? Europe (as an example) has a net population decrease, why can't this happen on a global scale without an epidemic?
“Children of Men” outlines what that might look like.
> Personally I see the decrease of testosterone levels more as a reaction to our changing environment than reason for concern. The world changes and we change with it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7067547/
https://www.endocrineweb.com/lifestyle-diet/everyday-chemica...
It took too long for this to be listed here on HN. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of the causes of low test aren't even cultural (though this is an interesting and unique causal claim) - they're environmental due to endocrine disruptors being fucking EVERYTHING.
I joke that everytime I microwave my ice cream to make it softer that I increase my future child's chances of being a femboy. It's only a little bit joking...
https://www.webmd.com/women/news/20101209/birth-control-pill...
Our allegedly 'clean' drinking water needs to be extra filtered to get rid of a huge amount of estrogen in the water.
I somehow feel uncomfortable next to macho people if full display, it might be that it has become a non-adaptive trait?
I see this as a significant component.
Both of my grandfathers had little to no relationship with their children. Some of it due to the fact that they spent more than half of their waking hours outside - usually working.
My father and generally men of his generation participated somewhat in child rearing, but not to a large extent.
Meanwhile I'm here changing diapers, bathing our child, playing with them etc. and this is also, gradually, becoming the norm.
While most people assume the direction of causality goes from testosterone to personality (higher testosterone leads to higher aggression), plenty of evidence shows it also goes in the opposite direction -- adopting aggressive/dominant attitudes, strength training and boxing, etc. leads to higher testosterone.
For my grandfather's generation, getting into fights (as adult men) was a thing that happened not infrequently. Having your manhood questioned was something you remained vigilant against. And yes, your handshake was firm because it showed dominance, the same way throwing around insults was a lot of the conversation. And it obviously went along with all of the sexism, homophobia, racism, etc.
But culture today is different. You work in teams, you get along, you're open to diverse points of view. You're rewarded for collaboration, not dominance. With most people you shake hands with, a firm handshake is going to freak them out, not assert confidence -- "what the hell is his deal?" Throwing around insults as the basis of conversation isn't how conversation works anymore.
So I'm actually pretty convinced it's changing culture that's leading to lower testosterone. And I see no problem with this either -- there seems to be a widely shared belief that this is a problem because it will somehow lead to more difficulty conceiving, lower reproductive success, etc. But there's zero evidence that men as a whole are having problems conceiving. And even if it did become a problem (which there are no signs of), it's obviously something evolution would fix real quick.
Testosterone has been found to improve mood and cause pro-social behavior, not just aggression. I agree that your behavior (and further lifestyle) has an effect on your testosterone levels.
Whether the supposed "male infertility crisis" is actually resulting in any significant real-world consequences is not even close to settled. The average level of sperm is still well within the range of having children without issue, with plenty of "extra room". Worries about a supposed "crisis" are really about extrapolating if it continues to fall linearly for many decades to come, as opposed to simply plateauing at a perfectly functional level.
In other words, it's kind of like saying there's a "handshake crisis" in that, because people are shaking hands with less force, at some point we won't have the strength to shake hands at all. Which is obviously ludicrous (for handshakes).
So whether this is a "crisis" or just a perfectly fine new equilibrium level really depends on whether you think it's caused by environmental poisons accumulating (and so things will get worse), or just a gentler culture that has no need for unnecessarily high testosterone or sperm counts, where everything's still well within "normal" range.
My sperm counts ranged from 70 million to 12 million, so that means I already have more difficulty than I would if my own counts were doubled as at least some of the time my wife and I had sex I was “infertile.”
One more halving and a very large portion of the population will be considered straight up infertile, and the decline in sperm counts shows no sign of showing. Dogs also show the same decline.
Quite frankly I think it’s a far bigger crisis for humanity than global warming.
By making many man unable to have children? That hardly seems like a “fix”...
But you are completely wrong about there being no male infertility issue, in fact it is hitting both males and females: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-prob...
The article, and many with it, focuses on sperm count, testosterone levels and other things, but this does not necessarily mean that reproduction is going down. A much bigger cause is probably that couples decide they do not want to have kids or that couples form later today than before so the woman is close to 40 when they start to try.
Often it is also reported as if it is the end of the human race, but we forget that there are many solutions to this (in vitro, adoption, ...). And in absolute terms there are more babies born today than ever before.
Just because we are near peak baby (either now or just recently) doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/2022/11/12/the-stats-guy-pea...
But definitely part of the issue of population drop is delaying having a family or decide not to have one.
In multiplayer games we find the exact experiences you describe as declining: Questioning manhood, dominance dynamics, and simulated conflict which I imagine feels similar to our CNS (but: without physical exertion so maybe not?). There might be more conflict of this type for your average 20-something man, than in previous generations.
Perhaps it is the lack of strength training and physical exertion that is the major factor.
Our parents' generation were not getting into competition level fights down at the local pub. The vast majority of physical conflicts in bars are just shoving, posturing, and heightened adrenal response.
Alright, tell them you voted for Trump, or that you're happy Elon bought Twitter.
OT, but I'll say that. The implication of Elon's control of Twitter being bad for democracy is that whoever had control of Twitter before Elon also manipulated our democracy.
The OP comment is right, there isn't room for diverse opinions in workplaces, it's like it always has been. You agree with the current thing or you get booted. The current thing just changed.
Tolerance doesn't mean accepting every point of view as equal.
It's funny that this is somehow forgotten when we're talking about men... if we allow women to abort children due to any reason, even financial ones or "i just don't want a kid now", paper abortions for men should be a thing too (sign a paper, give up all rights and obligation to/from the kid).
I think you just said the inside thing out loud.
Women don't need your permission.
Men don't need permission to not-pay for unwanted kids either. Somehow we don't mind women wanting to get rid of unwanted responsibility, and we loathe men who do that, with both financial fines and even jail times.
Before a child is born the mother faces significant risks to her health, mental well-being, relationships, and career if she gives birth.
It's reasonable then that women and their doctors have a final say in whether a pregnancy continues.
If they abandon them "literally", sure. If they decide they don't want to care for the child and give it up for adoption, they don't face any. After a popped condom, they have many different ways to get rid of unwanted children, from a day after pill (plan B), to adoption after birth. A man is always one bad condom away from 20+ (up to 26 years in my country) of child support for an unwanted kid, while a woman has all the decision power to bring (or not bring) the child to life.
Those who think this is still unfair have other means besides condoms alone: withdrawal, vasectomy, alternative acts, even abstinence. And they can negotiate with their partners about other forms of contraception.
Neither do women, if they don't want to, day-after pills are cheap, and even free in many countries, so are abortions (USA might be an exception here). Having a child in current times is a choice.
> have other means besides condoms alone: withdrawal, vasectomy, alternative acts, even abstinence
So do women. But if that fails, they have more options to still not-have a baby (to take a day-after pill/planB or abort...). In my country, vasectomy is even illegal before age 35 (same for women, no permanent steriliziation before that).
The "if you don't want children, don't have sex" sounds very anti-abortionist to me... but to you, it seems fine, if it's targeted towards men.
I don't have to like your opinion, and I don't have much confidence that anyone here will change it. However, the reason I spoke up in the first place was to point out that the first step towards bodily autonomy is the acknowledgement of basic human equality.
The assertion that [you/men/the state] should have any input in whether to "allow" someone to make adult decisions about their body because of their sex is repugnant.
Go fight for men's rights, if you feel that is what you need to do... but leave women out of it. The opposite of women's rights is not men's rights.
You're changing my words here, I never said any of that, you know what I meant, and you're trying to make me look like a sexist by misrepresenting what I said, so don't.
A paper abortion is giving up all the rights and obligation toward the kid ON PAPER. You just sign a document.
The woman still has all the body autonomy and all the options, from a day after pill, abortion, adoption or raising the kid if she wants.
Yes, men should have rights too, both reproductive ones (paper abortions) and body autonomy (not being forced to die in a war). So don't be a sexist.
The parent meant that carrying a baby to term has consequences for women's health regardless of what happens to the child afterwards. There are short term, long term and permanent physical and mental (via physical hormone changes) effects. Especially if a cesarean is needed, recovery can take a long time.
By your logic women should not be able to abort because there's still kids in third world countries suffering from hunger.
No, by my logic, if women have that option, men should be given a "way out" from unwanted kids too, even if it's due to financial or other non-medical reasons. Obviously men cannot physically abort, so a paper abortion (giving up all rights and responsibilities) would be a way out for them/us.
If we're talking about abortions as medical solutions (risky pregnancies, medical issues with the baby, etc...) then sure.
If we give half the population an option to get rid of a result of a five-minute mistake, for personal, financial and even for reasons such as "I just don't want one now", why not give that way-out to the other half involved in that five-minute fuckup? Otherwise we're literally talking about 20+ years of relatively huge consequences.
In some states this is legal, so long as there is someone else willing to step up and provide for the child. Consider that the child cannot provide for itself, and the father has equal obligation to do so. If he didn't intend to produce a child then he should have taken reasonable measures. Women technically have a final say because they take on more risk and physical labor to carry the child to term.
Like what? A condom? That applies to women too, if they don't intend to have kids, use a condom (rape excluded). But we give them ther ways out too. If the condom pops, the next step would be a day after pill. That applies to women, men get no say in that. Abortion? Same. What reasonable measures does a man have after a bad condom?
Once the child is born their legal obligations are similar. Both are subject to child support if they want 'out', unless they agree to put the child up for adoption.
Arguably this means men need to plan ahead more or take additional precautions. I don't think that's unreasonable considering men will never have to pay the physical price of childbearing.
Noone can plan for a popped condom, and pregnancy comes when aditional precautions fail, and they fail for both people involved, not just for men... but we then give only one of them an option to get rid of 20+ years of responsibilities.
What I do (thankfully it has happened only a couple of times) is to buy the pill together with the woman at the next day and be present when she takes it. Trust, but verify.
Just don’t ejaculate inside - then no baby
How ?
By your logic, this solves all the problems, and we only need abortions in case of rape or medical issues with a wanted child.
But we both know that people will still have sex, create unwanted babies (well, still fetuses), and both people involved should have a right to get out of unwanted responsibilities.
Do we want more sex ? Yes
Do we want less babies ? Yes
Both are doable
Women don’t need the guy to cum inside for pleasure - that’s the only thing that leads to babies.
Guys have total control here:
- pull out
- wear a condom (or two)
Ejaculation is what, 5-10 seconds of pleasure - you are going to create a baby for that ?
Seems the juice is not worth the squeeze here
Edit: formatting
Pulling out doesn't work in many cases, and two condoms are dangerous (i have no idea why you are spreading the two-condom idea, it increases the chances of ripping).
So yeah, if women don't want kids, don't let guys cum inside them (rape excluded) so by your logic, they don't need abortions (except for rape and medical reasons), right?
But then they can get a day after (plan B) pill.
Or a few different kinds of abortion.
Or give the kid up for adoption after it's born.
We give zero ways-out to men.
How ?
> We give zero ways-out to men.
Pull out
This is like listening to an anti-abortionist.
But after people fail to do this, we give women an option to get out of a few decades of responsibility and financial burden, and men should have that right too.
In procreation men are involved, but women are committed
Do your part - don’t leave it to chance
Full male control: - Pull-out
- Condom
- Double-condom
Be a man, take full ownership of your own financial future
If women decide to either take a planB or or get pregnant and give birth to a baby, why should a man cary the financial consequences of that decision?
> In procreation men are involved, but women are committed
How? Women can get a pill or abort, men are commited to pay for 20+ years of something they didn't want.
> Do your part - don’t leave it to chance
So, would you tell women this? "You don't need abortions, just do you part, don't leave it to chance! Pull out, condoms, and double condoms!"? Also, double condoms are outright dangerous, so is pulling out.
> Be a man, take full ownership of your own financial future
Yes, this is the idea... you didn't want a kid, a mistake happened, you need a way out too. With modern medicine and some quick action, having a baby or not has become a fully womans choice.
And there are cases, where you don't even need to have sex to be forced to pay child support:
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/11/woman-who-impregnated-se...
Even statuatory rape victims:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statuto...
That’s my point - you can spend your life cursing your fate OR control your actions before it happens
Don’t leave it up to your partner, to the state laws, or chance
Should be taught in schools honestly - guys are in control of the sperm, no one forces them
Women only get pregnant when the guy finishes inside - 5 seconds of pleasure, not worth the 18+ years
Yep, instead of some temporary physical pain, they'd much rather you being permanently unemployed, destitute, and friendless. So much more pleasant.
Tolerating people who may not tolerate you allows you to raise above the situation. If you are tolerate to any idea and you see a red ball and Jim says the ball is yellow that doesn't change your opinion on the color. It allows you to maintain your viewpoint and allow others that may be different and incorrect in your view. Not allowing that would mean trying to convince Jim he is wrong or removing Jim from my circle.
Can't we let people hold views we deem incorrect ourselves?
People can choose to not work or associate with others based on their views. We still defend their right to hold their views, just not the privilege of our company. This is technically intolerant. Still, even the law does not tolerate screaming 'Fire!' in a crowded theater.
In practice absolute tolerance will yield power to whomever shouts the loudest, or is the strongest, because it removes the right to not associate. (For fear of being called intolerant, on a technicality.)
That is not and has never been the law of the land. The quote comes from the dicta (commentary), not holding (ruling), of a case that prevented people from distributing flyers that opposed conscription into World War I. And that case was also eventually overturned.
Regardless of the legal definitions, if someone does falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded place they'll experience unpleasant consequences. Similarly if they proclaim their hatred of group X or civil right Y at job onboarding then they shouldn't be surprised to find themselves escorted out.
That stupid infographic that gets posted around about his paradox of intolerance is like 0.01 % of his work
Yet it can make collaboration difficult if an employee loudly proclaims that half the population shouldn't have basic human rights over their own body. Yes, it's technically intolerant to refuse to work with them.
As a society we have to balance contradicting freedoms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Sorry to say, but intolerance is to be defeated, with words, with votes, with lawyers, with guns if (only if) it comes to that. Ask the Ukrainian people.
If you are coming after women's rights, their autonomy, their health you (your idea) shall not be tolerated.
That's not what Popper says. Popper literally says, quote:
> I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
Again, not any ideology you don't like may be suppressed, but only those who use sticks and pogroms instead of arguments. What you are proposing is pure fascism and something Popper was vigorously against of.
The guns are only coming out when the law can't help, for example because the country is being attacked, like in Ukraine. Until that moment law and order is all we have, unless it's an authoritarian government, or if the law is against basic human rights.
Literally not. You've quoted Paradox of Intolerance applied to abortion debates. Now read the quote and try to understand why it's not applicable.
The inability to treat people who happen to hold some opinion you think despicable as equals is far more threatening to society than any one bad take on a particular subject.
While i am for unlimited legal on-demand abortions, this statement is obviously counter-factual. Most european countries have significantly restricted abortions relative to Roe vs Wade standard (usually to 12-14 weeks for on-demand abortions), and their societies exist just fine.
It saves human lives to discount the opinions of the ignorant.
> have no scientific basis for the opinion they hold
There's no scientific basis for opposing theft or assault either. What we think is immoral has little to do with science.
It's reasonable to be angry under such circumstances. Adults are allowed to be angry too. I wish we would be angry about more things, instead of being complacent all the time.
Pregnancy is a risky business, evolution made it that way for humans, it's basically a biological war between the mother and the baby. There is no reason to let millions of women die for a religious doctrine if we can help it. Criminalizing abortion doesn't even save the unborn, it just causes unsafe abortions and much more women to die, along with the unborn.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-bet....
https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductiv...
See: how the entire world treats minorities every single day.
People are not perfect, independent, rational creatures. They get affected by speech. They can develop new beliefs, even a new personality as a result of speech. They can end up doing things they wouldn't even dream doing as a result of speech.
Incentivize / persuade is not identical to action. Action requires an individual act.
If we remove people from responsibility for their actions, then there is the obvious consequence that people will act more irresponsibly.
https://people.com/crime/michelle-carter-trial-gallery-key-m...
"Hitting children make them stronger, mothers should be hit if they disagree with that"
If an individual says this they can be discounted, but what if we let an idea take root and spread to the point that it has a significant impact in a democracy? Will they vote in the removal of human rights? Will enough of a platform exist that every jury ends up being a hung jury?
You’ve talked about culture but haven’t given any evidence of the direction of causality. Do you have any or is this more opinion derived from the second last sentence - “zero evidence that men as a whole are having problems conceiving”?
Handshakes also went somewhat out of fashion
The culture has changed because hormones, environment, food, medicine, etc have impacted the humans. It seems right to you, because you are a product of all those environmental changes.
Or, put more harshly, because males are more feminised, strong males are seen as intimidating, and this is perceived as a problem.
Without making a judgement about right or wrong, what I wonder about is 'what is more natural'?
My view is that the older way was more natural - plainly big aggra, big pharma, big governance, etc played less of a role in determining the environment (and therefore less of a role in determining human attributes) in the past.
I also can't help wondering whether this is by design - plainly a more feminised culture would be less problematic to those who control/run society. I'm sure 'they' took inspiration from books like brave new world, which very plainly lays out the idea of using everything at one's disposal to engineer a populace that is most amenable to following the governance structure.
Saying what is old is better because it's the way nature intended is just a case of the linked.
Perhaps you are disputing the idea that the environment has changed - with the widespread introduction of, say, plastics, massive use of medication that is re-imbibed in the water, by the use of petroleum based fertilisers, by the application of chemicals to crops, etc? Please say if that is your argument.
So, I'm not saying what is old is better. I'm saying the environment really has changed, perhaps by design. That is not fallacious.
Where culture is concerned, on the one hand, we have the meathead culture of the brute that worships a frankly comical and awkward aggression and machismo. On the other hand, we have a feckless, effeminate, and cowardly culture of indirectness, agreeableness, being "nice", and getting along and at any price. Both are profoundly stupid. Aggression, anger, strength, assertiveness and so on all have their place. All are necessary. Prudence tells us when expressing one or other other is appropriate and to what degree. Virtuous habits develop these, among other qualities, within us in a healthy and normative way. A culture like ours, however, has long vilified these qualities and aspects of who we are, not just their improper expression or their abuse, but categorically, celebrating their complete absence as a virtue. Curiously, doing so actually predisposes the populace to tyranny, domination, and manipulation because agreeable people will go to great lengths to go along to get along, to appease those who threaten them, and they will be ill equipped to respond to the threat.
Conflict avoidance is not some virtue at whose altar we must be prepared to sacrifice everything. That is what blackmailers say. "If everyone only did what I want, nobody would get hurt. Now look at what you made me do." By that logic, no one would ever get raped if they merely acquiesced, so it's the victim's fault. Sometimes we really do have to punch an asshole in the face and break his nose. Sometimes we do need to risk our own lives, or at the very least our comforts, for the sake of guarding or attaining a superior good.
So, I would characterize falling levels of testosterone as a sign of general demoralization, especially among men, rather than a sign of some emerging utopia of a new hippie brotherhood. Academic performance of men in school is dropping. Sperm count is dropping. When we measure a culture, we must measure it against human nature, not the other way around or according to some false ideal we have come to fancy.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. So much of our society outright _denies the existence_ of human nature.
A man used to be undressed without a knife in his belt. Literally you did not leave home without a sharp bit of metal in case you had to stick it into another human being, typically because they were trying to do the same to you.
Remember Romeo and Juliet? The Mont. and the Cap. boys were not lower class yobs. Fighting in the street with freaking swords was their golf.
- - - -
One of the unspoken fears that we men have is the knowledge that the women and children don't really need us. They like us and love us but they don't need us. Not in a civilized "Star Trek" world, which is the sane result that we are all striving for (right? right?).
With modern technology they don't even need us to reproduce.
In the extreme (usually only talked about in Sci-Fi and hyper-feminist manifestos) men are a luxury or a fetish.
(In case it's not clear, I'm putting this out there for the sake of stimulating discussion. I'm not a man-hater on anything like that. Heck I am a man, and I like being one. However, the point above still stands: once you break down traditional marriage in a technological society, men are not necessary.)
I mean, you've heard of DNA?
I mean, they were also fictional characters in a dramatic play about murder and suicide. I'm not sure it's safe to extrapolate broad cultural trends from that.
Then it's a good thing that I'm not doing that. I'm not extrapolating, I'm referencing an example (however fictional, I don't think anyone has accused the Bard of a lack of verisimilitude?) that should be familiar to most people here.
Are you arguing that all those knives and swords were merely decorative? That men solved their problems with, I dunno, words rather than weapons?
Isn't that kinda the whole point of human history: learning to use words instead of sharp bits of rock or metal?
Japan also has an insanely low birth rate.
after two years of covid, sedentary life, and existential stress, my t levels were hovering around 290-310, which is borderline “you need an injection or a patch or something” territory.
I got my ass off the couch and started lifting to max, and doubled those numbers in 4 months. my max weight also increased, but that’s beside the point here, since it’s not the absolute value of mass that matters.
Picking up things that are almost but not quite too heavy for your body is a powerful signal to lots of systems in your body, and hormonal regulation is absolutely one of them. It’s also good for bone density and a bunch of other things, so, win win.
Mine is currently hovering around 350. I'll gradually increase it to 600 and see how it feels and how my body reacts.
Treatments like HCG mono therapy to increase upstream hormone production might be used, but usually the easiest, most effective and simplest thing is exogenous injectable testosterone cypionate or test entheanate, injected once or twice weekly.
But realistically, significant increase in testosterone levels is only achievable with medication. And that's REALLY not something you want to do without a doctor monitoring your frequent blood tests. Because there is always a price to pay when we intervene with medication. And you want that price to be the lowest possible.
What units are this? Free or total testosterone?
My blood tested as having 350 Nanograms per decilitre. Or 350 Nanograms per 100mL.
350 ng/100mL equals 12.1351 nmol/L
See: https://balancemyhormones.co.uk/testosterone-units-conversio...
First, humans are materially wealthier than ever before, and as such “the plague of paradise” becomes an issue. Without struggle, humans go soft. Look at the Mongolian conquerors as the most striking example of this. For all of us today, we don’t struggle in a physical manner to the same extent those before us did.
Second, all incentives in our daily lives push us toward peaceful, sedentary, and “soft” behavior. This reinforces the first.
Third, obesity is a problem. As noted in the OP, as obesity increases testosterone levels decrease. Given how much of the population is overweight, I’m not surprised by the lowering of testosterone.
Fourth, exercise. Many here have noted that earlier generations were far more active. Every doctor with whom I’ve ever spoken has stated that diet and exercise are required for health, and in my experience every part of my life improved by losing 50 lbs and getting moving every day.
Finally… levothyroxine is the second most commonly prescribed medicine in the USA. The thyroid is highly sensitive to radioactivity, heavy metals, PCAs, PBA, PFOAs, pesticides, and herbicides. These can all damage the thyroid or prevent the function of the thyroid and/or thyroid hormones. Thyroid mal/dysfunction has a vast array of effects on the body and can lead to a decrease in the function of many other parts of the body. While I don’t know if it will affect testosterone production, it wouldn’t surprise me at all. These pollutants can also cause autoimmune disorders which can damage the body (including the thyroid). If we already know that hormone production can be impaired by pollution, I don’t find it far fetched to think that this would include testosterone.