Sperm count drop 'may lead to human extinction

[Ilsa]

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-40719743

Humans could become extinct if sperm counts in men continue to fall at current rates, a doctor has warned.

Researchers assessing the results of nearly 200 studies say sperm counts among men from North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, seem to have halved in less than 40 years.

Some experts are sceptical of the Human Reproduction Update findings. But lead researcher Dr Hagai Levine said he was "very worried" about what might happen in the future.

The assessment, one of the largest ever undertaken, brings together the results of 185 studies between 1973 and 2011.

SNIP

I think a declining birth rate could end up being a good thing.

[AJT]

1. Seems to be a white male problem.....

[Quanta]

8. Cultural/lifestyle/mindset/diet problem more likely n/t

[no_hypocrisy]

15. My first thought too in free association.

[tazkcmo]

28. A 'western" white male issue

Noting the absence of African and Asian males I'd guess it's environmental, cultural and diet related.

[malaise]

39. Yep

but who knows if they think the rest of us are human

[nikibatts]

51. Not my monkey! And it does seem to be a white male problem. Explains a lot.

[enough]

2. Lower human fertility sounds like a good thing all around. NT

[NightWatcher]

3. I guess I should put mine in storage to repopulate the planet.

Read that again as Andrew Dice Clay and with an "oh!" At the end.

Kidding of course, that's never work, but damn Earthlings would be gorgeous!

[unblock]

4. If trends continue. Then again, if trends continue, we'll be 100ft tall....

Not sure how there's a reason to think trends will continue indefinitely.....

[avebury]

5. If true, Mother Nature may have the last laugh.

Nature might be fighting back against mankind's efforts to destroy this planet.

Declining sperm counts is not a bad thing.

[janx]

17. +1

[Quanta]

6. Thanks Margaret Atwood!

Oh, and you too, Obama! Somehow...

[smirkymonkey]

7. Good.

[DK504]

9. Heard about this on NPR this afternoon.

The researcher was pretty clear it had to so with the poisons in our food, air, water and land. Wonder how all those virile butch anti-environmental types will feel about this.

[nycbos]

10. Can Bender help speed up the process.

[uponit7771]

11. More invintro (sp)

[Oubaas]

12. As Long As...

As long as it happens before we elect President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, I have no problem with that.

Oh, wait! We already...

Never mind.

[DefenseLawyer]

20. Water? You mean like from the toilet? n/t

[Flaleftist]

62. Brought to you by Carl's Junior. nt

[hunter]

49. Camacho was willing to listen to the smartest guy in the room.

That puts him ahead of Trump who always thinks he's the smartest guy in the room and fires anyone who disagrees.

[Different Drummer]

54. This. n/t

[Oubaas]

55. You Got Me There...

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. "Mountain Dew" would actually be an improvement.

[panader0]

13. I'm afraid I can't help. I got snipped after the twins......

[LittleBlue]

14. We need to use human cloning, artificial wombs and gene editing

We cannot expect men and women to continue producing offspring in the same manner as centuries prior. We need to manage our evolution using modern techniques that have been held back by outdated Judeo Christian beliefs. Gene editing should be encouraged, it will actually be the best way to reduce healthcare costs using methods like CRISPR-Cas9. Cloning combined with editing could be used to produce useful scientists and other great thinkers to solve our problems. Imagine if we could make intellects like Richard Feynman and Paul Dirac in labs by the thousands, what problems we could solve!

It does not make sense to hold ourselves back when we have the power to change the future for the better of all mankind. We don't need sperm counts to make our future generations, they should be made in labs.


I also think we shouldn't be married to the idea that reproduction is tied to love. Often the person we wish to reproduce with most is unavailable to us, or someone who doesn't make a good life partner. Artificial wombs will eliminate this problem.

[Ilsa]

16. Not every woman would want to do an artificial womb.

I know women who felt great while pregnant. I didn't like pregnancy, but I enjoyed nursing my babies. And it was convenient. There are some things that must be experienced to bring people closer, I believe.

I like the idea of altering genes, but I also wonder if there is a negative consequence, such as losing one chemical, metabolic process, if you flip the switch for another.

[LittleBlue]

22. I would only argue to make it legal

Let's avoid the tragedy of so many countries banning it, like they did with human reproductive cloning and stem cell research. Everyone should get a choice.

The CRISPR process is showing tremendous promise. Imagine if you could buy, say, a Brad Pitt cloned embryo, edit his genes so that he isn't identical, manipulate the dozens of genes that govern intelligence to make him super smart and perfect health.

You would have a man who isn't discouraged because he looks fat or ugly, and can pursue any academic field he wants in life without fear of coming up short or dying prematurely.

[Ilsa]

44. I'm only in favor of using it to fight disease and

Chronic health problems. People need to learn not to judge others by appearances, and learn to respect themselves, no matter what is their appearance.

[hedda_foil]

19. You're a young guy, I'll bet.

[LittleBlue]

23. I wouldn't say young

But I do like to keep up with innovative technology. With AI deep learning combined with advances in biotechnology and robotics, we're on the verge of a new era similar to the 1840s with the Industrial Revolution. Those three fields are coming together to bring about more change than the human race has perhaps ever experienced.

Why would you think I'm young or a guy just because I hold these views?

[hedda_foil]

32. Because you don't account for the irrationality of large groups of humans under stress.

The solution you offer for a potentially species extinction scenario presume that a technical solution to the most basic drive of individuals to reproduce would succeed.

[LittleBlue]

34. There is no species extinction scenario with advanced technology

Population decrease? Sure. But even a 99% decline in sperm count would be irrelevant with current techniques to produce sperm in labs. Even eggs can be fabricated with skin cells.

By the time we'd ever be threatened with a low enough population for extinction, we'd have already been centuries beyond perfecting these technologies. The suggestion of extinction is alarmist if one only considers natural reproduction, and discards all scientific advances, going forward.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Come on. Don't you think "potentially species extinction scenario" is a bit overwrought?

Assuming this is anywhere close to solid science outlining a real trend that can be extrapolated into the future as the authors have done.. and okay, leaving aside the endless debates these sorts of threads inevitably spawn (see what I did there) on what sort of reproductive freedoms individuals ought to be "allowed" to have -- (so much for being pro-choice, huh?) -- leaving that aside, presuming this one study is flat-out fact and portends the level of doom implied...

so lots of men have declining sperm counts likely due to environmental factors. What happens when a population is stressed, in reproduction or survival, by an outside factor or factors-- think streptococcus, and penicillin?..

what I'm saying is, some men are going to be resistant to whatever these factors are. And what does natural selection tell us will happen with their offspring?



Point is, sorry to disappoint the folks in this thread with their hopes up, the species is not going extinct. Not from this, at least.

And that's not even including technological mitigation for these fertility issues.

[Nevernose]

58. For people that assume other people are rational

Especially in large groups, I have two words:

President Trump

[Calculating]

21. No

The LAST thing we need is a world where the rich are even PHYSICALLY better than everybody else. They'll design all their babies to have the bodies of famous athletes, and to have a genius iq. This will then further their advantage over everybody else.

[LittleBlue]

24. Like all technologies, they become affordable when processes are made more efficient

To my knowledge, there is no technology that has stayed stagnantly expensive without any price reductions.

It's going to happen. The question is how soon, and how many countries will allow it. Those who don't allow it will be left permanently behind while more advanced countries produce higher quality people.

[Calculating]

26. All civilized countries should ban the process except for the elimination of genetic diseases

Preventing disease, disorders, bad eyesight, asthma, allergies? Sure. Modifying the cosmetic and intellectual features of offspring? No!

[LittleBlue]

31. Should all civilized countries have banned the automobile in the 1920s?

Just because the vast majority of the planet couldn't afford one? That would have served no purpose. In many countries today, people live and die based on their ability to afford healthcare. Should a cancer treatment used to save a child in Illinois be unavailable simply because it wasn't available to save a child in Mali?

And why allow editing for genetic conditions but not cosmetic, which can cause severe psychological damage? Imagjne how much insecurity in men could be avoided if every man were at least 6'2". Imagine a world where women can eat what they wish and didn't have to worry about the world judging them, all because a few genes were edited to super charge their metabolism.

Banning such medical miracles simply prolong suffering.

[SharonClark]

30. We don't need any of those things.

People are already over-populating the planet without those 'innovations.'.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Actually, "innovations" - birth control, freedom, secularism, med.technology- Are what have solved

The so-called "population problem"

It is dirt poor nations where citizens- women, really- live under the thumb of authoritarians who run their lives for them, where "overpopulation" is still an issue.

[B2G]

52. I don't want to live in your brave new world. Nt

[LittleBlue]

59. That world is our world

There's no turning back science with wishes.

[dawg]

56. What could possibly go wrong?

[Generic Brad]

18. OK. You talked me into saving the human race

My wife won't like it, but I if I have to reluctantly offer my services to keep our species populated, so be it. I'll do it, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy it.

[H2O Man]

25. Odd.

My doctor says I have the semen of an 18-year old.

[Renew Deal]

27. "What if we were the last two people on earth?"

[Calculating]

29. Honestly this is a good thing

Overpopulation and such.....

[Shandris]

33. Still think the Mouse Utopia was 'debunked'?

Cuz we're RIGHT on schedule. It will be interesting to see if tech can salvage that fate, but if it does...the 'humans' that come out the other side won't be much like we are today, I don't think. So this is kind of pretty much the end either way, birth rates of Africa notwithstanding (and assuming they don't begin to plummet also).

[Warren DeMontague]

35. I can safely attest

that mine work fine

[pepperbear]

36. Children of Men

[wiggs]

57. Or...'A Boy and His Dog' nt

[geek tragedy]

37. Maybe men are just, ahem, self-releasing more often. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

38. I doubt it.

If anything, people had far fewer other diversions with which to occupy their time -and their hands- in the old days.

[geek tragedy]

45. that guy is probably looking at pr0n nt

[Warren DeMontague]

46. No way

Jared Kushner doesn't look at porn!

[geek tragedy]

47. Like hell he doesn't.

Lots of stress to relieve while he's solving the Israel-Palestine conflict.

[Ezior]

41. Well, I prefer this path to human extinction over most others

No nuclear bombs involved, no climate refugees etc.

We simply have fewer and fewer babies every year. Sure, people will be worried and desperate in the end.

[Ilsa]

43. This method is similar to the big reveal in the book

"Inferno", where a virus is released which causes sterility in roughly one-third of the population. The movie drastically changed the ending, though.

[VOX]

48. It can't "come" soon enough.

Apologies. But the planet will also be grateful for ridding itself of fleas and lice.

[B2G]

50. Man rompers.

And tighty whiteys.

Burn em guys.

[TexasBushwhacker]

61. And carrying cell phones in their pants pocket n/t

[Binkie The Clown]

53. The race is on: What wiil drive humans to extinction first, infertility or climate change? n/tr

[Trial_By_Fire]

60. It's caused by all the chemicals in our environment...

But, at least a very few people made a lot in profits... right?

[treestar]

63. extinction seems unlikely

having fewer children is already a thing.

[ck4829]

64. I guess sperm is as excited as we are.

Maybe the sperm cells are arguing over who to vote for the fastest sperm cell in their stead as the only way to achieve fertilization instead of going out and doing it themselves?