Ow, my balls!

[El_Machinae]

I'd like people to dissociate two concepts: that 'dropping sperm counts' and 'wanting slower reproduction' are connected motivationally. Whatever mechansim is being proposed by people to slow reproduction rates (of which they are a few), "widespread and indiscriminate poisoning" aren't usually included in the list. They're different concerns. And concern about both (on this website) is usually concern about fundamental consent and concern about the future. These aren't issues that are sufficiently ignorable that ruining every conversation is the best option.

As an aside, there are usually scalable solutions that will benefit most people. Sometimes we find those solutions once the problem starts hurting privileged people. Delaying the solutions so that "they get theirs" is a tempation, but is paid for by literally billions of people you have no connection to.

 

[Angst]

Biological, political solutions to chemical companies destroying our organs maybe? I dunno. Something besides weird tangents

it's not a tangent tho. the issues are part of the complex that enforce the global poor

 

[sophie]

So it's like getting a vasectomy for free?

 

[Narz]

So you seem when it comes to a thread of "ow, my balls" that isn't even about you personally and seems to revolve around building a personality solely out of the existence of virility, I snort a bit

Wut?

 

[Gorbles]

You wanted a discussion. Don't start going "wut" just because people aren't as preferential as El_Mac is about it

Hard to tell what's tripping you up with that kind of question, either.

 

[Narz]

I wanted a discussion about the topic but since you despertaely want a discussion about me personally I'll oblige a little out of pure curiosity.

You say I want to build a personality based around 'virility'. What does virility mean to you?

 

[Gorbles]

I said it revolved around it. Discussions about "oh no, sperm count" tend to, however implicitly. You also explicitly compared the situation to poisoning ourselves, so.

And no, discussing your argument isn't discussing you. It's just not going the way you want it, and again, there's nothing wrong with that so long as it's relevant. If you don't think critiquing cultural associations around virility is relevant, you're welcome to disagree. This is what a discussion is.

 

[amadeus]

The number of sea-people in my dinghy or others’ at any given time causes me no disconcert and never will.

You would think the libertine would celebrate this news, but they’re upset? People are confusing.

 

[Narz]

I said it revolved around it

The only thing revolving around my balls in particular is you

 

[emzie]

How would your hrt/surgery be affected by this??

The effect is the other way around: for instance, my sperm count has dwindled to 0 in the last year.

 

[amadeus]

I counted eight. Is that high or low?

There’s Johnathan, Blake, Mills, Temple, Gary, Kolchek, Van Nyues, and Richardson.

 

[Narz]

I counted eight. Is that high or low?

There’s Johnathan, Blake, Mills, Temple, Gary, Kolchek, Van Nyues, and Richardson.

No girls, huh? All mine that have reached the finish lines have been female thusfar.

 

[El_Machinae]

I wonder if there is some type of divide between the biology of reproduction and sexual behavior that correlates with political beliefs.

We see a gradient of distress when we talk about sperm counts being affected by environmental toxins and lifestyle consequences. But compare, we also saw correlations when it came to the distress about vaccine ingredients being sequestered by the ovaries in lab animals. Some people seem to be bothered, some people don't.

Obviously, these are fundamental questions of biology wherein the genitals are merely indicators of other risks, but the intensity of the concern differentiates along lines that aren't simply biological knowledge.

Compare that to the other side of the spectrum of this correlation, where some people are intensely curious as to what I was looking at before I flushed some Kleenex and washed lotion from my hands.

I wonder if there's a psychological spectrum behind this. That would explain why some of the responses in this thread seem so nonsensical to me.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Is this thread going somewhere? If so, best to get it on track.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Modern Sperm

 

[bernie14]

Ok @Narz, this is my assessment. . .

Oxford published this study in 2017 but Harvard's GenderSci Labs published this, claiming "that the design of the 2017 study relied on racist and colonial hierarchies and assumptions because it categorized data as “Western” sperm counts or “Other” sperm counts." So Oxford published this study in November 2022.

So, aside from measurement errors and that "we" are fat and lazy, yeah, there may be environmental factors

 

[Hygro]

At some point, sperm whales will be the only mammals left on earth, yes

This is funny when you accent whales and not sperm, as in those long tailed big bank spenders.

 

[Samson]

Pesticides do it

Adult Organophosphate and Carbamate Insecticide Exposure and Sperm Concentration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Epidemiological Evidence

Abstract

Background:

Evidence of the negative impacts of contemporary use insecticides on sperm concentration has increased over the last few decades; however, meta-analyses on this topic are rare.

Objectives:

This investigation assessed the qualitative and quantitative strength of epidemiological evidence regarding adult exposure to two classes of contemporary use insecticides—organophosphates (OPs) and
-methyl carbamates (NMCs)—and sperm concentration using robust and reproducible systematic review and meta-analysis methods.

Methods:

Three scientific databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science), two U.S. government databases (NIOSHTIC-2 and Science.gov), and five nongovernmental organization websites were searched for relevant primary epidemiological studies published in any language through 11 August 2022. Risk of bias and strength of evidence were evaluated according to Navigation Guide systematic review methodology. Bias-adjusted standardized mean difference effect sizes were calculated and pooled using a three-level, multivariate random-effect meta-analysis model with cluster-robust variance estimation.

Results:

Across 20 studies, 21 study populations, 42 effect sizes, and 1,774 adult men, the pooled bias-adjusted standardized mean difference in sperm concentration between adult men more- and less-exposed to OP and NMC insecticides was -0.30 (95% CI:-0.049 - -0.10, P < 0.01). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses explored statistical heterogeneity and validated the model robustness. Although the pooled effect estimate was modified by risk of bias, insecticide class, exposure setting, and recruitment setting, it remained negative in direction across all meta-analyses. The body of evidence was rated to be of moderate quality, with sufficient evidence of an association between higher adult OP and NMC insecticide exposure and lower sperm concentration.

Discussion:

This comprehensive investigation found sufficient evidence of an association between higher OP and NMC insecticide exposure and lower sperm concentration in adults. Although additional cohort studies can be beneficial to fill data gaps, the strength of evidence warrants reducing exposure to OP and NMC insecticides now to prevent continued male reproductive harm.

Spoiler A meta analysis needs a forest plot :

 

[IglooDame]

Dammit, @schlaufuchs and @emzie beat me to it.

I am a DNA island unto myself. Adopted immediately after birth, don't know anything about my birth parents, and have not passed on my DNA to any offspring. But is a reduction in the global birth rate really a problem, is my larger question. And isn't this one more thing science can help out with, if so?

 

[Samson]

Dammit, @schlaufuchs and @emzie beat me to it.

I am a DNA island unto myself. Adopted immediately after birth, don't know anything about my birth parents, and have not passed on my DNA to any offspring. But is a reduction in the global birth rate really a problem, is my larger question. And isn't this one more thing science can help out with, if so?

It seems to me it is the link between the two. It does seem like a global drop in birth rates could help with our fight against climate change. However once you need science to solve the problem you usually need money to solve the problem. If reproduction becomes only available to those who can pay the world gets a very different place.