[milsorgen]

Testosterone and sperm counts have been decimated in modern times. Plus we are already seeing the vast majority of countries heading to births below replacement rate, yes even Africa. This could get deadly serious in terms of sustaining complex systems and ensuring resource production that can maintain relative comfort and security for everyone. I don't understand why this isn't a topic being vigorously discussed, even if it's not to fix things but even just to prepare for a shortage of new workers and tax payers.

[lotsofpulp]

I doubt lower sperm counts or health, if true, have anything to do with lower fertility rates.

The topic gets danced around because the biggest change is women achieving independence and being able to completely control when and if they have a child, and incentivizing them to want to have children means quite a bit of wealth transfer, or rolling back their independence and access to birth control. Obviously, men would also need to be convinced to have children too, but that seems secondary.

[AbrahamParangi]

It's so ridiculously Orwellian (or should I say Atwoodian?) that I can't imagine anyone except in the most deranged countries is going to roll back access to birth control.

The obvious long-term solution is that we do nothing and the fact that a desire for children is partially genetic solves the problem on its own.

[lossolo]

> the biggest change is women achieving independence and being able to completely control when and if they have a child

Ye, data seems to support that

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...

Between 1961 and 1974 in USA birth rate per woman dropped from 3.6 to 1.8.

The early 1960s witnessed the approval and widespread availability of effective oral contraceptives (birth control pills). This revolutionary advancement in contraception allowed women greater control over their reproductive choices and family planning. The 1960s marked a period of cultural and social change, characterized by the rise of the women's liberation movement and changing attitudes toward women's roles and family dynamics. Many women began to prioritize education, careers, and personal pursuits over traditional roles as homemakers and mothers. As educational opportunities expanded for women, more of them pursued higher education and entered the workforce. This often delayed the age at which women married and had children, which in turn contributed to smaller family sizes.

[nprateem]

Women can only "completely control when and if they have kids" if they have no criteria about the father or have the money to pay for artificial treatments. I know several women who couldn't meet anyone to have kids with.

[lo_zamoyski]

[flagged]

[oezi]

There is enough research to show that testosterone is still much higher in modern societies than in tribal communities. Likely linked to the abundance of calories in modern societies.

[hnbad]

There's also a very wide range for "healthy" testosterone levels. Turns out endocrinology is more complicated than looking at one value and saying higher is gooder. Fertility is not directly linked to testosterone levels or even meaningfully so: when my wife and I were trying for a kid, my doctor actually suggested that despite my T-levels being a bit low he would suggest delaying any treatment for that until after our family planning was complete, my testosterone levels weren't affecting my fertility (tho other complications can arise) but increasing them actually would have had a chance of impacting it negatively.

FWIW we have a healthy son now.

[watwut]

> Plus we are already seeing the vast majority of countries heading to births below replacement rate, yes even Africa

This has nothing to do with sperm counts. This has all to do with people not wanting to have the kids in the first place.

[AlecSchueler]

Just as a side note, Africa isn't a country and has widely varying demographics throughout.

[goodpoint]

> This could get deadly serious in terms of sustaining complex systems

Citation needed. Of all problems of this planet, underpopulation is not one of them.

[red-iron-pine]

Yeah we don't need more people. Arguably the amount of people we have now is leading to global ecological damage, even collapse.

"complex systems" -- whatever those are; global trade was a thing long before industrialization -- will survive slow declines. Japan is still a modern country even with a demographic decline.

[hnbad]

Oh no. Maybe we should finally do something about our system being set up to expect an ever increasing supply of new workers then? Even without declining birth rates that doesn't sound very sustainable given the finite resources of the planet?

For a start, we'd need to find a way to run industry without expecting an ever increasing growth of profits (i.e. surplus value) and structure society in a way so we don't let individuals hoard resources at the expense of everyone else. If we didn't try to squeeze water from stones, maybe that would also allow industry to sacrifice some cost efficiency (i.e. ability to generate surplus value) in order to use safer materials and cleaner processes that don't poison us and improve our survivability and fertility? Heck, we might even create circumstances that make it easier for people to raise a family and have more support if they want to have children while at the prime age for both working and reproducing rather than having companies literally pay for their high value employees to freeze their eggs and sperm to delay having kids until they're less economically useful.

Oh sorry, I just did an anti-capitalism again. Nevermind all that, line must go up. Let's find ways to make more kids. Maybe Elon Musk has the answer after all and we just need to have billionaires sire more children with their female employees until the net population growth rate looks better.