Tech | May 10, 2010 | 142 comments

The infertility timebomb: Are humans facing extinction?

source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1275879/The-infertility-timebomb-Are-men-facing-ra...

Image
JanforGore
One in five men could suffer from fertility problems. And scientists have warned that it's just going to get worse...

There's a crisis brewing, but it has nothing to do with the economic deficit or the current political uncertainty. Scientists are warning that rising levels of male infertility have become so perilous that it is a serious 'public health issue'. And some go even further.

Professor Niels Skakkebaek, of the University of Copenhagen, describes the issue 'as important as global warming'. Last week, one science writer even suggested, in starkly terrifying terms, that if scientists from Mars were to study the male reproductive system, they would possibly conclude that man was destined for rapid extinction.

And if it continues, this trend could indicate men are on a path to becoming completely infertile within a few generations.

Scientists are warning that rising levels of male infertility have become so perilous that it is a serious 'public health issue'

Reports claim that as many as one in five healthy young men between the ages of 18 and 25 produce abnormal sperm counts.

Only 5 to 15 per cent of their sperm is good enough to be classed as 'normal' under World Health organisation rules - proving that infertility is not just a female problem. Indeed, among those experiencing difficulty with conception, a male fertility problem is considered important in about 40 per cent of couples.

But women trying to get pregnant are facing another astonishing claim: that the core problems of male fertility - while they may be exacerbated by environmental issues - start in the womb.

'Sperm counts are declining and there is mounting evidence that the problem starts even before birth,' says Dr Gillian Lockwood, medical director of Midland Fertility Services.

She cites growing evidence that although the process of sperm production - known as spermatogenesis - starts in adolescence, the crucial preparations are made in the few months before and after birth.

Factors such as women eating a lot of beef during pregnancy - which means they have consumed a diet rich in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are potentially damaging chemicals - to the issue of obesity during pregnancy and a woman's exposure to smoke, pesticides, traffic fumes, plastics and even soya beans are all thought to have a bearing on a male foetus's future fertility.

Experts talk of a 'window' of testicular development that begins in the growing foetus and ends in the first six months of life. Problems in this period mean that the baby boy may never be able to produce babies of his own.

continued...


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1275879/The-infertility-timebomb-Are-m...
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Tech,   Green,   11 more
  2. tags:
    Culture,  Environment,  Health,  GMOs,  5 more
  3.     
    |

142 comments // The infertility timebomb: Are humans facing extinction?

  • teachdworld
    • 0
      teachdworld  

    • I think we don't have that kind of problem in the Philippines coz our population is increasing and we can see that some men could easily have there babies with different women and just leave them. Irresponsible men should be the ones who should be affected by infertility...=)

    • 2 years ago
  • MidBosque
  • GoodGodGuy
    • 0
      GoodGodGuy  

    • A disaster or a correction? Have you heard of overpopulated species which get disease and die simply because there are too many? This is a natural occurrence and a necessary natural consequence. Just try to drive thru Atlanta, Denver, Houston, et all.
      Now maybe you can see what is going on.

    • 2 years ago
  • telcod
    • 0
      telcod  
    • GoodGodGuy:

      That's what happen to the bunnies in Australia. Minor correction, it is "et al." abbreviation of `et alii' (masculine plural) or `et aliae' (feminine plural) or `et alia' (neuter plural) when referring to a number of people or stuff.

    • 2 years ago
  • GoodGodGuy
  • boywhocould
  • NotHippie
  • freecrack
  • randallr01
    • 0
      randallr01  

    • We aren't in danger of going extinct due to infertility: if any problems come to fruition, we'll simply use sperm/egg donors and recipients and programs and blablablabla.....

      We won't go extinct from infertility alone; that's fact.

    • 2 years ago
  • versasrev
  • freespeechtv
    • 0
      freespeechtv  

    • According to today's most popular article, it's because of masterbating. Beware! And keep an eye out for the guilty culprits endangering our race.

    • 2 years ago
  • mindcruzer
  • craigsaid
    • 0
      craigsaid  

    • It is only a crisis if you have a problem with all (comparitively) rich people living in the developed world (mostly white) losing fertility.
      What is it that Jesus said that one time? The meek shall inherit the earth? Now I am going to augh out loud.

    • 2 years ago
  • CalgarC
    • +3
      CalgarC  

    • it our food system, its the gas in our cars. the radiation from our cellphones... eventually people will get it in their heads that they are killing themselves...

    • 2 years ago
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • CalgarC:

      i dunno
      in the middle ages it was believed that sneezing was caused by a demon trying to leave the body but couldnt get out so the procedure to remedy this was to drill a hole in the skull larger than the size of the nostral.
      as long as thier are christian scientists, it proves as rediculouse as this medical theories basis is its still believed as valid.

      so we are still to a degree (thank god a small degree) not passed dark ages understanding of life and death

    • 2 years ago
  • GodsnLiberals
  • CalgarC
  • Tayllerand
  • PlanetDahmz
    • +3
      PlanetDahmz  

    • Haha, Children of Men IS coming to life! Survival of the fittest! Pretty soon, only perfectly healthy people who look like celebrities will be able to breed.

    • 2 years ago
  • CalgarC
  • vannabanana138
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  

    • http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/bpa-may-alter-hormone-leve...

      Exposure to bisphenol-A may lower hormone levels in men

      Meeker, JD, AM Calafat and R Hauser. Urinary Bisphenol A concentrations in relation to serum thyroid and reproductive hormone levels in men from an infertility clinic. Environmental Science and Technology http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es9028292.

      Synopsis by Jonathan Chevrier, Ph.D.

      A new study finds associations between exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) and the blood levels of thyroid and reproductive hormones.

      Bisphenol A (BPA) can affect hormone levels in animals, and some recent studies suggest the widely used compound may have similar effects in people.

      More than 90 percent of the U.S. population is exposed to BPA, most likely through diet. The chemical was first manufactured in 1891 and has since been shown to have estrogenic properties in animals.

      Very few studies have examined whether BPA may affect hormone levels in humans. The results of this study are published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology and add to that growing body of research.

      Many consumer products contain BPA. Most notably, it is found in some types of hard, polycarbonate plastic baby and water bottles – although many manufacturers have recently removed it from baby and children's items. The lining of food and beverage cans, some dental fillings and sealants and thermal paper may all contain BPA.

      In this study, researchers measured the concentration of BPA in the urine of 167 men recruited through a Massachusetts infertility clinic and determined hormone levels in their blood. They found that men with higher urine BPA concentrations had higher blood levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and lower levels of inhibin B. Elevated FSH and depressed inhibin B have been associated with poorer sperm quality in humans.

      The study also reported a reduction of the ratio of estrogen to testosterone, possibly reflecting an abnormality in the production or elimination of these hormones. In addition, lower thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) was observed when data on multiple BPA measurements were used to assess exposure, suggesting excessive thyroid hormone production (called a hyperthyroidic effect).

      It is important to note that BPA and hormone levels were measured at the same time (in some cases, BPA was determined in samples collected after hormone measurement). The possibility that hormonal status may have altered urinary excretion of BPA – rather than BPA affecting hormone levels – therefore cannot be entirely ruled out.

      Results from this study are, however, supported by animal studies that show altered hormone levels in animals exposed to BPA.

    • 2 years ago
  • Mark701
  • JanforGore
  • Remy714
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/out-for-the-count-why-levels-of-sperm-...

      More on Professor Niels Skakkebaek's studies with additional information regarding how this may begin in the womb.

      Excerpt:

      So are we anywhere nearer to finding an explanation for why are so many more men today are suffering from reproductive problems?

      "It's most likely a reflection of the fact that many environmental and lifestyle changes over the past 50 years are inherently detrimental to sperm production," says Professor Richard Sharpe, fertility research expert at the Medical Research Council. "It may be that different factors come together to have a combined effect." A number of studies point to a connection between early development in the womb and male reproductive problems in later life, especially low sperm counts. For example, men whose pregnant mothers were exposed to high levels of toxic dioxins as a result of the 1976 industrial accident in Seveso, Italy have been found to have lower-than-average sperm counts. But men exposed to dioxins in adulthood showed no such effect. Another study found women who ate large amounts of beef during pregnancy, a diet rich in potentially damaging chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), had sons with relatively low sperm counts. But eating beef as an adult man shows no similar impact.

      Meanwhile, studies of migrants between Sweden and Finland, showed that a man's lifetime risk of testicular cancer tends to follow the country he was born in rather than the country where he was brought up. It was his mother's environment when she was pregnant with him, rather than his own as a boy or as an adolescent, that seems to have largely determined a man's risk of testicular cancer.

      One of the strongest pieces of evidence in support of this idea comes from studies of people who smoke. A man who smokes typically reduces his sperm count by a modest 15 per cent or so, which is probably reversible if he quits. However, a man whose mother smoked during pregnancy has a fairly dramatic decrease in sperm counts of up to 40 per cent – which also tends to be irreversible.
      ___
      Which is why I always read articles regarding studies being done on Round Up and its effects on fetuses because it is so widely used and touted as 'safe' when it isn't. What pregnant women are exposed to has a great effect on their children, and in the case of this article, particularly boys.

    • 2 years ago
  • Andrew_Douglas
    • 0
      Andrew_Douglas  

    • Well, this sorta scary. I saw a similar article in Men's Health in the last few months, and I'm hoping this doesn't happen.We need to find a way to fix this.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • http://www.healthy.co.nz/news/357-pesticides-cause-...

      Pesticides Cause Low Sperm Count

      Pesticides and other man-made chemicals may lower male fertility for at least four generations, says new research.

      When pregnant rats were exposed to fungicide sprayed on vineyards and pesticide sprayed on crops, the sperm counts of their male offspring was 20 per cent less than normal.

      If confirmed by further experiments, the findings could help to explain the decline in human male fertility over the past 50 years.

      The laboratory rats received high levels of vinclozolin, a fungicide widely used in vineyards, and methoxychlor, a pesticide used to replace DDT when it was banned more than 30 years ago.

      Scientists found that not only did the male offspring of the exposed rats suffer a sharp decline in the quality and quantity of their sperm but that these traits were passed on to their male descendants.

      Yet the researchers believe that the chemicals did not mutate the rat's genes - a proven way of passing on damaging traits - but instead may have altered the way the genes worked.

      Michael Skinner of Washington State University, who led the research, said nearly all the male rats born in each generation were affected by sperm damage or low sperm counts.

      He said that the findings, published in the journal Science, suggested toxins might play a role in heritable diseases that were previously thought to be caused solely by genetics mutations.

      "It's a new way to think about disease. We believe this phenomenon will be widespread and be a major factor in understanding how disease develops," Dr Skinner said.

      The rats were exposed to much higher levels of the chemicals than would be experienced even by agricultural workers handling the products every day. But the scientists believe it is possible that a similar effect may result from lower exposure.

      Both of the chemicals are known to be toxic in high doses and each is thought able to interfere with reproductive hormones - a feature of toxins known as endocrine disrupters.

      cont.
      ___________________________
      This is an article from a couple of years ago. I think this is really what the central focus of this story is about. What we are doing to pollute and toxify this planet with manmade chemicals, poisons, pesticides, GMOs, etc. and the effects they may have in generations to come. So to clear up, I didn't write this article, nor the title ( but I can edit it to make some happy) and I do see this as a serious concern for now and the future. And really, it isn't only men we need to be concerned about regarding this. Studies are also showing that toxins in non stick cookware and products, flame retardants (as was already mentioned here) BPA, PCBS, DDT, and a whole host of POPS that still persist in our environment may well be responsible for fertility problems in both men and women, as well as possibly soy.

      I think this should get people thinking about our actions as a species in only living for today without thinking of what will happen down the road because of those actions. For me, I did not post this because I hate men, or women, or have some other agenda. I posted it because I believe it brings forth a real problem many men and women are going through that they cannot explain. If we continue to not connect the dots and be so cavalier about such issues I do think down the road we will see an exacerbation of infertility problems and other problems related to overexposure to pesticides and other manmade toxins. Look at what is happening in the Potomac River with fish actually changing sex due to the toxic pollution in it as an example. How can we simply ignore this?

    • 2 years ago
  • spanishinquistion
  • freecrack
  • spanishinquistion
  • freecrack
    • -1
      freecrack  
    • spanishinquistion:

      just cuz the law says its illegal doesnt make it wrong.
      it was illegal for single woman to purchase birth control.
      it was illegal for a black man to try to read once upon a time.
      the legal explanation for the illegality of marijuana is to prevent the blacks from raping white woman as marijuana is known to cause this.

      its funny you mention pesticides despite me not advocating at all for them. i spent 6 yrs working with them and can tell you, as a fact, fertalizer is doing more damage than pesticides by proffessional applicators.your average joe is another story.

      why the aggression when i offered you none?
      are you back already jj----long shot

    • 2 years ago
  • spanishinquistion
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • spanishinquistion:

      freecrack:not regulated? we should not stop disease carrying paracites in favor of fertility?extremes are just that, dont proliferate it and dont ban it regulate the shit out of it.
      should birth control pills be banned aswell?
      a follow up if yes vasectamies?
      should we not posses the freedom to insure we dont have children?

    • 2 years ago
  • spanishinquistion
  • freecrack
    • -1
      freecrack  
    • spanishinquistion:

      im not arguing at all any of that information. pesticides tend to be nuerotoxins that have the ability to damage any and all organic systems that rely on a nervouse system to live.

      but they function to stop things such as buebonic plague,rabies,west nile virus,lime disease and so on(not to mention poisonous spiders and scorpians)
      so to ban them is to proliferate these above mentioned problems and more.

      thats the point i was trying to make, at what point do we value fertility? above protection from venomous bites, or the spread of disease?
      i dont. i dont want to know what plague would look like if new strains appeared
      i asked about birth control cuz you stated you want to ban whatever causes infertility you didnt qualify that with "unless its chosen".

    • 2 years ago
  • CalgarC
  • spanishinquistion
    • 0
      spanishinquistion [removed]  
    • freecrack:

      Choice is a touchy thing. If given a Choice most people would not realize their harm on the Environment and would continue to Pollute if it's "cheaper." That is why we have laws to protect it and Ourselves. There is nothing wrong with Birth Control. You only brought that up to make me look like the Fool when you knew what I was talking about. It's a distraction tactic.

      Marijuana and DDT are illegal for a Reason. Think about it.

    • 2 years ago
  • spanishinquistion
  • CalgarC
  • spanishinquistion
  • CalgarC
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • spanishinquistion:

      i have at great length but you insist on not.

      1-marijuanas illegality is not reasonable being as alcohol and opiates arent wich do more damage in every way.illegal doesnt mean we shouldnt do it as i posted before it was illegal for blacks to read, to say its just illegal so abide by this is wrong,slavery was legal, wife beating was legal. to simply state something is illegal without justifying why, isnt showing a point or opinion just stating current affairs.
      in fact if your basis is just that simple then use all the pesticides you want cuz they are legal, according to your premise its legality validates its use as somethings illegality shows it shouldnt be used.
      2-you stated anything that causes infertility should be banned.wich is fine but im asking how do you suppose we both ban the pesticides we currently use and fight the spread of disease?we arent using pesticides just for kicks, they serve a purpose. so what is the alternative method of serving that purpose.

    • 2 years ago
  • LukesAlive
  • onemalefla
  • samonster34
  • freecrack
    • +1
      freecrack  
    • onemalefla:

      yeah we have all given him that speech but he doesnt get it. he thinks the world is wrong and hes the right guy.
      he got booted this time within 24 hrs i mean thats effort.
      i expect we will see him soon enough either as a new name and icon or on the news in a belltower

    • 2 years ago
  • raingackt
  • Alex_French
    • +4
      Alex_French  

    • crisis this crisis that. shut the hell up. if men die out women are fucked. yeah they can freeze sperm, but they will miss my cock inside of them.

    • 2 years ago
  • crispyfritters
  • Andrew_Douglas
  • 24Themis
  • srg
    • -7
      srg  

    • JanforGORE? The very fact you identify yourself with this phony poser destroys any credibility YOU may have had. Big Oil al gore. The Polar Bear Prophet. One of the largest stockholders in occidental petroleum.

      At 30,000 ft he looks out the window at the dirty air down below (where all us peasants live). We have gauht to dew somethun about this, tip, as his private passenger jet burns & spews tons of fossil fuel into the sky smearing a dirty streak across the horizon, that brown broad band of polution marks the trail of another multi-millionaire poser who "really cares about bears". nutha mahtini sweetie?

      and you clowns suck it up like your favorite soup. You left wing extremes are worse than my wife at a flea market. You'll buy ANYTHING they put out on the table.
      i.e. Waco was justifiable homicide.

      a baby human is jes a big ol glob of tissue till we say one two three go!

      right. a glob of tissue WITH a fully fuctional brain, heart lungs eyes ears mouth tongue hair skin blood bone sinew intestines liver gall bladder pancreas muscle fat cartiledge ligaments and JOINTS which we carefully slice thru as if butchering a fryer chicken...gots to cut em in just the right place so's not to dull yo knife.

      My ex wife told me that when they were slicing up her baby in her womb she could clearly feel it fighting kicking squirming against the pain of the blade.

    • 2 years ago
  • versasrev
    • 0
      versasrev  
    • srg:

      There are no heroes in this world, only people. With that under consideration, I have to ask; do you think it makes you a better person (or hero) to say what you have?

      Just curious.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • +3
      JanforGore  
    • srg:

      Does every thread have to have one of these in it? I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH AL GORE OTHER THAN TO SUPPORT HIS VIEWS ON CLIMATE CHANGE WHICH ARE CORRECT, and because despite any disagreements I have had over the years as a supporter of his, he is a good man, and my support of him is actually none of your damn business and I don't need to justify my "credibility" to you. It is very much intact, thank you very much. Stop using my screenname to facilitate your own ignorance of the topic and to use me vicariously as a sounding board for your meanspiritedness.

    • 2 years ago
  • Alex_French
    • +5
      Alex_French  
    • srg:

      someone who takes something so stupid so seriously that they write a tragic bunch of emotional crap like this has got to have a sad existence indeed. As for your abortion story, way to kill the mood.

      I hate Al Gore, no special reason he just gets on my nerves. BUT LEAVE JAN ALONE!
      she's much more of a contributor to this site than you and I've seen many of her posts on Current TV. Don't think that you get to decide who has credibility in a place where you haven't done shit.

    • 2 years ago
  • UtopianSky
    • +1
      UtopianSky  
    • srg:

      You respond to an article about infertility with a long rant consisting of:
      a personal attack against the woman who posted the article;
      a personal attack against the guy who started this website;
      insulting everyone who has a political ideology different from you;
      insulting your wife;
      and bringing up two completely off-topic issues.

      ...and we are suposed to consider you credible? or even rational?

      Heck, your whole post sounded like you just had an emotional breakdown over your wife's abortion, and it was done on an article about male infertility.

      A shrink would have a field day with this.

    • 2 years ago
  • Andrew_Douglas
  • JanforGore
  • CalgarC
  • ozoneocean
    • 0
      ozoneocean  

    • Certainly doesn't seem such a massive issue in the majority of countries around the world-only pretty much an issue with certain developed first world countries.
      It really does annoy me how people like this take something small, specific to certain places or communities and then wantonly extrapolate it to the entire universe.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • HsIV
  • 24Themis
  • MotherForTruth
  • Reza_Gostar
    • +1
      Reza_Gostar  

    • Maybe it's just mother nature's way of trying to reduce the damage that is being wrought to her through overpopulation kind of like in the movie "Signs." Except no one is run over by giant lawnmowers.

    • 2 years ago
  • Reza_Gostar
  • NiceN
    • 0
      NiceN  

    • I was worried that Earth has become overpopulated, and therefore, decided not to breed. This new brings me good fortune indeed.

    • 2 years ago
  • Inventor
    • 0
      Inventor  

    • All you need is one good guy. One guy easily has enough sperm to fertilize three billion women each year. You just have to spread the seeds around properly.

      Of course a number of purist women care about the delivery method. They don't all want to be married to Deltoid P. Hamsterlicker of Sheboygan, MI who they will probably never see in their lifetimes if he has billions of wives.

    • 2 years ago
  • telcod
    • 0
      telcod  
    • Inventor:

      OK, it's a math issue. One guy, three billion women. What about the next generation being kinda all related? Three or four generations down the line and it's a freak show massive. Not that it's not a freak show now.

    • 2 years ago
  • CedricaBaez
  • telcod
    • 0
      telcod  
    • CedricaBaez:

      There were a lot of rabbits in Australia once. Not no more. Bunnies went bye, bye. But that was a virus, not infertility. As Blondie sang, "One way or another, we're gonna get yah." The earth will abide and correct her mistakes.

    • 2 years ago
  • The_Mack
    • +7
      The_Mack  

    • Well how about that. We just accidentally solved the issue of population control. I'll just go ahead and check that one off the list.

    • 2 years ago
  • UtopianSky
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • UtopianSky:

      As I stated below, a company like Monsanto that already got the USSC to give them a patent on seeds, could get one on Gm sperm and then can own us all. It sounds like a science fiction movie, but look at how much they own already through patents on seeds, intellectual property rights, biopiracy, etc. Hell, they wanted to patent the pig! So yes, if this were to escalate due to a combination of enrvironmental factors that were exacerbated, it might just be possible down the road for women to still have children artificially. How healthy they would be however, is a mystery. That is why stories like this are important to understand in context. Our survival in the future is something we must be more concerned about today.

    • 2 years ago
  • freecrack
  • Einsam_Data_Old
  • JanforGore
  • CalgarC
  • kitteneater
    • 0
      kitteneater  
    • UtopianSky:

      There's a feminist theory that states male aggression results from a innate fear of becoming obsolete; only one man is needed, theoretically, to perpetuate society.

      That article sheds interesting light on the subject...

    • 2 years ago
  • telcod
    • 0
      telcod  
    • kitteneater:

      Does feminist theory also state that one male doaner works fine until you get to the second generation? Yeah, when I think of procreation, I think of my half sister. That would be my father's daughter. The world is a freak show now with ugly, greedy politicians and sexless, fetid captains of industry. What could we shoot for next?

    • 2 years ago
  • MotherForTruth
    • 0
      MotherForTruth  
    • kitteneater:

      Do you support the feminist's belief that, "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." (Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female)

    • 2 years ago
  • UtopianSky
    • 0
      UtopianSky  
    • kitteneater:

      Well, that's a silly theory.

      Male aggression is because males hunt animals for food, and compete against other males for land and women.

      Men don't think about their reproductive capability as defining their significance.

      Men think their earning power and sexual conquests define their significance.

      For women (on average), to be barren is emotionally devastating. For a man, to be infertile is no big deal, as long as they are not impotent.

    • 2 years ago
  • TasteHi
  • parisinla
  • Blimey_tudor
    • +1
      Blimey_tudor  

    • Well maybe if the yankees didn't do so many steroids, to get bulked up for the game of grab-ass they call "American football" , their wangs won't be so small, and limp.

    • 2 years ago
  • freecrack
  • The_Mack
  • CedricaBaez
  • MoonLoon
  • CalgarC
  • Nephwrack
    • 0
      Nephwrack  

    • most of these problems could likely be traced to said men having diabetes, which in turn could be traced to poor diet and lack of exercise, at least in some cases. and the extinction of men would also lead to the extinction of the species, so don't get too happy out there, man haters of the world.

    • 2 years ago
  • TasteHi
  • parisinla
    • 0
      parisinla  
    • TasteHi:

      the adoption rate will taper off though once the fertility rate drops as well. Eventually there will be no more children to adopt (extrapolating from this data).

    • 2 years ago
  • TasteHi
    • 0
      TasteHi  
    • parisinla:

      i don't find that so terrible. I wish adoption wasn't a necessity, but I do see the finality of things you propose. I just wonder what else this test group had in common (of an extrinsic nature).

    • 2 years ago
  • PressCore
    • +2
      PressCore  

    • May I suggest that the point is as moot as the story is interesting.
      They can make sperm or eggs out of stem cells anyway. If nature
      deselects the male gender it's only our own fault that we let it happen.

    • 2 years ago
  • mindcruzer
    • +1
      mindcruzer  

    • Extinction shouldn't even be in this article. Humans are far too diverse a species for something like this alone to bring us to our doom. However, combine it with all our other problems and you may have a winner.

    • 2 years ago
  • AutifK
    • +4
      AutifK  

    • This post is ridiculous... It's so misleading and uninformative. Here... I'll show you how:

      "One in five men could suffer from fertility problems. And scientists have warned that it's just going to get worse..."
      - What is the basis of this study?
      - Which scientists? This is vague. Point me to exactly which scientists said it.

      "Scientists are warning that rising levels of male infertility have become so perilous that it is a serious 'public health issue'. And some go even further."
      - I don't care if your grandma tells me that males are increasingly becoming infertile. If scientists are saying it, why are they saying it? Again... exactly which scientists? You're failure to tell me which ones makes me skeptical of what you claim.

      "Professor Niels Skakkebaek, of the University of Copenhagen, describes the issue 'as important as global warming'."
      - And... why is she saying that? Does this professor have a gut feeling or does she actually have some empirical data to back up that claim?

      "Last week, one science writer even suggested, in starkly terrifying terms, that if scientists from Mars were to study the male reproductive system, they would possibly conclude that man was destined for rapid extinction."
      - Uhhh.... WTF? Why are you talking about scientists from Mars? Does anyone know any scientists from Mars? No, huh? Then, WHO CARES? Such a pointless statement

      "And if it continues, this trend could indicate men are on a path to becoming completely infertile within a few generations."
      - What trend? You haven't even described this so-called trend. You just said that 1 in 5 males are becoming infertile. Oh really? How is that? Explaining exactly how that is the case would be the "trend"

      "Reports claim that as many as one in five healthy young men between the ages of 18 and 25 produce abnormal sperm counts."
      - Oh yea? Which reports? Who conducted them? Show them to me. That you aren't citing any particular reports is extremely suspicious.

      "Only 5 to 15 per cent of their sperm is good enough to be classed as 'normal' under World Health organisation rules - proving that infertility is not just a female problem. Indeed, among those experiencing difficulty with conception, a male fertility problem is considered important in about 40 per cent of couples."
      - 5 to 15 percent of who's sperm? What was the sample group of the research conducted? The imprecision of your reporting is endless

      "'Sperm counts are declining and there is mounting evidence that the problem starts even before birth,' says Dr Gillian Lockwood, medical director of Midland Fertility Services.

      She cites growing evidence that although the process of sperm production - known as spermatogenesis - starts in adolescence, the crucial preparations are made in the few months before and after birth."
      - That's cute. She cites evidence, huh? Show me this evidence which proves that sperm counts are declining before birth. Without this evidence, you have a claim without support.

      I could say more. But, I wanted to do this fast. What a terrible excuse for news reporting. Please be more careful with what you post. This report was laced with imprecision, vagueness, and baseless claims.

    • 2 years ago
12
1 - 100 of 142
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos