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.
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.
Go to a FAANG office and tell your tolerant coworkers that abortion should be illegal in all 50 states.
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.
Yep, instead of some temporary physical pain, they'd much rather you being permanently unemployed, destitute, and friendless. So much more pleasant.
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
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.
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
Sorry to say, but intolerance is to be defeated, with words, with votes, with lawyers, with guns if it comes to that. Ask the Ukrainian people.
If you are coming after women's rights, their autonomy, their health you 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.
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...
"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?
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...
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”?
By making many man unable to have children? That hardly seems like a “fix”...
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.
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.