The really annoying thing is that when you bring up the generational decline of testosterone in men no one really cares. Then RFK Jr brings it up - quite validly - and now you have the entire Democrat-pharma industrial complex lumping it under "far-right conspiracy theory, probably funded by Russia and MAGA white supremacists who hate women and Muslims".

The irony is that it's a problem that is clearly already having consequences already. It's quite likely it's behind some of the current issues both at the fringes (rapid onset gender dysphoria) and broadly in politics (see the correlation between male testosterone levels and voting patterns). It potentially wipes out humanity way before anything with climate change, but since it affects men, the West just doesn't care.

> It's quite likely it's behind some of the current issues both at the fringes (rapid onset gender dysphoria) and broadly in politics (see the correlation between male testosterone levels and voting patterns).

Can you expand on this? Are you attributing political movement to the left in young men to lower testosterone levels?

It would surprise me if it wasn't a factor. Probably not quite as clear-cut as "less T => more left" but I do view the left as more "nurturing" than the right. Not gonna die on this hill though, humans are complicated :)

If we are speculating, perhaps the extra testosterone is what makes the men on the right attracted to the strong-man daddy figures?

I think strength naturally begets respect in men, has nothing to do with T levels.

If you're going to assert statements that wild you should provide valid sources for them, otherwise it should be fairly easy to dismiss them as paranoid and baseless conspiracy theories. Your own ideology should not inform how you interpret objective facts, although I know this is often difficult to achieve for people on the far-right end of the political spectrum.

There's also a correlation between increasing levels of obesity and decreasing levels of testosterone. And a likely explanation, in that fat cells metabolize testosterone to oestrogen, plus, obesity is linked to lower levels of SHBG which binds to and carries testosterone in the blood. So it's probably that too.

Also from what I've read, I think ROGD mostly affects young women and girls? It's not so much a male phenomenon. I don't think any of the research so far has linked it to plastics consumption, seems more to be a socially contagious, culture-bound syndrome, like anorexia is.

That first paragraph was so good... I can't believe it was followed by the second one.

Anyway, about the first, there are people studying a possible link between plastics contamination and the testosterone trend. AFAIK, nobody has got anything yet. And given that there are other very likely culprits, I do think stating the link with plastics is way too premature.

>It's quite likely

...is it?

Reproductive issues are real. Sperm counts have fallen massively, and the lead researcher thinks EDCs are to blame. She only drinks filtered water.

https://www.ft.com/content/f14ab282-1dd3-46bf-be02-a59aff3a9...

There is no evidence in the linked text that possible "reproductive issues" from sperm count reduction would be something overall bad. One possibility is that the total number of humans born will decrease somewhat and that global population will be somewhat lower compared to an alternative scenario with less microplastics. Every human has needs that require energy and resources so a scenario with lower global population might be better in terms of making sure all born humans get what they need.

> might be better in terms of making sure all born humans get what they need.

Might be. Or might not be. Who knows? Let's leave it up to random chance and see what happens! No point in trying to understand this phenomenon right?

Understanding the issue requires evidence and arguments about how good or bad the effects are. The problem is that several commenters here jump to conclusions without evidence.

On current projections human world population peaks at 10 billion in 2086 [0]. If, for the sake of argument, microplastics were to lower reproduction somewhat so that "only" 9.5 billion people came to exist in 2086, would that be bad? We're already putting a lot of pressure on many of earth's scarce resources in ways that have harmful effects on the welfare of many existing humans. Increasing population increases that pressure.

[0] https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth

I imagine the individuals affected might care. It’s also unlikely a destructive buologically change will only affect a single system.

And unlikely that this same cause would spare animals while only affecting humans. We do want animals to reproduce too…..

True, possible, possible, depends. But on the other hand current levels of global resource and energy use have harmful effects on existing humans and animals. For example climate change increases the frequency and intensity of wildfires that kill billions of animals. Increasing the human population by billions more, which is the path we're on unless some factor or other decreases population growth, likely increases such effects. That matters if we want to investigate if the consequences of microplastics are overall bad or good.

I guess we'll all find out in 30 years from now.

Why risk it when you could use a different container when microwaving? Convenience has a cost

It’s not just about the containers if you look at the big picture. Micro plastic is everywhere nowadays and if you set yourself to avoid it you’ll have a hard time. Even opening a plastic bottle releases micro plastic in the environment and now all supermarket food comes in plastic. Also the accumulated plastic seems to be reaching us already from the food chain, with marine food being full of micro plastic which goes to our bodies.

But maybe it’s worth avoiding it at all cost? That’s the big question.

Maybe at least avoid direct exposure when you can?