Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
This is the latest, most endangered species: us.
In the 15 years or so that I have been actively researching the prospects for the end of the world (Brace for Impact came out in 2009), it has always been in the back of my mind to be on the lookout for a ringer — the thing that would do us in finally while we were intently watching 20 other things and expecting one of them to do it. It might be here.
Sperm counts. I did not see that one coming. In the western industrialized nations sperm counts dropped nearly 60% between 1973 and 2011, which is worrisome. Fertility rates in half the world’s countries are now below the replacement level, which worries the industrialists. But now, the epidemiologist who conducted that sperm-count study has projected that on the current track, sperm counts will hit zero in 2045. This wouldn’t be the end of the world, of course. Just the end of the human race.
As with other scenarios that have been advanced, I do not buy the notion of total extinction — the world is a big place, with lots of nooks and crannies and people, plenty of room for exceptions. Still, it seems entirely possible that declining sperm counts could do what global climate change has been threatening to do, only sooner: cause a catastrophic collapse of the human population.
The source of this existential threat is, of course, industrial: a class of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — PFAs for short — called the “forever chemicals” because they do not break down. They persist in the soil, in the water, in the human body, for unknown decades. They have been linked to several cancers and they disrupt the human endocrine system especially in males, reducing sperm count, penis size and testicular volume.
But they are devilishly useful to industry and since the 1950s some 5,000 of them have been put to use in plastic containers and food wrapping, waterproof clothes and fragrances in cleaning products, soaps and shampoos including baby products, electronics and carpeting — in short, they play a role in damn near everything, they have been accumulating for seven decades, and now they are poised to wipe out mankind.
Does anybody remember the Precautionary Principle? It holds that before industry introduces a new product or chemical into the environment, it must first prove the substance does no harm. Yeah, I know — cue the hysterical laughter.
Authorities all over the world have their hair on fire over falling birthrates. They refuse to confront the fact that the human population has overrun the carrying capacity of the planet and cannot, will not, continue indefinitely to increase. In this context, falling birthrates are a blessing. But industrial countries will do anything to prevent their decline because that would mean fewer workers, soldiers and consumers in the future. In some cases it is possible to see the hand of Mother Nature, who acts in many ways to reduce fertility in animals that are overrunning their own habitat.
But while naturally reduced fertility might be a boon to the future of humankind, fertility reduced to zero by pervasive toxic chemicals is a possible death sentence.
Infertility and the possible extinction of human race is the plot of Children of Men. In the P.D. James novel sperm is the cause, in the movie, woman can’t bear children.
Both are excellent, the movie particularly so. There are three extremely long, uncut takes in the film that are truly mindblowing.
The human race race is stumbling half drunk thru a minefield.
It seems the Precautionary Principle was upended some time ago so that any restriction on new chemicals must first prove it will not harm the company introducing it.
In the early 1970s, research by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden found traces of Brominated Flame Retardents (BfR) in the blood of female office workers. Subsequent annual testing found a significant annual increase in this chemical in blood samples. BfRs are used in plastic electronic cases to suppress the risk of fire if the equipment overheats. The office workers were found to be breathing in out-gassing fumes from electronic equipment, such as computer monitors. As a result the Swedish Union of Clerical and Technical Employees in Industry (SiF) started a program to make the workplace free of these chemicals. What happened to this program is a worthwhile read on how industry can shut down ‘inconvenient’ research. Google “The Swedish No-Risk Project” or go to: https://www.emfacts.com/norisk/
Ecological overshoot is always corrected, always, it carries with it the seeds of its own correction. Almost everything we’re seeing today is a symptom of overshoot, from the climate to political unrest.
True: the Devil will have his due…or Darwin…or Mother Nature. They’re all pretty much the same.
Bring it.
Yes, we’ve been adding another billion people every 12 or 13 years since 1961, and as of 2023, the human population will have doubled at 8 billion from its 1974 level of four billion. It was foolhardy to fail to imagine that nature’s various feedback mechanisms weren’t going to do anything to rectify this situation.
The Industrial Revolution was a Faustian bargain.
Enough said.
Sperm are heading to the moon.
https://www.insider.com/scientists-want-to-send-67-million-sperm-samples-to-moon-2021-3
“I do not buy the notion of total extinction … ”
Oh, by the way, it’s not a notion Tom, total extinction is just a basic law of the universe, and it can happen in so many ways you would need a supercomputer to count em all.
The idea that our Blue Marble is special, and that life this particular planet located on the edge of a nondescript galaxy is somehow sacrosanct, it can not perish from this universe, is a faith based argument – and I’m cool that, people need to find comfort where they can.*
My only problem with this “notion,” and it is an absurd notion if ever there was one from an intellectual point of view, is that it lessens the stakes of the collapse of industrial civilization that is coming our way.
And that makes people oblivious to the greatest threats collapse poses, and not among them are things like soil degradation, plastic pollution, plagues, peak oil, peak everything, ocean acidification, ocean death, ice loss, rising seas, Cat 7s, super twisters and a conventional World War Three.
*One of the reasons I say that everyone is really a Buddhist at heart. The point being, there is an almost universal belief that there is something after this, and whether we meet Moses at the Gates or come back as a ghost or are reincarnated in the form of mouse, it is a requirement for life on Earth to be eternaly there, chugging along.
I’m mean, to haunt a barren rock is an oxymoron.
I respect you, so I will not restate your argument in an especially stupid way so that I can more easily demean it. Obviously, as the saying goes, given a time frame long enough life expectancy falls to zero. I did not say, and have never said, that human life is “sacrosanct, and cannot perish.” I do argue that this climate crisis will not be sufficient to wipe out all human life on earth. That’s not faith based, it’s based on my interpretation of history, and the extreme difficulty of wiping out all of anything everywhere in the world. It’s not an expert opinion, it may not be correct, but neither is it absurd — even from “an intellectual point of view.”
I agree; as a species humans are considered ‘generalists’. We eat damn near anything and have shown that we can adapt to a dizzying variety of geographical and climactic conditions – consider, for example, the juxtaposition of the environmental challenges faced by Laplanders and the bushmen of the Kalahari.
I think we’ll be around for a very long time – long after memories of Netflix, artisanal coffees, and Velcro have faded.
Tom, you called the possibility of total extinction a “notion.” That was insulting to me personally as I have pointed out on this blog, numerous times, some very specific – collapse and climate change related – examples of how it could happen.
And please, feel free to attempt to demean any extinction related arguments I make. Perhaps you could be the first to prove me wrong, or convince me otherwise – convince me, for instance, that the Ozone Layer will remain intact after it is saturated with radionuclides like Cesium -137 or Uranium -235, or better yet, convince me that humans will never lose control of their nuclear power plants or vaporize them in a nuclear war. I would welcome that.
That said, I apologize for any offense given, now or ever. Much to my own chagrin, I have become a voice of darkness, I admit, and if you want that voice to go away it will.
It wouldn’t change my routine too much. I would still look to take a seat at the feet of a master whenever the – a little too infrequent for my tastes – chance arises, I just won’t bother bringing my keyboard.
The dictionary says that “notion” means: a theory or belief held by a person or group, i.e. the notion of original sin. I’m hard pressed to understand how the word is insulting to you personally. If I could figure it out I would apologize instantly. Also, there is a difference between providing examples of how extinction could happen and establishing beyond doubt that it definitely will happen. I enjoy your contributions, please continue.
I very much doubt that low sperm counts will cause the human race to go extinct for several reasons 1) not all human are equally exposed to the chemicals in question, 2) I bet not all humans are equally susceptible to the chemicals in question knocking out their fertility, 3) there’s going to be a big advantage to genotypes that are less susceptible to the chemicals, which will drive natural selection (with a human population of nearly 8 billion, there’s a lot of room for variation and mutation, and only a few need to be a lot less susceptible) and 4) As human population starts dropping, there will be less demand for the chemicals even if no efforts are made by anyone to reduce their contamination of people and environment, so their production will drop. And some people are going to intentionally reduce their exposure as much as they can, no matter what corporations and governments do or don’t do.
However, I would not be surprised if low sperm counts combine with climate change, economic and other environmental disasters to drastically reduce the world’s population during this century and the next. A big drop is exactly what I’m expecting, and this just adds to the likelihood of that.