Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

As someone who's studied this quite a bit, I believe the answer is actually rather counterintuitive, and it is: changing culture.

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.

Male fertility is definitely in a decline and has been for a while: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_infertility_crisis. And, if it's caused by environmental factors, it's not really something evolution can fix as it doesn't work quick enough.

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.

Evolution would fix this, especially if it was truly severe it would be 'fixed' even more quickly but I doubt people can accept the consequences.

That's why I said "men as a whole having problems conceiving", but I could have been clearer. So to clarify:

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.

Total sperm counts have more than halved in the past 50 years to around 50 million. 15 million is considered infertile. Keep in mind there’s a wide variance between men and between each ejaculation and you only have a few chances per cycle.

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.

You site no sources for your conclusions, just declare yourself a self taught expert then say that you agree with the articles conclusions. Sure.

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...

> "This “1 percent effect” includes the rates of declining sperm counts, decreasing testosterone levels and increasing rates of testicular cancer, as well as a rise in the prevalence of erectile dysfunction."

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.

I heard that it is either now or we have already passed “peak baby”. And that “peak human” will be hit roughly 50 years from now

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.

I wonder whether it is true that we are less often "getting into fights" from the perspective of our body/CNS. Fewer fistfights, certainly. But - can our bodies tell the difference between a barfight and multiplayer videogame combat?

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.

As a 20 year combat athlete I can assure you that a physical fight and video games feel totally different. In a real fight every muscle fiber struggles at it’s limit for survival - the intensity is all consuming both mentally and physically.

Yes, I agree there are differences. But as someone who has gotten into a variety of physical conflicts myself (including amateur combat sports) I'm sure you will agree that there are similar differences between real life altercations as well.

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.

Yeah, this.

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.)

You sound as if your premise were that all there is to do is reproduce.

My premise? It's hardly news that sex (and death) drive pretty much all of what we call civilization, eh?

I mean, you've heard of DNA?

>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.

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.

> 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?

> So I'm actually pretty convinced it's changing culture

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”?

>it's obviously something evolution would fix real quick.

By making many man unable to have children? That hardly seems like a “fix”...

Men who carry a gene which lets them produce more offspring despite a lower testosterone level will spread there genes more than those without it

It's an interesting point because in Japan, men, especially in Tokyo, Osaka, are much more ok with being a effeminate in a way I don't think was always the case. Also being lazy, not really wanting to exercise etc is almost "cool".

Japan also has an insanely low birth rate.

I, too, suspect changing culture is an important factor. Culture influences aims, habits, attitudes, and dispositions, and these, in turn, can mobilize biological processes, like testosterone production, to adapt the body to the needs that are in principle expressed in those aims, habits, etc. However, we also have an objective need for testosterone in especially male biological processes and culture can spread deranged or deformed aims, habits, etc. that we easy to adopt and which then work to our detriment. You wouldn't say that a culture of anorexia would prove that we need to eat less.

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.

> When we measure a culture, we must measure it against human nature

I think you hit the nail on the head here. So much of our society outright _denies the existence_ of human nature.

> With most people you shake hands with [...]

Handshakes also went somewhat out of fashion

Fist bumps have been gaining in popularity. Are they professional, though?

The professional greeting nowadays is "I think you're on mute"

Not even evolution, men would just be prescribed testosterone gel/patches as a fertility treatment.

Generally speaking, exogenous testosterone causes a loss of fertility, perhaps counter-intuitively. Men on HRT typically have to pause treatment when they are trying to conceive.

That’s counterproductive, testosterone production is in the testes. Externally supplementing testosterone will actually signal the testes to stop/lower production of testosterone which also lowers production and quality of sperm.

Hence the tiny testes on steroid abusers.

I think you have the cart before the horse.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Saying what is old is better because it's the way nature intended is just a case of the linked.

Do naturalistic fallacies apply, when you are talking about nature itself? When you are saying that something is artificial because something really has been changed in the diet, environment, etc?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com