In twenty years, will the best evidence available suggest that sperm counts have been substantially declining across most of the world?

Linked to the ACX post "Declining Sperm Count: Much More Than You Wanted To Know". If in 20 years, a brief review of the evidence convinces me that the sperm count decline was substantially real, I will resolve this YES. This is true even if the decline has stopped by 2043 (ie scientists then believe it was declining now, but is no longer declining at that time).

Get Ṁ200 play money
Sort by:
bought Ṁ20 of YES

obesity lowers T which reduces fertility

bought Ṁ25 of YES

I find it odd to care about it either way, it doesn't really change anything other than having to cum in your wife a few more times, and what kind of nerd is in a panic over that?

predicts YES

@VoyagerRock I think the panic is not about getting someone pregnant as soon as possible. It is about the fact that a lower sperm count sometimes cannot lead to a pregnancy at all.

predicts NO

@VoyagerRock yeah but what I want to get someone else's wife pregnant? If we're having an illicit affair there might not be enough time for that many orgasms.

predicts NO

@VoyagerRock To add to @HarishGanesan's point, sperm counts fall on a distribution. It's not just a matter of needing more sperm to get pregnant. A certain concentration of sperm per insemination is probably necessary. Given the existence of some threshold below which conception is difficult or impossible, a plenary lowering of sperm counts in everybody will necessarily move some people from being above that threshold to below it.

predicts YES

me personally i cant get off unless im thinkin bout bringing new suffering life into the world

bought Ṁ211 of YES

i think sperm counts around the world are lowering and its based. its kinda creepy that so many rats are so invested in microscopic germs that dont have any impact on civilized society

bought Ṁ75 of YES

If the answer is something like "yes but only because the average age is increasing" does this resolve as yes or no? i.e. the effect is shown to be real, but not in a way where it makes any difference to population-wide fertility or to regulatory trade-offs or to risks for individuals.

@ML Someone in the comments of the ACX post asserted that age was the primary cause and Scott said "Everyone realizes this and has controlled for it."

This suggests it won't count as a "substantially real" decline if the full explanation is "more people are old".

More related questions