Climate Change

profwoot

SS.org Regular
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
562
Reaction score
650
40 years times roughly 8 billion people equals a fair amount of room for genetic drift.
A. No it doesn't. That's two generations.

B. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. A change like this would require very strong selection pressure over at least hundreds of generations.
 

Grindspine

likes pointy things
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
1,198
Location
Indiana
A. No it doesn't. That's two generations.

B. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. A change like this would require very strong selection pressure over at least hundreds of generations.
My knowledge and experience with population genetics in biology labs at an accredited university disagrees with your assessment.

Summing forty years as "two generations" does not take into account the sheer number of births to reach 8 billion people.
 

profwoot

SS.org Regular
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
562
Reaction score
650
My knowledge and experience with population genetics in biology labs at an accredited university disagrees with your assessment.

Summing forty years as "two generations" does not take into account the sheer number of births to reach 8 billion people.
Let's not go credential dropping, son. If you think two generations or so of genetic drift, a random process, might be responsible for cutting sperm counts in half worldwide, then you weren't paying much attention during your brief stint in those accredited university biology labs.

I get that everything sucks so everyone is on edge, but god damn do folks hang on tight to every little silly opinion.
 

narad

Progressive metal and politics
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
13,409
Reaction score
22,682
Location
Tokyo
My knowledge and experience with population genetics in biology labs at an accredited university disagrees with your assessment.

Summing forty years as "two generations" does not take into account the sheer number of births to reach 8 billion people.

Definitely not a good way to make an argument -- you might as well lead with some relevant pieces of information taught at the accredited university rather than basically shut-down discourse altogether. How you then weigh that evidence against the fact that the world is vastly different from last generation, and the previous generation, in terms of everything from environment to behavior, I don't know.

But it worries me that you're arguing against the importance of "generations" as a measuring unit when talking about selectional pressures.
 

Grindspine

likes pointy things
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
1,198
Location
Indiana
Let's not go credential dropping, son. If you think two generations or so of genetic drift, a random process, might be responsible for cutting sperm counts in half worldwide, then you weren't paying much attention during your brief stint in those accredited university biology labs.

I get that everything sucks so everyone is on edge, but god damn do folks hang on tight to every little silly opinion.
Mentioning some opinion based on relevant education is better for discourse than a patronizing tone with calling one "son".

Definitely not a good way to make an argument -- you might as well lead with some relevant pieces of information taught at the accredited university rather than basically shut-down discourse altogether. How you then weigh that evidence against the fact that the world is vastly different from last generation, and the previous generation, in terms of everything from environment to behavior, I don't know.

But it worries me that you're arguing against the importance of "generations" as a measuring unit when talking about selectional pressures.
Sperm counts drop as life expectancy increases. Sure, I could write a paper for you on the topic, but I have a mortgage to pay and you aren't paying me for my aforementioned knowledge and experience.
 

narad

Progressive metal and politics
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
13,409
Reaction score
22,682
Location
Tokyo
Sperm counts drop as life expectancy increases. Sure, I could write a paper for you on the topic, but I have a mortgage to pay and you aren't paying me for my aforementioned knowledge and experience.

I guess a mortgage to pay is today's version of "I have a proof but it is too long to fit into the margins"
 

bostjan

MicroMetal
Contributor
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
21,030
Reaction score
12,754
Location
St. Johnsbury, VT USA
A. No it doesn't. That's two generations.

B. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. A change like this would require very strong selection pressure over at least hundreds of generations.
His point is that, when there are thousands of options of people to choose to mate with, and there is less social and environmental pressure to mate at all, the process of selecting traits to pass on to the next generation is far more exclusive, which accounts for more rapid evolution of population traits. I don't know how strong the effect is, though
 

profwoot

SS.org Regular
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
562
Reaction score
650
Mentioning some opinion based on relevant education is better for discourse than a patronizing tone with calling one "son".


Sperm counts drop as life expectancy increases. Sure, I could write a paper for you on the topic, but I have a mortgage to pay and you aren't paying me for my aforementioned knowledge and experience.
There's no reason to think that any inverse correlation between sperm counts and life expectancy is causal in nature. Life expectancy increased as medicine (particularly obstetric/neonatal) got better and society in general got safer. Sperm counts started dropping later, only in the last several decades, after most of the life expectancy gains had already happened.
 

nightflameauto

SS.org Regular
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,088
Reaction score
2,638
Location
Sioux Falls, SD
even if we've inflicted lowered sperm counts on ourselves, in the grand scheme it sounds a lot like a natural system tending toward balance

bring on the no-babies, I say!
In "modern" living there's three things that are certain:
1. You will pay. Oh, motherfucker, you will pay.
2. Death comes for all of us, regardless of how preachy you've been your entire life.
3. There is very, VERY little natural left to us in modern society.

Sedentary lifestyles lead to lowered testosterone production leads to lowered sperm count. Not a hard thing to sort out. While this isn't completely and 100% to blame, it's a big part of it. Granted, stuffing our faces with every chemical under the sun isn't helping much. Eating found grains, fresh killed meat, fresh eggs is a far cry from the polluted toxic radiated bullshit we can buy at most grocery stores. Also, spending most of your time out hunting, gathering, or running from danger is a far cry from sitting at a desk staring at artificial lights for 99.99% of your waking hours.

We didn't evolve to live this way. And we are paying the price. Each of us individually, and as a species.
 

Drew

Forum MVP
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
32,378
Reaction score
9,236
Location
Somerville, MA
Thomas Malthus - Essay on the Principle of Population sounds like a necessary reading assignment for you.
Malthus died in the 1830s. The irony here was, he was alive for the industrial revolution, but failed to see how the rapid increases in productivity would raise the human population above bare subsistence and allow society not to collapse back to barely above starvation level time and time again.

I have always been perplexed when deniers say that climate change is bunk, and then go on to point out how many variables there are. In what other field would you have a best guess that 90%+ of experts agree is the best guess, which includes an action plan to stop things from getting so bad, and it'd be fair to dismiss the action plan because "well, we don't really know for certain if it'll get that bad?"
I mean, beyond that, the fact that most of the "the models are wrong!" guys have shifted from saying that the models are wrong because they projected the planet to warm and it didn't, but from saying the models are wrong because they predicted more or less warming than we got.

Like, the model may not precisely generate the correct value, but if it points you in the right direction, then it gets you close enough to make some policy decisions. True North isn't exactly Magnetic North, but for much of the globe you can still use a magnetic compass to navigate VERY effectively, you know?
 

wheresthefbomb

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
6,389
Location
Fairbanks, AK
In "modern" living there's three things that are certain:
1. You will pay. Oh, motherfucker, you will pay.
2. Death comes for all of us, regardless of how preachy you've been your entire life.
3. There is very, VERY little natural left to us in modern society.

Sedentary lifestyles lead to lowered testosterone production leads to lowered sperm count. Not a hard thing to sort out. While this isn't completely and 100% to blame, it's a big part of it. Granted, stuffing our faces with every chemical under the sun isn't helping much. Eating found grains, fresh killed meat, fresh eggs is a far cry from the polluted toxic radiated bullshit we can buy at most grocery stores. Also, spending most of your time out hunting, gathering, or running from danger is a far cry from sitting at a desk staring at artificial lights for 99.99% of your waking hours.

We didn't evolve to live this way. And we are paying the price. Each of us individually, and as a species.

another perspective is that everything we do is necessarily "natural," if completely unprecedented and often deleterious to our own survival

I still say bring on the no-babies
 

nightflameauto

SS.org Regular
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,088
Reaction score
2,638
Location
Sioux Falls, SD
another perspective is that everything we do is necessarily "natural," if completely unprecedented and often deleterious to our own survival

I still say bring on the no-babies
Yeah, I try to be fairly understanding when it comes to different perspectives, but the perspective that everything humans do has to be natural just because we sprang from nature is a tough one to swallow. I know we aren't the only species to sometimes cause disasters for ourselves, but we are the only one that's managed to do it on a planetary wide scale. While some are proud of that, it doesn't feel very 'natural.'

Now, if somebody were to get nitty-gritty "where's the cutoff" about it on me, I'd say once you got a species spending more of its time shuffling virtual bullshit around rather than doing anything physical? You've slipped past natural. I'm sure there's some point, likely before the printing press, possibly around or even before the dark ages, where the line between natural and not natural was fairly blurry, but there's nothing natural about the way a modern American lives. Not even a little.

And hey, I'm all for less babies. If it brings extermination? Meh. I did care at one time. But I seriously think I went full George Carlin and gave the fuck up. We're not gonna turn ourselves around because that might impact the bottom line on the 1%. So the 1% will be all that's left, with a few token births allowed among the plebes so they can keep some servants around? Good for us. Full evolution to our final form and we deserve what we get.
 

Andromalia

Pardon my french
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
2,865
Location
Le Mans, France
Genetics and environment aren't the only selection factor,especially in the case of humans, where the evolutionary presure can be changed by conscious choices. Simple case: war. If the low sperm count but more technologically advanced decide to eradicate the high sperm count "threat", that's your pressure right there and it has nothing to do with genetics.
 

TakeNoPrisoners

SS.org Regular
Joined
Nov 10, 2022
Messages
12
Reaction score
5
Your testes don't know that there are 8 billion people in the world, and there's certainly no selection pressure in favor of lower sperm counts going on. So while it might currently seem like a natural "balancing" that nobody should worry about, there is simply no biological mechanism by which that could occur. Sperm counts aren't "balancing"; they're dropping precipitously. Whatever is causing it is going to keep causing it until it becomes a big problem, unless we figure out what it is and remedy it.
I don’t think you can rule out that there is no selection pressure towards lower sperm count. Sperm production is tied to testosterone production which is largely driven by positive feedback from things like competition in physical activities, hierarchical societies and exercise in general. People living more sedate less active lives in which there is less dominance heiarxhies determined by aggressive behavior and agresssion is less accepted and encouraged will reduce testosterone production which in turn lowers sperm count. Also diet such as eating more soy and less meat can reduce testosterone there can be lots of environmental factors that are natural rather than simply toxic chemicals that may be driving people towards less sperm production. Also in general small tested are associated with more parenting in the mammals in general and so it’s also could be push towards males being more parenting and dedicated towards raising children.

I agree may seem rather rapid for such an evolutionary change but evolution can take place quickly if there is pressure esp with something like this wherre it can more matter of epigentics and development and dramatic changes can take place without any genetic change.


I seems like it’s all just speculation but I think it’s an interesting point.
 

TakeNoPrisoners

SS.org Regular
Joined
Nov 10, 2022
Messages
12
Reaction score
5
I have nothing constructive to add, but I love that our guitar forum has a "what's happening to our balls" thread disguised as a climate change politics bait thread.
Lol I was going to comment something how the hell did a thread about climate change turn into one about sperm count

why is there climate change?

Answer: because you won’t stop touching yourself .. didn’t your mother ever warn you if you keep doing that you’re gonna make the sea levels rise!
 

Grindspine

likes pointy things
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
1,198
Location
Indiana
There's no reason to think that any inverse correlation between sperm counts and life expectancy is causal in nature. Life expectancy increased as medicine (particularly obstetric/neonatal) got better and society in general got safer. Sperm counts started dropping later, only in the last several decades, after most of the life expectancy gains had already happened.
Birth rates drop as life expectancy increases in general across populations. High infant mortality is correlated with very high birth rates and lower life expectancy as well.

There is a marked correlation. There is strong possibility of a causal relationship.
 

profwoot

SS.org Regular
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
562
Reaction score
650
Birth rates drop as life expectancy increases in general across populations. High infant mortality is correlated with very high birth rates and lower life expectancy as well.

There is a marked correlation. There is strong possibility of a causal relationship.
Well yeah, this is anthropology 101 stuff. When kids stop dying parents stop having so many. Is this supposed to support your contention that sperm counts dropped as a result of natural evolutionary processes across the globe in two generations? Or are you actually saying that causal relationship is not because of parental choice but rather because as child mortality drops everyone's testes start exploding?
 


Top