• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Penis Size Is Shrinking Due To Environmental Pollution

Bullet Club

Member
Oct 24, 2017
10,853
24,792
1,210
It's true. The average penis size of GAF members is down to 12 inches.

Erin Brockovich: Plummeting sperm counts, shrinking penises: toxic chemicals threaten humanity


The chemicals to blame for our reproductive crisis are found everywhere and in everything

The end of humankind? It may be coming sooner than we think, thanks to hormone-disrupting chemicals that are decimating fertility at an alarming rate around the globe. A new book called Countdown, by Shanna Swan, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, finds that sperm counts have dropped almost 60% since 1973. Following the trajectory we are on, Swan’s research suggests sperm counts could reach zero by 2045. Zero. Let that sink in. That would mean no babies. No reproduction. No more humans. Forgive me for asking: why isn’t the UN calling an emergency meeting on this right now?

The chemicals to blame for this crisis are found in everything from plastic containers and food wrapping, to waterproof clothes and fragrances in cleaning products, to soaps and shampoos, to electronics and carpeting. Some of them, called PFAS, are known as “forever chemicals”, because they don’t breakdown in the environment or the human body. They just accumulate and accumulate – doing more and more damage, minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day. Now, it seems, humanity is reaching a breaking point.

Swan’s book is staggering in its findings. “In some parts of the world, the average twentysomething woman today is less fertile than her grandmother was at 35,” Swan writes. In addition to that, Swan finds that, on average, a man today will have half of the sperm his grandfather had. “The current state of reproductive affairs can’t continue much longer without threatening human survival,” writes Swan, adding: “It’s a global existential crisis.” That’s not hyperbole. That’s just science.

As if this wasn’t terrifying enough, Swan’s research finds that these chemicals aren’t just dramatically reducing semen quality, they are also shrinking penis size and volume of the testes. This is nothing short of a full-scale emergency for humanity.

Swan’s book echoes previous research, which has found that PFAS harms sperm production, disrupts the male hormone and is correlated to a “reduction of semen quality, testicular volume and penile length”. These chemicals are literally confusing our bodies, making them send mix messages and go haywire.

Given everything we know about these chemicals, why isn’t more being done? Right now, there is a paltry patchwork of inadequate legislation responding to this threat. Laws and regulations vary from country to country, region to region, and, in the United States, state to state. The European Union, for example, has restricted several phthalates in toys and sets limits on phthalates considered “reprotoxic” – meaning they harm the human reproductive capacities – in food production.

In the United States, a scientific study found phthalate exposure “widespread” in infants, and that the chemicals were found in the urine of babies who came into contact with baby shampoos, lotions and powders. Still, aggressive regulation is lacking, not least because of lobbying by chemical industry giants.

In the state of Washington, lawmakers managed to pass the Pollution Prevention for Our Future Act, which “directs state agencies to address classes of chemicals and moves away from a chemical by chemical approach, which has historically resulted in companies switching to equally bad or worse substitutes. The first chemical classes to be addressed in products include phthalates, PFAS, PCBs, alkyphenol ethoxylate and bisphenol compounds, and organohalogen flame retardants.” The state has taken important steps to address the extent of chemical pollution, but by and large, the United States, like many other countries, is fighting a losing battle because of weak, inadequate legislation.

In the United States today, for example, you can’t eat the deer meat caught in in Oscoda, Michigan, as the health department there issued a “do not eat” advisory for deer caught near the former air force base because of staggeringly high PFOS levels in the muscle of one deer.

And, just the other week, hundreds of residents who live near Luke air force base in Arizona were advised not to drink their water, when tests detected high levels of toxic chemicals. Scientists have found these substances in the blood of nearly all the people they tested in the US. No country or region on earth is untouched by PFAS contamination. It is a global problem. PFAS has been found in every corner of the globe. It is virtually present in the bodies of every human. It’s found in fish deep in the sea, and birds flying high in the sky.

And it’s killing us, literally, by harming and attacking the very source of life: our reproductive capacities. The rapid death and decline of sperm must be addressed, and it must be addressed now. There simply is no time to lose.

Source: The Guardian
 

GeorgPrime

Bonus Member
Jan 9, 2020
3,150
3,683
550
It's true. The average penis size of GAF members is down to 12 inches.

Erin Brockovich: Plummeting sperm counts, shrinking penises: toxic chemicals threaten humanity


The chemicals to blame for our reproductive crisis are found everywhere and in everything

The end of humankind? It may be coming sooner than we think, thanks to hormone-disrupting chemicals that are decimating fertility at an alarming rate around the globe. A new book called Countdown, by Shanna Swan, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, finds that sperm counts have dropped almost 60% since 1973. Following the trajectory we are on, Swan’s research suggests sperm counts could reach zero by 2045. Zero. Let that sink in. That would mean no babies. No reproduction. No more humans. Forgive me for asking: why isn’t the UN calling an emergency meeting on this right now?

The chemicals to blame for this crisis are found in everything from plastic containers and food wrapping, to waterproof clothes and fragrances in cleaning products, to soaps and shampoos, to electronics and carpeting. Some of them, called PFAS, are known as “forever chemicals”, because they don’t breakdown in the environment or the human body. They just accumulate and accumulate – doing more and more damage, minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day. Now, it seems, humanity is reaching a breaking point.

Swan’s book is staggering in its findings. “In some parts of the world, the average twentysomething woman today is less fertile than her grandmother was at 35,” Swan writes. In addition to that, Swan finds that, on average, a man today will have half of the sperm his grandfather had. “The current state of reproductive affairs can’t continue much longer without threatening human survival,” writes Swan, adding: “It’s a global existential crisis.” That’s not hyperbole. That’s just science.

As if this wasn’t terrifying enough, Swan’s research finds that these chemicals aren’t just dramatically reducing semen quality, they are also shrinking penis size and volume of the testes. This is nothing short of a full-scale emergency for humanity.

Swan’s book echoes previous research, which has found that PFAS harms sperm production, disrupts the male hormone and is correlated to a “reduction of semen quality, testicular volume and penile length”. These chemicals are literally confusing our bodies, making them send mix messages and go haywire.

Given everything we know about these chemicals, why isn’t more being done? Right now, there is a paltry patchwork of inadequate legislation responding to this threat. Laws and regulations vary from country to country, region to region, and, in the United States, state to state. The European Union, for example, has restricted several phthalates in toys and sets limits on phthalates considered “reprotoxic” – meaning they harm the human reproductive capacities – in food production.

In the United States, a scientific study found phthalate exposure “widespread” in infants, and that the chemicals were found in the urine of babies who came into contact with baby shampoos, lotions and powders. Still, aggressive regulation is lacking, not least because of lobbying by chemical industry giants.

In the state of Washington, lawmakers managed to pass the Pollution Prevention for Our Future Act, which “directs state agencies to address classes of chemicals and moves away from a chemical by chemical approach, which has historically resulted in companies switching to equally bad or worse substitutes. The first chemical classes to be addressed in products include phthalates, PFAS, PCBs, alkyphenol ethoxylate and bisphenol compounds, and organohalogen flame retardants.” The state has taken important steps to address the extent of chemical pollution, but by and large, the United States, like many other countries, is fighting a losing battle because of weak, inadequate legislation.

In the United States today, for example, you can’t eat the deer meat caught in in Oscoda, Michigan, as the health department there issued a “do not eat” advisory for deer caught near the former air force base because of staggeringly high PFOS levels in the muscle of one deer.

And, just the other week, hundreds of residents who live near Luke air force base in Arizona were advised not to drink their water, when tests detected high levels of toxic chemicals. Scientists have found these substances in the blood of nearly all the people they tested in the US. No country or region on earth is untouched by PFAS contamination. It is a global problem. PFAS has been found in every corner of the globe. It is virtually present in the bodies of every human. It’s found in fish deep in the sea, and birds flying high in the sky.

And it’s killing us, literally, by harming and attacking the very source of life: our reproductive capacities. The rapid death and decline of sperm must be addressed, and it must be addressed now. There simply is no time to lose.

Source: The Guardian

We are way too many humans anyway. Time to lose the ability to reproduce for some decades and everything will be fine again
 

Taxexemption

Member
Oct 11, 2011
1,584
2,073
910
We are way too many humans anyway. Time to lose the ability to reproduce for some decades and everything will be fine again

This is so shortsighted it's painful to read. We could end life on earth by reducing fertility enough. We may not be able to maintain critical infrastructure. What happens to all the nuclear reactors and every other major thing that requires maintenance that humans have built?


Also, you assume you can just go the other way. There are always unforeseen consequences to new events. Look at the passenger pigeon for example. There used to be so many in North America that they could blot out the sun when they flew by for hours or even days, now there are none left. It's not understood why they went extinct. It's thought by some that there was a dynamic in the species that could only exist if there were billions of them, and once you got their numbers down a little lower, that dynamic ceased to function and their population collapsed completely. Humans could very well be the same way, you go below a certain level in a certain period of time, and poof, in another generation or two the number goes pretty close to zero and if anyone is left they are exploring the apocalyptic hellscape created by there being too few people to maintain the infrastructure.
 
Last edited:

GeorgPrime

Bonus Member
Jan 9, 2020
3,150
3,683
550
This is so shortsighted it's painful to read. We could end life on earth by reducing fertility enough. We may not be able to maintain critical infrastructure. What happens to all the nuclear reactors and every other major thing that requires maintenance that humans have built?


Also, you assume you can just go the other way. There are always unforeseen consequences to new events. Look at the passenger pigeon for example. There used to be so many in North America that they could blot out the sun when they flew by for hours or even days, now there are none left. It's not understood why they went extinct. It's thought by some that there was a dynamic in the species that could only exist if there were billions of them, and once you got their numbers down a little lower, that dynamic ceased to function and their population collapsed completely. Humans could very well be the same way, you go below a certain level in a certain period of time, and poof, in another generation or two the number goes pretty close to zero and if anyone is left they are exploring the apocalyptic hellscape created by there being too few people to maintain the infrastructure.

You dont need 9.000.000.0000 people to keep those reactors running.

Even with a lower population we could shut off a lot of atom reactors because you wouldnt need them anymore.

The world can survive with Thanos snapping away 50 % of it.

Its shortsighted to say that we really need 9.000.0000.0000 people on a planet that already has so many problems due to overpopulation.

The world existed before we had 9.000.000.000 people and she will exist even if Thanos would snap 50 % away.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Karonoth
Feb 18, 2019
1,276
945
450
It's true. The average penis size of GAF members is down to 12 inches.

Erin Brockovich: Plummeting sperm counts, shrinking penises: toxic chemicals threaten humanity


The chemicals to blame for our reproductive crisis are found everywhere and in everything

The end of humankind? It may be coming sooner than we think, thanks to hormone-disrupting chemicals that are decimating fertility at an alarming rate around the globe. A new book called Countdown, by Shanna Swan, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, finds that sperm counts have dropped almost 60% since 1973. Following the trajectory we are on, Swan’s research suggests sperm counts could reach zero by 2045. Zero. Let that sink in. That would mean no babies. No reproduction. No more humans. Forgive me for asking: why isn’t the UN calling an emergency meeting on this right now?

The chemicals to blame for this crisis are found in everything from plastic containers and food wrapping, to waterproof clothes and fragrances in cleaning products, to soaps and shampoos, to electronics and carpeting. Some of them, called PFAS, are known as “forever chemicals”, because they don’t breakdown in the environment or the human body. They just accumulate and accumulate – doing more and more damage, minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day. Now, it seems, humanity is reaching a breaking point.

Swan’s book is staggering in its findings. “In some parts of the world, the average twentysomething woman today is less fertile than her grandmother was at 35,” Swan writes. In addition to that, Swan finds that, on average, a man today will have half of the sperm his grandfather had. “The current state of reproductive affairs can’t continue much longer without threatening human survival,” writes Swan, adding: “It’s a global existential crisis.” That’s not hyperbole. That’s just science.

As if this wasn’t terrifying enough, Swan’s research finds that these chemicals aren’t just dramatically reducing semen quality, they are also shrinking penis size and volume of the testes. This is nothing short of a full-scale emergency for humanity.

Swan’s book echoes previous research, which has found that PFAS harms sperm production, disrupts the male hormone and is correlated to a “reduction of semen quality, testicular volume and penile length”. These chemicals are literally confusing our bodies, making them send mix messages and go haywire.

Given everything we know about these chemicals, why isn’t more being done? Right now, there is a paltry patchwork of inadequate legislation responding to this threat. Laws and regulations vary from country to country, region to region, and, in the United States, state to state. The European Union, for example, has restricted several phthalates in toys and sets limits on phthalates considered “reprotoxic” – meaning they harm the human reproductive capacities – in food production.

In the United States, a scientific study found phthalate exposure “widespread” in infants, and that the chemicals were found in the urine of babies who came into contact with baby shampoos, lotions and powders. Still, aggressive regulation is lacking, not least because of lobbying by chemical industry giants.

In the state of Washington, lawmakers managed to pass the Pollution Prevention for Our Future Act, which “directs state agencies to address classes of chemicals and moves away from a chemical by chemical approach, which has historically resulted in companies switching to equally bad or worse substitutes. The first chemical classes to be addressed in products include phthalates, PFAS, PCBs, alkyphenol ethoxylate and bisphenol compounds, and organohalogen flame retardants.” The state has taken important steps to address the extent of chemical pollution, but by and large, the United States, like many other countries, is fighting a losing battle because of weak, inadequate legislation.

In the United States today, for example, you can’t eat the deer meat caught in in Oscoda, Michigan, as the health department there issued a “do not eat” advisory for deer caught near the former air force base because of staggeringly high PFOS levels in the muscle of one deer.

And, just the other week, hundreds of residents who live near Luke air force base in Arizona were advised not to drink their water, when tests detected high levels of toxic chemicals. Scientists have found these substances in the blood of nearly all the people they tested in the US. No country or region on earth is untouched by PFAS contamination. It is a global problem. PFAS has been found in every corner of the globe. It is virtually present in the bodies of every human. It’s found in fish deep in the sea, and birds flying high in the sky.

And it’s killing us, literally, by harming and attacking the very source of life: our reproductive capacities. The rapid death and decline of sperm must be addressed, and it must be addressed now. There simply is no time to lose.

Source: The Guardian
The question is: are vaginas widening too, due to ozone hole enlargement over time?
 
Feb 18, 2019
1,276
945
450
How much is due to this vs being fat? The fatter you are the smaller your penis is. Being fat is probably not good for women's fertility either.
Smaller to look at least
I once were near obese as a kid, my penis looked really small ever for a kid
Then lost all the excess weight before adolescence, I Even discovered to be a little over average, so it's really dependent lol
 

Taxexemption

Member
Oct 11, 2011
1,584
2,073
910
You dont need 9.000.000.0000 people to keep those reactors running.

Even with a lower population we could shut off a lot of atom reactors because you wouldnt need them anymore.

The world can survive with Thanos snapping away 50 % of it.

Its shortsighted to say that we really need 9.000.0000.0000 people on a planet that already has so many problems due to overpopulation.

The world existed before we had 9.000.000.000 people and she will exist even if Thanos would snap 50 % away.

Even if you don't need 9 billion to run the reactor, how big does your population have to be to produce enough individuals of high enough IQ and the correct interests to do that? What if average IQ is going down and it may be the case that we will start running out of these people at some point if the population just stays stagnant? Not everyone is capable of being a nuclear engineer. If you get people used to the idea that people are bad, or that reproducing is, what makes you think you can get them to go back the other way? Maybe one of these things is a lot easier than the other.


What if there are differences between those who can still reproduce and those that don't, and this shifts humanity towards a direction you wouldn't like? I've long theorized that anti-natalist views for example are only able to persuade empathetic people with good planning skills not to reproduce, which will have the long term effect of selecting against genes related to empathy and planning. You could end up with a less empathetic, and more impulsive population as a result of anti-natalist views. This is something that is completely unconsidered in common rhetoric on whether or not it's good or bad to reproduce.


Smaller to look at least
I once were near obese as a kid, my penis looked really small ever for a kid
Then lost all the excess weight before adolescence, I Even discovered to be a little over average, so it's really dependent lol

When you are fat some of the skin is sucked into your gut. Your penis is smaller when you are fat, but it's not permanent, and you can get it back by losing the weight. This has actually been studied, you lose about 1 inch of penis length for every 20 pounds you are overweight.
 
Last edited:
Nov 7, 2020
3,203
8,827
565
When you are fat some of the skin is sucked into your gut. Your penis is smaller when you are fat, but it's not permanent, and you can get it back by losing the weight. This has actually been studied

Yeah, I'm sure this has been "studied" by "scientists" and you definitely didn't make this up to make excuses for your little penis.

 

GeorgPrime

Bonus Member
Jan 9, 2020
3,150
3,683
550
Even if you don't need 9 billion to run the reactor, how big does your population have to be to produce enough individuals of high enough IQ and the correct interests to do that? What if average IQ is going down and it may be the case that we will start running out of these people at some point if the population just stays stagnant? Not everyone is capable of being a nuclear engineer. If you get people used to the idea that people are bad, or that reproducing is, what makes you think you can get them to go back the other way? Maybe one of these things is a lot easier than the other.


What if there are differences between those who can still reproduce and those that don't, and this shifts humanity towards a direction you wouldn't like? I've long theorized that anti-natalist views for example are only able to persuade empathetic people with good planning skills not to reproduce, which will have the long term effect of selecting against genes related to empathy and planning. You could end up with a less empathetic, and more impulsive population as a result of anti-natalist views. This is something that is completely unconsidered in common rhetoric on whether or not it's good or bad to reproduce.




When you are fat some of the skin is sucked into your gut. Your penis is smaller when you are fat, but it's not permanent, and you can get it back by losing the weight. This has actually been studied, you lose about 1 inch of penis length for every 20 pounds you are overweight.

I believe its unavoidable.

Cancer is already getting out of control, infertility rises, people going crazy all over the planet... Nature is adjusting itself sooner or later.

So we should think about solutions what we do as soon as the growth of humans stops or reverts back for some decades. They already said that the growth will stop in a few years.

Most babys are born in low IQ families anyway because intelligent people with high IQ have a low priority for getting kids.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

Taxexemption

Member
Oct 11, 2011
1,584
2,073
910
I believe its unavoidable.

Cancer is already getting out of control, infertility rises, people going crazy all over the planet... Nature is adjusting itself sooner or later.

So we should think about solutions what we do as soon as the growth of humans stops or reverts back for some decades. They already said that the growth will stop in a few years.

Most babys are born in low IQ families anyway because intelligent people with high IQ have a low priority for getting kids.

It probably is unavoidable, I'm specifically concerned that all of the anti-natalist views out there discourage the people that actually should be having kids from doing it. You can convince someone of moderate to high intelligence not to have kids. You can't convince someone with a low IQ and low impulse control.


For the reasonably intelligent person it's easy to see the cost of kids when you rub it in their face, and it's much harder to see the benefits. So once you shame smart kids about the subject and tell them they are hurting the environment, if you convince them, you basically sterilized one of the small number of people out there that actually should be re-producing. People with low IQ and impulse control cannot be dissuaded from having children, they aren't planning to when they bust a nut.


The nerdy rocket scientist or computer programmer, or anyone else that is intelligent and can be made to second guess the idea of re-producing, because they can clearly see the costs, is the exact person you want re-producing. They are also part of the small percentage of the population that can actually be talked out of it.
 
Last edited:

epicnemesis

Member
May 9, 2008
1,841
3,459
1,315
I wonder if this is a developed world phenomenon or if this is happening in India/African countries as well. That’s where population growth is most pronounced and the bigger issue. The developed world’s population growth is limited by market forces for the most part, with couples only having the number of kids they can handle. In the third world it’s a different story, with people in poverty just cranking out children. That’s where population growth really needs to be stymied.

Don’t worry though, if it isn’t already happening I’m sure Bill Gates will come up with some horrific solution that the news will applaud as a brave and heroic move.

With that said, I’m not opposed to a couple years of “Children of Men” just in time for all these crazy 20 year olds to not pass down their crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

TonyK

Member
Aug 13, 2020
909
1,468
400
I don't know what to write because depending of my answer it could be inferred the size of my penis.
 
  • Empathy
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

Goro Majima

Kitty Genovese Member
Sep 2, 2007
31,656
4,818
1,470
What a garbage headline.

Went digging for the actual research backing this up:


Even in the paper's introduction they acknowledge that there are several factors and not just "toxins" or whatever.

Fourth, sperm count and other semen parameters have been plausibly associated with multiple environmental influences, including endocrine disrupting chemicals (Bloom et al., 2015; Gore et al., 2015), pesticides (Chiu et al., 2016), heat (Zhang et al., 2015) and lifestyle factors, including diet (Afeiche et al., 2013; Jensen et al., 2013), stress (Gollenberg et al., 2010; Nordkap et al., 2016), smoking (Sharma et al., 2016) and BMI (Sermondade et al., 2013; Eisenberg et al., 2014a).

So there's reason to believe it could be any combination of pesticides, chemicals, heat, obesity, stress, and smoking and that's just what we think could be true right now.

Erin Brockovich is basing this on a book written by Shanna Swan who is one of the authors of the paper in question. In her book, she is making trend line assumptions that she is unable to support in her own research which simply states in the conclusion:

Conclusion​

In this comprehensive meta-analysis, sperm counts whether measured by SC or TSC declined significantly among men from North America, Europe and Australia during 1973–2011, with a 50–60% decline among men unselected by fertility, with no evidence of a ‘leveling off’ in recent years. These findings strongly suggest a significant decline in male reproductive health, which has serious implications beyond fertility concerns. Research on causes and implications of this decline is urgently needed

She's just taking her own regression model and saying "well if things continue...." and wrote a book about it.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

Aesius

Member
May 19, 2009
7,340
1,586
1,220
What will happen first? We all die from global warming or sperm counts reach 0?
 

Ailynn

Faith - Hope - Love
Jan 1, 2017
2,105
11,427
985
Tennessee, USA
Sadly, this has been happening for a while.
I highly recommend everyone watch this documentary:



This stuff is serious and effects us all in various ways. Take my life as an example of the possible dangers- I was exposed to chemicals in the womb that caused me to be born with sexual differentiation...including a couple of genital abnormalities and gender dysphoria.
 
Last edited:

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
5,709
5,381
760
Finland
You dont need 9.000.000.0000 people to keep those reactors running.

Even with a lower population we could shut off a lot of atom reactors because you wouldnt need them anymore.

The world can survive with Thanos snapping away 50 % of it.

Its shortsighted to say that we really need 9.000.0000.0000 people on a planet that already has so many problems due to overpopulation.

The world existed before we had 9.000.000.000 people and she will exist even if Thanos would snap 50 % away.

The US has around 0,5 billion people. Europe has around 0,7 billion people. Asia has around 5 billion people.

The US and Europe do not have the same pollution problem Asia has, not even close.

This kind of a decrease in population could mean the end for Europe and the US (plus Canada) while Asia would still have a lot of people doing what they were doing before.
 

Durask

Member
Feb 6, 2012
2,981
2,193
860
How much is due to this vs being fat? The fatter you are the smaller your penis is. Being fat is probably not good for women's fertility either.

My understanding is that your penis size depends largely on testosterone levels of your mother during gestation...
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Shaqazooloo