Sunday, April 18, 2021

The Great Pause Week 57: Mama at the Bat

"How do pandemics, climate variability, plastic, toxic pollution, and other threats affect fertility?"


Image after Saisha Bloom: beinG sLAVE

Some time back, I came across an odd fact that did not seem to reconcile with what had I thought about natural systems and planetary homeostasis. Girls all over the world, from the capital cities of Europe to the remote regions of Pakistan, were getting their periods younger. In Europe, menarche declined from age 17 in 1840 to about 13 in 1970. In North America it declined from about 15 in 1890 to 13 in 1920. The age of onset was shortening.

This extends the window of fertility, meaning women become able to bear more children during their lives. So why, if human overpopulation threatens all life on Earth, should that be “naturally” accelerating? 

One hypotheses is that since 1840, nutrition, average weight, and stress, have all changed markedly. Logically, an improved standard of living translates into begetting more children. Might it also be that we are genetically conditioned, by hundreds of thousands of years of extreme climate variability and other threats to our survival, to burst forth and flower when we luck into better conditions? We can observe, for instance, how the end of World War II brought a surge in baby-having, and how stresses from climate and culture are driving down fertility today. Nomadic refugees cannot easily accommodate childbearing and infant care. 

Another study suggests that vitamin D deficiency elevates risk of early menarche. Intuitively, this would correspond to a more outdoor lifestyle for children in 1840 compared to 1970. 

No datum directly shows that chemicals are responsible for the change. Data is accumulating, however, that environmental pollution may be affecting other factors. In 2017, Shanna Swan, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and her team of researchers completed a study that showed that over the past four decades, sperm levels among men in Western countries have dropped by more than 50 percent. They hypothesized that both lifestyle and chemical exposures may be the cause.

Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race

In the short span of a few decades, reduction in male fertility has overtaken the increase in female fertility and the extensions of average lifespan that were pushing population higher. Japan’s population has been in decline since 2006, creating problems as a greying population swamps pension and healthcare systems. It’s a similar story in South Korea, Italy, Spain, and across most of Eastern Europe. In only four industrialized countries are women, on average, having the two children required to sustain population size.

“It’s too early to be alarmist,” says Henri Leridon, who heads the Laboratory of Epidemiology, Demography, and Social Sciences at the University of Paris XI. On the lifestyle side of the equation, many factors converge to lower fertility:

  • Women in Western countries have been electing to have children later, which is bound to result in fewer children per family. 
  • The expansion of in vitro fertilization may have created a cohort of adults who have inherited their parents’ fertility problems.
  • The shift towards having more sexual partners post-adolescence has increased sexually transmitted diseases, including Chlamydia trachomatis, a major cause of female infertility which is rarely diagnosed and produces no obvious symptoms.
  • Up to ten percent of US women are thought to have infertility related to obesity, where eggs do not mature or there is a failure to ovulate.
  • Smoking, alcohol consumption and a range of other lifestyle factors can all reduce a couple’s ability to conceive, usually affecting women more severely than men. 

On the chemical exposures causality, researchers have reported:

  • A woman’s stock of eggs is defined by the number and maturity of her ovarian follicles when she herself was an embryo. Normal fetal follicular development depends on the mother’s diet and other lifestyle factors, including her exposure to chemicals.
  • Adult male sperm count and quality is determined largely by the development of sperm-nurturing Sertoli cells in the embryonic testes. This depends heavily on exposure to sex hormones in the womb, which again is influenced by the mother’s lifestyle and other environmental factors.

Where global fertility stands now is hard to say. For example, among 1,540 British couples aged 16–59, taking longer than one year to get pregnant fell from 21% in 1960–65 to just 10% in 1991–93. Fertility was rising. Yet, in a survey of thousands of USAnian couples, fertility declined between the early 1980s and the mid-1990s.

Swann thinks the US trend is the more likely to dominate in the future. Her team found that sperm counts have dropped almost 60% since 1973 and 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?

 — Erin Brockovich 

Swann writes, “The current state of reproductive affairs can’t continue much longer without threatening human survival. It’s a global existential crisis.” 

Writing for The Guardian on March 18, Erin Brockovich observed:

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 .… 
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.
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.

I suspect life on Earth would be considerably better, not just for humans but for all other creatures, if human population crashed to, say, one billion. What fertility alarmists seem to worry about is the economy.

But we have been here before.


Butler, D. The fertility riddle. Nature 432, 38–39 (2004). 03 November 2004

Flaws, Jodi A., Fady I. Sharara, Ellen K. Silbergeld, and Anne N. Hirshfield, “Environmental exposures and women’s reproductive health” in Women and Health, pp. 625–633. Academic Press, 2000

Pal, Lubna, and Hugh S. Taylor. “Role in Reproductive Biology and Reproductive Dysfunction in Women” in Vitamin D, pp. 783–795. Academic Press, 2018.


The COVID-19 pandemic has destroyed lives, livelihoods, and economies. But it has not slowed down climate change, which presents an existential threat to all life, humans included. The warnings could not be stronger: temperatures and fires are breaking records, greenhouse gas levels keep climbing, sea level is rising, and natural disasters are upsizing.

As the world confronts the pandemic and emerges into recovery, there is growing recognition that the recovery must be a pathway to a new carbon economy, one that goes beyond zero emissions and runs the industrial carbon cycle backwards — taking CO2 from the atmosphere and ocean, turning it into coal and oil, and burying it in the ground. The triple bottom line of this new economy is antifragility, regeneration, and resilience.

Help me get my blog posted every week. All Patreon donations and Blogger subscriptions are needed and welcomed. You are how we make this happen. Your contributions are being made to Global Village Institute, a tax-deductible 501(c)(3) charity. PowerUp! donors on Patreon get an autographed book off each first press run. Please help if you can.


“There are the good tipping points, the tipping points in public consciousness when it comes to addressing this crisis, and I think we are very close to that.”

 — Climate Scientist Michael Mann, January 13, 2021.


Shodo said...

As I read about the decline in fertility, I noted the panic. And yet, if there's one thing we need to do, it's to reduce population - and lowered fertility is absolutely the least painful way to do this.

I have not much to say to people worried about the economy, which could easily be rescued by taking back what the ultra-rich have stolen from the rest of us. People could have food, old people could have care, a new Conservation Corps could plant trees, rehabilitate prairies, and reverse desertification - and we could redesign industrial society to - well - stop destroying the planet. Probably mean de-industrializing, actually, and ending capitalism.

In short, fertility reduction is a very good thing. I think it would change if we stopped poisoning the planet. Call that a hunch, based on the data about causes of infertility. Imagine a world with just a billion people - beginning to recover, to breathe again.

Unknown said...

Reduction in fertility does not affect rural area in non industrialized part of the world (you can check amish in the US). So forget about a population collapse, even in the US.Local depletion will be immediately replenished by waves of migrants and europe, though suffering from a long term birth deficit, has constantly experienced a population increase via demographic transfer mainly from Africa or the near east.

Besides, if you feel relief in the thought that the west get punished, remember the Ted Kaczinsky word in his manifesto: eco conscious people should have as many kids as possible. Having many kids is not sustainable; but more unsustainable is the industrial society that make this demographic increase possible. And if you are conscous of this and decide to disappear (by having no siuccessor) than you leave the space and freedom to the very people who do not give a damn to go on destroying and take your place.

Johnnie Walker said...

My brother sister and I all chose not to sire children into this world and be vegan or vegetarians. My brother has never driven an automobile and depends entirely on public transportation or his bicycles.

Man's search for meaning is has become a study of self destruction...

This article indicates that homo sapiens sapiens is the canary in the coal mine. How fragile DNA RNA is when exposed to chemicals...

Thank you for publishing Albert. I will continue to donate as I am able.




The Great Change is published whenever the spirit moves me. Writings on this site are purely the opinion of Albert Bates and are subject to a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike 3.0 "unported" copyright. People are free to share (i.e, to copy, distribute and transmit this work) and to build upon and adapt this work – under the following conditions of attribution, n on-commercial use, and share alike: Attribution (BY): You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Non-Commercial (NC): You may not use this work for commercial purposes. Share Alike (SA): If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws. Therefore, the content of
this publication may be quoted or cited as per fair use rights. Any of the conditions of this license can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder (i.e., the Author). Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license. For the complete Creative Commons legal code affecting this publication, see here. Writings on this site do not constitute legal or financial advice, and do not reflect the views of any other firm, employer, or organization. Information on this site is not classified and is not otherwise subject to confidentiality or non-disclosure.