>if the data on sperm counts is extrapolated to its logical conclusion, men will have little or no reproductive capacity from 2060 onwards.
No, that's not extrapolating to its logical conclusion. That's extrapolating a trend as if it will continue without changing. In reality, even at these lower levels, sperm counts are considered in the normal range.
I don't know why this was voted down. We've been performing in vitro fertilisation en masse since the 1980s. All of a sudden, men with non-motile sperm are fathering children.
So as a single cause it's not that massive, but at 1% of all births, the effects will soon stack up.
>nearly one in six couples in the US have trouble conceiving a baby, and about half the time the man is at the root of the problem.
While true that a laptop isn't good for male reproductive systems, it's still 50/50 chance (random) which sex is to blame for reproductive difficulties...
Scientific fact is no longer fact, but merely a social construct. Even though it is scientifically impossible for a man to get pregnant, that statement might hurt someone’s feelings so it must be banned.
And trying to even argue that men cannot be pregnant is even doing too much. It is as insane as trying to "debate" whether the earth is round.
reply