Hi Ugo, thanks again for a very interesting point of view. If you are going to speak to an enlightened audience perhaps I might suggest some points for the discussion (references on my substack "Testeronecollapse"):
1. For reproduction we need sperm which since 1950 is in accelerating decline, now by >2 percent per year, total loss must exceed 50 percent. Today's levels are still sufficient but specialists agree that from mid-century on there will be increasing problems with reproduction based on sperm decline alone.
2. For male development and sexual behaviour we need testosterone. Data are available since 1970 and especially in younger men point to an accelerating decline of 0,6-1 percent per year. Since sperm decline and testosterone decline share most causes also testosterone decline must have started ca. 1950 and must now amount to about 50 percent. This must already contribute to the decreased sexual activity which has been measured in many countries (D, F, UK, US, Australia) and to falling birth rates.
3. Decline of sperm and testosterone together correspond to a progressive and accelerating functional castration. We are halfway through; severe reproductive problems will start mid century, reproduction will then come to an abrupt Seneca cliff within two or three decades and castration will be complete by the end of the century. I doubt if existing population curves allow us to predict these biologically caused developments.
4. Since 500 million years in all vertebrates throughout evolution since the fish and reptiles sex determining genes, testosterone and testosterone driven brain circuits for sexual and aggressive behaviour are highly conserved and very similar . Whatever causes the decline in sperm and testosterone in humans will also affect the whole vertebrate world with similar consequences. In fact sperm decline has already been found in dogs, horses and cattle.
5. High (although also falling) reproduction rates persist in equatorial Africa, Middle East and Afghanistan. While Testosterone has always been higher in these regions there may also be less chemical pollution there.
Thanks, Lukas. This subject is discussed in the book, but I'll make sure to mention it in the presentation. I hope that the audience will be truly "enlightened"!!
As a not very rational aside: Who tells us that WE are the relevant individuals? Perhaps the sperm and the eggs are the real individuals and we are only accidental carriers of them. We do not even know if they have an individual consciousness. While we are not yet sure about our own population numbers, we are already sure about declining sperm numbers and perhaps thats all that matters.
Yes. Indeed increased body weight is a risk for precocious puberty in girls. But there are several more explanations. The potential of endocrine disruptors to cause precocious puberty has first been noticed in the early 1990s: Pytoestrogens, topical and natural estrogens, pesticides, industrial chemicals and phthalates have been identified as possible agents. One mechanism of phthalate action is that they can increase body fat cells and fat mass which then increases the tendency to precocious puberty, Phthalates most probably also contribute to sperm and testosterone decline. And its not only a men's problem, because phthalates also cause endometriosis and frigidity in women. I am surprised that there is no public awareness or discussion about all these existential questions.
I am confused. My whole youth, i was bombarded with articles and research about overpopulation and the fact that the earth can’t sustainably provide a decent lifestyle for all this people. That this will lead to political instability by workless youth, mass hunger, mass migration etc. During the last few years we are bombed with reports how the decline in population will lead to disasters … often, when you look deeper, it’s started with the fear of decline in birthrates by white women … but now also serious people are ringing the alarm … but oftzn out if fear for limits on economic growth and a threat on social security because it is funded by taxes on workers … so i would say: funding the social security and broader wellfare state by taxing wealth ( never in history so much wealth was available and the rich never contributed to society such a small amount), an economical model based on providing for the needs of people in stead of shareholders within planetary limits and controlled migration could offer solutions to reconcile both fears for an unsustainably high human population that exhaust the planet and fear that decline in population is a treat to our economy and collectif wealth
You are right to be confused. But it is perfectly possible that our problem has two faces: too many and too few at the same time. I am afraid, though, that those in charge are even more confused than you!
I am gratified that you are not swayed by the economic argument that declining population is the threat. It’s a natural reaction to overshoot. When the costs of living increase faster than our ability to pay for them, per capita standard of living goes down.
This started happening in the 90’s when it became environmentally obvious that we were experiencing Diminishing Returns. This is when attitudes changed and the equalization between human population and our environment’s ability to sustain us, started to be realized.
The age of Negative Returns began around 2020, and since then, governments and big business have been pursuing pro natalist policies to maintain our technologically driven and artificially high numbers.
If we are to escape the worst-case future hellscape scenario, an extended period of contraction will be needed. It will be uncomfortable, but it will be cheaper and easier than trying to maintain this level of growth at all costs. The problem is there’s no profit in scaling back.
It may be like a population version of a Ponzi scheme. The population has to continue to grow in order to maintain the population in its current living state.
I am curious if the effects of English Colonialist practices that heightened the effects of food scarcity for the Irish were factored in to your graphs? Ireland produced more than enough food to feed its entire populace during that time, it is just that the English overlords exported it for profit, allowing the native Irish population to starve.
Long story with many factors involved. It is discussed in detail in my books "Exterminations" (2024) and "The End of Population Growth" (2026). Let's just say that the British didn't engineer the extermination, but they let it happen.
hi professor was you able to check will your presentation by on waas science channel on youtube i could watch it than after i come tommorow evening from my archery club ?
"Unfortunately, the current situation does not seem to indicate that the world’s leaders are acting for that purpose; actually, they seem to be doing their best to hasten the collapse."
Yes, Trump may have just brought the Seneca cliff 20 years forward....
Everywhere Ugo says "pessimistic," I say "optimistic." Everywhere he says "unfortunately," I say "fortunately." I say "potato," an Irishman says "no potato." Bring on the no potatoes.
Basically guaranteed,there is no technological solution for inventing easily accessible resources,nor is interspace colonization viable at scale because of its energy use is too big to be justifiable.
The most complex,thermodynamically entropic society will go first,the current sink hole is the US,with its massive trade deficit and a economy run by pure extraction and institutional advantage,the US will collapse by its inability to import more of its goods,thus making its standard of living collapse.
The German industrial base is unviable without cheap Russian energy and Chinese market,as we can see,Germany now is entering its deindustrialization,thus the EU as a viable industrial power is called into question,now,the bureaucrats in Brussels have a genius idea to solve this unviability by tariffing China,making the problem potentially worse than previously thought possible.
The problem of China is how big of a resource base it can still access and maintain,that means things like population and minerals,while the East Asia as a whole will deindustrialize,China can potentially be the least effected because it can still sustain a scale necessary for some industries,but countries like South Korea and Japan will be unviable as industrialized nation.
There is no hope for India,as the time has past,the countries with existing industries will survive better than the Indian assemblies,possible outcomes means India will remain a regional power never to become more.
There is much to be said about why the West pursue industrialization,this is actually connected to the West's religious belief that Westerners have long forgotten,this belief is the belief in humans ascending to Godhood (a kind of will to power),History as the unfolding of this process,this caused the West to relentlessly expand,to exploit and control nature and eventually to believe in the tale of "The End of History",that can be seen as another rendition of rapture,this is why the West must believe in endless growth,because without this belief,no one can be a Westerner.
Have a good discussion in Belgrade, Ugo. Your Irish 1840 experiment could be a useful example of the limits of modern tools. Prompt non-local disasters are often seen in retrospect as historical determinants of what followed, and this applies to agriculture and human institutions, and perhaps to the increasing complexity that matches the steepness of your graphs.
"The disease first appeared in the US in 1843, near the ports of New York, Philadelphia and in surrounding states (Supplementary Table 1)3,4. The disease was first widely reported on the European continent two years later in Belgium in 1845, after which it spread throughout Europe and then into Ireland2,3,5"
As an example among a list of foreseeable disasters to come we must count it seems pandemics. Definitively, Pandemics-R-Us. Modern tools back in 1840 however would have faced it seems to me the same frustrations faced by the world for example in 2020.
The modern 'cloning' of our systems across the globe could look at the vulnerable methods of growing the global potato?
PS I would like to contribute to a discussion that discusses stocks and flows in terms of nutrients and Liebig Limits, in the context of population dynamics. I might start with India and monetised economies?
Hi Ugo, thanks again for a very interesting point of view. If you are going to speak to an enlightened audience perhaps I might suggest some points for the discussion (references on my substack "Testeronecollapse"):
1. For reproduction we need sperm which since 1950 is in accelerating decline, now by >2 percent per year, total loss must exceed 50 percent. Today's levels are still sufficient but specialists agree that from mid-century on there will be increasing problems with reproduction based on sperm decline alone.
2. For male development and sexual behaviour we need testosterone. Data are available since 1970 and especially in younger men point to an accelerating decline of 0,6-1 percent per year. Since sperm decline and testosterone decline share most causes also testosterone decline must have started ca. 1950 and must now amount to about 50 percent. This must already contribute to the decreased sexual activity which has been measured in many countries (D, F, UK, US, Australia) and to falling birth rates.
3. Decline of sperm and testosterone together correspond to a progressive and accelerating functional castration. We are halfway through; severe reproductive problems will start mid century, reproduction will then come to an abrupt Seneca cliff within two or three decades and castration will be complete by the end of the century. I doubt if existing population curves allow us to predict these biologically caused developments.
4. Since 500 million years in all vertebrates throughout evolution since the fish and reptiles sex determining genes, testosterone and testosterone driven brain circuits for sexual and aggressive behaviour are highly conserved and very similar . Whatever causes the decline in sperm and testosterone in humans will also affect the whole vertebrate world with similar consequences. In fact sperm decline has already been found in dogs, horses and cattle.
5. High (although also falling) reproduction rates persist in equatorial Africa, Middle East and Afghanistan. While Testosterone has always been higher in these regions there may also be less chemical pollution there.
Thanks, Lukas. This subject is discussed in the book, but I'll make sure to mention it in the presentation. I hope that the audience will be truly "enlightened"!!
As a not very rational aside: Who tells us that WE are the relevant individuals? Perhaps the sperm and the eggs are the real individuals and we are only accidental carriers of them. We do not even know if they have an individual consciousness. While we are not yet sure about our own population numbers, we are already sure about declining sperm numbers and perhaps thats all that matters.
The age at first menstruation has lowered over the decades. Some of the lowering is attributed to better nutrition. Some is unexplained.
Yes. Indeed increased body weight is a risk for precocious puberty in girls. But there are several more explanations. The potential of endocrine disruptors to cause precocious puberty has first been noticed in the early 1990s: Pytoestrogens, topical and natural estrogens, pesticides, industrial chemicals and phthalates have been identified as possible agents. One mechanism of phthalate action is that they can increase body fat cells and fat mass which then increases the tendency to precocious puberty, Phthalates most probably also contribute to sperm and testosterone decline. And its not only a men's problem, because phthalates also cause endometriosis and frigidity in women. I am surprised that there is no public awareness or discussion about all these existential questions.
I am confused. My whole youth, i was bombarded with articles and research about overpopulation and the fact that the earth can’t sustainably provide a decent lifestyle for all this people. That this will lead to political instability by workless youth, mass hunger, mass migration etc. During the last few years we are bombed with reports how the decline in population will lead to disasters … often, when you look deeper, it’s started with the fear of decline in birthrates by white women … but now also serious people are ringing the alarm … but oftzn out if fear for limits on economic growth and a threat on social security because it is funded by taxes on workers … so i would say: funding the social security and broader wellfare state by taxing wealth ( never in history so much wealth was available and the rich never contributed to society such a small amount), an economical model based on providing for the needs of people in stead of shareholders within planetary limits and controlled migration could offer solutions to reconcile both fears for an unsustainably high human population that exhaust the planet and fear that decline in population is a treat to our economy and collectif wealth
You are right to be confused. But it is perfectly possible that our problem has two faces: too many and too few at the same time. I am afraid, though, that those in charge are even more confused than you!
I am gratified that you are not swayed by the economic argument that declining population is the threat. It’s a natural reaction to overshoot. When the costs of living increase faster than our ability to pay for them, per capita standard of living goes down.
This started happening in the 90’s when it became environmentally obvious that we were experiencing Diminishing Returns. This is when attitudes changed and the equalization between human population and our environment’s ability to sustain us, started to be realized.
The age of Negative Returns began around 2020, and since then, governments and big business have been pursuing pro natalist policies to maintain our technologically driven and artificially high numbers.
If we are to escape the worst-case future hellscape scenario, an extended period of contraction will be needed. It will be uncomfortable, but it will be cheaper and easier than trying to maintain this level of growth at all costs. The problem is there’s no profit in scaling back.
It may be like a population version of a Ponzi scheme. The population has to continue to grow in order to maintain the population in its current living state.
I am curious if the effects of English Colonialist practices that heightened the effects of food scarcity for the Irish were factored in to your graphs? Ireland produced more than enough food to feed its entire populace during that time, it is just that the English overlords exported it for profit, allowing the native Irish population to starve.
Long story with many factors involved. It is discussed in detail in my books "Exterminations" (2024) and "The End of Population Growth" (2026). Let's just say that the British didn't engineer the extermination, but they let it happen.
dear professor ugo bardi will your presentation also by on waas science channel at youtube ?
Let me check...
hi professor was you able to check will your presentation by on waas science channel on youtube i could watch it than after i come tommorow evening from my archery club ?
"Unfortunately, the current situation does not seem to indicate that the world’s leaders are acting for that purpose; actually, they seem to be doing their best to hasten the collapse."
Yes, Trump may have just brought the Seneca cliff 20 years forward....
And one could be nasty enough to suspect it was not a mistake.
Everywhere Ugo says "pessimistic," I say "optimistic." Everywhere he says "unfortunately," I say "fortunately." I say "potato," an Irishman says "no potato." Bring on the no potatoes.
Basically guaranteed,there is no technological solution for inventing easily accessible resources,nor is interspace colonization viable at scale because of its energy use is too big to be justifiable.
The most complex,thermodynamically entropic society will go first,the current sink hole is the US,with its massive trade deficit and a economy run by pure extraction and institutional advantage,the US will collapse by its inability to import more of its goods,thus making its standard of living collapse.
The German industrial base is unviable without cheap Russian energy and Chinese market,as we can see,Germany now is entering its deindustrialization,thus the EU as a viable industrial power is called into question,now,the bureaucrats in Brussels have a genius idea to solve this unviability by tariffing China,making the problem potentially worse than previously thought possible.
The problem of China is how big of a resource base it can still access and maintain,that means things like population and minerals,while the East Asia as a whole will deindustrialize,China can potentially be the least effected because it can still sustain a scale necessary for some industries,but countries like South Korea and Japan will be unviable as industrialized nation.
There is no hope for India,as the time has past,the countries with existing industries will survive better than the Indian assemblies,possible outcomes means India will remain a regional power never to become more.
There is much to be said about why the West pursue industrialization,this is actually connected to the West's religious belief that Westerners have long forgotten,this belief is the belief in humans ascending to Godhood (a kind of will to power),History as the unfolding of this process,this caused the West to relentlessly expand,to exploit and control nature and eventually to believe in the tale of "The End of History",that can be seen as another rendition of rapture,this is why the West must believe in endless growth,because without this belief,no one can be a Westerner.
Have a good discussion in Belgrade, Ugo. Your Irish 1840 experiment could be a useful example of the limits of modern tools. Prompt non-local disasters are often seen in retrospect as historical determinants of what followed, and this applies to agriculture and human institutions, and perhaps to the increasing complexity that matches the steepness of your graphs.
I just checked the Nature Report https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-90937-6
"The disease first appeared in the US in 1843, near the ports of New York, Philadelphia and in surrounding states (Supplementary Table 1)3,4. The disease was first widely reported on the European continent two years later in Belgium in 1845, after which it spread throughout Europe and then into Ireland2,3,5"
As an example among a list of foreseeable disasters to come we must count it seems pandemics. Definitively, Pandemics-R-Us. Modern tools back in 1840 however would have faced it seems to me the same frustrations faced by the world for example in 2020.
The modern 'cloning' of our systems across the globe could look at the vulnerable methods of growing the global potato?
PS I would like to contribute to a discussion that discusses stocks and flows in terms of nutrients and Liebig Limits, in the context of population dynamics. I might start with India and monetised economies?
Unfortunately if a civilization tries to live sustainably a different group will come and destroy them with war
Been happening for a long time
Am hopeful AI will take over with one world government and make humans behave
So we will be in a zoo basically
But planet will survive
Omnius anymore