Elon Musk told the world three years ago that "civilization
is going to crumble" without a reversal in the accelerating decline
in human fertility. He believes decisions by couples to have fewer
children or no children at all because of environmental harms such as
climate change (which is linked, of course, to growing population) are
wrongheaded.
In Russia leaders are so concerned about falling fertility
rates that health
agencies are offering financial incentives for having children and free
access to fertility treatment while discouraging
abortions (which remain legal). The Russian government even revived
the "Soviet-era honour award called Mother
Heroine, which recognizes and honours women with 10 or more
children."
Other countries with low birth rates are also offering incentives:
In Tokyo, the rates are so low that the government is launching
a dating app to help citizens find love and get married.
The Japanese government has also tried to boost fertility rates by
offering up to a year of parental leave and even cash incentives.
In South Korea, the least fertile country in the world, Seoul is offering
people money to reverse their vasectomies or untie their tubes.
That's on top of South Korean companies offering employees up to $75,000
to have children, and a government allowance system that gives all parents
with newborns $750 a month until their baby turns one.
While demographic experts insist it is primarily decisions by couples
worldwide to marry later and have fewer children that are the cause of
this surprising decline in fertility, they ignore the more ominous
explanation, declining
sperm counts caused by toxic chemicals and unhealthy modern diets
(which are, of course, laced with toxic chemicals).
Providing incentives for more childbirths cannot overcome the relentless
chemical assault on human fertility still in progress and getting worse.
As I have previously written, on
the current trajectory of decline, male sperm counts would reach zero in
2045. That's NOT a typo! And a 2022
update of the 2017 study which reached this conclusion showed that
the decline is actually accelerating.
Declining birth rates are no doubt influenced by many factors including
the conscious decisions of men and women. In Korea's 4B
movement, it is the systematic disrespect for woman shown by Korean
men and their demand for subservience from their mates which is driving
the desire of many of Korea's marriageable women to forgo not only
marriage, but men altogether. In the United States financial
concerns and delayed childbearing are known factors in declining
U.S. fertility. Women's
empowerment—that is, more financial independence, higher education
levels, and greater access to birth control and abortion—are all key
factors giving women more control over childbearing and the decision to
have fewer children.
But none of that affects whether male sperm counts will continue their
decline and someday, in the not-to-distant future, become inadequate for
impregnating women. Incentives and cheerleading for more live births won't
change that. What could change the trajectory of male sperm counts is
unthinkable to modern industrial society and its governing officials: A
ban on toxic chemicals necessitating a complete restructuring of
industrial processes.
You might think that we just need to keep these chemicals from leaking
into the environment. So, stricter pollution laws might do the trick. But
how would one go about preventing toxic agricultural chemicals which are
designed to be sprayed all over farm fields from getting into the air,
water and soil and the very food we eat? Keep in mind that
total worldwide pesticide/herbicide use in 2021 (the latest year for
which numbers are available) was 7.8 billion pounds.
Today's cheerleaders for increased birth rates are oblivious to the
silent cause of the ongoing rapid decline in male sperm counts. It is the
very industries corporate managers run and governments regulate which are
the problem. And, you can be almost 100 percent sure that they are not
going to address the real problem in order to achieve the goal
of increasing human birth rates.
The crisis of denial finds its basis in the notion of cost/benefit
analysis which pits economic production against human health and lives.
First, the two are not in the same category. Second, even if we acquiesce
to the terms of this analysis, how can the total wipeout of the human
species—for that's what zero fertility means—be an acceptable risk for
continuing the production of useful but toxic chemicals?
That question isn't even visible in the halls of power today.
P.S. Even if fertility doesn't fall to zero, if it remains below the rate
of replacement—which is around 2.1 children per woman—humans will soon
disappear. I understand that the rest of the natural world may rejoice in
some manner if that happens. But all the arguments about how humans should
conduct themselves on planet earth will become increasingly moot as we
approach the endpoint of the human species.
|
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kurt Cobb is a freelance writer and communications consultant who writes frequently about energy and environment. His work has appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, Resilience, Common Dreams, Naked Capitalism, Le Monde Diplomatique, Oilprice.com, OilVoice, TalkMarkets, Investing.com, Business Insider and many other places. He is the author of an oil-themed novel entitled Prelude and has a widely followed blog called Resource Insights. He can be contacted at kurtcobb2001@yahoo.com.
|
