Less Semen, Fewer Sperm, Lower Testosterone:
Not only were sperm counts per milliliter of semen down by more than 50 percent since 1973, but total sperm counts were down by almost 60 percent: We are producing less semen, and that semen has fewer sperm cells in it.
… the human race is apparently on a trend line toward becoming unable to reproduce itself. Sperm counts went from 99 million sperm per milliliter of semen in 1973 to 47 million per milliliter in 2011, and the decline has been accelerating. Would 40 more years—or fewer—bring us all the way to zero?
…
Testosterone levels have also dropped precipitously, with effects beginning in utero and extending into adulthood.
In fact the total loss of the male “Y” chromosome has been in the works for millions of years. When that happens, humans will not lose all its males — it will merely become far more “intersex” than even the most rabid LGBTQS radicals can currently imagine.
Y Chromosomes Are Disappearing Across Human Populations
Young human males are growing more feeble in terms of testosterone levels, sperm counts, semen volumes, muscle mass to fat mass, and by other measures. And they are losing their Y chromosomes in a mosaic pattern, as they age. This loss of the Y chromosome(LOY) seems to contribute to cancer, Alzheimer’s, shorter lifespan, and other degenerative conditions.
… lifetime-acquired loss of chromosome Y (LOY) in blood cells, is associated with all-cause mortality and an increased risk of non-hematological tumors and that LOY could be induced by tobacco smoking. We tested here a hypothesis that men with LOY are more susceptible to AD and show that LOY is associated with AD in three independent studies of different types. __ Dumanski et al in Cell
Fragile Y Hypothesis
The human Y chromosome has been in decline for millions of years. Although some scientists claim that the Y chromosome has found a way to save itself from elimination, other equally astute scientists state that it is only a matter of time before the human male’s bare fingernail-grip on the ledge will slip and lose purchase.
The “fragile Y hypothesis” is a scientific attempt to understand the “ground zero” of this battleground for survival of the human Y chromosome. Rather than proclaiming that “all is well,” or stating that ultimately the human male is doomed, these scientists choose to do the science: observe, test, repeat.
Species evolve in fits and starts, and not in a steady straight-line manner. Humans — particularly less intelligent humans such as journalists — can only understand change through linear trends and extrapolations. But that is not how biology works over the long run. The sooner we break our dependency on the simplistic journalistic point of view — and go straight to the source — the better.
What Will Women Do Without Men?
It is clear that reproductive science is at the verge of a new era, where men will not be needed at all for fertilisation of eggs, or in any phase of human reproduction. Without men, women will develop new tools for sexual fulfillment, and will develop ingenious methods of training that will allow women to partially replace the disappearing armies of male technicians, engineers, mechanics, handymen, and all the tradesmen that allow modern humans in advanced societies to live lives of comfort and plenty.
Human populations will plummet, of course. Entire countries will disappear, modern cities will steadily lose their advanced critical infrastructures and become overgrown with natural plant, animal, and microbial life. The Earth will become a very different planet than the one that has been created primarily by human males.
The decline will not be universal, however. Some more biologically advanced societies will develop ways to save the male “phenotype” even as sperm counts fall, and the Y chromosome fades into oblivion. Societies which maintain their males in the face of such decline will dominate the future, as societies with the most robust male populations have historically tended to dominate.
Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst. It is never too late to have a Dangerous Childhood © .
al fin next level 
You’re conflating two things. Low sperm counts are a recent development. The loss of the Y chromosome will take millions of years. Other than happening inside testacles, they have nothing to do with each other on a social level.
I’ve heard that Testosterone levels are declining as well for any given age cohort. I wonder which is declining faster.
Right. When several things are happening at once — sperm counts, testosterone levels, semen volumes, reduction of fitness in cohorts, etc. it is only natural to look for a common factor or perhaps even a common cause.
Evolution is unpredictable, and humans have been evolving under unnatural selection for generations now. In other words, human intervention in their own evolution can have abrupt and surprising effects on future generations.
People who say “such and such evolution will require millions of years” are like people who try to predict climate or the stock market to the minute over a time scale of decades or centuries. They are presuming far greater knowledge than they possess. Journalists, politicians, and political activists are prone to such an error. Punctuated equilibrium is barely understood in natural selection, much less in the unnatural selection of modern humans.
Based on simple calculations assuming linear decline, sperm counts reach zero and male testosterone levels reach the high female range about the same time, around 2045. However, we know that long-term trends are rarely linear. Perhaps both will plateau at some point between now and then.
In a feminized world, those whose bodies resist the trend, will prosper.
If there are no fertile men, the human species goes extinct. There is no substitute for fertile men.
However, the reported results are biased towards Eurasians. Africans are not affected, and Africans will inherit Eurasia.
With an advanced enough reproductive technology, fertile men are unnecessary. But masculine men will always be needed to defend, maintain, and advance the species. Being able to distinguish the two is important.
This is where feminists go so badly wrong. They want to destroy masculinity and take control. A society of only women and feminised men would live in grass huts, at best.
Any cultures that do not succumb to the feminist ethic would rapidly conquer the feminised zones, raping, killing, and looting — as always happens in history.
Arabs, Mongols, Turks, Persians, Japanese, along with several types of European have all done this during times of “youth bulge demographics” and favorable climate conditions. Never have black Africans planned and executed organised conquest outside of the dark continent. The logistics is too demanding.
>With an advanced enough reproductive technology, fertile men are unnecessary.
If we’re at the point of having such technology then one would figure fertile women would also be “unnecessary” (be it an artificial womb or cloning). In which case whoever oversees human reproduction would ideally look which sex contributes more towards building for and maintaining society (males).
A female once stripped of her reproductive function is more of a liability than a male. After all, it is females who consume more in social programs, acquire more debt, are more overweight, and have just about no actual interest in advancing society. Human females overall are still adapted to function at a tribal level.
Males are by nature’s design are both more disposable and have more variety. Taking the situation of the Y-Chromosome. One of the links you posted notes how males aren’t going anywhere.
The decline in sperm can be pinned on society rather than biology at least not biology alone.
Three years ago, I found myself on the very low end of the ‘normal’ range for sperm counts. I got tested because my wife and I were trying to have a kid. I was also 54 lbs overweight (per a DEXA body scan), which was in part due to having my physical activity down to near zero for years due to a bad accident. It took a while for the nerve damage to heal. I also had symptoms of low T.
I did some research which led me to do a radical change in my diet and started intensive free weight lifting. The diet was ketogenic: I cut carbs to a max of 35 grams (net carbs) per day, cut way back on seed oils, added in more animal fats and fats from coconuts, avocados, and olives. My carb intake was primarily green vegetables (you can eat a surprising amount of veggies once you cut out the starchy one.. even with a 35 gram limit).
About a year later: 25 lbs of fat loss, low T symptoms gone, free T levels normal (for my age), and a sperm count that increased 250% with corresponding increases in quality.
Now I know.. I am one man. One man does not prove the above is true for everyone. Before we blame feminism, evolution food hormones, pesticides, etc. for low sperm counts, I propose an experiment: Take a sample of 50 men of various age ranges (non substance abusers), test their T levels and sperm. Then eliminate from their diet: Processed carbs, seed oils, sugar (junk food, fruit juice, etc.). Add in animal fats, organ meats, coconut oil (all the stuff we have been told to eliminate since the late 1960s). Then put them on a weight training program, driving their bodies physically like men were before automation eliminated much of the physical labor.
I propose that after a year to a year and a half the historical loss of T levels and sperm counts would be reversed in a majority of the test subject.
This experiment would be most worthy of trying.