(09-09-2019, 03:30 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(09-09-2019, 02:14 PM)Ldr Wrote: I wish this discussion wouldn't go to testosterone, as it is a highly misunderstood hormone, and it is not incorporated in the generational hormone theory at the moment. Gender differences always spark a conversation, but this is not a good place for that.
Ugghhh. Xenobiotics are pollution which come from the petrochemical industry. The main source that's everywhere is plastics. These chemicals aren't confined to screwing up just testosterone. They make folks fat and diabetic from screwing insulin signaling. They cause cancer by screwing up all sorts of signaling. They screw up thyroid signaling, and the list goes on.
The problem with these claims is that there isn't a single study that ties these chemicals to changes in the general population. There are lots of allegations and speculation, just like to why populist nationalism and xenophobia are rising, but not even one study that would have led to any real suggestions what is the reason and what is the solution. And especially when these changes are global, all of the explanations fall short really fast. And history is rarely even taken into account. It's like they're suggesting that if you make a soup of all of the proposed explanations, that soup will explain the changes, once all the ingredients are mixed together.
But I don't buy this, at all. Because if you can't prove even one of the claims, how do you expect me to believe that the rest of them have any more meaningful influence? And a mix of them somehow solves all or at least most problems/questions at hand? No. It's a house of cards. In a bowl of soup.
So claiming that testosterone levels are down because of pollution from factories, products, etc. is pretty much the same as claiming that the age of puberty is going down because of children are fatter, which I've seen a lot of scientists assume. There is some slight correlation between the two, but in the end, age of puberty had been 12 years also in the middle ages, and it's pretty obvious that the kids were more likely to starve to death than have obesity back then. The age of puberty has changed greatly during the past centuries (from about 15 to about 12), and it has done so previously in history. And these changes have been largely in sync among populations, especially during modern times, which leads me to suspect that there may be a connection to the proposed hormone cycle between generations.
What I'm getting at is that the chemicals could have some effect, but one has to look beyond the past two centuries in order to understand the real scope of these hormonal and biological changes. And since the petrochemical industry consisted mostly of snake oils in the 16th century England, where the Strauss & Howe generational cycle is detectable, chemicals probably have little to do with the generational cycle, or testosterone levels. (I'm not claiming that chemicals don't have an effect, as they most definitely do have effects that science isn't aware of yet, and they compound inside individuals. But still, you have to take history into account before making rushed judgements.)
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/