
A large-scale analysis of 117 mammal species found that preventing reproduction is associated with longer lifespans, suggesting a strong link between reproductive activity and life expectancy.
Why do some animals live for decades while others survive only a few years? Female elephants can reach 80 years of age, yet they typically produce only a small number of calves. Mice, in contrast, usually live just a few years, but in theory can have well over a hundred offspring. Evolutionary theory links these patterns to a core trade-off: species must divide limited energy between reproduction and maintaining the body.
A new large-scale study adds broad evidence that this balance influences longevity across many mammals, including humans.

An international research team that included scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig investigated how different ways of suppressing reproduction relate to lifespan in mammals.
They analyzed records from 117 mammal species kept in zoos and aquariums around the world and paired those data with a meta-analysis of 71 published studies. Across the datasets, animals receiving ongoing hormonal contraception or undergoing permanent surgical sterilization lived about ten percent longer on average.
The reproduction – survival trade-off
One reason may be that reproduction requires major biological investment. Pregnancy and lactation demand energy, and so do sperm production, mating behaviours, and parental care. Even outside of breeding, sex hormones such as testosterone and estrogen continue to affect growth, behavior, and aging, potentially drawing resources away from long-term body maintenance.
“Zoos, where reproduction is carefully managed, provide a unique setting to study these dynamics,” says Johanna Stärk, one of the authors. “Animals may receive contraception or sterilization to prevent breeding, creating natural comparison groups within the same environment.”
The longevity boost appeared across a wide range of mammals, including primates, marsupials, and rodents. In some cases the differences were especially large. Female hamadryas baboons given hormonal contraception lived 29 percent longer, and castrated males lived 19 percent longer.
“This study shows that the energetic costs of reproduction have measurable and sometimes considerable consequences for survival across mammals,” says Fernando Colchero, one of the study’s senior authors. “Reducing reproductive investment may allow more energy to be directed toward longevity.”
Both sexes live longer – but for different reasons
Although both sexes lived longer when reproduction was blocked, the underlying causes differed. Lead author Mike Garratt of the University of Otago explains that only castration—not vasectomy—extends male lifespan. “This indicates that the effect stems from eliminating testosterone and its influence on core aging pathways, particularly during early-life development. The largest benefits occur when castration happens early in life,” he says.
In females, multiple forms of sterilization increased lifespan, suggesting that the advantage comes from relieving the substantial physiological costs of pregnancy, lactation, and reproductive cycling. Ovary removal, which eliminates ovarian hormone production, still extends lifespan, although a meta-analysis of 47 laboratory rodent studies indicates potential trade-offs: later-life health may be impaired.

These findings may help explain the “survival–health paradox” seen in post-menopausal women, who typically outlive men but experience higher frailty and chronic disease burden.
Patterns of mortality also differed by sex. Castrated males were less likely to die from behavioral causes linked to aggression or risk-taking. Females with blocked reproduction were less likely to die from infection, consistent with the idea that the high energy costs of reproduction may lower the mothers’ immune-defense systems.
Insights from humans
Data on the effects of castration and sterilization in humans is rare. Some historical data, such as those of Korean Eunuchs in the pre-19th-century Chosun Dynasty, suggest that castrated men lived, on average, 18 percent longer than non-castrated men. However, these historical records need to be interpreted carefully, as their accuracy is debated. Among women, surgical sterilization for benign reasons (such as hysterectomy or oophorectomy) is associated with a small decrease in lifespan, only about 1 percent relative to comparable non-sterilized women.
“Reproduction is inherently costly,” the authors note. “However, human environments—through healthcare, nutrition, and social support—can buffer or reshape these costs.”
The study makes it clear that reproduction in mammals involves considerable biological costs—a fundamental evolutionary trade-off between reproduction and survival. These costs arise from an interplay of hormonally controlled processes and the manifold risks and stresses associated with reproduction. However, the exact mechanisms involved remain unclear and require further research. “Our findings show that the costs of reproduction are substantial and measurable across a vast range of mammals,” the authors conclude. “Understanding these trade-offs deepens our insight into how aging evolves and how males and females balance survival and reproduction differently.
Reference: “Sterilization and contraception increase lifespan across vertebrates” by Michael Garratt, Malgorzata Lagisz, Johanna Staerk, Christine Neyt, Michael B. Stout, José V. V. Isola, Veronica B. Cowl, Nannette Driver-Ruiz, Ashley D. Franklin, Monica M. McDonald, David M. Powell, Susan L. Walker, Jean-Michel Gaillard, Dalia A. Conde, Jean-François Lemaître, Fernando Colchero and Shinichi Nakagawa, 10 December 2025, Nature.
DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-09836-9
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
71 Comments
So, you get to live longer, but what’s the point?
LOL!!!! Right!
survival reproduction trade off is categorically misleading for sexually reproducing organisms which are generically successful after their offspring reproduce but im not an anthropologist im more of an evolutionary biologist that defines evolution as change in allelic frequency over time and that generally forms directional, bi-directional( speciation), or narrowing selection patterns although some species genes are modulated by environmental factors and larger oscilations in patterns emerge from the basic patterns above. my point is that castrated members of a species fail to impact future allelic frequency and dont matter. litterally and from a numerically demonstrable models that apply accross multiple species. although as a male that is not castrated and has no intention of ever getting castrated, i fully encourage any other male who wants to be castrated be given so without judgement because i understand economics. it has to be their choice and in no way ever oblige me to do the same lol
There you go! Bill Gates eat your heart out! How’s that saying? Cut off your… to spite yiur wife? I love this world of great “experts” and such meaningful studies amd research!
I just want to get hard and bang my woman. I don’t need children, but I’d like to keep my shmecky.
Castration usually only involves removing the testicles. Geldings and neutered dogs still have penises.
Hey, man! If you (or anyone else reading this) are being genuinely serious and want to be child free,
Vasectomies exist and hit all the points you would prefer! No castration, balls will be safe. Lol it does NOT effect your hormones so you’ll still get hard too. It only effects the tube your sperm travels to.
They have a 99.9% success rate and are one of the MOST RELIABLE forms of birth control! ( It’s less invasive than what is suggested to women, so please tell other friends regardless of gender who wish to be child free! )
It’s an outpatient procedure that usually takes less than 30 minutes, then you can head home the same day.
They are VERY easy to recover from compared to options that exist for women wanting the same, so this would be preferable for your wife and yourself.
It’s a win-win. You can head back to work the very next day if it’s non strenuous, but if you’re doing physical labor you’d need about a week. They even have a non scalpel method!
(Hoping other people see this too because it’s given myself and some friends who’ve done it peace of mind.)
Men taking testosterone age more.
Are you assigning the entirety of happiness and fulfillment with pumping out children left and right?
Yeah, as a person that was against having children I’m way happier with kids than I ever was without. You are missing out on possibly the greatest experience you will ever have.
No. If I had had kids, I’d be miserable. Not having children is one of the best decisions I ever made. My life is peaceful. I live in freedom. You can’t have that with a human family. I have absolutely no regrets. None.
How old are you?
You have no regrets NOW, but when your old and grey and there is no one around you to comfort you aside from a stranger, you’ll regret it then. I work with elderly people every day and there is a HUGE difference between those with families and those without. It’s a 100% certainty that those with families surrounding them at their time of passing go with more comfort and love than those who pass alone. Another important fact is that those who do have husbands, wives and children is that they live MUCH longer than those who do not.
Judging by your attitude, your unborn children are lucky to not have you as their mother.
Pump’er in the Dumper….
Sounds ridiculous.. the article has poorly researched data.
Games, movies, friends, eating, drinking, sleeping, phones, comics, books, TV shows, athletic activities, etc ad infinitum. There’s many different “points” to life for different people. Reproduction isn’t the end all be all of human desire and survivability. We’re too complex for just that.
A feminized male population leads to lower life expectancy for society.
No bridges.
No homes.
Nothing built that requires masculine labor.
Men taking testosterone age more.
So even if that turned out to be true… Who’s going first?
“Reducing reproductive investment may allow more energy to be directed toward longevity.” “The study makes it clear that reproduction in mammals involves considerable biological costs—a fundamental evolutionary trade-off between reproduction and survival.” No, it doesn’t make that clear. It is assumed that there is limited energy that can be used for survival or reproduction, but this has not been shown by this study. This also assumes a separation between reproduction and survival, when in reality all animals must reproduce for the species to survive, and having offspring can actually enhance survival for social animals, when working together for hunting, for example. In addition, some females get more energy when pregnant, as their systems step up to deal with a developing baby. Sexual animals are designed to reproduce, so defining reproduction as something separate from surviving is an artificial distinction made by humans who live in a culture where reproduction has been devalued and children are considered a burden. They are projecting.
By the way castrated males fight less and have fewer injuries, increasing longevity. As the article states, “Castrated males were less likely to die from behavioral causes linked to aggression or risk-taking.” That has nothing to do with biological costs, but with behavior and sex hormones.
However, castration for humans is an interesting subject. See my article, Castration: Is it Right for You? https://www.academia.edu/89205859/CASTRATION_Is_It_Right_For_You
Testosterone has been shown to dampen the immune response, resulting in a weaker immune system and higher vulnerability to infections in males than females.
“Female elephants can reach 80 years of age, yet they typically produce only a small number of calves. Mice, in contrast, usually live just a few years, but in theory can have well over a hundred offspring. Evolutionary theory links these patterns to a core trade-off: species must divide limited energy between reproduction and maintaining the body.”
Or it could be because of, I don’t know, one is predated on by a large portion of the animal kingdom and the other is a living, intelligent tank?
This article really didn’t take into account the food web or metabolic rates of animals and factor that in?
Seems to be a clear sign of “confirmation bias”, in my opinion
I must add this absurd paragraph. “Why do some animals live for decades while others survive only a few years? Female elephants can reach 80 years of age, yet they typically produce only a small number of calves. Mice, in contrast, usually live just a few years, but in theory can have well over a hundred offspring. Evolutionary theory links these patterns to a core trade-off: species must divide limited energy between reproduction and maintaining the body.” What a jump in illogic. Talk about comparing apples and oranges.
Animals that live long lives would overpopulate if they reproduced as prolifically as shorter-lived animals. These researchers are ignoring the reality of life for animals, since they study these critters in zoos and aquariums, where the environment and population is human-controlled.
Exactly.
I think as time goes on these “researchers” are getting dumber.
Basic logic is going out the window and they conclude the most illogical things.
I was thinking the same thing. When there are too many individuals of one species they end up competing with each other for resources. Both living a long time and producing hundreds of offspring would result in overpopulation very quickly which would reduce the survival of all the individuals in that species and threaten to destroy the ecosystem for all species living there. It would be unsustainable and would explain how evolution put the kibosh on it. A species who’s individuals both reproduced copiously and lived a long time would self-destruct and remove itself from evolution by going extinct. This has nothing to do with an energy trade off between longevity and reproduction.
Not only that, but the smaller creatures are at the bottom of the food chain and have a much higher mortality rate, therefore they must have large numbers of offspring for species survival.
You kind of have to want mammals housed in zoos to be a thing to focus on to get going, and there is a peer review thing to reckon with. Clearly enough there’s a longevity angle in which you de-risk some aspect of animal sex. (Which surface you can consider scratched by tiny kitten feet here.) They’re not yet taking monkey clans and getting them to write for performative supernatural and often Adriatic-themed theater, but they are dividing behaviors into traumatic death and other… Cohort-themed vehicle antic dramas as a fallback? (Train the donning of greyscale tank tops and hope the rest follows?)
If animals in the wild are castrated or given pregnancy stopping hormones would it likely extend their life span. This is an expected result in a controlled environment.
No we finally scientifically prove why maturation is bad
The horror, please read the article again. It stated that castration, and NOT sterilization, led to longer life spans. Big BIG difference between sterilization and castration. Obviously you don’t know the difference, so you may want to look them up. And NOBODY has pushed for castration in humans in centuries. That would involve actually learning something, instead of jumping to conclusions to push YOUR belief system.
My grandfather was castrated in his 80s when he got testicular cancer, as that was the standard treatment in the 1980s…
OK, but what’s your point?
Men taking testosterone age more.
This article was bought to you by the blue haired bull nose ring brigade to try to justify TGism
Indeed! What a load of $hit! You would have to be a r€tard to believe this. For the love of God people think, and realize every story, article, and media in general is benefitting someone, and it’s not you!!! How often does messing with the natural order of things have any benefit?? Oh, right NEVER!
It’s true that lower testosterone will likely cause you to live longer. The higher the testosterone the more havoc it reeks on your heart muscles.
How many bodybuilders have you seen that have lived to be 90 years old?
I know a few, Herrmann. They just didn’t abuse roids.
Key word is a “few” so not many at all which was the original commenters point to begin with.
Jack LaLanne.
Men taking testosterone age more.
You can hold that viewpoint, but never take medicine again.
Maga spotted
Liberal spotted
Mag spotted
Liber spotted
There you go! Bill Gates eat your heart out! How’s that saying? Cut off your… to spite yiur wife? I love this world of great “experts” and such meaningful studies amd research!
That is only because high testosterone wreaks havoc on your cardiac muscles causing them to age at a faster rate.
Thanks, but I’ll stick with my current lifespan!
Note to self: a short life is best sometimes!
Until you actually feel your last breath…which we clearly haven’t yet…
Well, very many individuals struggle to make it in the long run for a variety of reasons. We live in a world shrouded in stress and poison. Those who do live longer tend to do so by limiting the dangers around them due to a modern lifestyle often riddled with sedentary habits, overconsumption, and demanding industries. You can mitigate and even reverse those risks if you truly take care of yourself, which many parents struggle to do due to time constraints and exhaustion.
Oh look, the eugenicists are pushing sterilization again as population control hidden behind longevity.
And what’s wrong with that, human? Y’all are nothing worth praise anyway and a penny a dozen. If anything, we need a little more of that, especially among the ilk who knowingly transfer genes that result in conditions. I’m tired of people like you trying to demonize the word “eugenics” because it makes YOU feel inadequate and uncomfortable.
Start with yourself, demon.
Lead by example. I’m a blessing in disguise.
Starvation or near starvation is also an option. I for one, will not use tobacco or eat synthetic foods. However, I shall behave like a teenager until the good Lord decides otherwise. By the way, look at Kirk Douglas, as a non castrated man:
”
Kirk Douglas passed away on Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at the age of 103. Throughout his life, he was a renowned playboy and ladies man. The actor, who was a star during Hollywood’s Golden Age, dated many women during his lifetime.
The film star was married twice, first to Diana Dill and then to Anne Buydens, to whom he was married for over 60 years. Through his marriages, he fathered four sons, including actor Michael Douglas.
Douglas openly admitted to cheating on his wives with multiple other women. About his dating style, Douglas wrote in his autobiography, published in 1988, “I’m a sonofabitch, plain and simple.”
I know, just anecdotal but I think chasing women keeps men young.
Humans are the ones who need this as human overpopulation is extremely dangerous
Begin with yourself
What’s it like being a breathing testimonial to her exact point, 🤡?
Women aren’t “bitches” they’re human beings just like men are.
“there is no such thing as Great Replacement Theory, Depopulation Theory or an effort to dehumanize, emasculate and neuter men.” – brought to you by the same collective that published articles like “castration is good”
Evil death worshipping cult article.
Imagine calling yourself a “science” website and publishing this drek. Vile, woke, agenda-driven garbage is all this is. I bet there were also a ton of junk articles on this site about 5 years ago when a certain C-word incident was going around.
Wow. As a female who was “castrated” (all female abdominal parts removed) in her thirties, I find this a remarkable finding. I’m now in my 60’s with *pathetic* health due to the need to keep hormone levels very low for so many years. *Many* studies have “proven” that the loss of ovarian function prior to age 45 result in the conditions I suffer today… And oh, let’s not cast aside expected shortened life span, in spite of hormone replacement therapy, which is almost always supplemented at very low levels to avoid recurrence of whichever offending, hormone-mediated disease will return under normal hormone levels. Seek and ye shall find. AI will be amazing!
How Christianity tries to neuter the world. Should be the title of this article.
“See! We told you men that testosterone was bad!”
Absolutely ridiculous premise.
Well, raising a lot of children only leads to an early demise, the stress is a killer.
Trying to create more democrats?
Why are all these MAGAtards on here commenting to her? Cult members don’t believe in science?
Thankfully it’s too late for our useless world leaders then.