KGB was pretty good at it, but they lost most of their top talent after USSR collapsed. Current capabilities of their successors are far less than they were back in the day.

That was only done in a few countries, and only for higher strata of society in most of those countries.

What we're talking here is middle class.

Here's a nasty point for you - ability to adapt to environment and survive is the key selector in evolution. Regardless of how you view that environment.

There are many kinds of cells in human body. Nerve cells live for decades, as do undeveloped egg cells.
One of the reasons why fertility collapses so fast and so badly after ~30 years of age is because these cells start reaching their end of life.

It's always an option, as long as you're willing to live with the consequences of your actions.

Such as ending up with a shrew for a wife! :D

"When out of arguments, focus on shooting the messenger".

Well done.

Agreed, the demand must have far more than tripled, as today far more mothers are working instead of raising children at home.

That depends on life style in many cases, though obviously the increased financial demand on parents, especially those of middle class has played a major role here. Throughout much of last century one working man could provide enough resources for entire family. This is no longer the case today if you wish to maintain middle-class life in many countries.

Because modern culture glorifies personal achievements and downplays importance of family.

There are some significant benefits to this approach, such as much more efficient utilization of human resources in the society, but also some significant downsides such as estrangement of child from parent and vice versa.

No problem. I just have several friends who are teachers, both by profession and by calling. This is one of their favourite talking points after they get a few drinks into them. The friction is there, and it's definitely increasing.

Note that you yourself agree that number has tripled over just 40 years. I find it strange that you would consider that tripling of demand for certain services that require heavy investment and long term preparation will not generate friction between consumers of said services and providers.

The argument is that he is using intellect, granted to him because of evolutionary selection, which in turn requires leaving progeny, to deny that he should leave progeny behind.

Correct. The issue is more with the tissues generating the sperm and their degradation which is much more subtle, which is also currently assumed to be behind degradation of quality of sperm observed across entire population. We just don't know what causes it, and hypotheses range from too tight underwear (testicles are located in a vulnerable location outside the body because they require lower than body temperature to properly develop and tight underwear would cause temperature to rise due to proximity of the body) to increase in chemicals in drinking water to pollution.

I think you always do. It's an issue of free will. If I wish to walk off a cliff, I can choose to do so, genetic desire for survival be damned. That's one thing that we have that separates us from most of the other species on the planet - ability to use intellect to override primal impulses. What we use it for on the other hand, is a whole different topic.

You could however argue that doing so would extremely irresponsible towards your family (i.e. your close genetic relatives) for example, and you would be correct.

And I think we need to face the fact that slashdot is essentially an online pub when it needs to be!

Because you are, by design, nothing but a strand of genetic information that is biologically created for a singular purpose - procreation as to advance evolution.

You may no like it, but that is the harsh reality. Even your intelligence which you use to deny evolution has evolved only because it allowed your genetic line to be better than competitors in the selection. Individualistic look at evolution fails for this very reason - when faced with evolution, single member of any species is largely irrelevant.

I don't like to sound religious, but by using intellect to deny evolutionary priorities, you are essentially denying your creator.

If you look at larger sample size, you will indeed see a correlation. However correlation for men is MUCH weaker than what your sample size suggests when polling across large population.

It's about right for women though. Perhaps the men in question also had older companions which compounded the effect?