Erm, well, it might have something to do with genetics, but it's all very poorly understood, at least in terms of what's considered mainstream acceptable science. There does seem to be some genetic drive on aggression, although it's certainly not stronger than environmental factors, but it does seem to exist to some unclear extent.
And there have been tons of computer simulations to show that entities (thinking of organisms here, but could be anything) who show aggression over obtaining resources tend to, well, obtain more resources. Even if a bunch of them die due to their aggressive behaviour, those who don't die usually obtain enough resources to create enough surplus progeny to make up for it.
So if the evolutionary pressure to have a high sperm count is underbalanced by the evolutionary pressure to aggressively steal resources from others of the same species, then the evolutionary pressure will favour aggression over sperm count and trend that direction.
Just editorializing here, but maybe that's why most peaceful independent cultures throughout history have ended up being abused by other more aggressive cultures, and highly aggressive cultures, for example the North Sentinalese, have persisted unchallenged for millennia.
All that friction generates heat.
I think that the general drift of the topic was something like: climate change is caused by humans (someone says "nu-uh," but then is rebuffed by heaps of evidence) - there are too many humans (someone says "nu-uh," but then is rebuffed by heaps of evidence) - there are now 8 billion humans - someone looking for a nit to pick makes some argument about sperm count lowering because of liberals and that will cause climate change to reverse itself - no one knowing how the fuck to react to that argument, so chaos ensues.
