I wonder if this is environment driven where maybe there is some kind of chemical gotten into their food chain that inhibits the libido.
I am someone who in my mid 20s has never had a relationship. Not worth the effort to me.
And on top of that, a lot of problems that were before solved by having a partner (something breaking, don't know how to cook, just lonely and want to chat, etc) now can be solved by various businesses and services.
I think that it's possible that for some people classical relationships aren't as optimal anymore.
For one thing, there's the validation that someone is interested in having sex with you in the first place.
Your line of questioning is not useful and is perhaps okay to use on 5year old child to eat broccoli.
I can use same argument you make for drugs or mass murders or anything else .
the rational way to evaluate an activity is the perceived value , effort needed and our desire to do it.
There could be informed discussion on why the perceived value is so low or natural desire is not strong, but arguing try it once is not helpful.
Why not? If you want to get a better idea of how much you'd value an experience, doing it seems like a pretty good idea, and this certainly falls more towards the eating broccoli end of the spectrum of moral reprehensibility and likelihood of ruining your life than taking up recreational murder or heroin.
As another poster points out, there is an example with flouride (though I am no anti-flouridist). Other examples might be widespread use of BPA and PFAS. Air-pollution might be another example of something that could effect much of a population (though it's not in the food chain).
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and until we have strong scientific evidence I won't claim that there are population-wide effects.
But saying it's "impossible" is wrong.