The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Pollution and Fertility
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The inverse correlation between total fertility rate and per capita CO2 emissions at the national level is a modest but not insignificant .35. I’ve little insightful to add to that result, a result more modest than I imagined it would be, but since it was a slog to calculate, it may as well be shared.

 
Hide 21 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Less industrial societies produce less CO2 and fewer children per woman. Yes, so the correlation of fertility is inverse as you indicate, but not causative. There must be millions of equally meaningless correlations you can find.

    People in developed countries probably chew more bubble gum, so there must also be an inverse relationship between per capita bubble gum chewing and fertility too.

    And so on, but thanks for doing the grunt work anyway.

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The biggest CO2 producers are mostly European countries and the USA, Canada, Australia, etc. These countries are not industrial at all, they're mostly service economies. Asia is where the industry is at.


    White countries produce more CO2 emissions because they are lazy, selfish motherfuckers who use too much air consitioning, indoor lighting, plane rides and automobiles. They didin't actually produce anything despite all the CO2 production, unless you count internet commentary as a production.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @anon

    , @Buzz Mohawk
    @Buzz Mohawk

    My second comment contains a correction of the brain-fart-typo in the first one. The correction is: "Less industrial societies produce less CO2 and more children per woman." Obviously.

  2. Less industrial societies produce less CO2 and more children per woman. Yes, so the correlation of fertility is inverse as you indicate, but not causative. There must be millions of equally meaningless correlations you can find.

    People in developed countries probably chew more bubble gum, so there must also be an inverse relationship between per capita bubble gum chewing and fertility too.

    And so on, but thanks for doing the grunt work anyway.

  3. You only looked at CO2 production, not pollution. The third world has more air pollution than the first, due to indoor fires, higher population density, etc. However, even more remarkable is the water pollution in the third world. Water pollution is going to have a bigger effect on fertility than air.

    • Replies: @Wyatt
    @JohnPlywood

    Fortune cookie read: man who shit where he drink known as Dysentery Gary.

  4. @Buzz Mohawk
    Less industrial societies produce less CO2 and fewer children per woman. Yes, so the correlation of fertility is inverse as you indicate, but not causative. There must be millions of equally meaningless correlations you can find.

    People in developed countries probably chew more bubble gum, so there must also be an inverse relationship between per capita bubble gum chewing and fertility too.

    And so on, but thanks for doing the grunt work anyway.

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @Buzz Mohawk

    The biggest CO2 producers are mostly European countries and the USA, Canada, Australia, etc. These countries are not industrial at all, they’re mostly service economies. Asia is where the industry is at.

    White countries produce more CO2 emissions because they are lazy, selfish motherfuckers who use too much air consitioning, indoor lighting, plane rides and automobiles. They didin’t actually produce anything despite all the CO2 production, unless you count internet commentary as a production.

    • Disagree: Leander Starr
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @JohnPlywood

    Looks like Tiny Duck has made his way to AE's blog.

    https://www.animatedimages.org/data/media/1494/animated-rubber-duck-image-0103.gif

    You're not preaching to the choir, dipshit. CO2 to this commenter doesn't mean beans. Earth's climate has been cycling, over-and-over, for billions of years -- and it will continue to do so, no matter what jackass ducks -- who ALWAYS over-reproduce to the point of Malthusian starvation -- do about it.

    , @anon
    @JohnPlywood

    The single largest emitter of carbon dioxide is China.

    CO2 is not a pollutant, but mercury from coal-fired Chinese power plants certainly is. It's raining down all over the western Pacific ocean and contaminating the ocean.

    Replies: @unit472, @JohnPlywood

  5. CO2 == pollution ????

    That is where the grind resides!

  6. The initial data here are highly suspect. If we knew the real fertility rates in Africa, the correlation would certainly be even weaker.

    The birth dearth is affecting all countries and all classes, regardless of the level of industrialization (for which CO2 per capita is the proxy).

  7. @Buzz Mohawk
    Less industrial societies produce less CO2 and fewer children per woman. Yes, so the correlation of fertility is inverse as you indicate, but not causative. There must be millions of equally meaningless correlations you can find.

    People in developed countries probably chew more bubble gum, so there must also be an inverse relationship between per capita bubble gum chewing and fertility too.

    And so on, but thanks for doing the grunt work anyway.

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @Buzz Mohawk

    My second comment contains a correction of the brain-fart-typo in the first one. The correction is: “Less industrial societies produce less CO2 and more children per woman.” Obviously.

  8. The idea of low levels of pollutants damaging fertility is almost as bad as the vitamin D deficiency bilge. Read toxicologist Ed Calabrese to find out about ‘adaptive responses’.

    Women know not to flog a dead horse, they look a prospective stallion in the mouth

    Poor Oral Hygiene Can Lead To Erectile Dysfunction & Infertility
    August 30, 2018
    A recent study in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology has shown that high levels of plaque and bleeding gums are a risk factor for poor sperm motility (their ability to swim), and a reduced sperm count. To make matters even worse for our manhood, a recent study in the Journal Of Human Reporductive Science has shown a clear correlation between chronic gum disease and erectile dysfunction.

    Erectile disfunction and everything else too.

  9. Oliver D. Smith says:

    If you simply plot increase in total GHG emissions (particularly CO2) to population growth you find a positive correlation in every single country but the strength of the positive correlation somewhat differs, although it is virtually a one-to-one ratio in many countries. For example from 1975 to 2009, the US population size and total carbon emissions both rose by approximately 43 percent.

    If you look at data globally you find this-

    This is why it’s so ridiculous to deny population growth is a primary (but not only) causer of anthropogenic climate-change yet you will find political views as diverse as left-wing greens, the ‘far-right’ and conservatives all denying this reality for their own agenda.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
    @Oliver D. Smith


    This is why it’s so ridiculous to deny population growth is a primary (but not only) causer of anthropogenic climate-change yet you will find political views as diverse as left-wing greens, the ‘far-right’ and conservatives all denying this reality for their own agenda.
     
    Population, population density, population simple quantifications, are "Hitler-ian". Rotten data, poisoned data, wrong data, omitted data, it is the part that makes ombraged journalism infinite. There is none but agenda driven journalism accessible and digestible to the crowds, include "papers" and "scientists". And the crowds slobber it, add to it (interactive fora, unz.com, fecesbook, tweeter ...), as cattle in winter stalling crave hay.

    CO2 equaling pollution, and population not being presented as a factoring tool are big icky evergreens in public communication. While in the ante-chambers, and the back offices both are taken into account with intense scrutiny and labeled "beyond consumption".

    Covid policies, especially the vaccination part, incited almost "as we go", since the surplus population does not seem to object, what? even cues up to welcome it, veganism promotion, software stacks to the moon, the list is endless, all are tweaks to obtain some grip on the most important single factor of the reset economy: surplus populations, reassessment and reduction. Operating on the dollar is outmoded thousand to one. The new economics is operating directly and multi-angled on the homonim in se. Michael Hudson, his mild trailing two steps behind the new reality is still too crafty a beer to ready for consumption, let alone exposing the "breeding is terrorism" policies new and shiny to the delirious under-world of the many!

    Not to bad, it takes some kind of religion (from the Abrahamic ones, to conZumerism), to dance with the crowds. The surplus population can only be receptive to "simple" messages including us at unz.com. We are demanding to be taken by the nose, the formula, the formatting, it all is geared to ignorant conZumption of trashy data and looped analysis. Anything to be taken seriously needs dollars and sex, over-eating and alcohol, preferably all at once. It is all in the hands of our current "elites", and according to our estimates, they are not up to par to deliver anything that stands a decade. A nice thing, instability only breeds real innovation. The managerial part of population direct intervention is the most interesting and single-matter property piece of tinkering in the early twenty-first century. Interesting times indeed.

  10. @JohnPlywood
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The biggest CO2 producers are mostly European countries and the USA, Canada, Australia, etc. These countries are not industrial at all, they're mostly service economies. Asia is where the industry is at.


    White countries produce more CO2 emissions because they are lazy, selfish motherfuckers who use too much air consitioning, indoor lighting, plane rides and automobiles. They didin't actually produce anything despite all the CO2 production, unless you count internet commentary as a production.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @anon

    Looks like Tiny Duck has made his way to AE’s blog.

    You’re not preaching to the choir, dipshit. CO2 to this commenter doesn’t mean beans. Earth’s climate has been cycling, over-and-over, for billions of years — and it will continue to do so, no matter what jackass ducks — who ALWAYS over-reproduce to the point of Malthusian starvation — do about it.

    • Agree: unit472
  11. @JohnPlywood
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The biggest CO2 producers are mostly European countries and the USA, Canada, Australia, etc. These countries are not industrial at all, they're mostly service economies. Asia is where the industry is at.


    White countries produce more CO2 emissions because they are lazy, selfish motherfuckers who use too much air consitioning, indoor lighting, plane rides and automobiles. They didin't actually produce anything despite all the CO2 production, unless you count internet commentary as a production.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @anon

    The single largest emitter of carbon dioxide is China.

    CO2 is not a pollutant, but mercury from coal-fired Chinese power plants certainly is. It’s raining down all over the western Pacific ocean and contaminating the ocean.

    • Replies: @unit472
    @anon

    I agree that CO2 can hardly be called a pollutant. All animals exhale it and all plants consume it. The total amount of carbon, as with any other element on the earth, is fixed. We neither create it nor destroy it we just move it around.

    To the extent atmospheric CO2 has a marginal effect on our climate it is to improve it. Without fossil fuels much of North America would be uninhabitable in winter and damned uncomfortable in summer. As liquid water is necessary for life melting ice is a benefit if you want more flora and fauna

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    , @JohnPlywood
    @anon

    China is the single largest emitter but it actually produces things, such as the components in the computer you're using right now. USA doesn't produce shit. And on a per capita basis, white countries generate more CO2 emissions. China is only slightly ahead of the USA in emissions despite the USA having almost no industry. That's what you call parasitism. White people are parasitical to this planet and they are abusing it for their physical comfort while producing nothing that distinguishes their race from wildlife.

    Replies: @anon

  12. @Oliver D. Smith
    If you simply plot increase in total GHG emissions (particularly CO2) to population growth you find a positive correlation in every single country but the strength of the positive correlation somewhat differs, although it is virtually a one-to-one ratio in many countries. For example from 1975 to 2009, the US population size and total carbon emissions both rose by approximately 43 percent.

    If you look at data globally you find this-

    https://www.21stcentech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Global-population-and-CO2-graph.jpg

    This is why it's so ridiculous to deny population growth is a primary (but not only) causer of anthropogenic climate-change yet you will find political views as diverse as left-wing greens, the 'far-right' and conservatives all denying this reality for their own agenda.

    Replies: @PetrOldSack

    This is why it’s so ridiculous to deny population growth is a primary (but not only) causer of anthropogenic climate-change yet you will find political views as diverse as left-wing greens, the ‘far-right’ and conservatives all denying this reality for their own agenda.

    Population, population density, population simple quantifications, are “Hitler-ian”. Rotten data, poisoned data, wrong data, omitted data, it is the part that makes ombraged journalism infinite. There is none but agenda driven journalism accessible and digestible to the crowds, include “papers” and “scientists”. And the crowds slobber it, add to it (interactive fora, unz.com, fecesbook, tweeter …), as cattle in winter stalling crave hay.

    CO2 equaling pollution, and population not being presented as a factoring tool are big icky evergreens in public communication. While in the ante-chambers, and the back offices both are taken into account with intense scrutiny and labeled “beyond consumption”.

    Covid policies, especially the vaccination part, incited almost “as we go”, since the surplus population does not seem to object, what? even cues up to welcome it, veganism promotion, software stacks to the moon, the list is endless, all are tweaks to obtain some grip on the most important single factor of the reset economy: surplus populations, reassessment and reduction. Operating on the dollar is outmoded thousand to one. The new economics is operating directly and multi-angled on the homonim in se. Michael Hudson, his mild trailing two steps behind the new reality is still too crafty a beer to ready for consumption, let alone exposing the “breeding is terrorism” policies new and shiny to the delirious under-world of the many!

    Not to bad, it takes some kind of religion (from the Abrahamic ones, to conZumerism), to dance with the crowds. The surplus population can only be receptive to “simple” messages including us at unz.com. We are demanding to be taken by the nose, the formula, the formatting, it all is geared to ignorant conZumption of trashy data and looped analysis. Anything to be taken seriously needs dollars and sex, over-eating and alcohol, preferably all at once. It is all in the hands of our current “elites”, and according to our estimates, they are not up to par to deliver anything that stands a decade. A nice thing, instability only breeds real innovation. The managerial part of population direct intervention is the most interesting and single-matter property piece of tinkering in the early twenty-first century. Interesting times indeed.

  13. @anon
    @JohnPlywood

    The single largest emitter of carbon dioxide is China.

    CO2 is not a pollutant, but mercury from coal-fired Chinese power plants certainly is. It's raining down all over the western Pacific ocean and contaminating the ocean.

    Replies: @unit472, @JohnPlywood

    I agree that CO2 can hardly be called a pollutant. All animals exhale it and all plants consume it. The total amount of carbon, as with any other element on the earth, is fixed. We neither create it nor destroy it we just move it around.

    To the extent atmospheric CO2 has a marginal effect on our climate it is to improve it. Without fossil fuels much of North America would be uninhabitable in winter and damned uncomfortable in summer. As liquid water is necessary for life melting ice is a benefit if you want more flora and fauna

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @unit472


    I agree that CO2 can hardly be called a pollutant.
     
    OF COURSE you can call it a pollutant.  Nitrate and phosphate are essential to plant growth.  Phosphate has been essentially banned from cleansers in at least one state in order to protect the lakes, and excessive nitrate is responsible for the anoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico.  Too much of anything is pollution, including CO2.
  14. @unit472
    @anon

    I agree that CO2 can hardly be called a pollutant. All animals exhale it and all plants consume it. The total amount of carbon, as with any other element on the earth, is fixed. We neither create it nor destroy it we just move it around.

    To the extent atmospheric CO2 has a marginal effect on our climate it is to improve it. Without fossil fuels much of North America would be uninhabitable in winter and damned uncomfortable in summer. As liquid water is necessary for life melting ice is a benefit if you want more flora and fauna

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    I agree that CO2 can hardly be called a pollutant.

    OF COURSE you can call it a pollutant.  Nitrate and phosphate are essential to plant growth.  Phosphate has been essentially banned from cleansers in at least one state in order to protect the lakes, and excessive nitrate is responsible for the anoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico.  Too much of anything is pollution, including CO2.

  15. @JohnPlywood
    You only looked at CO2 production, not pollution. The third world has more air pollution than the first, due to indoor fires, higher population density, etc. However, even more remarkable is the water pollution in the third world. Water pollution is going to have a bigger effect on fertility than air.

    Replies: @Wyatt

    Fortune cookie read: man who shit where he drink known as Dysentery Gary.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  16. For the record CO2 is plant food. The pollutants are what come with the CO2 when it is produced.

    The third world produces far more pollution than the western countries. This is true in every category. Air, water, noise, heavy metals, electro magnetic, food and more.

    Anybody who would claim otherwise has likely never been anywhere. Sewerage in the streets, unpotable water in the taps (if there is any), dirty un-maintained factories and power plants, old clunkers in the streets spewing smoke all over the place, unmitigated spills of all kinds. Yet this is where the birth rates are highest.

    A good correlation would be between poverty and fertility and that is actually well established

  17. @anon
    @JohnPlywood

    The single largest emitter of carbon dioxide is China.

    CO2 is not a pollutant, but mercury from coal-fired Chinese power plants certainly is. It's raining down all over the western Pacific ocean and contaminating the ocean.

    Replies: @unit472, @JohnPlywood

    China is the single largest emitter but it actually produces things, such as the components in the computer you’re using right now. USA doesn’t produce shit. And on a per capita basis, white countries generate more CO2 emissions. China is only slightly ahead of the USA in emissions despite the USA having almost no industry. That’s what you call parasitism. White people are parasitical to this planet and they are abusing it for their physical comfort while producing nothing that distinguishes their race from wildlife.

    • Replies: @anon
    @JohnPlywood

    China is the single largest emitter but it actually produces things, such as the components in the computer you’re using right now.

    Many Intel IC's are fabbed in the US. Troll.

    USA doesn’t produce shit.

    The US is #2 or #3 industrial producer on the planet. Troll.

    And on a per capita basis, white countries generate more CO2 emissions. China is only slightly ahead of the USA in emissions despite the USA having almost no industry.

    Check your numbers, troll.

    That’s what you call parasitism. White people are parasitical to this planet and they are abusing it for their physical comfort while producing nothing that distinguishes their race from wildlife.

    Boring troll. Really very boring.

    •Troll

  18. anon[160] • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnPlywood
    @anon

    China is the single largest emitter but it actually produces things, such as the components in the computer you're using right now. USA doesn't produce shit. And on a per capita basis, white countries generate more CO2 emissions. China is only slightly ahead of the USA in emissions despite the USA having almost no industry. That's what you call parasitism. White people are parasitical to this planet and they are abusing it for their physical comfort while producing nothing that distinguishes their race from wildlife.

    Replies: @anon

    China is the single largest emitter but it actually produces things, such as the components in the computer you’re using right now.

    Many Intel IC’s are fabbed in the US. Troll.

    USA doesn’t produce shit.

    The US is #2 or #3 industrial producer on the planet. Troll.

    And on a per capita basis, white countries generate more CO2 emissions. China is only slightly ahead of the USA in emissions despite the USA having almost no industry.

    Check your numbers, troll.

    That’s what you call parasitism. White people are parasitical to this planet and they are abusing it for their physical comfort while producing nothing that distinguishes their race from wildlife.

    Boring troll. Really very boring.

    •Troll

  19. Wow, Intel PCs. Color me impressed… not. Intel’s products are garbage and their wafers are all retrograde. They can’t produce things Taiwan can produce.

    The USA ranks surprisingly high in manufacturing, managing to barely outstrip such industrious and advanced countries as Spain. However, this is entirely due to the enormous US oil and natural gas industries, plus agriculture. If we were to exclude petroleum and agriculture the USA would rank behind Sardinia in terms of manufacturing output.

    Although petroleum products, food, timher, etc are all vitally important to the world, and the USA’s monopoly on these resources is a potent source of economic leverage, these industries don’t refute my claim that white people are unproductive parasites. That’s because extracting these resources is essentially a parasitic behavior in of itself; white Americans are merely fortunate enough to have been born on a continent rich in natutal resources.

    And, extracting these resources does not involve a large group of people. These industries are manned by a very small number of employees. Consider how much wheat can be harvested by one man in a large combine. Agriculture is an all but automated activity with limited human involvement, compared to 100 years ago. These industries can survive without the white race. They’re peobably already looking to replace their white employees with artificial intelligence.

    The USA really doesn’t produce anything requiring real talent. The only important exceptions seem to be aircraft and insulin. The coronavirus pandemic should have taught you this lesson, but of course, you are stubborn and a dullard. You can call me a troll until you’re blue in the face, but that’s just an inescapable fact. You called me a troll too many times in your post for you to not internally know that I’m speaking the truth. The truth upsets you.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @JohnPlywood


    If we were to exclude petroleum and agriculture the USA would rank behind Sardinia in terms of manufacturing output.
     
    "He has the fields in Turkey, where they grow the poppy. In Sicily he has the plant to process it into heroin."

    ---Tom Hagan

    You are correct here. Virgil "The Turk" Sollozzo, on a pound-for-pound basis, could give US manufacturing a run for its money.

    , @anon
    @JohnPlywood

    The USA ranks surprisingly high in manufacturing, managing to barely outstrip such industrious and advanced countries as Spain. However, this is entirely due to the enormous US oil and natural gas industries, plus agriculture.

    lol
    This is getting close to random word selection. Maybe not a troll but a mere bot?

    If we were to exclude petroleum and agriculture the USA would rank behind Sardinia in terms of manufacturing output.

    Moar words. Need more trolling words! Say, what's the capitol of Sardinia?

    •Incompetent Troll

  20. @JohnPlywood
    Wow, Intel PCs. Color me impressed... not. Intel's products are garbage and their wafers are all retrograde. They can't produce things Taiwan can produce.


    The USA ranks surprisingly high in manufacturing, managing to barely outstrip such industrious and advanced countries as Spain. However, this is entirely due to the enormous US oil and natural gas industries, plus agriculture. If we were to exclude petroleum and agriculture the USA would rank behind Sardinia in terms of manufacturing output.

    Although petroleum products, food, timher, etc are all vitally important to the world, and the USA's monopoly on these resources is a potent source of economic leverage, these industries don't refute my claim that white people are unproductive parasites. That's because extracting these resources is essentially a parasitic behavior in of itself; white Americans are merely fortunate enough to have been born on a continent rich in natutal resources.

    And, extracting these resources does not involve a large group of people. These industries are manned by a very small number of employees. Consider how much wheat can be harvested by one man in a large combine. Agriculture is an all but automated activity with limited human involvement, compared to 100 years ago. These industries can survive without the white race. They're peobably already looking to replace their white employees with artificial intelligence.


    The USA really doesn't produce anything requiring real talent. The only important exceptions seem to be aircraft and insulin. The coronavirus pandemic should have taught you this lesson, but of course, you are stubborn and a dullard. You can call me a troll until you're blue in the face, but that's just an inescapable fact. You called me a troll too many times in your post for you to not internally know that I'm speaking the truth. The truth upsets you.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @anon

    If we were to exclude petroleum and agriculture the USA would rank behind Sardinia in terms of manufacturing output.

    “He has the fields in Turkey, where they grow the poppy. In Sicily he has the plant to process it into heroin.”

    —Tom Hagan

    You are correct here. Virgil “The Turk” Sollozzo, on a pound-for-pound basis, could give US manufacturing a run for its money.

  21. anon[587] • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnPlywood
    Wow, Intel PCs. Color me impressed... not. Intel's products are garbage and their wafers are all retrograde. They can't produce things Taiwan can produce.


    The USA ranks surprisingly high in manufacturing, managing to barely outstrip such industrious and advanced countries as Spain. However, this is entirely due to the enormous US oil and natural gas industries, plus agriculture. If we were to exclude petroleum and agriculture the USA would rank behind Sardinia in terms of manufacturing output.

    Although petroleum products, food, timher, etc are all vitally important to the world, and the USA's monopoly on these resources is a potent source of economic leverage, these industries don't refute my claim that white people are unproductive parasites. That's because extracting these resources is essentially a parasitic behavior in of itself; white Americans are merely fortunate enough to have been born on a continent rich in natutal resources.

    And, extracting these resources does not involve a large group of people. These industries are manned by a very small number of employees. Consider how much wheat can be harvested by one man in a large combine. Agriculture is an all but automated activity with limited human involvement, compared to 100 years ago. These industries can survive without the white race. They're peobably already looking to replace their white employees with artificial intelligence.


    The USA really doesn't produce anything requiring real talent. The only important exceptions seem to be aircraft and insulin. The coronavirus pandemic should have taught you this lesson, but of course, you are stubborn and a dullard. You can call me a troll until you're blue in the face, but that's just an inescapable fact. You called me a troll too many times in your post for you to not internally know that I'm speaking the truth. The truth upsets you.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @anon

    The USA ranks surprisingly high in manufacturing, managing to barely outstrip such industrious and advanced countries as Spain. However, this is entirely due to the enormous US oil and natural gas industries, plus agriculture.

    lol
    This is getting close to random word selection. Maybe not a troll but a mere bot?

    If we were to exclude petroleum and agriculture the USA would rank behind Sardinia in terms of manufacturing output.

    Moar words. Need more trolling words! Say, what’s the capitol of Sardinia?

    •Incompetent Troll

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS