Figure from the article: https://media.gq.com/photos/5b71dc69cc91ae0c5f57efdc/master/w_800/mean-sperm-count.jpg https://media.gq.com/photos/5b71dc69cc91ae0c5f57

Figure from the article: https://media.gq.com/photos/5b71dc69cc91ae0c5f57efdc/master/w_800/mean-sperm-count.jpg https://media.gq.com/photos/5b71dc69cc91ae0c5f57efdc/master/... Oh wow. This suggested correlation is pulling your hair out. First, there are two data points for the "men total sperm count" dataset. I can hardly imagine there are no measurements bewtween 1970 and 2010. Analysis of this data: Sure, you can draw a line. An exponential decrease is much more likely, thought. This would look much less or much more dramatic. Never trust statistics you haven't counterfeited on your own. Obviously, the "global plastic production" follows an exponential. And probably any other metric such as "global number of people" or "global number of cars" would exhibit a similar curve. You can correlate everything if you want...