If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Scientist)   How many people have ever been born?   (newscientist.com) divider line 157
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

16358 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Oct 2012 at 9:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



157 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-31 07:59:36 AM
99.9% of every species in existence that has ever lived has gone extinct
 
2012-10-31 08:15:12 AM
All of them.
 
2012-10-31 08:30:09 AM
16
 
2012-10-31 08:46:15 AM
Boy, Jesus really kicked off a population boom, didn't He?
 
2012-10-31 08:52:54 AM

I_Am_Weasel: All of them.


farkkkk yoooooouuuuu
 
2012-10-31 09:05:28 AM
Still?
 
2012-10-31 09:18:22 AM
Just me. The rest of you were hatched.
 
2012-10-31 09:19:43 AM
We should count. I'll start...

1
 
2012-10-31 09:21:11 AM
Threeve
 
2012-10-31 09:21:35 AM
That's funny, because I would have sworn that you are all figments of my imagination.

/solipsism seems like a cool philosophy. I wonder why there aren't more of us.
 
2012-10-31 09:22:51 AM
Why does that chart indicate that there were 0 people until 8000 BC? That makes no sense.
 
2012-10-31 09:23:32 AM
Let's see...
Adam 1, Eve 2...oh wait, they weren't born. So we have to start counting from Cain 1, Abel 2.... etc.
 
2012-10-31 09:23:51 AM
Time to thin out the herd
 
2012-10-31 09:23:52 AM
fewer than should have been, thanks to abortion.
 
2012-10-31 09:24:45 AM
Kinda puts a crimp in reincarnation theories...
 
2012-10-31 09:25:08 AM
Interesting graphic but it's taken from How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth by Carl Haub which includes an explanation of how the estimates were derived.
 
2012-10-31 09:25:48 AM

karnal: Time to thin out the herd


At the pace earth resources are being consumed and depleted with any regard for future generations, that will take care of itself relatively soon.
 
2012-10-31 09:27:08 AM
maybe it sits at 0 because of the previous zombie outbreaks putting us in the negative! ^_^
 
2012-10-31 09:27:30 AM
"Which are more numerous, the living or the dead?"

"The living... For the dead no longer exist."

- The Mahabraratta
 
2012-10-31 09:28:05 AM

Jairzinho: karnal: Time to thin out the herd

At the pace earth resources are being consumed and depleted without any regard for future generations, that will take care of itself relatively soon.


FTFM
 
2012-10-31 09:29:38 AM
Eleventy billion.
 
2012-10-31 09:29:43 AM
Funny how the population boom started at the end of the last ice age. It's as if we started exploring the planet at that point.
 
2012-10-31 09:31:03 AM
Jairzinho


karnal: Time to thin out the herd

At the pace earth resources are being consumed and depleted with any regard for future generations, that will take care of itself relatively soon.


Nature takes care of overpopulation in its own way.....Disease, Starvation.....Predators
 
2012-10-31 09:31:35 AM
That's a whole lotta lovin'...
 
2012-10-31 09:31:40 AM
Five, plus or minus a margin of error.
 
2012-10-31 09:32:56 AM

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Why does that chart indicate that there were 0 people until 8000 BC? That makes no sense.


Not zero; just less than one billion.
 
2012-10-31 09:33:41 AM
Boy things took off 8,000 years ago. Was that agriculture?

How long until the Christian fundies grab this, manipulate it to say seeeeeeeeeeeee even scientists agree with bible!
 
2012-10-31 09:34:04 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument
 
2012-10-31 09:34:15 AM
Well, let me put it this way. If all the corpses buried around here were to stand up all at once we'd have one hell of a population problem.
 
2012-10-31 09:34:35 AM
Year Population
50,000 B.C. 2

Um...
 
2012-10-31 09:34:45 AM
People have had sex hundreds of billions of times.

Just not you.
 
2012-10-31 09:35:25 AM
The dalai lama tells me it's much less, since most of these are rebirths of people who didn't get it right the first time.
 
2012-10-31 09:37:44 AM

Jairzinho: karnal: Time to thin out the herd

At the pace earth resources are being consumed and depleted with any regard for future generations, that will take care of itself relatively soon.


Yeah, but wouldn't it be nice if politicians acted like grownups and initiated a serious discussion with the public about how we can make choices that transition to a sustainable population level in the least painful way possible before the enviro-economy makes those decisions for us, catastrophically?
 
2012-10-31 09:38:12 AM
If that were true, there would be many, many more cemeteries.
 
2012-10-31 09:38:25 AM
Gonna need a definition of "person" first.
 
2012-10-31 09:39:04 AM

Hack Patooey: Year Population
50,000 B.C. 2

Um...


It's a bit arbitrary, but you have to draw the line somewhere for where "human" begins. IIRC, 50k BC is around the time of Mitochondrial Eve, which seems a decent place.
 
2012-10-31 09:39:15 AM

Hack Patooey: Year Population
50,000 B.C. 2

Um...


Human population is older than that
 
2012-10-31 09:39:58 AM

Tommy Moo: Hack Patooey: Year Population
50,000 B.C. 2

Um...

It's a bit arbitrary, but you have to draw the line somewhere for where "human" begins. IIRC, 50k BC is around the time of Mitochondrial Eve, which seems a decent place.


Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago,[2] most likely in East Africa,[3] when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species.

From Wikipedia
 
2012-10-31 09:41:01 AM
How many people have ever been born?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
 
2012-10-31 09:42:27 AM
Including subby, one too many.
 
2012-10-31 09:42:40 AM
42
 
2012-10-31 09:42:50 AM
I remember this being a million dollar question on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? It was from a few years ago when they said 101 billion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9OVpPjlxHw
 
2012-10-31 09:43:10 AM

Epoch_Zero: How many people have ever been born?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?


You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense.
 
2012-10-31 09:44:30 AM

Gleeman: Kinda puts a crimp in reincarnation theories...


My explanation is that there are the same number of people with souls, and a lot of hollow men.
 
2012-10-31 09:45:18 AM
Molavian


People have had sex hundreds of billions of times.

Just not you.


Now we got subbys mom out of the way, we can start counting.
 
2012-10-31 09:46:52 AM

Hack Patooey: Year Population
50,000 B.C. 2

Um...


from the How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth article by Carl Haub:

Any such exercise can be only a highly speculative enterprise, to be undertaken with far less seriousness than most demographic inquiries. Nonetheless, it is a somewhat intriguing idea that can be approached on at least a semi-scientific basis.

And semi-scientific it must be, because there are, of course, absolutely no demographic data available for 99 percent of the span of the human stay on Earth. Still, with some speculation concerning prehistoric populations, we can at least approach a guesstimate of this elusive number.

// Haub realizes that it's just a "highly speculative" "semi-scientific" estimate. Do you? I am sure he would be intrigued to learn your better approach...
 
2012-10-31 09:47:09 AM

Molavian: People have had sex hundreds of billions of times.

Just not you.


We've clearly hit a trillion. There's no way total sexual encounters / children had is less than 10.

That's something to be proud of, as a species. 1 trillion farks. I'd like Carl Haub to estimate when the trillionth fark happened.
 
2012-10-31 09:47:18 AM
Daddy Daddy. It was just like you said
Now that the living outnumber the dead.

Where I come from it's a long thin thread
Across an ocean. Down a river of red.
Now that the living outnumber the dead. I'm one of many.

Daddy Daddy. It was just like you said
Now that the living outnumber the dead.
Speak my language.

Hello. Hello.
Here come the quick. There go the dead.
here they come. Bright red. Speak my language

-- Laurie Anderson
 
2012-10-31 09:48:34 AM
On a somewhat related note:

upload.wikimedia.org

//Hotlinked.
 
2012-10-31 09:49:54 AM
The question that should be asked is......

upload.wikimedia.org

How many people COULD have been born?
 
2012-10-31 09:51:11 AM

Epoch_Zero: How many people have ever been born?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?


Step away from the crack pipe...
 
2012-10-31 09:51:32 AM

notmtwain: Interesting graphic but it's taken from How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth by Carl Haub which includes an explanation of how the estimates were derived.


Mainly, by guessing, it appears from reading that link.
I can do that, too. Eleventy quadrillion and three. That's the real number.
 
2012-10-31 09:55:40 AM

Mrs.Sharpier: Epoch_Zero: How many people have ever been born?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense.

OWWWWW.... stop. My cerebellum just sprained itself.

 
2012-10-31 09:58:34 AM
My great, great ... great water dwelling ancestor takes offense at these low numbers.
 
2012-10-31 09:58:38 AM
Well let's see. A one... a two-hoooo...

i567.photobucket.com

...A-three.
 
2012-10-31 10:06:30 AM
A brazillion.
 
2012-10-31 10:09:18 AM

untaken_name: notmtwain: Interesting graphic but it's taken from How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth by Carl Haub which includes an explanation of how the estimates were derived.

Mainly, by guessing, it appears from reading that link.
I can do that, too. Eleventy quadrillion and three. That's the real number.


It is admittedly speculative but the steps in his approach sound a little more reasonable than yours.

// Plus, he was reacting to the widely quoted made up statistic that three quarters of all the people ever born were now alive. His estimate was done to examine that claim.
 
2012-10-31 10:12:22 AM

PirateKing: That's funny, because I would have sworn that you are all figments of my imagination.

/solipsism seems like a cool philosophy. I wonder why there aren't more of us.



There are as many of us as you want there to be.
 
2012-10-31 10:13:41 AM

Mrs.Sharpier: Epoch_Zero: How many people have ever been born?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense.


whatthef*ckamIreading.jpg
 
2012-10-31 10:13:44 AM

cman: Hack Patooey: Year Population
50,000 B.C. 2

Um...

Human population is older than that



Anatomically yes, but before about 50KYA we were living pretty much like other hominid species. Some convergence of factors propelled us forward into the complex language-using creatures we are today around that time. I'm not totally discounting the continuity hypothesis here, but even taking into account earlier human artifacts of behavioral modernity, there was clearly some sort of critical mass reached that forever altered who we are as a species.
 
2012-10-31 10:14:23 AM
Numbers might be slightly skewed when some people only counted as 3/5ths.
 
2012-10-31 10:18:18 AM
I think about 6 or seven. They keep being re-born and interacting in different wasy.



/Or maybe this wasn't a documentary
 
2012-10-31 10:19:52 AM

notmtwain: It is admittedly speculative but the steps in his approach sound a little more reasonable than yours.


A little more reasonable, maybe, but just as speculative. The real answer? Nobody knows. No one has a freakin' clue. Any answer provided is a guess.
 
2012-10-31 10:23:39 AM

untaken_name: notmtwain: It is admittedly speculative but the steps in his approach sound a little more reasonable than yours.

A little more reasonable, maybe, but just as speculative.


Amount of reasoning in his approach = finite

Amount of reasoning in your approach = zero

ratio = finite / 0 = infinite

Sounds like it's a LOT more reasonable to me.
 
2012-10-31 10:24:09 AM

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Why does that chart indicate that there were 0 people until 8000 BC? That makes no sense.


That's zero people plus or minus a few million. The margin of error is bigger than the population.

A lot of them were hiding in boxes with their cats and couldn't be counted by the enumerator without breaking and entering, so he or she put down a number based on the volume of the box and the amount of arguing and meowing coming from in the box.

While searching through Census records, I found that one person Charles G. Lewis, 18, was absent from the home at the time of enumeration. As a result, a whole new family, the Gabsent family, was accidentally created by a careless transcriber. A household of Old American WASPs in another census was turned into Italians by careless reading. As any Fortean knows, mysterious people pop into and out of existence constantly.

Since census-records are the basis for entitlements, there is a lot of political shenanigans as well, with conservatives denying the existence of possibly millions of Americans. The number of Muslims in America ranges from 1.5 million (if counted by Jews, B'nai B'rith) to 12 million (if counted by Muslims at the American Muslim Association or something like). That's a gap of over 10 million people, many of them members of the Ali Gabsent family. Republicans are not content to deny government services to people. They also try to deny people to government services.

This teaches us to be skeptical of statistics and numbers generally. Even with good faith and best practices, the population of the USA is only known to three, perhaps two, significant digits You could lose or gain a few small states without anybody noticing or caring. For example, when President Obama "accidentally" claimed there were 54 states HE MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTANTLY LETTING THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG.

Personally I suspect that Obama has several states in reserve just in case the Election doesn't go his way.

Why, for example, is there a North Dakota and and a South Dakota? Why? Why? Do you even need one? Don't be surprise if East Dakota goes Democratic on Election Day. On the other hand, the Republicans are even worse. Don't be surprised if California disappears mysteriously, only to be won by the Republicans with 18,182 votes when it returns.

The world is full of Brigadoons, pockets of reality that float around and occasionally appear long enough to play nasty practical jokes on people.

Negative people are everywhere. Don't be fooled into thinking that the numbers are carved in stainless steel.
 
2012-10-31 10:25:38 AM
that's missing at least 145,000 years of human population
 
2012-10-31 10:27:17 AM

prekrasno: Eleventy billion.


Is that counting the Irish too?
 
2012-10-31 10:29:00 AM
 
2012-10-31 10:29:50 AM

toddslacks: Contrabulous Flabtraption: Threeve

Texa$


oooh, reference fail.

so close.
 
2012-10-31 10:31:53 AM
If you think that population statistics are fraught with assumptions (false) and problems (real) you should probably not take a look at calculations of the load-bearing capacity of the Earth. This is the number (imaginary) of people the Earth can comfortably support without going bust.

I have a book on the subject which contains estimates that run from zero (the zero population cranks) to numbers so large you have to assume the perpetrators are expecting us to develop a way of miniturizing people like the Chinese do in one of Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s weirder novels.

Personally I suspect that the Earth could support the number of people who were alive the day that I was born. Let's say three or four billion and leave it at that.
 
2012-10-31 10:36:03 AM
thirty-six billion, six million, nine thousand, six hundred and thirty-seven.

Give or take the titanthrops.
 
2012-10-31 10:43:26 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: toddslacks: Contrabulous Flabtraption: Threeve

Texa$

oooh, reference fail.

so close.


You obviously understood the reference so how was it a fail?
 
2012-10-31 10:44:45 AM
I'm not saying there's a lot more but I'm tentatively in the camp that maybe there is just a little more history than we know.

Just like the whole pre-Clovis debate, as science and exploration let us look in greater detail than we can sometimes move settlement and exploration back.

Cool graph, though. It's nice to have that one silly talking point done away with.
 
2012-10-31 10:47:55 AM

fruitloop: We should count. I'll start...

1


I have a better idea. Let's insult them. All of them. Individually, personally, one by one, and (this is the thing we have to grit our teeth over) in Alphabetical Order.
 
2012-10-31 10:53:49 AM

toddslacks: The All-Powerful Atheismo: toddslacks: Contrabulous Flabtraption: Threeve

Texa$

oooh, reference fail.

so close.

You obviously understood the reference so how was it a fail?


Because the reference is actually:

$Texas

It's like misquoting something. You can be executed in some hipster countries for that.
 
2012-10-31 10:56:21 AM

Jairzinho: karnal: Time to thin out the herd

At the pace earth resources are being consumed and depleted with any regard for future generations, that will take care of itself relatively soon.


I know it's not quite the same, but looking at the slope of that graph brings to mind a graph of the population in a bacterial culture I saw once. Exponential growth, followed by saturation and then a crash as the resources are depleted and/or the medium becomes too saturated with waste. I don't want to live to see the last part of that graph. I am hoping we'll back off the throttle a bit before it gets to that point.
 
2012-10-31 11:08:21 AM

I_Am_Weasel: All of them.


FFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

I wanted to say this
 
2012-10-31 11:11:47 AM

gweilo8888: Five, plus or minus a margin of error.


Christ! how many alts do you have here?
 
2012-10-31 11:17:33 AM
But where do you bury the survivers?
 
2012-10-31 11:21:04 AM

Anderson's Pooper: Just me. The rest of you were hatched.


Wrong, you were hatched as well
 
2012-10-31 11:23:32 AM

karnal: Jairzinho


karnal: Time to thin out the herd

At the pace earth resources are being consumed and depleted with any regard for future generations, that will take care of itself relatively soon.

Nature takes care of overpopulation in its own way.....Disease, Starvation.....Predators


Alternatively, we can address the issue with greater access to education, healthcare and contraceptive medicine.

... but, since those words mean "SOCIALISM" to Red State Americans, we're probably in for a nice long stretch of starvation and nuclear war.
 
2012-10-31 11:23:37 AM

stuhayes2010: Boy things took off 8,000 years ago. Was that agriculture?


Sedentary settlement, to be precise, but that usually is linked to agriculture, so yeah.

High levels of mobility favor long birth spacing so that the first child is old enough to keep up with the group before the next is born, so that mothers never need to be carrying more than one child at a time. Sedentary settlement allows for "babysitting" so that mom can gather food while the kids are safe at home. It relaxes the selection pressure against rapid reproduction, so populations start to grow pretty rapidly. That's going to require intensification of food-getting strategies, so in a lot of cases, it may be that rapid population growth "causes" agriculture, rather than the other way around, but the two are definitely causally linked.



How long until the Christian fundies grab this, manipulate it to say seeeeeeeeeeeee even scientists agree with bible!

At least negative 40 years. They've been saying that crap since at least the 1960s that I know of, and probably longer.
 
2012-10-31 11:23:49 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: The dalai lama tells me it's much less, since most of these are rebirths of people who didn't get it right the first time.


There's an idea in Christianity that all the souls of all the humans who will ever live were created when (or before) God made Adam and Eve. This would mean that we're essentially counting down to the moment when the last human being ever will be born. This only works if either (A) God knows to the second when the Rapture/Armageddon will occur or (B) God made a lot of extra souls that will never get to be born.

Not saying that all, or even most, Christians believe this. I guess the alternative is that souls are created "on the spot" as needed.
 
2012-10-31 11:26:17 AM

drkdstryer: Mrs.Sharpier: Epoch_Zero: How many people have ever been born?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense.

whatthef*ckamIreading.jpg


It's a meme.

/And I just broke the first rule of Meme Club.
 
2012-10-31 11:29:02 AM
FAIL

Did not differentiate between Reincarnation vs. Newbs
 
2012-10-31 11:29:34 AM

Pair-o-Dice: A brazillion.


You're seriously underestimating. There are at least two Brazilian women.

i105.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-31 11:29:41 AM

liam76: I think about 6 or seven. They keep being re-born and interacting in different wasy.

/Or maybe this wasn't a documentary


upload.wikimedia.org
I'll see your Hollywood movie and raise you Kim Stanley Robinson,
 
2012-10-31 11:30:43 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: toddslacks: The All-Powerful Atheismo: toddslacks: Contrabulous Flabtraption: Threeve

Texa$

oooh, reference fail.

so close.

You obviously understood the reference so how was it a fail?

Because the reference is actually:

$Texas

It's like misquoting something. You can be executed in some hipster countries for that.


That's funny. I've obviously heard this reference more than I've seen it. I always pictured it that way. This makes more sense. Being at work, I didn't put in the time to research my reference. Also, I work in IT and see S replaced with $ on a weekly if not daily basis. So just laugh at my reference and keep quiet buck futter!
 
2012-10-31 11:31:10 AM

I_Am_Weasel: All of them.


Aaaannnd We're done!
 
2012-10-31 11:34:01 AM
stuhayes2010: How long until the Christian fundies grab this, manipulate it to say seeeeeeeeeeeee even scientists agree with bible!

FloydA: At least negative 40 years. They've been saying that crap since at least the 1960s that I know of, and probably longer.


upload.wikimedia.org
"Negative 40 years" sounds about right.
 
2012-10-31 11:36:47 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: If that were true, there would be many, many more cemeteries.


Bill Bryson in At Home talks about all the 'sunken churches' all over the English countryside. Turns out the churches aren't sinking, the graves in the yard are reused every couple of generations or so, and the cumulative effect is the yards are 3 to 4 feet higher than they were when the church was built.
 
2012-10-31 11:39:21 AM
i49.tinypic.com 

Reminded me of this.
Not sure why.
 
2012-10-31 11:41:39 AM

Dictatorial_Flair: Jairzinho: karnal: Time to thin out the herd

At the pace earth resources are being consumed and depleted with any regard for future generations, that will take care of itself relatively soon.

I know it's not quite the same, but looking at the slope of that graph brings to mind a graph of the population in a bacterial culture I saw once. Exponential growth, followed by saturation and then a crash as the resources are depleted and/or the medium becomes too saturated with waste. I don't want to live to see the last part of that graph. I am hoping we'll back off the throttle a bit before it gets to that point.


My first thought was how a garden grows - bear at first, things grow, then they flower and heaps of fruit appear ---> HARVEST (if I was an immortal being who liked flesh, waiting few million years would be nothing more than me waiting for my tomatoes to grow (or your chickens/cows/other cousins for you carnivores.)
 
2012-10-31 11:46:41 AM

ciberido: There's an idea in Christianity that all the souls of all the humans who will ever live were created when (or before) God made Adam and Eve. This would mean that we're essentially counting down to the moment when the last human being ever will be born. This only works if either (A) God knows to the second when the Rapture/Armageddon will occur or (B) God made a lot of extra souls that will never get to be born.


Judaism, actually. The concept is described in the Talmud, and that where the name "Guf" comes from. I'm not sure I've ever heard of it being a widely held christian belief, though there are several popular movies that attribute it to christianity. (probably because a horror/thriller about Juews doesn't have as much bite. Or they would be sued to smithereensm, or something.) Seventh Sign was one, I think.
 
2012-10-31 11:51:17 AM
Oops, didn't mean to misspell "Jews". It was accidental. Don't hate me.
 
2012-10-31 11:57:51 AM
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-31 12:03:01 PM

crohret: But where do you bury the survivers?


First you need to learn that you don't bury survivors.
Second you need to learn to spell survivors.
 
2012-10-31 12:05:12 PM

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Why does that chart indicate that there were 0 people until 8000 BC? That makes no sense.


DUH! that's because Adam and Eve wasn;t born until about 8000BC

Do I have to EXPLAIN everythin' roun tis parts?
 
#2 [TotalFark]
2012-10-31 12:05:19 PM
How many have -fb as the father????
 
2012-10-31 12:06:56 PM

Tommy Moo: Jairzinho: karnal: Time to thin out the herd

At the pace earth resources are being consumed and depleted with any regard for future generations, that will take care of itself relatively soon.

Yeah, but wouldn't it be nice if politicians acted like grownups and initiated a serious discussion with the public about how we can make choices that transition to a sustainable population level in the least painful way possible before the enviro-economy makes those decisions for us, catastrophically?

EUGENICS?
Should the politicians in Sub-Saharan Africa be the ones to take the lead?

 
2012-10-31 12:11:37 PM
img248.imageshack.us

World death rate has been holding steady for some time now.
 
2012-10-31 12:16:23 PM

prekrasno: Eleventy billion.


You're almost right! It's closer to tenty point 8 billion.
 
2012-10-31 12:18:14 PM
Negative. Only 1 person has been born: The Egg
 
2012-10-31 12:18:36 PM

notmtwain: Interesting graphic but it's taken from How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth by Carl Haub which includes an explanation of how the estimates were derived.


"One reason the question keeps coming up is that somewhere, at some time back in the 1970s, a writer made the statement that 75 percent of the people who had ever been born were alive at that moment."

How can you come up with a "statement" if you don't even know who, where or when? That is some fine police work, Lou.
 
2012-10-31 12:21:46 PM
Q. How many people have ever been born?
A. All of them. Some of them twice
 
2012-10-31 12:27:16 PM
Huge overestimation.


Carl Haub la-dee-da.
 
2012-10-31 12:35:52 PM

ciberido: drkdstryer: Mrs.Sharpier: Epoch_Zero: How many people have ever been born?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense.

whatthef*ckamIreading.jpg

It's a meme.

/And I just broke the first rule of Meme Club.


See, you just accidentally the whole meme. This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2012-10-31 12:40:32 PM

ciberido: liam76: I think about 6 or seven. They keep being re-born and interacting in different wasy.

/Or maybe this wasn't a documentary

[upload.wikimedia.org image 303x475]
I'll see your Hollywood movie and raise you Kim Stanley Robinson,


I enjoyed that book, but like cloud atlas much more.
 
2012-10-31 12:42:47 PM
my trolling effort failed miserably. well done fark. well done.
 
2012-10-31 12:43:37 PM

Pair-o-Dice: crohret: But where do you bury the survivers?

First you need to learn that you don't bury survivors.
Second you need to learn to spell survivors.

Third you need a picture of a SILF
lucytheblog.files.wordpress.com 

/hot
//at least in my opinion
 
2012-10-31 12:58:11 PM
Zero.

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
 
2012-10-31 01:01:39 PM
As many as god has put on the earth??
 
2012-10-31 01:07:55 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: margin


I... what?

/no alts, promise
//jus' lil' ol' me
 
2012-10-31 01:10:11 PM

lordluzr: Mrs.Sharpier: Epoch_Zero: How many people have ever been born?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense.

OWWWWW.... stop. My cerebellum just sprained itself.


Post.
Of.
The.
Year.

HotIgneous Intruder: If that were true, there would be many, many more cemeteries.

There are. You just don't see them. People used to bury their family members in their yard, or on a piece of land they owned. It was commonplace. They move the bodies when they know they're there.. but sometimes they don't know, since there's no record, and they wind up just building over them. As towns continue to expand, it's inevitable that maybe there are dead people under the park, under the supermarket... maybe under your house.

Nighty-night.
 
2012-10-31 01:13:21 PM

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Numbers might be slightly skewed when some people only counted as 3/5ths.


But it's made up for when you count people who were Born Again.
 
2012-10-31 01:14:07 PM
Can we quit pretending that there is something miraculous about reproducing then? If it's been done hundreds of billions of times, statistically not a miracle.
 
2012-10-31 01:21:18 PM

DigitalCoffee: Zero.

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.


Wrong. It is not a given that a subset of infinity is finite. A subset of infinity may also be an infinity, merely a lower order infinity.

There's other things wrong with this argument, but that's the one that jumped out at me the most.
 
2012-10-31 01:25:30 PM

DrWhy: DigitalCoffee: Zero.

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

Wrong. It is not a given that a subset of infinity is finite. A subset of infinity may also be an infinity, merely a lower order infinity.

There's other things wrong with this argument, but that's the one that jumped out at me the most.


Dude, Don't Panic. Have a jinnan tonix, and do yourself a favour and don't read the proof as to why black is white.

/at least you'll be safe on crosswalks/Zebra crossings
 
2012-10-31 01:51:21 PM

Jairzinho: Let's see...
Adam 1, Eve 2...oh wait, they weren't born. So we have to start counting from Cain 1, Abel 2.... etc.


Wait are you counting the people from the Colonies that showed up on Earth in the Battlestar Galactica? Oh what about Cylons do they count as people? If not do flesh bot Cylons count? Or just the once that are compatible breeding stock?
 
2012-10-31 01:52:08 PM

hbomb1129: Can we quit pretending that there is something miraculous about reproducing then?


Who cares about miraculous. I'm wondering when we are going to stop considering it a "right".
 
2012-10-31 01:54:44 PM

Bondith: Dude, Don't Panic. Have a jinnan tonix, and do yourself a favour and don't read the proof as to why black is white.


It helps to buy a pair of Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.
 
2012-10-31 01:57:26 PM

Pair-o-Dice: crohret: But where do you bury the survivers?

First you need to learn that you don't bury survivors.
Second you need to learn to spell survivors.


images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-10-31 01:57:33 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: hbomb1129: Can we quit pretending that there is something miraculous about reproducing then?

Who cares about miraculous. I'm wondering when we are going to stop considering it a "right".


Right after it stops being considered a miraculous gift from god.
 
2012-10-31 02:00:42 PM
DigitalCoffee: Zero.

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.


DrWhy: Wrong. It is not a given that a subset of infinity is finite. A subset of infinity may also be an infinity, merely a lower order infinity.


Wrong. "A lower order infinity" is not possible when one is dealing only with rational numbers. Unless you can make a case that "number of inhabited worlds" or "number of worlds" are not rational numbers, your argument is invalid.
 
2012-10-31 02:05:44 PM

Slaxl: Right after it stops being considered a miraculous gift from god.


I agree that's a very convenient way to shift all responsibility and blame to someone else while feeling superior.
 
2012-10-31 02:16:18 PM

DrWhy: DigitalCoffee: Zero.

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

Wrong. It is not a given that a subset of infinity is finite. A subset of infinity may also be an infinity, merely a lower order infinity.

There's other things wrong with this argument, but that's the one that jumped out at me the most.



Never thought that I'd see the day when a well known HHGTTG quote would be so obscure on FARK.

/i am disappoint
 
2012-10-31 02:16:43 PM

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Why does that chart indicate that there were 0 people until 8000 BC? That makes no sense.


Well, for one thing that is when the Earth was created.
 
2012-10-31 02:22:51 PM

ajgeek: Funny how the population boom started at the end of the last ice age. It's as if we started exploring the planet at that point.


Coincided with the invention of agriculture, which REALLY got things moving, population-wise.

Anyone good at math able to estimate how many people, tops, there could possibly be if we started with two people, 6,000 years ago, and used historic birth/death rates? I'm betting it's less than 7B by an order of magnitude.
 
2012-10-31 02:23:08 PM

ciberido: Wrong. "A lower order infinity" is not possible when one is dealing only with rational numbers. Unless you can make a case that "number of inhabited worlds" or "number of worlds" are not rational numbers, your argument is invalid.


You are correct that "Lower order infinity" was the wrong terminology there. But it is true that a 1st order infinite set can be subdivided into any number of infinite subsets. Which is probably what he was trying to say. Using integers as an example - the set of all even integers, the set of all integers divisible by 3, the set of all integers divisible by 5...  Another way of saying this is that inf/x=inf for all rational numbers x.
 
2012-10-31 02:38:31 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: ciberido: Wrong. "A lower order infinity" is not possible when one is dealing only with rational numbers. Unless you can make a case that "number of inhabited worlds" or "number of worlds" are not rational numbers, your argument is invalid.

You are correct that "Lower order infinity" was the wrong terminology there. But it is true that a 1st order infinite set can be subdivided into any number of infinite subsets. Which is probably what he was trying to say. Using integers as an example - the set of all even integers, the set of all integers divisible by 3, the set of all integers divisible by 5...  Another way of saying this is that inf/x=inf for all rational numbers x.


Yes. But they're all the same size. That's the point. The problem is not with his terminology, or the idea that there are lower and higher orders of infinity, but that orders of infinity would APPLY to any subset of the rational numbers.

To use one of your examples, if J = the set of all positive integers and K = the set of all positive even integers, both J and K are "infinitely" large. But K is NO SMALLER than J. They are EXACTLY the same size. They have exactly the same number of elements, even though 3 is in J but not K.
 
2012-10-31 02:39:36 PM

DigitalCoffee: Never thought that I'd see the day when a well known HHGTTG quote would be so obscure on FARK.

/i am disappoint


I prefer to think he recognized it but pretended as he didn't for the sake of the joke.
 
2012-10-31 02:41:06 PM

mbillips: ajgeek: Funny how the population boom started at the end of the last ice age. It's as if we started exploring the planet at that point.

Coincided with the invention of agriculture, which REALLY got things moving, population-wise.

Anyone good at math able to estimate how many people, tops, there could possibly be if we started with two people, 6,000 years ago, and used historic birth/death rates? I'm betting it's less than 7B by an order of magnitude.


By several orders of magnitude, given that the species would have died out from Appalachian Hapsburg levels inbreeding.

/do the Bible literalists have a satisfactory answer to the problem of Adam's daughters-in-law?
 
2012-10-31 02:52:27 PM

ciberido: Yes. But they're all the same size. That's the point.


Yes, it was his point too. To quote him "It is not a given that a subset of infinity is finite. A subset of infinity may also be an infinity"  Just remove the offending part about "lower order"
 
2012-10-31 03:00:41 PM

mbillips: Anyone good at math able to estimate how many people, tops, there could possibly be if we started with two people, 6,000 years ago, and used historic birth/death rates? I'm betting it's less than 7B by an order of magnitude.


I bet it's way more than 7 billion. Way, way, way, way, way, way, way, ridiculously way more than 7 billion.

/too lazy to do the math
 
2012-10-31 03:18:58 PM

Biness: fewer than should have been, thanks to abortion.


Loving And Merciful YHVH kills about three quarters of the embryos He, in His infinite wisdom and love, creates. Planned Parenthood can't hold a barbed-wire-wrapped candle to that genocidal cloud-bastard.
 
2012-10-31 03:44:03 PM
Somewhere along the lines of ~60 billion I read once.

In any case, the number of living will never catch up to the dead. Yikes.
 
2012-10-31 03:45:20 PM
Too many.
 
2012-10-31 04:34:20 PM
DigitalCoffee: Zero. It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

DrWhy: Wrong. It is not a given that a subset of infinity is finite. A subset of infinity may also be an infinity, merely a lower order infinity.

ciberido: Wrong. "A lower order infinity" is not possible when one is dealing only with rational numbers. Unless you can make a case that "number of inhabited worlds" or "number of worlds" are not rational numbers, your argument is invalid.


A subset of an infinite set, even a countably infinite set like the rationals, can still be infinite. Consider, for example, the set of odd numbers, which is an infinite subset of the set of all the natural numbers, a countable infinite set. Both sets have the same cardinality as well.

Also, you're both wrong because you obviously missed the reference to THHGTTG.
 
2012-10-31 05:08:49 PM

ciberido: ThrobblefootSpectre: ciberido: Wrong. "A lower order infinity" is not possible when one is dealing only with rational numbers. Unless you can make a case that "number of inhabited worlds" or "number of worlds" are not rational numbers, your argument is invalid.

You are correct that "Lower order infinity" was the wrong terminology there. But it is true that a 1st order infinite set can be subdivided into any number of infinite subsets. Which is probably what he was trying to say. Using integers as an example - the set of all even integers, the set of all integers divisible by 3, the set of all integers divisible by 5...  Another way of saying this is that inf/x=inf for all rational numbers x.

Yes. But they're all the same size. That's the point. The problem is not with his terminology, or the idea that there are lower and higher orders of infinity, but that orders of infinity would APPLY to any subset of the rational numbers.

To use one of your examples, if J = the set of all positive integers and K = the set of all positive even integers, both J and K are "infinitely" large. But K is NO SMALLER than J. They are EXACTLY the same size. They have exactly the same number of elements, even though 3 is in J but not K.


Speaking of terminology, I believe that actual term we need is order type, which is what I assume DrWhy meant by "a lower order infinity." In the example with the sets "J and K," I'm arguing that both sets have the same order type because they have the same cardinality.

He was also probably alluding to transfinite numbers. But, to be honest, this is about where my understanding of mathematics ends.
 
2012-10-31 05:10:05 PM

Loadmaster: Also, you're both wrong because you obviously missed the reference to THHGTTG.


bbsimg.ngfiles.com
 
2012-10-31 06:02:00 PM

Bondith: DrWhy: DigitalCoffee: Zero.

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

Wrong. It is not a given that a subset of infinity is finite. A subset of infinity may also be an infinity, merely a lower order infinity.

There's other things wrong with this argument, but that's the one that jumped out at me the most.

Dude, Don't Panic. Have a jinnan tonix, and do yourself a favour and don't read the proof as to why black is white.

/at least you'll be safe on crosswalks/Zebra crossings


What's wrong Bondith? Did you not see the wry smirk on my face as I typed this? Here ya go -> ;?
 
2012-10-31 06:09:50 PM

ciberido: DigitalCoffee: Zero.

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

DrWhy: Wrong. It is not a given that a subset of infinity is finite. A subset of infinity may also be an infinity, merely a lower order infinity.

Wrong. "A lower order infinity" is not possible when one is dealing only with rational numbers. Unless you can make a case that "number of inhabited worlds" or "number of worlds" are not rational numbers, your argument is invalid.


I know of at least one world that is not rational...

/What rational person would name a planet after the plant and animal crap and dead bodies that encrust it?

//yeah, 'orders of infinity' is not right. But a fraction of infinity is still not necessarily finite.
 
2012-10-31 06:24:32 PM

Bondith: mbillips: ajgeek: Funny how the population boom started at the end of the last ice age. It's as if we started exploring the planet at that point.

Coincided with the invention of agriculture, which REALLY got things moving, population-wise.

Anyone good at math able to estimate how many people, tops, there could possibly be if we started with two people, 6,000 years ago, and used historic birth/death rates? I'm betting it's less than 7B by an order of magnitude.

By several orders of magnitude, given that the species would have died out from Appalachian Hapsburg levels inbreeding.

/do the Bible literalists have a satisfactory answer to the problem of Adam's daughters-in-law?


Actually they do. Adam and Eve were created perfect, no flaws in their DNA. DNA errors developed slowly over time after the Fall. For the first n-generations genetic abnormalities were not at a high enough level to make inbreeding an issue.
 
2012-10-31 07:10:00 PM
How is babby formed?
 
2012-10-31 07:25:20 PM

gweilo8888: Uchiha_Cycliste: margin

I... what?

/no alts, promise
//jus' lil' ol' me


So, there's you, me and all of fark is three other people. crazy
 
2012-10-31 08:16:03 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Slaxl: Right after it stops being considered a miraculous gift from god.

I agree that's a very convenient way to shift all responsibility and blame to someone else while feeling superior.

Actually

you giant pair of shorn testicles, I took the responsibility from fictitious beings and gave it squarely to humans. Do you see? No, of course you don't, because, you're a farking mentalist :P, farkface.
 
2012-10-31 09:17:56 PM

Slaxl: Actually you giant pair of shorn testicles, I took the responsibility from fictitious beings and gave it squarely to humans. Do you see? No, of course you don't, because, you're a farking mentalist :P, farkface.


The problem I had with your statement is that legislating (or protecting) reproductive rights is a government function. By inserting miracles or god into the equation you sound like a religious nutjob. I would prefer to keep religion out of it. That's all.
 
2012-10-31 09:28:01 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Slaxl: Actually you giant pair of shorn testicles, I took the responsibility from fictitious beings and gave it squarely to humans. Do you see? No, of course you don't, because, you're a farking mentalist :P, farkface.

The problem I had with your statement is that legislating (or protecting) reproductive rights is a government function. By inserting miracles or god into the equation you sound like a religious nutjob. I would prefer to keep religion out of it. That's all.


lol, really? Ok Sorry perhaps I phrased my position wrong then... because my point was that to the original commenter, which a little sobre inspection tells me was you............... is that birth stops being a right and becomes whatever you want it to be the moment we do away with religious nutjobs believing childbirth is a miracle... I was trying to mock the 'miracle of childbirth' earlier, see?.

Alcohol made me stop reading far enough ahead to see who or what I was arguing against, and since this is Fark that gives me a bye.
 
2012-10-31 09:48:58 PM

Slaxl: I was trying to mock the 'miracle of childbirth' earlier, see?.


Hmmm, suppose there was no one in the forum who brought it up (besides you) and we were free to discuss more relevant aspects of reproductive rights. Don't you think a group of non-religious persons, such as us for instance, could discuss the topic even if there was still someone somewhere else in the world who believed in something else. Their belief doesn't restrict us in that way.
 
2012-10-31 10:22:06 PM
All the more reason to legalize euthanisia. If people don't voluntarily choose to die and we quit seeking uber-longevity then the population will grow at a higher rate than anticipated and economic inequalities will be exacerbated. The quality of life disparities that exist now will grow and lead to more conflict and ultimate social collapse. While this may lead to a decline in population it will also create a reversal of social evolution and lead to desperate actions by governments in the future. China is already seeking to reverse its one-child policy due to how the changing demographics are beginning to affect its economic advancement. If voluntary euthanasia isn't enacted then eventually governments will will institute their own eugenics programs that will be highly contentious and lead to hazardous results.

//there are too many youth in Asia anyway
 
2012-10-31 10:46:21 PM

frunjer: All the more reason to legalize euthanisia. If people don't voluntarily choose to die and we quit seeking uber-longevity then the population will grow at a higher rate than anticipated and economic inequalities will be exacerbated.


Agreed, but I think that would be a drop in the ocean of population growth. The number of people who will choose a comfortable at home death instead of clinging desperately to every last second of mechanically induced heartbeat will be quite small. As evidence I give you the huge deal made by some people out of the small difference in life expectancy (less than 1 year) between Europe and the U.S. Evidently that last 6 months between 78.2 and 78.8 is really something extra special.


frunjer: China is already seeking to reverse its one-child policy due to how the changing demographics are beginning to affect its economic advancement


I don't think reproductive legislation necessarily has to have that consequence. It became a problem in China only because of a strong cultural preference for boys. The demographic imbalance isn't a natural or necessary outcome of the policy itself.
 
2012-10-31 10:59:21 PM
Yeah,but how many have been born with extremely large schwanshtuckles?
 
2012-10-31 11:09:55 PM

anallyproper: Yeah,but how many have been born with extremely large schwanshtuckles?


Depends on your sampling methodology. Going with the self-reported method, about 75% (including women).
 
2012-10-31 11:14:39 PM
None.
 
2012-11-01 12:24:31 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: So, there's you, me and all of fark is three other people. crazy


The light dawns.

/slow today
//I blame the cold meds
///and the margin of error
 
2012-11-01 01:41:12 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: frunjer: All the more reason to legalize euthanisia. If people don't voluntarily choose to die and we quit seeking uber-longevity then the population will grow at a higher rate than anticipated and economic inequalities will be exacerbated.

Agreed, but I think that would be a drop in the ocean of population growth. The number of people who will choose a comfortable at home death instead of clinging desperately to every last second of mechanically induced heartbeat will be quite small. As evidence I give you the huge deal made by some people out of the small difference in life expectancy (less than 1 year) between Europe and the U.S. Evidently that last 6 months between 78.2 and 78.8 is really something extra special.


frunjer: China is already seeking to reverse its one-child policy due to how the changing demographics are beginning to affect its economic advancement

I don't think reproductive legislation necessarily has to have that consequence. It became a problem in China only because of a strong cultural preference for boys. The demographic imbalance isn't a natural or necessary outcome of the policy itself.


You're right that the number of people opting out would be slight in comparison to those staying in. Most has to do with the quality of life. I see so many of my older relatives just existing on social security. I realize there is the pay back issue of using current resources to finance past liabilities and this is the government's fault, not senior citizens, but I would assume if possible I would opt out as I don't want to live in a much reduced physical and economic state. I guess it's kind of stupid to use life and death as a resource allocation method but the cynic in me sees that as a future possibility: either naturally via social or environmental upheaval or as a manufactured rich vs poor process.
 
2012-11-01 02:25:10 PM
That's A LOT of zombies!
 
Displayed 157 of 157 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report