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  
•       •       •

16365 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 157 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report