ForumGarden

MANY years ago, perhaps 25 or 30, I read the following statistic: "Out of every TWENTY people who have EVER lived, one is alive today."

This seems unbelievable at first glance, but given statistics of the growth of world population, and following those stats in reverse, I do not doubt that it was true at that time.

Now, my question is this: Does anyone know what the current stats are in this regard?

Now 1 out of 18, 15, ???

Mark Aspam;1466584 wrote: MANY years ago, perhaps 25 or 30, I read the following statistic: "Out of every TWENTY people who have EVER lived, one is alive today."

This seems unbelievable at first glance, but given statistics of the growth of world population, and following those stats in reverse, I do not doubt that it was true at that time.

Now, my question is this: Does anyone know what the current stats are in this regard?

Now 1 out of 18, 15, ???


I've done a *rough* estimate from the figures on This Page and I make it about seven out of every twenty.

FourPart referred to what I have always believed to be true, in that "There are more people alive today, than have ever died"

Is that true, because it doesn't agree with Bryns estimate.......does it ? Mathematics makes my brain hurt.

Very dramatic statements, and I am sure there are statisticians that can offer some interesting demonstrations to back up such claims.

I can point out that there are now nearly three times as many people alive on the planet as there were when most of the regulars here were born.

However, according to the Population Reference Bureau

Something over 100 Billion people have set foot on the planet over the millennia.

We're not there, yet.

LarsMac;1466594 wrote: Very dramatic statements, and I am sure there are statisticians that can offer some interesting demonstrations to back up such claims.

I can point out that there are now nearly three times as many people alive on the planet as there were when most of the regulars here were born.

However, according to the Population Reference Bureau

Something over 100 Billion people have set foot on the planet over the millennia.

We're not there, yet.


That's the figure I was trying to get to using the estimates of world population over the past hundred thousand years.

With the best will in the world I can only just get the numbers to just over forty billion dead and that's not taking proper allowance for those in the latter half of the twentieth century who are still alive - call it fifty billion all told which gives us one in seven still alive.

I was thinking along the lines of Binary counting, with each bit being the population of a generation

I read this just last month: "The farmers of the world will have to grow as much food in the next fifty years, to feed the population, as they have in the last five thousand."

Scary figures, but I can well believe it.

To put it in perspective:

Attached files

The Population Bomb

It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals


Now we have "Climate Change" fear.

Hmm,

Just thinking. Maybe a reduction in the population of people is the answer?

OK, One-child policy

Well, I don't know how well that will go over in free countries.

tude dog;1466704 wrote: The Population Bomb



Now we have "Climate Change" fear.

Hmm,

Just thinking. Maybe a reduction in the population of people is the answer?

OK, One-child policy

Well, I don't know how well that will go over in free countries.


It didn't even go over very well in China.

LarsMac;1466709 wrote: It didn't even go over very well in China.


It has worked though I believe.

The irony is, that as people become more affluent, the need to have the insurance of children to support them in old age diminishes. There is a theory that the feared explosion of population will not happen as standards rise and couples limit the size of the family as it makes more sense financially.

Bruv;1466716 wrote: It has worked though I believe.

The irony is, that as people become more affluent, the need to have the insurance of children to support them in old age diminishes. There is a theory that the feared explosion of population will not happen as standards rise and couples limit the size of the family as it makes more sense financially.


Another mistake was allowing abortion for sex selection, making the modern population mostly males who might never mate. It's a sausage factory over there! Males are preferred over females as traditionally it is the male who cares for his parents, nevermind hers.

AnneBoleyn;1466718 wrote: Another mistake was allowing abortion for sex selection, making the modern population mostly males who might never mate. It's a sausage factory over there! Males are preferred over females as traditionally it is the male who cares for his parents, nevermind hers.


Did they allow that? I never knew that, I did know that girl children were abandoned or 'lost' so the quota of one boy child wasn't broken.

I heard somewhere the Japanese now have a generation that see no reason to marry and raise kids, they are sort of non sexual, too busy playing with their tamagotchi, living a virtual life rather than live a real one.

AnneBoleyn;1466718 wrote: Another mistake was allowing abortion for sex selection, making the modern population mostly males who might never mate. It's a sausage factory over there! Males are preferred over females as traditionally it is the male who cares for his parents, nevermind hers.


No law prohibiting sex selection here. Just not that common.

tude dog;1466727 wrote: No law prohibiting sex selection here. Just not that common.


I wouldn't agree with that law Here, or any restrictions on abortion Here. However, many states do try, & fail, in their attempts to pursue it. And how could you prove it here anyway? In China, it's obvious.

They are changing the law to allow 2 children. As of now, if you Pay for the Privilege, you may have more than one anyway.

Even with the 1-child policy, Chinese population is still rocketing. What is needed is about 10 years, or so, with no children, although I doubt even that would make much impact on the overall view.

tude dog;1466703 wrote: The Population Bomb



Now we have "Climate Change" fear.

Hmm,

Just thinking. Maybe a reduction in the population of people is the answer?

OK, One-child policy

Well, I don't know how well that will go over in free countries.


Given how badly it went over in China whilst they still had their totalitarian regime I would guess not very well at all.

Similarly, given the reaction in India when they tried it there I would suggest that pressurising the male population into having vasectomies would go down just as badly.

Bruv;1466716 wrote: It has worked though I believe.

The irony is, that as people become more affluent, the need to have the insurance of children to support them in old age diminishes. There is a theory that the feared explosion of population will not happen as standards rise and couples limit the size of the family as it makes more sense financially.


In order to ensure that the current decline in birth rates continues to happen we need to continue, and even accelerate the rate of, the education of the third world - without that I believe we're doomed to failure.

Perhaps it would be a help if The Vatican permitted artificial birth controls. Nature in any case, seems to have a way of 'trimming the tree', through awful natural calamities like volcanoes, tsunamis, and outbreaks of disease that develop into pandemics. Nature seems to have the ability to sort a problem e.g. if a tree looses a large branch on one side through damage, then after a while it drops a perfectly healthy branch from the opposite side in order to retain balance !

If we don't introduce some sort of reduction in child birth, and soon, then nature will introduce something rather devastating to do the reduction for us !

G#Gill;1466752 wrote: Perhaps it would be a help if The Vatican permitted artificial birth controls. Nature in any case, seems to have a way of 'trimming the tree', through awful natural calamities like volcanoes, tsunamis, and outbreaks of disease that develop into pandemics. Nature seems to have the ability to sort a problem e.g. if a tree looses a large branch on one side through damage, then after a while it drops a perfectly healthy branch from the opposite side in order to retain balance !

If we don't introduce some sort of reduction in child birth, and soon, then nature will introduce something rather devastating to do the reduction for us !
Which is why I don't think it's right for so much funding to be put into Fertility Treatments - especially on the NHS.

Just an observation, seems the birth rate of world population is not evenly spread out.

Total world population is less a concern, so I would think.



List of sovereign states and dependent territories by fertility rate

tude dog;1466755 wrote: Just an observation, seems the birth rate of world population is not evenly spread out.

Total world population is less a concern, so I would think.



List of sovereign states and dependent territories by fertility rate


Unfortunately, that is not the whole story.

Most of those high-rated countries also have the highest infant mortality rates, as well.



Mortality rate, infant (per 1,000 live births) | Data | Map

High birth rate, high infant mortality rate, it all correlates with..........standard of living ?

So, we owe ourselves to raise the level of all our neighbours on the earth.................or they will only rock our boat wont they ?

tude dog;1466755 wrote: Just an observation, seems the birth rate of world population is not evenly spread out.

Total world population is less a concern, so I would think.



List of sovereign states and dependent territories by fertility rate


Do you think third world nations arbitrarily have large families for the fun of it ? Just because they can ? If you live on a subsistence income with little or no future and the prospect of old age with no pension or income at all, especially if you're infirm, a large family to support you in your later years is the only way to survive.

You need plenty of sons and daughters and grandkids to put the food on your plate if you are unable to do it yourself. No "meals on wheels" in Africa

In many cases the reason for having so many children is considered a manner of playing the numbers. The more children you have, the more chance there is of a couple of them surviving - as, for instance, was the case during the Victorian ere, when infant mortality was at an all time high.

Plus, in many countries it has always been the culture that it should be the duty of the children to tend for their parents in their old age, so by increasing the numbers of children they are increasing their policy for a better return on their form of Life Insurance. The problem is that when they migrate to ealthier countries, where the Elderly Care is no longer an issue, the culture of large families, for many, remains.

Furthermore, there is the case where, once again, Religion rears its ugly head & it is seen as being a duty to their God to fulfill whatever the version of "Go Forth & Be Fruitful" may be the best of their ability.

So long as the average life expectancies & age of fertilities continue to rise, then it's a no brainer that the population is going to rise.

In a natural system, over population would result in problems with food, drink & disposal of sewage / dead / waste etc., thus leading to epidemical level diseases, which keeps the population levels. It may sound harsh, but this is the way Nature works, and for Billions of years she's done a pretty good job of it. Now, as relative New Boys In Town, we have the arrogance to challenge her. Yeah, right.

FourPart;1466767 wrote:

So long as the average life expectancies & age of fertilities continue to rise, then it's a no brainer that the population is going to rise.




You need to look deeper.

The fact is that wealthier more prosperous countries have a decline in population......I hate to bring them into it it, but the nationalist parties are afraid Europeans will die out because of that fact.

The population isn't declining - the rate of increase is declining.

FourPart;1466770 wrote: The population isn't declining - the rate of increase is declining.


The EU's population now stands at 495 million and is projected to rise to more than 520 million by 2035, before falling to 505 million by 2060.

I understand the birthrate is in decline, according to this report the actual European population will drop due to an aging population.

The stark difference between affluent Europe and the third world is clear for all to see, much of the UK's increase is down to immigration and these young people being of child bearing age, so obscuring the trend.

So sharing the wealth out is not only morally right, it could save the world.

People who claim that the entire population of the world , if crowded together, would fit within Houston, Texas ignore one inconvenient fact . There is only a limited amount of inhabitable space on earth , and vast areas which are totally uninhabitable or could only support a very small population .

There are vast swaths of scorching desert and northern, arctic regions which are simply uninhabitable . Populations are spreading into areas previously inhabited only by wild animals, and this is creating problems with cohabitation of human and non-human life forms .