It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Population Numbers: Something is not right here.

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Hello Gang, I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I've been thinking about this and it it just doesn't make sense to me. How could the earth of had less people in the past? From what I've heard, as of now there has only been on the earth a total of about 60 Billion people through out all of time. How can that be? I will use myself and just myself for this experiment, because adding anyone else, let alone our now 6 billion neighbors would make it impossible.
I am 34 now. It took my parents (2to1)to make me, so 34 years ago and even now they were 2 to my 1. It took 4 people to make my parents, so at the time of there births there were 4 to my 1, regardless of deaths occurring later. By 10 generations there are 1024 to my 1, which is only a few hundred years, so by way of that logic, anyone my age had to have at least that amount of people for them to be here now. Now by 20 generations there are 1048576 people to my 1. Again, I am just using me alone, not brothers or sisters nor the other 6 billion people. I realize that generations die and are born, but even if I were to use 10 other people my exact age, we are already into the hundred million range, and I'm sure there are more than 10 people who were born exactly the day I was. I don't understand how this can be and the numbers don't lie. Either a stork is bringing us, or the worlds population is way smaller then we think or there has been way more then 60 billion in all of time. If I'm off on this please help, it's driving me nuts. Letthereaderunderstand




posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


You're overlooking something. When your two parents made you, they didn't poof out of existence the minute you were born, any more than their parents vanished when they were born. Thus, the progression from grandparents to parents to you (assuming that all of your grandparents are still alive...not unreasonable at your age), isn't the 4-->2-->1 progression you're picturing (which would indeed indicate a declining population), but a 4-->6-->7 progression.

Now, add in the number of families with multiple children, decreasing infant mortality, and increasing life span, and you can come up with a LOT of people in a hurry.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
The planet is already overpopulated, a reduction is needed.

Not a pleasant thought, but its called reality.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
The planet is already overpopulated, a reduction is needed.

Not a pleasant thought, but its called reality.


Can't you think up a better approach than to simply exterminate people?

How about cities that float on the water, for example?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


And will puppy dogs and ice cream cones simply fall from the sky along with the resources needed to feed, clothe, and support those people?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


And will people suddenly drop dead because of over-population?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Interesting idea. I think you've created an inverse geometric progression, and one that is dependent upon all variables in the generation to have survived to an age that is the mean average of those today.

It's kind of a mathematical conundrum..... sorta like, okay..... you're 34. Let's say your parents are both 54, and had you when they were both 20. You are now 17/27th of their age. When you are 54, you will be 27/37th of their age...... closer! As you all get older, your relative age gets closer. You can never reach a 1: 1 ratio, (relatavistic dialations notwithstanding).

Look at this from the other end of the spectrum -- start with two eons ago, and multiply forward. There had to be a start point and an expasion, which has grown consistently...... except for ..... what? Massive epedemics and other critical events, many of them human-engineered.

Good thread. Get de ol' gray matter and synapses firin'. Goodonya



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 



Sooner or later yes. It's called starvation.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Both approaches require honest labour to acheive results, although i'll admit simply going out and shooting the first 50 people you see would be a simpler method of going about dealing with the problem instead of simply trying to find a way to continue sustaining this rather epic population problem we have.

The point is that if you want to live, you'd better be willing to work to provide yourself with the means to support that life.

Much like if you want to reduce the population, you'd better be willing to pull the trigger yourself.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Both solutions are simple to acheive, if you merely have the mentality for it.

You just can't see that because you seem to refuse to accept that there is a way for us to continue expanding despite the exponential increment in population.

Trust me, once the problem gets as bad as it's going to, people will start finding alternative methods to find a peaceful life.

Not everyone resorts to pillaging and looting in times of crisis, if you hadn't noticed.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
ok, one major with flaw with ops method
he has basically calculated for himself
then has tried to multiply that by x number of others
what he has done is to kind of make x number of lines of people, not acountinh for the fact, some may be related
he is assuming totally independent lines for everyone, rather then branches
if that makes any sense



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


Thanks Brother Stormhammer, i don't know why i am not seeing this? I realize my parents didn't disapear, nor did my grandparents, but I'm not talking about when people died or were born, I'm talking about the number of people it took to make just me. Obviously when my grandparents were just meeting, I was not here, so there would of still been 4 more people to my 1 comparing generations, not adding them together ie. me, parents, grandparents, greatgrandparents, but comparing the generations...make any sense?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by babylonstew
 


Thanks for your reply, of course there are people that are related, aren't we all?
You are right, all i am using is myself, again compared to previous generations and not adding them. The ratio of people gets bigger backwards, per generation in comparison to me here now, until those family lines intersect with others, so maybe one of the extinction events took out all of the people. By the way guys I wasn't talking about shooting people or controlling the population, just how big the population was going back generation to generation.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
Interesting idea. I think you've created an inverse geometric progression, and one that is dependent upon all variables in the generation to have survived to an age that is the mean average of those today.


Thank you, I didn't have the vocabulary to say what you did for me perfectly!! And, yes in calculating, I was using just myself, although I have a sister, but I'm not counting brothers and sisters, which would make the population even bigger in each generation. Also, assuming independent family's (ie. Smiths, Robinsons) producing just one person per generation, not that others aren't born,but just using one person as a barring with out interbreeding between distant relatives.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


EXACTLY

We are headed to a planet were no matter what you say or do it will be lost in the crowd
of Billions

[edit on 7-6-2008 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


Thanks Brother Stormhammer, i don't know why i am not seeing this? I realize my parents didn't disapear, nor did my grandparents, but I'm not talking about when people died or were born, I'm talking about the number of people it took to make just me. Obviously when my grandparents were just meeting, I was not here, so there would of still been 4 more people to my 1 comparing generations, not adding them together ie. me, parents, grandparents, greatgrandparents, but comparing the generations...make any sense?


It only assumes that every member of each backwards extrapolated generation is completely unrelated. In reality, if you were to know the entire history of your lineage, you'd find that many of your ancestors were related (with a few degrees of seperation). An initial population of less than a thousand will allow for indefinite exponential population growth without any incestuous relations.

I'm not sure how to put it concisely, but try this: your parents' generation has an average of 2.1 kids. this includes you, and everyone in your age group. your generation will mostly more or less marry or have children out of wedlock for an average of 2.1 kids per pair, the overwhelming majority with partners only trivially related to each other. There will be more of your generation than there were of your parent's generation, and your children's generation will be more numerous than your generation.

Now until recently, the population growth in developed nations was far more than 2.1 children per pair, which is about the replacement rate. it was closer to the rate of population growth in the modern third world, which often has 3 or more children per pair (that survive infancy). The reason being that in less developed economies, more children is an economic benefit, because you can make them work for you. In developed societies, they are a financial liability; they don't do any work until 16-18, and often go to college, which costs thousands of dollars.

Basically, as long as you have a suitable population to start with (a couple hundred), you can achieve unbounded exponential growth (assuming the resources exist for it, which is certainly NOT true, though it was functionally true for the last century because of the green revolution) without having to worry about genetic diversity. Evidence suggests that the human population was once less than a thousand members, but isolation between groups has led to the kind of variability that is required to survive even the most horrific natural plagues.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
The planet is already overpopulated, a reduction is needed.

Not a pleasant thought, but its called reality.
thats why we have wars....



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Earth needs to fully industrialize all of it's nations. They could burn fossil fuels to help with our situation - that being Earth is Carbon starved, and had C02 levels tens times as high as they are currently.

Industrializing Africa would dramatically lower the Birth rate as it has in the Western World.

The increased Carbon emissions would contribute to a massive growth of Biomass in both flora and fauna.

Grazing animals would grow larger as the plants they feed on produce more food. In turn the animals who feed on those grazers would have a larger food supply to support a larger, healthier population...

The newly industrialized nations would soon develop effective health care systems reducing the need to have 6 children in the hopes that one or two survives to adulthood... These children would then grow up in a modern society and have 1.4 children and an accordant drop in birth rate would
ensue.
Barring massive immigration, Nations that have done this have experienced Negative Population Growth and must rely on immigrants to maintain it's current population levels...
Canada is a perfect Example of this. Look up their policies on immigration.

When the issue is population and climate, we should listen to the Majority opinion of climatologists/scientists .... not the Social Darwinists.


[edit on 8-6-2008 by doctormcauley]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by slackerwire
 


EXACTLY

We are headed to a planet were no matter what you say or do it will be lost in the crowd
of Billions

[edit on 7-6-2008 by SLAYER69]


Do you sincerely think that humans are stupid enough not to do something about that before the problem gets out of hand?

Sure, the extermination method will probably be applied at some point, but there are alternatives for those who are willing to seek them.

What would be best would be to offer people a choice that is no different from any other choice they had made in their entire lives;

Live, or die.

People will be willing to do anything if it looks like their survival is at stake, and that includes meting out a meagre existence on an off-shore biosphere.

We've already manufactured false environments, for example the montreal bio-dome - and from there it's a small step to make the bloody thing float on the water.

Existing options can be turned into solutions, how hard is that to see?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
The planet is already overpopulated, a reduction is needed.

Not a pleasant thought, but its called reality.


Way to not answer the question.

As for the OP, the first responder pretty much said it all. Your parent plus you equal three. So there was two then three, when you came along since your parents continued to exist--presumably. Then add to that multiple births over generations and you have a population explosion.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join