Sigh. Please try reading a little more carefully. I didn't come up with an _estimate_ of 6.8 billion.
I showed that, even taking wildly conservative estimates, it's trivially easy to come up with a figure larger than the current world population. A more careful application, taking into account life expectancy (well under 100 years) would easily demonstrate the real number to be above 10bn. But all I needed to do was come up with a number greater than 6.5bn, and I did that. As for the statistical acuracy of population estimates; I was careful to use the lower bound on the figure, not the mean value. Again, that's all I needed to do. What I showed was that, even taking the interpretation of the figures most favourable to your claim, is was very easy to disprove it. But, of course, you aren't prepared to admit you are wrong, so I fully expect you to deliberately misunderstand this, too. On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 06:23:14PM -0500, Mishka wrote: > in other words, you give an estimate of 6.8bn. > considering that the current population is ~6.5bn, and > given statistical significance of estimates of population > 2000 years ago (ore even 300 years ago), i am not sure > what exactly you proved. > > best, > mishka > > On 2/17/06, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Go here, for one example, to get a historical estimate of population. > > > > http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html > > > > I think it's fairly uncontroversial to assume that anyone alive > > in one century year would have died by the next century year, > > so the sum of the population totals for century years counts > > distinct individuals (and misses counting people who were > > born and died between two century years - a fairly substantial > > fraction of the population, given the average life expectancy). > > Just taking the lower bounds for population, and summing the > > numbers for the century years, shows that at least 5.1 billion > > people were born and died between 1000 and 2000 BC, and another > > 1.7 billion in the millenium prior to that. > > > > So, even ignoring anyone who lived more than 2000 years ago, > > anyone who never lived through a century year, and anyone born > > since 1900 who has since died, I get a figure rather larger > > than the 6 billion people alive today. > > > > Obviously this is a gross under-count; I'd expect the true > > number to be at least 50% larger than that, and probably > > more like 100% larger. But the exact figures don't matter; > > all I'm trying to do is show that more people have died over > > the centuries than are alive today, which is all that is > > necessary to disprove the claim that half the people who > > have ever lived are still alive. For that, even the low > > number I show above suffices. > > > > Q. E. D. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 03:13:03PM -0500, Mishka wrote: > > > do you mind sharing your "figures"? > > > > > > On 2/17/06, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm well aware of the exponential population growth. > > > > I suggest that, rather than blindly repeating 'facts' > > > > you've been told, you actually check your figures. > > > > > > > > But of course that would be too much work, wouldn't it? > > > > And it would also mean you might have to admit an error. > > > >
