i don't think the difference (even at 10bn) is large enough to warrant further discussion. allow me to correct myself, instead of "majority of people who ever lived are alive today" i should have said "a significant percentage of ..."
happy now? On 2/17/06, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > > >
