Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What percentage of people are alive today?

1000memories.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 97 posts

Re: What percentage of people are alive today?

#51

Post by brazzy »

spindritf wrote: post #41
yummyfajitas wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Common Malthusianism" is a strange name to apply to a claim Malthus didn't make. Malthus didn't attempt to extrapolate current trends, he merely pointed out (correctly) that there will eventually be a limit to productivity. From "An Essay on the Principles of Population": We may be quite sure that among plants, as well as among animals, there is a limit to improvement, though we do not exactly know where it is. It i…

> he merely pointed out (correctly) that there will eventually be a limit to productivity I don't understand this point. Why would there be a limit to productivity, especially with machines and computers to leverage our efforts thousandfold and more? And how could anyone know that such limit exists, even if it is actually reached one day? That would require predicting any possible innovation of the future.

As long as the measure of productivity corresponds to something physical (which even bits on a harddisk are), then an exponential increase in productivity (as we have seen in the past) would eventually require humanity and its products to form a sphere whose radius grows faster than the speed of light.

Do you agree that that is a pretty hard limit?

Re: What percentage of people are alive today?

#52

Post by davidhollander »

tel wrote: post #9

Am I the only one absolutely terrified by that number? Malthus wasn't wrong in principle, just in timescale. It's clear that technologies have improved Earth's human carrying capacity, but I don't know any method to claim that an S-shaped curve isn't inevitable. It's sounds science fiction-ey, but I don't understand how you can see data like this and then defund NASA.

>Am I the only one absolutely terrified by that number?

No, unfortunately there are plenty of other irrational sensationalists.

>Malthus wasn't wrong in principle, just in timescale.

He has been horribly wrong in principle, as has every other pessimist who cried wolf for the past 3000 years. Saying 'the timescale was just wrong' is not an adequate defense by any means. Timescale is what matters and is the essence of all predictions.

Ask a trader: a prediction that oil will go up in the long run is completely useless if you don't define when that event will occur, and subsequently loose everything on a big short term dip that you were blind to.

Additionally, if your prediction is allowed to take "infinity" duration to come true, then it can never be disproven. And what can't be disproven is usually categorically not worth the thought.

To discuss particulars, the current evidence is technology allows us to produce TOO much food TOO cheaply, which is compounded further by domestic farm subsidies. Efficiency gains are so successful in keeping up with demand, that in Mexico City they buy corn from Iowa, even though they have cheaper farmland and local labor that could be utilized.

Additionally, many economists are currently considering the possibility of efficiency gains being so strong a factor that they lead to structural unemployment. This picture of runaway efficiency gains is the exact opposite of what Malthus had envisioned (constant\linear resource utilization massively outstripped by population growth rate)

>It's sounds science fiction-ey, but I don't understand how you can see data like this and then defund NASA.

All the nations economically developed enough to have a space program are rapidly decreasing in population. China, Russia, Japan are all on the decline, the US is only increasing due to immigration. It's economics 101: wealthy people have more economic freedom to invest in birth control and their time in things other than family. Additional children switch from being an asset into a liability when you have to pay substantial amounts for them to be educated and the opportunity cost of taking time to raise a child becomes higher. The S shaped curve has been in full swing in developed countries like the US and Russia where the vast majority of the land is deserted, without anything resembling a Malthusian scenario.

Re: What percentage of people are alive today?

#53

Post by dasil003 »

tel wrote: post #9

Am I the only one absolutely terrified by that number? Malthus wasn't wrong in principle, just in timescale. It's clear that technologies have improved Earth's human carrying capacity, but I don't know any method to claim that an S-shaped curve isn't inevitable. It's sounds science fiction-ey, but I don't understand how you can see data like this and then defund NASA.

> It's sounds science fiction-ey, but I don't understand how you can see data like this and then defund NASA.

The politicians who authorized the current pension structures for California state employees undoubtedly had similar data, so I imagine defunding NASA would be comparatively trivial short-term thinking.

Re: What percentage of people are alive today?

#54

Post by TheSOB88 »

brazzy wrote: post #51
spindritf wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he merely pointed out (correctly) that there will eventually be a limit to productivity I don't understand this point. Why would there be a limit to productivity, especially with machines and computers to leverage our efforts thousandfold and more? And how could anyone know that such limit exists, even if it is actually reached one day? That would require predicting any possible innovation of the future.

As long as the measure of productivity corresponds to something physical (which even bits on a harddisk are), then an exponential increase in productivity (as we have seen in the past) would eventually require humanity and its products to form a sphere whose radius grows faster than the speed of light. Do you agree that that is a pretty hard limit?

I think you may have skipped some steps... Could you fill in the middle a bit? I'm confused.

Re: What percentage of people are alive today?

#55

Post by iskander »

a-priori wrote: post #44
amalcon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also need the previous year's population. With population and life expectancy, you can approximate the per capita death rate, and then it's a straightforward linear equation.

What about infant mortality? If a million babies are born in the year 234BC, and die before 233BC rolls around, they won't be counted in the population for either year.

That's what I'm wondering about. The infant mortality rates in pre-industrial times were astoundingly high, but I don't see anything that tries to explicitly account for them. I guess they get rolled in with life expectancy (bringing the mean way down), but it would be nice to see an explicit formula for births_t.

Re: What percentage of people are alive today?

#56

Post by FrojoS »

petercooper wrote: post #31

Not to detract from the insight but: Until very recently life expectancy at birth hovered between 20 and 35 years, but in the past century it has risen to 67 years Most of this increase has been due to a precipitous crash in infant mortality, rather than a soaring increase in the median life expectancy. For example, even in the 1500s it seems a well-to-do Englishman (who lived a somewhat more hazardous life medically…

All true, though, as far as I know, hunters and gathers who manage to survive childhood still die quite early, no? [1] They appear very healthy but thats partly because there are pretty much no grand parents. I might be wrong about this.

Also, a diet high in animal protein might make you very fit but it is thought to be a cause for cardiovascular disease [2]. Actually, afaik, this is the reason why government still gives out these fat making, carbohydrate rich, diet recommendations [3]. They might make you obese, but on the other hand, if you might live a sportive life just to suddenly die of a heart attack.

[1] I can't recall if it was Diamond, Kevin Kelly in "What Technology Wants", Campbell in "The China Study" or someone else, who wrote about this. Can anyone back or correct this? [2] This, Im sure you will find in "The China Study" by Campbell [3] Lustig and also Taubes in "Good Calories, Bad Calories"

Re: What percentage of people are alive today?

#57

Post by FrojoS »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #46
petercooper wrote: post #31

Not to detract from the insight but: Until very recently life expectancy at birth hovered between 20 and 35 years, but in the past century it has risen to 67 years Most of this increase has been due to a precipitous crash in infant mortality, rather than a soaring increase in the median life expectancy. For example, even in the 1500s it seems a well-to-do Englishman (who lived a somewhat more hazardous life medically…

I still don't understand why the average is used instead of median (or average of data between the first and third quartile), when people talk about life expectancy. It leads to misconceptions.

(A) It fits into peoples agenda.

(B) Most people know almost nothing about statistics. Even those who use it on a every day base. Honestly, I'm afraid, I'm not really an exception.

I think if you have to guess between human evilness and stupidity the latter is more likely, right?

Re: What percentage of people are alive today?

#58

Post by jrockway »

FrojoS wrote: post #57
TeMPOraL wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't understand why the average is used instead of median (or average of data between the first and third quartile), when people talk about life expectancy. It leads to misconceptions.

(A) It fits into peoples agenda. (B) Most people know almost nothing about statistics. Even those who use it on a every day base. Honestly, I'm afraid, I'm not really an exception. I think if you have to guess between human evilness and stupidity the latter is more likely, right?

Most people know almost nothing about statistics. Even those who use it on a every day base.

The same could be said of English.

Re: What percentage of people are alive today?

#59

Post by wbhart »

This is an important computation. It's even scarier if you suppose that you are not in any way special. It is likely that you are not one of the first 5% of humans to ever live. Thus, given that such a great proportions of all humans who have every lived are alive now, the implication is that the human race hasn't got long to go even if the population remains constant! Or you could just assume you are special.
Post reply on HN