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

Population much more than 8.2B, rural areas underestimated

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: Population much more than 8.2B, rural areas underestimated

#31

Post by oskarkk »

johnea wrote: post #9
lenerdenator wrote: post #2

Well, is it a few million, or a billion? It doesn't really say in the article.

I had the same question. I thought reading the paper in Nature would give some more insight, but no. I was looking for at least an estimate of what they thought world population should be, but that doesn't seem to be included in any of the text...

Because estimating the world population wasn't the point of the paper, and extrapolating their results for the whole world wouldn't be very good science. But discussing something that the paper authors didn't discuss makes a good clickbait title. Especially with the title here on HN, which presents the possibility as a certain fact.

Re: Population much more than 8.2B, rural areas underestimated

#32

Post by insane_dreamer »

Ekaros wrote: post #25
insane_dreamer wrote: post #17

Doesn’t every country or at least major country conduct censuses? Assuming there are some countries that can’t or don’t due to conflict, lack of resources etc. it seems these would be limited and therefore whatever estimates are made for those countries would be off my millions but certainly not billions.

No. Some countries don't need "census" as every citizen is sufficiently tracked and must report their official address. And so would most migrants. Meaning that with modern computer databases you can track births, deaths, immigration and emigration down to single person.

Ok but that is even more accurate than a census. So which countries are these uncounted people located?

Re: Population much more than 8.2B, rural areas underestimated

#33

Post by soulofmischief »

lurk2 wrote: post #24
kristjansson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A dollar per dead snake, you say?

I saw this happen on a Minecraft server. It was an economy simulator based out of Sweden or Denmark. The administrator was committed to Keynesian economics. One day he wants to clear a desert to build a new town. To compensate people for working there, he used a plug-in called Shop Chests, allowing users who deposited 64 sand into the chest to receive 100 units of the server’s currency. This was substantially more th…

History often rhymes because we clearly aren't teaching it effectively enough. Every six-year-old schoolkid should understand the Cobra Effect (perverse incentive) and how to recognize it around them and in their own thinking.

Re: Population much more than 8.2B, rural areas underestimated

#34

Post by epolanski »

VincentEvans wrote: post #21
lurk2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the more frightening things I ever learned was that if the population of China began walking in front of you at a rate of 1 person per second, it would take approximately 31 years for the entire population to pass you. The math, roughly: 1 billion people (there are more now, but we’ll call it an even billion) / 60 seconds ≈ 16,666,666 minutes 16,666,666 / 60 minutes in an hour ≈ 277,777 hours 277,777 hours / 2…

Using your own contrived math - if you have just 30 helpers - you can count population of China in 1 year. Or with 219 helpers you can do the same for world population. In US, for the 2020 decennial census, the U.S. Census Bureau hired approximately 500,000 temporary workers across the country to assist with the count.

> In US, for the 2020 decennial census, the U.S. Census Bureau hired approximately 500,000 temporary workers across the country to assist with the count.

Thus..it's difficult and expensive.

Re: Population much more than 8.2B, rural areas underestimated

#35

Post by epolanski »

more-nitor wrote: post #27
MichaelZuo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve actually looked into this for a few developing countries, and dam resettlement figures are very likely to be inflated. There’s no actual combination of outsiders going around to every household in every village for even a dozen days of the year to plausibly provide a third party confirmation of claimed residence for each individual. It’s effectively villagers certifying each other that they really live there as…

> It’s effectively villagers certifying each other that they really live there as a primary residence. this. some smart asses would be calling all their relatives, distant-relatives, friends, etc AND claim that they all lived there. then, share the loot(?) like 50%, 30%, 20% etc the more better approach would be compensating by property, though does have its own downsides

My aunt was relocated from a dam construction and they started the census/analysis way before the project was even approved, because counting how many people you need to relocate and compensate is actually a part of the decision process.

They don't do the opposite: we build here, now let's see how many people we need to relocate.

Re: Population much more than 8.2B, rural areas underestimated

#36

Post by epolanski »

Ekaros wrote: post #25
insane_dreamer wrote: post #17

Doesn’t every country or at least major country conduct censuses? Assuming there are some countries that can’t or don’t due to conflict, lack of resources etc. it seems these would be limited and therefore whatever estimates are made for those countries would be off my millions but certainly not billions.

No. Some countries don't need "census" as every citizen is sufficiently tracked and must report their official address. And so would most migrants. Meaning that with modern computer databases you can track births, deaths, immigration and emigration down to single person.

I'm not aware of any country not doing censuses regardless of their digitization.

Censuses aren't just counts, they are timestamps of lots of data (education, family, etc) which is often missing, not digitized or not available (you may graduate in a different country, you might be living with someone but not be married, etc).

There's also a privacy/anonimity issue, even when data is available it can be used for very little over than counting.

Re: Population much more than 8.2B, rural areas underestimated

#37

Post by sidewndr46 »

lurk2 wrote: post #20
MichaelZuo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve actually looked into this for a few developing countries, and dam resettlement figures are very likely to be inflated. There’s no actual combination of outsiders going around to every household in every village for even a dozen days of the year to plausibly provide a third party confirmation of claimed residence for each individual. It’s effectively villagers certifying each other that they really live there as…

One of the more frightening things I ever learned was that if the population of China began walking in front of you at a rate of 1 person per second, it would take approximately 31 years for the entire population to pass you. The math, roughly: 1 billion people (there are more now, but we’ll call it an even billion) / 60 seconds ≈ 16,666,666 minutes 16,666,666 / 60 minutes in an hour ≈ 277,777 hours 277,777 hours / 2…

How is this scary? It's like observing that I don't have enough time to write a comprehensive treatise on every German speaking philosopher of the 19th and 20th century. I obviously don't, I probably could barely complete even one at this point. My life is not any better or worse due to this.

Re: Population much more than 8.2B, rural areas underestimated

#38

Post by juniperus »

I’d imagine it was accounted for that these dam surveys are conducted for populations near a river, and they’re just comparing the dam survey of that area to administrative population estimates or whatever. Either way, this data might only be relevant for estimating riverside populations. Also, I’d say it’s more likely population estimates are overestimating the human population by a billion, not underestimating by a billion. That’s just my view of that though

Re: Population much more than 8.2B, rural areas underestimated

#39

Post by kristjansson »

lurk2 wrote: post #24
kristjansson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A dollar per dead snake, you say?

I saw this happen on a Minecraft server. It was an economy simulator based out of Sweden or Denmark. The administrator was committed to Keynesian economics. One day he wants to clear a desert to build a new town. To compensate people for working there, he used a plug-in called Shop Chests, allowing users who deposited 64 sand into the chest to receive 100 units of the server’s currency. This was substantially more th…

Which is why the likes of Eve Online employ real-life economists - is easy to get wrong.

Cobras aren’t really an arbitrage problem, except in the sense that the reward was (presumably) more than the cost of breeding them.

Re: Population much more than 8.2B, rural areas underestimated

#40

Post by lurk2 »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #37
lurk2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the more frightening things I ever learned was that if the population of China began walking in front of you at a rate of 1 person per second, it would take approximately 31 years for the entire population to pass you. The math, roughly: 1 billion people (there are more now, but we’ll call it an even billion) / 60 seconds ≈ 16,666,666 minutes 16,666,666 / 60 minutes in an hour ≈ 277,777 hours 277,777 hours / 2…

How is this scary? It's like observing that I don't have enough time to write a comprehensive treatise on every German speaking philosopher of the 19th and 20th century. I obviously don't, I probably could barely complete even one at this point. My life is not any better or worse due to this.

Assuming you had an interest in writing a comprehensive treatise on German philosophy, not being able to complete it in one lifetime would strike many people as frightening. It’s one of those numbers that forces you to consider your own mortality, like those charts showing how many weeks there are left assuming you live to be 80 years old.
Post reply on HN