What percentage of people are alive today?

Post by cousin_it » Tue, May 10, 2011, 10:58 AM UTC

koningrobot wrote: post #87

Unseelie wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children can't be compared to goods. There's biological things at worth beyond self interest. That is to say, people want children, even though its not in their self interest. I'd posit, if you were to try to assign children a status as a good in a wealthy culture, they'd be a luxury good. They cost a great deal, are effectively useless, but still desired.

That is to say, people want children, even though its not in their self interest. It certainly isn't in the children's interest either, because they can't be benefited by being brought into existence (they are not waiting in some pre-existence limbo wishing to become existent).

Post by sixtofour » Tue, May 10, 2011, 2:40 PM UTC

kalid wrote: post #35

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…

Exactly. One of my pet peeves is the misconception that a life expectancy of 35 means a normal adult somehow drops dead at that age. (And leads to arguments like "Oh, don't eat a paleo diet, cavemen only lived to 35"). Socrates lived to 71 in ancient Greece. Yet you know him for being a philosopher, not for living 2.5x the average age (like living to 200 today -- you'd think that'd make a fuss).

Post by jodrellblank » Wed, May 11, 2011, 2:46 AM UTC

wbhart wrote: post #65

jodrellblank wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that calculation, no human should assume they are in the last 5% so the human race is immortal. It sounds like nonsense; the people actually in the first 1% are not more special than the people in the 43rd 1%, but you have to be somewhere in the distribution. No point is special in the sense that you have a stronger than usual reason to assume you aren't there and are more likely elsewhere.

Not really. You shouldn't assume you are in the last 5%. Statistically, by definition, it is most likely (though not certain) that you are not.

Post by berntb » Sun, May 15, 2011, 10:47 PM UTC

FrojoS wrote: post #96

berntb wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Christopher Ryan's blog post is low on examples, compared with that Wikipedia page about the book... >>About 90-95% of known societies engage in war. [Etc.] This is a sensitive subject for people with (political) axes to grind, so I'd prefer better references for the claim that Pinker is totally non serious? (I was surprised to see that Eskimos had extermination wars?! You would think the population density made orga…

You might be right. I still think its worth reading. I still tend to prefer Christopher Ryan's point of view but this might change. Also, Pinker is afaik not a professional expert on anthropology [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinker