7 billion people and you

  • Thread starter rootX
  • Start date
  • #1
412
4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15391515

My results:
You were the 5,087,705,009th person
Your country's population is 34,016,593
Average life expectancy is 78.2 years

262 people (,I don't know what 262 means)
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
DaveC426913
Gold Member
20,698
4,169
262 people (,I don't know what 262 means)
It says "the amount the population has grown while you've been on this site"


And you are a fellow Canuck.
 
  • #3
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,955
620
When I were born, I was the:

3,233,157,102nd
person alive on Earth

77,058,447,815th
person to have lived since history began

I feel like a number.
 
  • #4
187
1
The number of significant figures they provide is hilarious.
 
  • #5
412
4
I feel like a number.

Me too!

.. and that made me bit sad :shy:
 
  • #6
Evo
Mentor
23,552
3,245
This video by National Geographic is very good. Overpopulation, it's not about the space. We can't economically/feasably sustain this many people. Think about it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,955
620
World cap of two children a family. Problem solved.

I only had one. Can I sell my other share :biggrin:?
 
  • #10
DaveC426913
Gold Member
20,698
4,169
I only had one. Can I sell my other share :biggrin:?

I had none*. Can I get a refund?

*biologically, anyway
 
  • #11
Evo
Mentor
23,552
3,245
I had none*. Can I get a refund?

*biologically, anyway
You make up for the sperm donor that has over 1,000 kids.
 
  • #12
18,674
8,672
I only had one. Can I sell my other share :biggrin:?

Those who have 1 or no children get $20,000. Right now it's the other way around, the more babies you have, the more money you get (in the US).
 
  • #13
DaveC426913
Gold Member
20,698
4,169
You make up for the sperm donor that has over 1,000 kids.
Hrm. Not sure if that math works out.

Interesting problem...

As long as the mother has only one child by sperm donor, then the numbers work out.

With 1 man and 1000 women, you get 1000 children.
If he donates 1 million, you get 1 million children. But you never get more children than parents.
 
  • #14
Evo
Mentor
23,552
3,245
Hrm. Not sure if that math works out.

Interesting problem...

As long as the mother has only one child by sperm donor, then the numbers work out.

With 1 man and 1000 women, you get 1000 children.
If he donates 1 million, you get 1 million children. But you never get more children than parents.
A lot of these women, for some reason, already had kids, sometimes several. And no, I'm not going to go dig up everything I've read in the last few years on artificial insemination stats, I don't understand why a woman with children would need to artificially have more. Look at octomom. So consider it unreliable.
 
  • #15
Evo
Mentor
23,552
3,245
Those who have 1 or no children get $20,000. Right now it's the other way around, the more babies you have, the more money you get (in the US).
Yeah, this is something that needs to be fixed.
 
  • #16
412
4
Those who have 1 or no children get $20,000. Right now it's the other way around, the more babies you have, the more money you get (in the US).

It's not the US but the third world countries that concern me. I doubt you can put any kind of caps on them.
 
  • #17
DaveC426913
Gold Member
20,698
4,169
It's not the US but the third world countries that concern me. I doubt you can put any kind of caps on them.
What do you think they'd do if you offered them $20,000?
 
  • #18
412
4
What do you think they'd do if you offered them $20,000?

If some "government" had that much of free money, 7 billion population wouldn't have been a concern.
 
  • #19
1,031
19
And no having triplets either.
 
  • #21
Dembadon
Gold Member
633
89
How do they determine the order of birth on a specific day? It didn't ask for time of birth, and I wasn't the only male born in the US on 11/11/1983.

Edit: Nevermind, just found this; "It is one possible value based on global population figures and estimates of growth rates over time."
 
Last edited:
  • #22
DoggerDan
When you were born, you were the:
3,080,736,737th
person alive on Earth
76,771,155,855th
person to have lived since history began

The average life expectancy is about 13 years longer here in the U.S. since the last time I glanced at that statistic!
 
  • #23
4
0
World cap of two children a family. Problem solved.
Not really. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/chinas-one-child-rule-turns-time-bomb-223258406.html" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
Evo
Mentor
23,552
3,245
Not really. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/chinas-one-child-rule-turns-time-bomb-223258406.html" [Broken]
When you cut back on new births, of course there is going to be basicaly a *one time* period where there will be a large elderly population, then things will normalize and be for the benefit of all.

In the US we are about to enter that phase as we had a *baby boom* after WWII, and then the population began to normalize, the baby boomers are now approaching retirement. After the baby boomers are gone, there will no longer be a disproportionate elderly population. Sometimes you have to suffer a bit to get better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
4
0
When you cut back on new births, of course there is going to be basicaly a *one time* period where there will be a large elderly population, then things will normalize and be for the benefit of all.

In the US we are about to enter that phase as we had a *baby boom* after WWII, and then the population began to normalize, the baby boomers are now approaching retirement. After the baby boomers are gone, there will no longer be a disproportionate elderly population. Sometimes you have to suffer a bit to get better.
But the problem is sometimes when we fix one thing, we break three more.
 
  • #26
Evo
Mentor
23,552
3,245
But the problem is sometimes when we fix one thing, we break three more.
Once the elderly *hump* is over things will improve. But only if the laws are not abused.
 
  • #27
64
0
It's not the US but the third world countries that concern me. I doubt you can put any kind of caps on them.

With the exception of sub-saharan africa all third world countries have declining birth rates. Brazil for example got smaller birth rates than the US.
Although third world is a terrible term since it includes both countries like Brazil and countries like Somalia.
 
  • #28
4
0
When you cut back on new births, of course there is going to be basicaly a *one time* period where there will be a large elderly population, then things will normalize and be for the benefit of all.
Are you advocating abortion and mandatory birth control?
 
  • #29
412
4
When you cut back on new births, of course there is going to be basicaly a *one time* period where there will be a large elderly population, then things will normalize and be for the benefit of all.

In the US we are about to enter that phase as we had a *baby boom* after WWII, and then the population began to normalize, the baby boomers are now approaching retirement. After the baby boomers are gone, there will no longer be a disproportionate elderly population. Sometimes you have to suffer a bit to get better.

Are you advocating abortion and mandatory birth control?

"Cutting back on new births" through either "abortion-mandatory birth control" or "financial incentives" etc only work out theoretically but not in practice IMO.

I think it is too hard to control the world's population. Further that if something that can control the population is either nature or widespread education. It might be unacceptable or too harsh but I think cutting down on humanitarian missions and funding to poor nations might bring our global population to the level that we can sustain.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
DaveC426913
Gold Member
20,698
4,169
Are you advocating abortion and mandatory birth control?

Her statement does not advocate that, no. Benefit of the doubt suggests she was simply speaking matter-of-factly.

However, that does not mean she won't subsequently offer her opinion explicitly.
 
  • #32
4
0
Her statement does not advocate that, no. Benefit of the doubt suggests she was simply speaking matter-of-factly.

However, that does not mean she won't subsequently offer her opinion explicitly.
Factly? We do not know what population the earth is capable of supporting, do we?
 
  • #33
shashankac655
It might be unacceptable or too harsh but I think cutting down on humanitarian missions and funding to poor nations might bring our global population to the level that we can sustain.

what do you mean ,how can that help?
One of the reasons why poor people have more children especially in the third world countries is because there ,the infant mortality rates are high due to lack of basic health care,so people tend to have more children as an insurance policy.There are also other reasons like they will keep having children until they get a male child(women/girl-child are severely discriminated).
If the living conditions improve and education is in place then people will have less children and that can bring down birth rates.
 
  • #35
590
48
If you want to reduce the population growth rate, then you need to attack the root of the problem. Education indirectly reduces birthrates. Get everyone smarter and the problem will fix itself.
 

Related Threads on 7 billion people and you

  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
32
Views
7K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
74
Views
8K
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
4K
Top