# 7 billion people and you

## Main Question or Discussion Point

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15391515

My results:
You were the 5,087,705,009th person
Average life expectancy is 78.2 years

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

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
DaveC426913
Gold Member
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.

lisab
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
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.

The number of significant figures they provide is hilarious.

I feel like a number.
Me too!

Evo
Mentor
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:
World cap of two children a family. Problem solved.

Last edited by a moderator:
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
World cap of two children a family. Problem solved.
I only had one. Can I sell my other share ?

DaveC426913
Gold Member
I only had one. Can I sell my other share ?
I had none*. Can I get a refund?

*biologically, anyway

Evo
Mentor
I had none*. Can I get a refund?

*biologically, anyway
You make up for the sperm donor that has over 1,000 kids.

I only had one. Can I sell my other share ?
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). DaveC426913 Gold Member 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. Evo Mentor 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. Evo Mentor 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.

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. DaveC426913 Gold Member 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?

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.

And no having triplets either.

And no having triplets either.
prison for sure!

Gold Member
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:
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!

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:
Evo
Mentor
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:
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.