How Close Are We to the Asymptote of Human Existence?

[paledim]

keep in mind:

1. 100 years ago, there were only about 1 billion people on earth, today, nearly 7 billion, whether civilization began 20000 years ago or 200 billion years ago.

2. the advancement of technology today relative to 2000 years ago.

3. wars, deaths etc... have increased EXPONENTIALLY.

4. natural disasters, mental illnesses, disease is growing exponentially.

that's the question, is the exponent. but even deeper is the exponent against itself.

so, when does the exponent end? how close does the asymptote get? how many more years does the Earth have relative to these observations? opinion.

 

[Evo]

2. the advancement of technology today relative to 2000 years ago.

Explain what you mean exactly.

3. wars, deaths etc... have increased EXPONENTIALLY.

Please post the statistics and links to the sources to back yourself up.

4. natural disasters, mental illnesses, disease is growing exponentially.

Please post the statistics and links to the sources to back yourself up.

Are you using the period of 2,000 years for all examples?

 

[paledim]

2. the advancement of technology today relative to 2000 years ago.
->say the wheel-bronze work-basic math-contruction, this happened within a time frame of say 1000 years, but the wheel itself has also evolved into many types of wheel say gears etc... so, there are only so many things we can do with the wheel is my point. but nowadays, computers are giving us the advantage of designing wheels down to precision. what I am saying is taht everything we know and do is and can be all recreated virtually in a "cyber world".

3. wars, deaths etc... have increased EXPONENTIALLY.
i don't need facts to prove this. there weren't world wars thousands of years ago, and not only that, a quote from einstein helps this theory/fact - "I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” basically, the amount of damage in wars has increased exponentially, to deaths, land destruction etc...

4. natural disasters, mental illnesses, disease is growing exponentially.
UN METEOROLOGIST: "There's a constant increase of around 6 percent a year,"
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/40951/story.htm
-and there's not a doubt that percentage will increase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake
check out the pre-20th century heading and look at the increase in major earthquake.
that's not only earthquakes

-for disease say aids was first discoverd in 1930http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_AIDS
"death toll in Africa may reach 100 million by 2025 "
http://www.worldrevolution.org/news/article1857.htmAIDS

i am only using 2000 years as an example. i am describing current events/things to an asymptote where occurence versus time.


heres another:
http://www.worldrevolution.org/news/feature27.htm

relative to the amount of people existed in the past at any age, there were not so much disease, violence and chaos as today

 

[Evo]

Natural disasters aren't increasing, I suggest you study up on that. You do realize that they did not have the ability to track and record such things as earthquakes unless it was bad enough to go down in history? That the world is more heavily populated now, areas which would have sustained no loss to life or property are now populated. That the "20th Century" earthquakes in your link include parts of the Earth that were unknown a few hundred years ago?

Disease and mental illness is not increasing, you may be confused by better diagnostics and record keeping.

War is not increasing in comparison to the number of people and the populated areas in the past.

I think you need to go back and study history, and put things in perspective.

 

[Astronuc]

i don't need facts to prove this.

Um, yes you do! This is a science forum, and while one may certainly express an 'opinion', we require substantiation by fact of factual statements - not unsubstantiated conjecture.

One needs to revisit history, particularly about the Black Plague.

Looking at the plate techtonics and their history, there were many more severe events in the past - way in the past. One will find fossils of sea creatures on some mountains, which are very high and very far away from the modern day oceans.

 

[paledim]

well that's what I've been doing is studying up on the increase of natural disasters and their damage and they have been tracking it for the past 1000 years. and their damage has increased because like yuo said, they weren't bad enough to record. and they were known 100's of years ago. actually recorded since 1100's. and also how could researchers have known where earthquakes hit if they were places "unknown". sounds more to me like your opinion, and yes i have researched it. either way its out of the question. i was trying to associate things with a simple thing such as an asymptote. its all pieces of a larger theory. why is it then you did not mention human population increase exponentially? and nothing else increases exponentially? I've given plenty of examples no?

 

[Evo]

2. the advancement of technology today relative to 2000 years ago.
->say the wheel-bronze work-basic math-contruction, this happened within a time frame of say 1000 years

Bronze? Wheels? Try 5,500 years ago. Math? Think Ancient Greece. Construction? How about the pyramids?

 

[paledim]

exactly, you just solified my point...

 

[paledim]

it seems the point's been lost. I am comparing "things" meaning everything to an asymptote line where -things and occurences versus time. it's only a comparison theory.

 

[Evo]

well that's what I've been doing is studying up on the increase of natural disasters and their damage and they have been tracking it for the past 1000 years. and their damage has increased because like yuo said, they weren't bad enough to record. and they were known 100's of years ago. actually recorded since 1100's. and also how could researchers have known where earthquakes hit if they were places "unknown". sounds more to me like your opinion, and yes i have researched it. either way its out of the question. i was trying to associate things with a simple thing such as an asymptote. its all pieces of a larger theory. why is it then you did not mention human population increase exponentially? and nothing else increases exponentially? I've given plenty of examples no?

So you yourself agree that we just have more recorded incidences now due to better records, etc..., that the frequency and severity have not actually increased. You seem to be all over the place with your comparisons.

When you consider the increase in population, the occurance of disease, premature death, and deformity has dropped significantly in proportion to the world population.

 

[Evo]

exactly, you just solified my point...

What point?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

4. natural disasters, mental illnesses, disease is growing exponentially.
UN METEOROLOGIST: "There's a constant increase of around 6 percent a year,"
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/40951/story.htm
-and there's not a doubt that percentage will increase.

A constant increase is not the same thing as an exponential increase. And a constant that no doubt increases is no constant at all. The fellow you quoted was not talking about natural disasters, mental illness, nor disease. Just an increase in the number of damaging weather incidents logged. This may be as much a result of better logging as of worsening weather.

In Russia the number of damaging weather incidents logged in a year now averages more than one a day, said Bedritsky, who is also head of the Russian Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring, Roshydromet.

"There's a constant increase of around 6 percent a year," he said.

 

[paledim]

we don't have better recording or more often. we recorded earthquakes since paper was existed. the greater magnitude ones were recorded since 1100's. but we do have more reocorded incidences, just look at the records.

"When you consider the increase in population, the occurance of disease, premature death, and deformity has dropped significantly in proportion to the world population."

actually, its relative to human population. equal if anything. almost every human being has some form of disease. as population grows so does the occurence of disease. have you not researched the growing epidemics of disease? those are facts. therefore, making my point that if human population growth is exponential, so is disease, and other things.

 

[paledim]

well if you look at an asymptote line you would understand that the first few numbers seem small, until it grows to a scale unmeasurable. that's what I am trying to prove or at least get positive feed back on. I thought maybe someone else might notice it.

 

[paledim]

Originally Posted by Bedritsky
In Russia the number of damaging weather incidents logged in a year now averages more than one a day, said Bedritsky, who is also head of the Russian Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring, Roshydromet.

"There's a constant increase of around 6 percent a year," he said.
__________
but at first, years ago maybe, it must have started at 1% a year. which was either lost in records or not bad enough to report. this is what I am trying to say.

 

[Kurdt]

What exact point are you trying to make? I'm still lost.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

have you not researched the growing epidemics of disease?

but at first, years ago maybe, it must have started at 1% a year.

You seem to say that we need to research, but you don't need to. I'm not sure what you mean by the word 'start', but my guess is that weather used to be much more severe, not less.

 

[glondor]

Keep in mind... 1000 years ago an earthquake would not damage a 6 lane highway bridge because it did not exist. Hurricanes and storms did not damage millions of acres of crops and farms.. Because they did not exist.
All things are relative. The population took so long to get beyond a billion because medical science did not exist. Excess food stocks did not exist in many areas, where they did there was a flourish of humanity. Better recordkeeping, Larger population centers, massive grain fields, bigger structures...we just have more stuff now for status quo planet Earth to mess with. 200 years from now solar storms may wreak havock on orbiting human habitits and their agriculture operations causing a sense of increasing crisis. this does not happen now however because...they do not exist.

 

[paledim]

how, if, human population is exponential. and it is. if anything else is exponential relative to human population like disease, disasters etc... (disease and disasters, technology seem to be the topics I've observed with this same effect).

 

[paledim]

yes but I am not talking about what it can destroy in terms of human constructions, I am talking that the magnitude of earthquakes have enlarged because of ways to study earthquakes. we don't measure earthquake size by the damage it causes.

and medical science has nothing to do with human population. human growth is a primitive science. the amount of cures we've discovered is relative to the amount of diseases.

- sorry i quote this way i don't know how to make the dark box thingy for quotes.

"200 years from now solar storms may wreak havock on orbiting human habitits and their agriculture operations causing a sense of increasing crisis. this does not happen now however because...they do not exist."

-that's also part of my point. one day there may be entire planets destroyed because of solar destructions.

isn't that growing exponentially?

 

[glondor]

?medical science has nothing to do with the population? I submit to you that if the average lifespan of people in Europe, Asia, and North America now were to be trimmed back to the average lifespan 1000 years ago, there would be several billion fewer people on this planet now.
Methods of studying earthquakes do not increase their magnitude. You refer to the fact that storms and earthquakes are more damaging than in the past, I thought you meant in terms of human infrastructure but I am unclear on this now as you refute my argument by saying "we don't measure earthquake size by the damage it causes." If not to us and ours, by what measure are you espousing "the increased damage done by storms and earthquakes" I don't understand.

You say that one day maybe entire planets may be destroyed because of solar destruction.
To this..there is no maybe. Earth will be consumed by the sun in the future. The chances are not exponentially increasing. It will happen.Someday.
I think I can understand what you are trying to get to, However you are comparing apples to oranges at this point. Wikipedia is not a solid research tool.
The more cars there are in your vicinity, the more likely for you to be involved in an accident.(exponentialy)
The more people on the planet ...have no bearing on the severity of earthquakes.

 

[Evo]

It's obvious that there is no sense to be made from this thread.