"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:493### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 03-Dec-08 10:15, Invisible wrote:
> > Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> >
> >> Aaaaa we're all gonna die! *runs around waving arms in the air*
> >
> > There are few things more certain in life.
> >
> > And yet, when I point out this fact, people look at me all surprised...

> What I sometimes do is point out that there probably have been born less
> than 12 billion people in total.

I think the "accepted" figure is about 5 times as many, not that it makes
much difference.

> 6 of them are still alive, hence the
> statistical support for the idea that everybody dies is rather weak.

Look at it another way: So far, there are billions for, none against, the
argument that humans don't live beyond, say, 130. It all depends on how you
define death.

One can also make statistical arguments for the doomsday scenario based on
the principle that our particular existence not likely to be particularly
significant along the human timeline.

But that might even be an argument for immortality instead of doomsday (if
there are to live only 120 billion total humans, last 60 practically
immortal, we again end up in the middle).

Then again, that argument leads to a "suprise exam" type paradox: Principle
of mediocrity implies that no generation will ever believe they can possibly
be the last human generation.

FWIW, I tend to believe near-immortality will be achieved within, say, 200
years. In that respect, we would be an extremely unluckly generation.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Hmm. How the **** do people compute numbers like this? I mean, how can
> you *possibly* know how many people are alive right now? Obviously it's
> an estimate, but how do we tell if it's even remotely correct? It's not
> like you can *check* it!

That is relatively easy to figure out. Add up census results.

Countries without a census are probably small enough not to matter too much;
and otherwise there are still other ways to measure how many people are in
a country.

What I can't figure out is how the **** people know how many humans were
born in the whole history of the planet.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> What I can't figure out is how the **** people know how many humans were
> born in the whole history of the planet.

Because people have been taking census for longer than the fundamentalists 
think the world has existed. It's not all *that* hard to extrapolate 
population growth, if it's relatively smooth for the last, oh, eight 
thousand years or so.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> What I can't figure out is how the **** people know how many humans were
>> born in the whole history of the planet.
> 
> Because people have been taking census for longer than the 
> fundamentalists think the world has existed. It's not all *that* hard to 
> extrapolate population growth, if it's relatively smooth for the last, 
> oh, eight thousand years or so.

Oddly enough, we apparently have records of the price of cotton going 
back several millennia. o_O

PS. It's fractal.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Oddly enough, we apparently have records of the price of cotton going 
> back several millennia. o_O

Yeah, oddly enough, they have lists of who went to which gala parties, and 
the price of cotton, but nobody ever wrote down that the sun stopped in the 
sky, or that thousands of people died on the same day, or etc. :-) Funny how 
that works out.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

On 03-Dec-08 23:59, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:493### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 03-Dec-08 10:15, Invisible wrote:
>>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aaaaa we're all gonna die! *runs around waving arms in the air*
>>> There are few things more certain in life.
>>>
>>> And yet, when I point out this fact, people look at me all surprised...
> 
>> What I sometimes do is point out that there probably have been born less
>> than 12 billion people in total.
> 
> I think the "accepted" figure is about 5 times as many, not that it makes
> much difference.
I vaguely remember also seeing some larger number, but I don't know 
where. Nor what is the 'accepted' figure and by who? My estimate would 
be that 60 billion is much too large perhaps unless you count every 
humanoid for the last 5 million years and not homo sapiens for the last 
50000. Anyway one more reason for Andy to start working, I'd say.

> 
>> 6 of them are still alive, hence the
>> statistical support for the idea that everybody dies is rather weak.
> 
> Look at it another way: So far, there are billions for, none against,  the
> argument that humans don't live beyond, say, 130.

That suspiciously looks like an argument that because in the US no brick 
buildings exist that are older than 200 years brick building can not be 
older than 200 years. ;) Or 3 millennia if you include the rest of the 
world.
You can never rule out someone like Wowbagger, the infinitely prolonged, 
is among us or will be next century.

> It all depends on how you define death.

> 
> One can also make statistical arguments for the doomsday scenario based on
> the principle that our particular existence not likely to be particularly
> significant along the human timeline.

statistical <-> not likely?

> But that might even be an argument for immortality instead of doomsday (if
> there are to live only 120 billion total humans, last 60 practically
> immortal, we again end up in the middle).
> 
> Then again, that argument leads to a "suprise exam" type paradox: Principle
> of mediocrity implies that no generation will ever believe they can possibly
> be the last human generation.
> 
> FWIW, I tend to believe near-immortality will be achieved within, say, 200
> years. In that respect, we would be an extremely unluckly generation.

I sure hope not. I'd like everybody to die before 100 if you don't mind.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I sure hope not. I'd like everybody to die before 100 if you don't mind.

My goodness. Why ever for?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

On 04-Dec-08 23:14, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I sure hope not. I'd like everybody to die before 100 if you don't mind.
> 
> My goodness. Why ever for?
> 
Imagine what happens if people live for 200 years or more. How will the 
society be organized. Who will be in charge do you think? What will 
happen to creativity?

Post a reply to this message

> Imagine what happens if people live for 200 years or more. How will the 
> society be organized. Who will be in charge do you think? What will happen 
> to creativity?

So long as it happens gradually (which I think is likely) I don't see the 
problem.  I also assume that if people live until 200, they will also be 
perfectly ok to carry on working until they are well past 100 years old.  As 
is the situation now, jobs that require a lot of experience will be carried 
out by people who are like 120 years old, and jobs that require young fit 
energetic people will be done by people between 30 and 60.  Maybe education 
will even be adjusted to last longer?  I mean if you are going to work for 
100 years, you might as well have a few more years education at the 
beginning.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:10:22 +0100, "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:

> I mean if you are going to work for 
>100 years, you might as well have a few more years education at the 
>beginning.
> 

Not if it was at the school I went to :(

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message