What is Reddit's opinion of
Worldometers?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
100 reviews of this app found across Reddit:
I like this comment because it reflects my thoughts that "the one", out of several billion people, is a) absurd and b) Next to impossible to meet.
Then again, it's probably a joke comment.
EDIT - for pedants. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
EDIT the Second - RIP inbox.
Ghengis Khan was born in 1162. The human population at that time is estimated between 320 and 360 million. Let's call it 350M. He's credited for killing 40M. That's around 11.4%...or about 1 in 9 people on the planet.
Note the population listed after Ghengis (he died in 1227) is literally the only one on the list with an estimated human population decline from the previous entry. Effectively human population was set back 200 years...though to be fair the black plague happening after Ghengis was a pretty solid one-two punch to humanity.
I wouldn't participate. Think of how often people make fun of people that play the lottery with things like "you're just wasting your money! The odds are terrible!".
Now consider these facts:
- The odds of winning the Power Ball are 1 in 292 million.
- The population of earth is 7.6 billion.
- To have any shot at winning this hide and seek, you'll need to do something ridiculous to your current life situation (move to a remote island, go underground, etc.). You essentially have to give up your current life.
- You have to assume that there will be many clever people in the world finding good hiding spots, so the likelihood of this game of hide and seek ending quickly is very slim. You could be hiding for YEARS.
So yeah, if you get laughed at for taking a trip to a gas station and spending a few bucks for a 1 in 292 million chance at winning millions of dollars, how stupid do you have to be to give up your entire life for a 1 in 7.6 billion chance at winning millions?
Currently population of the U.S. is, rounded slightly up, 326,650,000 people
There are 12 oz. in a coke can, don't think a citation is needed for that.
12 oz. divided by 326,650,000 people is .0000000367 oz. per person. For reference, the volume of a drop of water is by comparison a whopping .05 mL, which is about 0.0016907 oz.. Everyone would be getting about 1 46,000th of a drop of Coke
Just because I was curious:
Population of greater NYC: 20.2 million
Population of SF Bay Area: 7.15 million
Population of the US: ~326 million
So those two areas make up about 8.4%. Only disqualifying 91.6% of Americans, neat!
Depends what you mean by "country." It is a surprisingly vague term. Greenland and the Faroe Islands are called constituent countries within the Kingdom of Denmark. So yeah they are countries. But they are not nation-states, and are represented in international dealings by Denmark.
I think usually when people say how many countries there are in the world they just mean UN member states, of which there are 193, or it might include non-member observes of the Vatican and Palestine, which makes it 195. It's 196 if Taiwan is it's own country.
Once you add in recognizes dependencies and other regions you actually get... 233. the number stated in the title.
http://www.worldometers.info/geography/countries-of-the-world/#example
Actually, more than that. About 4.25x as many people in China as the U.S.
EDIT: I didn't mean to correct him, I just wanted to further show that there are precisely HELLA more people in China than the U.S.
World population is 7.325 billion
50.4% of the world population is male so 3.69 billion males.
You can fit roughly 5 people per square meter
So you would need 3.69x10^9 / 5/m^2 = 7.38x10^8 m^2 = 738 km^2
Which is a circle 30.66km across or around 8.5 Manhattans.
We will use the current estimate of the number of living humans based on this World Population clock of 7,280,000,000 people. We will also use Google's estimate for the amount of habitable land (since presumably people would like to survive on their land) on Earth of 24,642,575 square miles.
Dividing the amount of people by habitable land area, we get 0.0033849 mi^2 per person. Which is roughly 8766 m^2 (93,365 ft^2) per person of habitable land.
To put this in perspective this is 1.6 times larger than the average U.S. football field.
It's interesting that if you distributed people equally on habitable land on Earth you could easily talk to the nearest person.
Virkelige Fede mennesker skal ikke støttes i deres fedme, de er simpelthen skyld i deres tidlige død som går ud over familien, også masser af mennesker verden over før af sult. Mens ifølge World-O-meter er 1.6milliarder mennesker overvægtige, og 800millioner kraftig overvægtige, jeg synes vi skal blive ligesom Kina og havde lov til at fortælle fede mennesker når de er fede. Det vil være synd for familien hvis de døde tidligt på grund af deres fedme.
Fuck politisk korrekthed i forhold til fedme, der skal ske en forandring med det samme, fat acceptance er dumt og især støtte om andres fedme.
Kommer fra en tidligere overvægtig person.
http://www.worldometers.info/da/
Holy shit den her har fået folk til at snakke
According to this article there are, worldwide in all of recorded medical history, 13 survivors after showing symptoms, while ~65,000 are killed each year.
65,000 / 7,632,819,325 is ~0.0000085159% of the population.
Using the sum of the world population from 1951, multiplied by the death rate, ~2,850,459 people have died of rabies since 1951.
13 survivors/2,850,459 dead is 0.0000045607 meaning rabies is 99.999544% fatal.
4-5 of every million cases might survive. Still closer to your argument, but the exaggeration still shows the point that it a patient is extremely unlikely to survive once presenting symptoms.
Some notes:
- The death rate will not be constant over the last 67 years due to obvious factors
- Neither will the survivor rate for those same reasons.
- All but 1 of the 13 cases was after 2010
- All 13 cases received treatment other than or in addition to the vaccine.
- All of the survivors have reported severe detrimental effects following the disease.
- My math is correctish but my methodology may not be because I'm not a statistician and its 6am on a Saturday.
Most importantly: Surviving the disease after presenting symptoms without treatment is completely unheard of, meanwhile the PEP - Post Exposure Prophylaxis - rabies treatment is 100% successful if administered promptly.
And yes, we are still arguing semantics.
Assuming a population of India at 1.353 billion and a USA population of 326 million, then each on of those colors has more people than the entire population of the USA (338 million vs. 326 million).
In other words, if the USA has 4% of the world's population, the each of those colors also holds 4% of the world's population.
Saudi Arabia is used to throwing its considerable weight around in the middle east and as an economic force in OPEC.
But taking on Canada for them is like a 10 year old trying to pick a fight with someone in University.
Our Oil Reserves rank just behind their own.
We also have a larger popluation (searchable link), 5x the geography, and are fourth in the world in fresh water resources compared to their miserable ranking of 152.
This is a spoiled child used to getting their own way because they have good toys.
Well, we have the same toys, and other better ones...and we occupy the moral high ground because we don't lash and behead people. Plus, women here can not only drive, they can vote - and we have a democratic government.
We don't need the Saudis and they know it. They are pitching a hissy fit.
We will do what every adult in the grocery store does when someone else's kid loses his shit: We'll ignore them and tsk-tsk at their upbringing.
TL,DR: Fuck them.
China actually has 1.3 billion people, which is definitely not "billion*S*" as that would require about another 700,000,000 people, which is about half of China's current population.
Those 5 countries make up 50% of the population of the planet you melon.
7.7 billion people
China 1.46 billion people
India 1.36 billion people
United States 320 million people
Russia 143 million people.
Japan 147 million people.
= 3.43 billion people = 44% of the planet.
France produces 4.37 tons of CO2 Per capita almost 3 times higher than India at 1.5 Tons per capita.
Now yes France does actually pretty well at 19th in the list of total CO2 emissions but you are the 22nd largest country in the world by population.
Now, Yes China (6.59 tons), The USA (15.53 tons),Russia (10.19 tons) and Japan (8.93 tons) are far worse than you that doesnt mean you cant improve more.
I agree minimum wage workers are not the people that should be shouldering the main debt for this but protesting against the tax increase isnt going to help.
We all need to put more pressure on our governments to pressure the large corporations into more responsible consumption and we also need to protest trading with the United States and China to try and force their hand into changing.
But that should be done separately because at the moment the only message you are getting across is that you don't like the tax increase.
Sources
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations)
We just passed The Soloman Islands in population.
Let this be a lesson. Don't ever let anybody tell you dreams can't come true.
If you look at the German statistics bureau's publication for 2014, asylum seekers are 10 times more likely to commit crimes and e: 20 times more likely to commit rapes. Since they're now at 1% of the population, rape will logically have increased by about e: 20% and crime in general by 10%, ceteris paribus, assuming the same percentage of asylum seeker criminals are convicted as average Germans.
edit: Sources and calculation:
Crime statistics, 2014, table 61:
All crimes: 2,149,504
All crimes by asylum seekers: 53,890
All Rapes (Vergewaltigung): 765+83+450=1,298
Rapes by asylum seekers: 40+10+12=62
[Number of refugees, 2014](http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Number_of_(non-EU\)_asylum_applicants_in_the_EU_and_EFTA_Member_States,_by_age_distribution,_2014_(¹\)_YB15_III.png): 202,645
German population, 2014: 82,652,256
Assuming everyone is "Tatverdächtige" (suspect?) only once per year:
Percentage of Germans who have been accused of crimes: 2,149,504/82,652,256 = 2.60%
Percentage of asylum seekers who been accused of crimes: 53,890/202,645= 26.6%
Criminality of asylum seekers, relative to Germans: 26.6/2.60= 10.2
Percentage of Germans who have been accused of rapes: 1,298/82,652,256= 0.00157%
Percentage of asylum seekers who have been accused of rapes: 62/202,645= 0.0305%
Rapaciousness of asylum seekers, relative to germans: 0.0305/0.00157 = 19.5
Given an old rate x, the new rate = 0.99x+y*0.01x~=x(1+0.01y). For y=19.5, the new rate ~= 1.195 times the old rate.
> They have seen and experienced things that literally 99.99999999% of people haven't and probably never will.
I was curious what the literal percentage would be, so checking 1-536(#astronauts)/ 7,586,628,175(#people as of a few minutes ago) = 99.99999293%
99.99999999% was literally a very accurate number even down to the sig figs! Have an upvote! :)
I think most people aren't thinking about the situation logically. Even if the majority of people can't play because of whatever reason (no computer/no internet), there's more than enough people with computers and stable internet around.
There's 1.3 billion people in India, while a region like Oceania only has ~40 million. If only 10% of India had access to a computer and stable internet that's more than 3 times the population of Oceania.
That's more than enough people to warrant local servers.
Fox News averages between 1-3 million viewers a day depending on day of week and programming schedule. There are 324 million people in the US. That's less than 1% of the population on their best programming day.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/
They may be the most watched news network on TV, but don't grossly misrepresent and make numbers up out of thin air. You could have googled this in 15 seconds - I just did.
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q1-2017-ratings-fox-news-is-cables-most-watched-network/324673
According to this, "The total land surface area of Earth is about 57,308,738 square miles, of which about 33% is desert and about 24% is mountainous. Subtracting this uninhabitable 57% (32,665,981 mi2) from the total land area leaves 24,642,757 square miles or 15.77 billion acres of habitable land."
The World Population Clock says that, at the time of me writing this, the world population is about 7.45 billion people.
15.77 billion acres divided evenly among 7.45 billion people would leave each person with just over 2.1 acres of land.
Taking it a step further, if all countries of the world united, the statistics would be:
- It would have 7,295,000,000 inhabitants (1st)
- Wouldn't need active military personal. Let's say 50.000 just in case and 2 million reserve. (still 1st and 1st)
- GDP of roughly 80.000 trillion per year (1st)
- GDP per capita would drop to 11.000 USD (still 1st)
- Land Area would be 148.94 million sq km (1st)
- HDI rating would be 0.702 (1st)
^edit: ^math. ^Thank ^you, ^/u/Aken_Bosch
$70 billion is an inconceivable amount of spending for an island of 3.6 million people.That's $19,444 per person.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/puerto-rico-population/
Edit: SomeGuyInSanJoseCa fixed my math. It's conceivable now.
There are 233 countries if you separate out a lot of the little islands and things that 'belong' to others. AKA mostly the British.
http://www.worldometers.info/geography/countries-of-the-world/
This has a list of both.
I find it unlikely that they received responses from every single country.
Considering that the total number of people who have ever lived on Earth is around 107.6 Billion people, we just subtract the current world population of around 7.3 Billion to get a total death number of 100.3 Billion. The current population of the Earth is 6.784% of the total human population ever.
Some estimate demographics:
- The current population of Germany is 80,684,489 as of Thursday, February 25, 2016, based on the latest United Nations estimates.
- Germany population is equivalent to 1.1% of the total world population.
- Germany ranks number 16 in the list of countries by population.
- The population density in Germany is 232 per Km2 (600 people per mi2).
- The total land area is 348,520 Km2 (134,564 sq. miles)
- 77 % of the population is urban (62,260,626 people in 2016)
- The median age in Germany is 46.4 years.
Source: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/germany-population
- German citizens of no migrant background: 64.7 million (80% of total population)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany
There is plenty of more on the wiki page. In short, this inflow will dramatically shift the German Demographics.
That doesn't make any sense.
OK,
So mister Richards doesn't want to release any fantastic energy sources willy nilly because they could be used as weapons, so then why doesn't he make a mundane energy source viable? Why doesn't he create a stable fusion reactor (we already have fusion bombs) or a working LFTR (They already tried weaponizing thorium and decided uranium and plutonium were better options)? Both of these could provide carbon free power with no dangerous waste.
Why doesn't he cure cancer, HIV, heart disease, etc?
Why doesn't someone terraform sub Saharan Africa and plant genetically engineered super crops or something?
People are dying horrible deaths right now, as you read this. Right now it's 8 minutes past midnight in my timezone and world meters tells me that, statistically, 180 people have already starved to death today.
Why doesn't Reed Richards, Tony Stark, etc give a shit?
According to the State Department, there is 137,588,631 valid passports, in a population of (as of this writing) roughly 327,865,782 Americans.
That's (plugging into a calculator app) tap tap tap (carry the one) tap tap roughly 41.964925%, give or take a few thousandths of a percentage point.
Smart move by the Russians. Russia has a declining, and aging population. The Russian boogie man that NATO is always warning us of, is actually in somewhat of a population crisis, according to demographics, and little threat to anyone. They simply don't have the population to squander away in any major wars.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/russia-population/
1.229.388.964,65 earths
9.223.372.036.854.775.807(unsigned 64bit int)/7.502.403.472 souls on earth right now according to this site = 1.229.388.964,65
He needs a huge phonebook
Doesn’t the United States have more Jews than Israel?
Also fun fact, there are more Irish people in the United States than there are in Ireland.
> an ongoing act of genocide
A "genocide" where the Palestinian population has grown 5-fold since 1960.
That's why all your buzzwords are stupid.
I am still looking for a source. But since 2004 the population increased by ~1b and ca. 650m ppl died in the same time so it should be 1.6b out of 7.6b which is 21%.
That comes pretty close.
(My numbers come from http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate )
Edit: formatting on mobile is a pain
Tu nu vezi că are cruciuliță la gât? Îl ferește Dumnezeu de infecție SARS-CoV-2.
7600, OP. nu 6700. "7676", mai exact, comform www.worldometers.info/coronavirus
Sourced from this. It says one human contains an average of 81,500 calories. This website says there are 7.36 billion people in the world, roughly. That's 599,840,000,000,000 or 6.0 x 10^14 calories in just humans. That was the easy part. Now, for all the animals on the world.
According to this article, there are 20,000,121,091,000,000,000 animals in the world at any given time. This includes all mammals, insects, reptiles, and fish. While this is an immensely large number we still have to multiply the calories they contain. Now, this is the tricky part. What number do we use? The total number of animals includes every ant and also every blue whale, so that bracket to get a precise calorie count I think is impossible. I estimated a fair number to use would be 250 calories per animal. I used this because for example, a large majority of that number is insects, which won't hold more than about 50 calories each. While there are animals like blue whales in the animal count that have somewhere in the lines of millions of calories per whale, they only make up a very small percentage of total animals. The total calories of all animals excluding humans would bring you to a total of 5 x 10^21 which is almost how many miles the observable universe is. So, as you can see, that number would just be too big to write out. In scientific notation you would do ( 6.0 x 10^14 ) + ( 5 x10^21 ) which would be 5.0000006 x 10^21 calories.
You're not wrong. The problem is some people are using this line of thought as a way to dismiss what the guy has said in support of a totalitarian police state.
I have no trouble acknowledging that Bill Cosby is a complicated person, but I'm not going to use that as a response to people pointing out that he's a serial rapist, as some sort of "but he..." defense of his person.
Jackie Chan has brought joy, laughter, and inspiration to millions of lives with his movies. He has also said:
> “I’m gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled,” Mr. Chan said during the Boao Forum, the annual economic conference held on Hainan Island with a keynote speech by Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. “If we are not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want.”
Just how deeply insulting that feels probably depends somewhat on whether you're under the thumb of totalitarian rule and/or are Chinese.
At best, he is pandering to a government who rules over him.
But worse is the idea that he seriously believes that 1.4 billion people, in particular a certain type of people ("we Chinese"), "need to be controlled."
Whatever race/ethnicity/nationality/etc. you belong to, just imagine some extremely famous guy of your own nationality saying that everyone belonging to your nationality needs to be controlled.
It would probably make your blood boil.
> The United States population is equivalent to 4.38% of the total world population.
So using those figures, basically 95% of the world uses the Metric System.
And the metric system has been officially sanctioned for use in the United States since 1866 According to Wiki
This really just boils down to "this is what i use and is my only frame of reference, therefore it is better than what you use"
Someone asked
>Are there more than two gender expressions?
and got the response:
>Yes, billions.
I would go so far as to say there are, in fact: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
different gender expressions. For simplicity, though, we can split gender along sex lines without a problem. There's about 0.3% of people where they're flipped, but we can accommodate them easy enough.
Still only two sexes though. There've only been 11 actual genuine, fertile hermaphrodites that ever existed and they have functional MALE and FEMALE sex organs.
The statistics say 0/10 of my friends like them! Thats 0%! Now scale that sample size up to cover the entire worlds population (Roughly 7,300,000,000 people)!
(0 * 730,000,000)/(10 * 730,000,000) = 0/7,300,000,000
Thats still 0%! Nobody likes the Minions!
^^^^^^^^^^I ^^^^^^^^^^have ^^^^^^^^^^no ^^^^^^^^^^idea ^^^^^^^^^^if ^^^^^^^^^^this ^^^^^^^^^^math ^^^^^^^^^^is ^^^^^^^^^^any ^^^^^^^^^^sort ^^^^^^^^^^of ^^^^^^^^^^correct
People are used to countries staying roughly the same size, and Ethiopia used to be rather small.
It's gone from 35 million in 1980 to over 100 million now. They're growing by over 2 million people per year and over 40% of their population is below 15. It's gonna get a LOT bigger, by 2050 it will be nearly 200 million
You expect everyone from 1 year old to person going to die next day use internet in India ? See this
And India's Population is 1.33 billion. You just unknowningly added 2.84 more Australia to India's population.
The effects of the human overpopulation on Climate Change.
We know that the Climate has always been changing (to our knowledge), as shown quite accurately in this xkcd comic which definitely shows a significant increase in the last 100 years.
But what less people focus on is the size of the human population on earth during the same period. The world population went from 1.2 billion in 1850 to 7.5 billion 2017. Just in comparison, it had taken all of human history until around 1800 for world population to reach 1 billion.
It's safe to say that human activity (since the industrial revolution) has an impact on the temperature on earth, so in that aspect people are right. But they focus on the symptoms, instead of the root of the problem.
That sounds really bad, which is probably why barely any people are talking about it, but the point is that the more humans there are, the more natural resources will be used. as everyone needs a house, transportation methods, food, etc..
> One in five? What the fuck are you talking about?
Out of 324 million Americans only 63 million actually voted for Donnie, or about 19% of the total population.
>It's incredibly awkward how you're still trying to make your country look good after this mess.
I guess my joke didn't translate well, since you seem to be taking it so seriously.
>Your country is NOT the greatest nation on the planet. It wasn't before the election, it won't be during Trumps term and it probably will never be, until you get your shit together and stop being self-centered idiots.
I went ahead and re-read my comment to see where I said that the United States was "the greatest nation on the planet," that it was "the greatest nation on the planet" before the election, that it was "the greatest nation on the planet" during Tromp's term, or that it will be "the greatest nation on the planet" after he's gone, but I couldn't find it.
Alright, let's break this down shall we. The current population of India per this site is 1,281,700,962 and the current population of the US is 322,583,006.
I'm going to assume a perfect 50/50 split between men/women. I'm also going to assume this dipshit thinks that women can't be friendzoned.
I'm going to assume the friendzone is only inhabitable for people over 15. According to this website, the ratio of people between 15-64 and children below 15 is 2.4 to 1. The numbers of people over 60 according to the site cited earlier varies quite a bit from country to country, so I'm going to eyeball it at around 10% worldwide. If we work this out, we find that around 26% of all men worldwide are below 15 years of age, which I'll round down to 25% for easier calculations.
That means that around 65% of men worldwide are eligible for friendzone status (also assuming that people above 65 don't get friendzoned anymore), which is the 15-65 age bracket (yes, I worked with 60+, but hey, it's the numbers I gotta deal with). This amounts to around 2,378,840,893 men.
Now, according to this site, around 44% of the US population is single. Worldwide, this is probably lower, so I'm going to round it down to 40%, but it's probably even lower. So, that amounts to around 951,536,357 single men worldwide who are eligible for the friendzone.
So, with those numbers, we find that this guy claims that between 33,9% and 134,7% of all single men worldwide are in the friendzone.
Seems kind of farfetched.
Human population was at 3.8 billion some time in the very early 1970s. It’s currently at more than 7.6 billion. Less than 50 years to double anyway.
Thanos didn’t solve shit. He did make housing cheaper for the remaining people, so we can thank him for the short term perks. But he will have to be back in the 2060s for part two.
> PLM is on one of our smaller TV channels (ABC)
Not picking a fight, but the ABC is the national broadcaster, hardly small.
It's true that the commercial channels generally dominate the top 10 viewing figures, but it doesn't take much to make the list - Master Chef was last week's number 10, with just 877,000 viewers...out of a country with a population of ~24 million.
> like other programs on that channel (eg Miss Fisher) seems to be more popular international than at home.
Again, not disagreeing, I don't have the stats, but when you sell a program to 120 countries, the chances are it will be considered more popular internationally.
The ABC has a significant online presence in iView and its other catch up services, far superior to most commercial offerings. I suspect a lot of people digest content like PLM via that.
edit: a rogue apostrophe
LETS DO SOME MATH, WOOHOO! Taaken from this list, the top 5 countries with the strongest men are (in order) 1) Polynesia 2) Iceland 3) USA 4) Colombia 5) Poland. If we assume that, say, 1 in every 6 person in each of these countries can somehow pull a 34,000 lb (~15422.141 kgs) truck, that's a tonne of people right? Well according to this list, the respective populations of the top 5 strongest countries in the world divided by 6 are:
Polynesian Islands - 688,215 / 6 = 114703 Iceland - 331,122 except Iceland because Iceland = 331,122 USA - 324,118,787 / 6 = 54019798 Colombia - 48,654,392 / 6 = 8109066 Poland - 38,593,161 / 6 = 6432194
The total world population the time of writing this is roughly 7,409,853,350. If we add up the numbers just calculated, we get
114703 + 331,122 + 54019798 + 8109066 + 6432194 = 69006883 % Able to Pull Truck = (Population Calculated) / (Toatal Population) * 100% 69006883 / 7,409,853,350 * 100% = 0.93128540796%
So, if 1 in 6 people in the top 5 strongest countries in the world are able to somehow pull 34,000 lb truck, that would still be less than 1% of the world's population. So, most likely, you are part of the 1% club.
TL,DR: Yes, most likely, this is a 1% feat and you are a fucking legend regardless
Edit: 34,000lbs not 32,000lbs. Sorry /u/pghbatman for making you look small for a second there ;). Also, Polynesia is not a country.
So France including its territories is 67,186,638 (wiki - 2018 data)
The UK is at 66,654,435
Plus ~250,000 from overseas territories puts it at roughly 300,000 below France's.
In 2018 amidst Brexit uncertainty we saw 0.59% growth compared to 0.39% growth overall in France.
The falls in EU migration this year were offset by rises in Non-EU migration and the natural birth rates are not too different.
It's plausible the UK could overtake within 5 years atleast
Well assuming you're in the US, looking at the value of the illegal drugs market being at $360 billion there's not doubt money is being laundered and floating in and out of the country, so I don't think it'd be insane to wish for a couple billion and not fuck up anything (other than the local economy maybe?).
However, I'm no economist/billionaire/drug dealer/genie hell, I'm not even American, so I could be totally wrong.
China produces more than a third of all the cars made in the world apparently. About seven times as many as the US.
Shanghai VW is a monster.
http://www.worldometers.info/cars/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281133/car-production-in-china/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_China#1990_to_present
Sorry for the real science but look at the section labeled "How many people have ever lived on earth?"
> 6% of all people ever born are alive today.
That means the STD of life infected unto anatomically modern humans only has a 94% mortality rate so far. Then again, 100% mortality is a wet dream of mine.
I think you'll find that
For each person in America call SendEmail( person, SpamMessage) next
Is more efficient. And let's face it, when you're doing something 325,200,891+ times, it's worth doing well.
It has very high population density. The map of accessibility closely mirrors a population density map. Most of the interior of Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Central Asia was (and mostly still is) sparsely inhabited because it is uninhabitable deserts, mountains, and rain-forests, with most of the population living near the coasts.
One major exception is Eastern China which would definitely be all white today, but had lots of blue in 1950. China was having a very rough time in 1950. There would be a lot more white in Africa and Southeast Asia and many other regions, but a lot of the area would still be blue for the same reason that most of Australia, Canada, and Russia are blue.
Global population ~~is expected to~~ can level off around 9-10 Billion. As the infant mortality rate decreases in a country, so does the number of children born, so you stop seeing families having large numbers of children. http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth
You can see that the Population growth in Western countries is declining. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
91.4% of the population has access to electricity. So that's about 170.7m with access to electricity normally.
80% of <em>Pakistan</em> left without power. That leaves ~136.6m without power.
Take into account the rounding of 140m and 80% by Sky News its very close. Assuming when they mean '80% of Pakistan' means of those that normally have access to it.
> Israel continues its own holocaust of Palestinians.
The "Palestinian holocaust" in actual numbers
- 1970/1.1 million, 1980/1.5 million, 1990/2.1 million, 2000/3.2 million, 2010/4 million, 2019/5.1 million
During the (SIC) "Palestinian holocaust" the Palestinian population grew by 1 million Palestinians every decade.
Do you really think Europe is the only "rest of the world"? Fire Emblem Heroes is currently available in these 44 countries.
By contrast, Super Mario Run is available on 150 countries.
There are 195 countries as of today.
So no, Fire Emblem heroes still hasn't released in "the rest of the world".
My country only has Super Mario Run available, and I can only hope Fire Emblem Heroes gets released here. Let alone Dragalia Lost.
You did the math. I downvoted you, then looked up an estimate of about how many people ever lived. About 108 Billion. ^^^^^(Picky ^^^^sons ^^^^of ^^^^bitches.)
there are about 7 billion people alive right now.
101/108 ≈ 0.935 = 93.5%
I changed my vote.
i rarely talk about this because it makes me out to be a soulless evil asshole with no compassion, but overpopulation of the earth is a very real and very serious problem. no one wants to think about how their great-great-great-grandchildren are going to have enough to eat on a planet with 15 billion people on it.
just like the global warming issue, no one's going to really start doing anything about it until it's too late
edit: of course no one knows what's going to happen in the future, only what's already happened. but look at the data: During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion. . sure, the rate of growth is declining, but until it drops to zero or negative, there will come a time when there are simply too many people to feed (and if those people want meat in their diet, then the animals will not only also need population growth, but they'll need to be fed too). but who cares what our descendants are going to have to deal with hundreds of years in the future, right? out of sight, out of mind
Honestly, being fat affects more people than yourself. Main reason being is that the amount spent on health-care for obesity-related diseases has skyrocketed, raising health care costs/premiums for everyone. I'm not saying this to be mean, but it's simply fact. We, as a country, need to hold people accountable for this. It is a problem that is destroying our labor force. I realize how easy it is for it to spiral out of control, and I feel sorry for the situation they're in. But for the sake of the United States and themselves, they need to get their weight under control. It is a myth that it is a disease that only affects themselves.
>According to the American Cancer Society, obesity cost an estimated $75 billion in 2003 because of the long and expensive treatment for several of its complications. According to the National Institute of Health, $75-$125 billion is spent on indirect and direct costs due to obesity-related diseases.
http://www.worldometers.info/obesity/
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21772 - How Does Obesity in Adults Affect Spending on Health Care?
>That sharp increase in the fraction of adults who are overweight or obese poses an important public health challenge. Those adults are more likely to develop serious illnesses, including coronary heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension. As a result, that trend also affects spending on health care.
>Because lower rates of obesity are associated with better health and lower health care spending per capita, there is considerable interest in devising policies that would reduce the fraction of the population that is obese.
New York has a population of 8.6 million, which means only 99/233 countries in the world has a larger population.
Add to that how shootings are more common in urban areas than in rural areas and that the numbers grow as population density gets higher. And that crime rates increase exponentially as wealth inequality gets larger, which certainly is true for a city of the mega-rich like NYC. And that the US is the country with the most guns in the world.
Add it all together and it's really not as bad as it initially sounds.
Compare it to Chicago which had 3000 shootings in 2016 and 2500 in 2017 with a population of 2.7 million.
"Whether or not humans go extinct remains to be seen, but there is no denying that sustaining 7.6 billion humans while we are forcing the extinction of between 150-200 other species each day and have pushed Earth’s climate out of its natural state is very much in question. I’ve spoken to prestigious scientists both on and off the record who believe that sooner rather than later, global population will be reduced to around 1 billion humans."
I couldn't care any less about royal weddings themselves, this one included, save for the same-sex aspect of it.
To put it another way, I don't care about this because it's a royal wedding, I care about this because it's a same-sex royal wedding and that brings more visibility to LGBT couples and our rights.
In a world where only 25 out of 193 countries perform same-sex marriage, with another 3 that recognize but do not perform them, the more visibility on this issue the better.
Stat sources:
Country count:
http://www.worldometers.info/geography/how-many-countries-are-there-in-the-world/
Same-sex marriage/country count:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
Hmm, 0? Did I offend someone's delicate sensibilities? There, there, bless your bigoted little heart. It'll be okay.
I was interested by your comment here, and thought I would do some more data gathering and math of my own. I found this site which claims 2015 officer deaths in 2015 to be 105. As other commenters have said, many of these are not deaths caused by some attacker. I'm going to include deaths caused by assault, fall (unsure what caused said fall), gunfire, gunfire (accidental, just to be safe), struck by vehicle, vehicle pursuit, and vehicular assault. So I'm being pretty liberal here, I think. That brings the total to 54.
Getting population counts from this site, US population for 2015 is estimated to be 325,127,624. U.K. population for 2015 is estimated to be 63,844,773 (assuming constant rate of growth from 2014).
Given all that, consider the following numbers:
U.S. Line of Duty Killings Per 1 Million = 0.1662
U.S. Officer Involved Killings Per 1 Million = 3.0708
U.K. Line of Duty Killings per 1 Million = 0.0156
U.K. Officer Involved Killings per 1 Million = 0.0313
So, U.S. line of duty killings is about 10 times higher. However, U.S. officer involved killings is 98 times higher. It seems that one group - police vs. the general population - is more violent than the other. We can't tell which from this data, though. The general population could be more threatening to police which causes higher officer involved killings. Or the police could be more violent and simply kill more often.
EDIT: I guess I would amend this last paragraph to say, "Police are much more effective at killing the general population than the general population is at killing police." While the general population could be more violent, it doesn't translate to police deaths perhaps because the officer kills them before the officer is killed. If police are more violent then that violence results in a killing much more often.
productivity growth stopped being a factor about 1978. productivity growth has outpaced wage growth almost 4-1
Edit: I love the raw number but it's not that simple. Our population has increased 50% and the number of people in the workforce has increased.
Wages have definitely deceased
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/
>You stand better odds at winning the lottery than being shot by the police.
Odds of one ticket winning a lottery like powerball is something like 1 in 292,000,000. Cops shot and killed approximately 963 people in 2016 in the USA, which had an estimated population of 324,118,787 in 2016. 324,118,787/963 = 1 in 33,6572 people in the USA were shot and killed by police in 2016. And that's shot and killed. If we were just going to calculate the risk of being shot as stated in your post, it would obviously be a much greater risk. I'd guess at least twice as likely, so conservatively something like 1 in 17,000. It's really not even close.
I am sure personally you have experienced this, and I know what you're talking about. However, lets just look at facts:
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/philippines-population/
Philippines population growth has seen an overall decline. After migration the actual growth is 1.54%, which is about average. Their share of the world population is actually on the decline.
Based on these facts what do you think?
rapid industrialization over the past century coupled with very low rates of birth control. Here's a good TED talk that explains it: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth?language=en
Summation: Lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates means people in less industrialized countries have many children, with the idea that the more children you have, the higher chance is that one or two survives. Also, more children means more labor for the farm. Industrialization and medicine have reduced the mortality rate, so many more of those children are now surviving.
Nigeria is the most staggering example of this IMO. In the past 60 years, its population has more than quadrupled. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/nigeria-population/
Average human urine production is 1-2 litres http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine World population is approx 7.2 billion http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ 2 litres x 7.2 billion is 14.4 billion, this is the global max daily urine production, 3 x 10^9 gallons.
The 'doubling up' formula is 2^(x-1), where x is the number of days. This gives us a formula: 2^(x-1) = 3 x 10^9 Solving this gives x = 32 days.
The total amount of piss dumped over you in that horrific month is 8.5 x 10^9 gallons, or 3.9 x 10^13 ml.
$390 000 000 000 buys a hell of a lot of bleach.
[edits so that I didn't lose my working and because I cocked up the maths at one point]
Syrien var sgu også et taberland inden. De har bogstaveligt talt bollet deres land i stykker. I 1960 havde både Danmark og Syrien 4,5 million indbyggere. Nu har Danmark 5,7 og Syrien havde året før borgerkrigen 21 millioner. Deres infrastruktur har slet ikke kunnet følge med.
Always those darn' Germans, eh?
We have (way) more problems than a dominant Germany and immigrants in Europe, but if we keep on reasoning like you do, we'll never get to more and closer military integration and cooperation.
Cause there will always be something.
I wonder where you get your numbers from. Half of Europe sacrificed to Germany? Not in my country. And a third of Europe is Germany's cheap labour? So they have 250 million cheap people working over there?
Who knew.
Made me look up this: http://www.worldometers.info/geography/how-many-countries-are-there-in-the-world/
A little fun actually! 195, but you could argue for the ones they've excluded to be counted as well.
>Israel is always hesitant to properly define and recognise genocide because they don't want to end up with a definition that could be applied to what they do to the Palestinians.
Ahhh yes. The "Palestinian genocide" we hear so much about.
- 1970/1.1 million, 1980/1.5 million, 1990/2.1 million, 2000/3.2 million, 2010/4 million, 2019/5.1 million
The UN estimate for Nigerian population, as of today, is 199.9M
That's not "well over".
At least according to this source
According to Wikipedia, the recent UN Commission on Population and Development on Sustainable Cities, Human Mobility and International Migration held in April this year put the population to 198M currently.
Det er ikke kun migration, der er problemet. I et af de fattigste lande i verden, Niger, I afrika, der er fødselsraten 44 per 1000 per år. I Danmark er tallet 10! Dvs. at kvinder i Niger i gennemsnit næsten får 8!??! børn i løbet af deres liv: https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Populaton-of-Niger-v-France.png
Derudover, hvis man ser på Afrika som kontinent, er befolkningen gået fra ½ milliard i start 80'erne til én milliard tilbage i 2009. Man estimere med over 2 milliarder inden 2040 og over 4 milliarder i 2100. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/africa-population/
Men jeg kan godt se det gør en vildt stor forskel, at vi modtager 10000 velfærdsmigranter i Danmark. Vi kunne modtage 100.000.000 og de ville ikke løse problemet. Danmark ville ikke eksistere længere til gengæld.
Danskerne fatter simpelthen ikke omfanget af problemet.
Just for fun let's do the math.
Total population of the world is 7.6 Billion
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Net worth of the world in 2017 was 280 trillion USD according to Credit Suisse(they do. leave out 2.8 billion people in that). Couldn't find a more recent study.
https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/research/research-institute/global-wealth-report.html
So that's around 36,842 USD per person. Very roughly.
Aren't we (as a civilization) going to need lots and lots and lots of gigafactory-class facilities very rapidly in order to replace a substantial fraction of cars with EV's?
One GF can produce enough for 0.5 Mcars/year, and the current total production rate of cars is about 60 M/year, so we need something like 120 gigafactories.
Sounds like a job for China, actually.
> ethnic-cleansing war
Ahhh yes the often-cited Palestinian genocide. Palestinian population in 1970 = 1.1 million. In 1980 = 1.5 million. In 1990 = 2.1 million. 2000 = 3.1 million. 2018 = 5.1 million...
So math....
According to this....
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/
We are at 327 million people
1.4 million people dont understand genders
That is 0.4% of the population of the US.
Why are we pandering to less than 1 percent of the US.
This is a mental disease, spread by Democrats and Liberals.
It's a start. Let's see it enforced. I don't doubt, though, that many of those children will be murdered to keep from identifying their attacker(s). With over 1B people* and dangerous overcrowding, life is obviously considered cheap in India by some.
5,107,438Communicable disease deaths this year
2,990,507Deaths of children under 5 this year
16,528,445Abortions this year
121,606Deaths of mothers during birth this year
39,048,500HIV/AIDS infected people
661,386Deaths caused by HIV/AIDS this year
3,231,236Deaths caused by cancer this year
385,912Deaths caused by malaria this year
10,029,242,752Cigarettes smoked today
1,966,786Deaths caused by smoking this year
984,013Deaths caused by alcohol this year
421,897Suicides this year
$ 157,392,485,101Money spent on illegal drugs this year
531,094Road traffic accident fatalities this year
but yes, it's terrorists whe problem of this world.
Gender reveal parties are that Pinterest-made-up event to gather even more attention at the pregnancy. So now we have :
- The pregnancy announcement : "Everybody, brace yourself. We had unprotected sex and the semen took root! Haven't you heard anything more miraculous than basic biology?"
- The gender reveal : "Everybody, brace yourself. It could be a boy, it could be a girl. 1 chance out of 2!! We know you couldn't sleep not knowing whether our baby was going to have a pink nursery or a blue one!"
- The baby shower : "Everybody, brace yourself. Babies are expensive and us as parents cannot be expected to foot the whole bill. There will be diaper games!"
- The actual birth : "Everybody, brace yourself. Our baby is coming into the world right now, as other 200K babies will too today. We're special! Here's a picture of an ex utero foetus covered in unfathomable goo!"
- The 10 commandments : "Everybody, brace yourself. If you want to have the upmost honor and privilege of meeting the baby, you have to do house chores, get vaccinated, bring a dish, bring a present, be silent, be pissing yourself of the joy of holding the baby. It's such a special event."
- The push present : "Everybody, brace yourself. I went through a biological process that a woman in a coma could do. So I got a hummer!"
It really isn't about getting as much attention as you can. It's about a natural miracle. That happens over 200,000 times per day, every day of every year, since the humans have been making babies.
That's not actually true. Not even anywhere vaguely close to true. All that wealth would equal the net worth of the bottom half of the world's population. Which, if you didn't know...is basically jack shit.
Those guys have combined net worth of about 427 billion dollars. Wow!
Now, let's see, how many people are there on earth? Almost 7.5 billion.
So, let's see. Let's implement our socialist utopia and spread those countless riches around! Everyone hold out your hands and prepare to receive your...fifty seven dollars.
Wow. Basic quality of life guaranteed. For anywhere between thirty minutes and a couple weeks, depending on where you live. Why didn't we think of doing that before?
Actually, population growth is currently linear and has been for about 4-5 decades. +80m/yr, 12-14 years per +1b.
It was exponential up to about 1970 when the growth rate peaked. It may or may not slow down further so the yearly increment starts reducing but it hasn't yet.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#table-historical
The UN is still predicting 10b in 2056 and no peak this century. But that assumes business as usual, no black swans and no overshoot, crash and burn.
I think Zeihan is being alarmist. First off Russian's fertility rate is 1.72, Europe is 1.6 and US is 1.87
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/russia-population/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
Both EU and Russia also take in migrants, so it balances it out. Population growth in the EU and Russia is 0.2% per year.
A lot of the decline in fertility rates happened during 1993-2003, and they have recovered. The fertility rate dropped to 1.1 in 1999.
But let's be blunt, the way he approaches the problem is utter baloney. First off population only matters if you are fielding large armies of conscripts. In the case of Russia with its new emphasis on smaller professional armies, its not that important. The Russian troops in Crimea are about 30000-40000, including reserves add another 20,000. Canada has a population of 36 Million, and it fields an armed force of 70,000-80,000. Russia's population is 144 Million,
m8 you aren't thinking clearly. The rate of growth of the world population has already tappered significantly, the only reason we have more people each year is because life spans are going up. The replacement rate is 2 .1 % which we haven't seen since the 1960s. Right now its at 1.12%. So by your standards the world is dying....
Please refer to something the next time you make a humourless comment on this sub
The world population is actually now increasing at a decreasing rate, so we hit the inflection point recently. In other words, population growth is no longer accelerating upwards.
Source: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate
This is something that I consider to be very scary. Logistic growth is a scary concept.
POC here. It really breaks my immersion when all the NPCs aren't white, I mean don't these SJW devs know that 99% of the world population is white? It's immersion breaking not to mention historically inaccurate.
/uj for real though I just find it funny they're realizing they're the minority on the global scale, usually hilarious to see them throw a hissyfit about it.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/ There's a chart by the bottom that shows population by years and you can quite clearly see it rises about 1-2 mil per year
The US annual population growth rate according to google is .8% so you can do the math with that if you want as well
Yup. Even Asia's birth rates have fallen. East Asia is really below replacement levels while SEA is close to replacement levels. The other Asian regions are still pretty high but not 3+ kids high. Asia's overall TFR is 2.19 - just barely above replacement levels. Latin America's TFR is similar to that of Asia. On the other hand, Africa has a TFR of 4.65!. Without Africa, the world's TFR will probably be close to replacement levels. IMO, the rest of the world should help Africa in modernization and urbanization as this will improve the quality of life while reducing birth rates.
tl;dr: we need to go back to 1987
Okay, lets assume Moore's law has held since the beginning of the computer age. I'm assuming 1945 as the starting point here, so that's 70 years. Moore's law states that processor calculation speed doubles every 18 months. That means we have 2^(0.67*70) = 1.3*10^14. So that's the speed of one processor today expressed in "original CPUs" (oCPUs).
According to this source, the number of computers in use today is about 2 billion, and has been developing exponentially. e^(x*70) = 2*10⁹ gives about x=0.306, so the function e^(0.306*x) approximates the increase in computers in use over time. To get the time when the total equivalent of installed processing power equals today's 1.3*10^14 oCPUs per real CPU we need to solve (e^(0.306*x))*(2^(0.67*x)) = 1.3*10^14 oCPUs. Wolfram Alpha gives us the solution x = 42.18..., or rounded to two places: x = 42. That means the time you're looking for is 42 years after 1945, or 1987.
> and one is the systematic extermination of the Palestinian people
The "systematic extermination" in numbers
- Palestinian population in 1970/1.1 million. 1980/1.4 million. 1990/2 million. 2000/3.1 million. 2010/3.9 million. 2018/5 million.
The "systematic extermination of the Palestinian people" is the only "extermination" on the planet where the population grew consistently for 50 years.
I thought this was an interesting question, so I did the math. If you just take the total net worth of the top 0.1% and directly divide it by the population of the US, every man woman and child gets a cheque for $36,341, so $145,364 for each family of four.
I am by no means saying that this is a good idea (it would me unethical and also destroy our future economy), but the numbers are nuts.
Sources for numbers: Total net worth of top 0.1%:
Total US population: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/germany-population/
Just realised I used the 2013 population by mistake, but it doesn't change much as it is only 82.6 rather than 82.7.
I found conflicting sources, seems like the UN has the German population at around 82.5 and Germany has it at 80.5.
The root is high reproduction rate.
See for example Uganda, it is a country rich of natural resources. However , fertility rate is 5.82, population 44 million in 2018, estimated population 100 million in 2050; median age 15.9 years,. In 2012, 37.8 percent of the population lived on less than $1.25 a day. Installed electricity capacity is about 800 megawatts, production in 2012 was 2,493 GWh, what is 55 kWh per capita per year. For example in Spain average consumption per capita and year is 4,818 kWh. No EU funds can stabilise Africa. Population of Africa was about 150 million about 1900, European was about 400 million. African population is now 1.3 billion, estimated in 2050 2.5 billion, European population is about 750 million, estimated in 2050 715 million. There is no help, a catastrophe is inevitable. All chaotic NGO and other funds make it worse, because they give money for projects than can't change anything important.
I 100% agree with everything you have said. I have no doubt in my mind that in the future, there will be a war over resources. It's not a matter of IF, but WHEN, and it wont be as long as people think.
Also, just to point out that we are almost at 7.7 billion humans now
>On the OP's side, she did say that she would never even think to ask someone why they decided NOT to have kids, or criticize them for choosing that.
Well bully for her, but as I say so often around here, the world isn't exactly suffering when people choose not to have kids. We do, however, suffer from the selfishness of people who feel like they need more than a replacement amount of kids. So she can withhold any misplaced judgement she has, because it's pointless anyway. She, on the other hand, deserves to be judged for her choice.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
And yes, it's extremely depressing that we're seen as these awful beasts because -gasp- how could we NOT want kids?! I've actually noticed a trend: if you're having a discussion with someone, the quality of that discussion is vastly improved so long as they don't know you're childfree. It's why I use this childfree account for this sub, and a different one for the rest of reddit. As soon as people dig in your history and see that you're childfree, they automatically dismiss you and your opinions because you're clearly a total asshole who's not worth talking to.
Ok, so the total working population of China is around 68%. Source. The current population of China is around 1.4 billion and climbing. Source. So 68% of the population is around 952 Million people. So basically, this is such a big layoff that just shy of one in every 10,000 working people in the country was laid off. That's pretty huge.