Go here, for one example, to get a historical estimate of population.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
I think it's fairly uncontroversial to assume that anyone alive
in one century year would have died by the next century year,
so the sum of the population totals for century years counts
distinct individuals (and misses counting people who were
born and died between two century years - a fairly substantial
fraction of the population, given the average life expectancy).
Just taking the lower bounds for population, and summing the
numbers for the century years, shows that at least 5.1 billion
people were born and died between 1000 and 2000 BC, and another
1.7 billion in the millenium prior to that.
So, even ignoring anyone who lived more than 2000 years ago,
anyone who never lived through a century year, and anyone born
since 1900 who has since died, I get a figure rather larger
than the 6 billion people alive today.
Obviously this is a gross under-count; I'd expect the true
number to be at least 50% larger than that, and probably
more like 100% larger. But the exact figures don't matter;
all I'm trying to do is show that more people have died over
the centuries than are alive today, which is all that is
necessary to disprove the claim that half the people who
have ever lived are still alive. For that, even the low
number I show above suffices.
Q. E. D.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 03:13:03PM -0500, Mishka wrote:
> do you mind sharing your "figures"?
>
> On 2/17/06, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm well aware of the exponential population growth.
> > I suggest that, rather than blindly repeating 'facts'
> > you've been told, you actually check your figures.
> >
> > But of course that would be too much work, wouldn't it?
> > And it would also mean you might have to admit an error.
