in other words, you give an estimate of 6.8bn. considering that the current population is ~6.5bn, and given statistical significance of estimates of population 2000 years ago (ore even 300 years ago), i am not sure what exactly you proved.
best, mishka On 2/17/06, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > >
