125 billion people in 4,000 years?

[slim6y]

I wouldn't be surprised if the growth rate was basically static for most of our history. The death rate would have been vastly higher for neolithic cavemen and women.

We became very nomadic for quite some time - therefore during these nomadic stages of our history we would have had a lower population rate. We also spread out when we could. At times when humans left Africa for the Middle East were times when they were able to cross much larger areas of land - at a time when water levels were lower.

There's a fantastic mini series by Dr Alice Roberts on this - and it's quite evidential that what she's stating is a very likely theory.

She also talks about population from time to time - but I'd need to re-watch it again to see what is said.

 

[Surroundx]

I don't see the point in this! do you think we will be here in 4000 years?

You've misconstrued the point of this thread mate. It's to do with Noah's flood and whether the world could have been repopulated in such a short time from 8 people.

 

[slim6y]

Damn - I shouldn't have searched Dr Alice Roberts - now I want her book!

Not one for the creationists tho!

Alice Roberts - Books & DVDs

 

[Erebos]

You've misconstrued the point of this thread mate. It's to do with Noah's flood and whether the world could have been repopulated in such a short time from 8 people.

Thx my bad haha now I feel stupid


Cheers Brenton

 

[junglepython2]

You've misconstrued the point of this thread mate. It's to do with Noah's flood and whether the world could have been repopulated in such a short time from 8 people.

There are so so so so so many ways in which that theory can be conclusively shot down, why bother resorting to theoretical models where countless unknown variables and assumptions are made? You will never find a model where everyone agrees on the variables you have plugged in as no one knows them for sure to start with.

 

[Just_Plain_Nuts]

I worked out the number assuming a population growth rate of 1.1 every 25 years this time. The number is much, much smaller: 15,659,509. This is a far more realistic number, and I think calls into question the possibility of 125 billion people being born in as little 4,000 years.

I think these figures are a bit ridiculous...considering we are talking about number of people born....1.1 babies born out of every 100 people over 25 years??? So only one family out of 100 people would have a child once or maybe twice in their lifetime...and people claim my figures to be outlandish???

 

[Surroundx]

I think these figures are a bit ridiculous...considering we are talking about number of people born....1.1 babies born out of every 100 people over 25 years??? So only one family out of 100 people would have a child once or maybe twice in their lifetime...and people claim my figures to be outlandish???

No mate. If you look at my first figures in the OP I suggested one couple having 3 children means that the growth rate is 1.5, since 3 is x1.5 of 2. I simply reduced the 1.5 to 1.1, so in effect every couple would only have, on average, a little more than 2 children each.

 

[slim6y]

You make it sound like we were monogamous for most of our lives - I somehow doubt that was the case - especially with very high infant mortality rates. If you're suggesting at least 2.x children survive till they gave birth too - you'd be joking... I'm pretty sure humans weren't monogamous for quite some time in the early part of our history.

I realise there's so many figures that can't be taken into consideration - which is why the original figures that JPN came up with were just that - completely irrelevant figures. There's not even much assumption in those figures which makes it even harder to believe. Not to mention they come up with ludicrously high figures.

At that rate all the dead bodies wouldn't be able to decompose quick enough - we'd be around 500m deep in decomposing humans and the world would have much worse problems than climate change and creationism. Though, it's hard to fathom a problem worse than creationism if we're looking at set backs to the human race.

 

[Surroundx]

You make it sound like we were monogamous for most of our lives - I somehow doubt that was the case - especially with very high infant mortality rates. If you're suggesting at least 2.x children survive till they gave birth too - you'd be joking... I'm pretty sure humans weren't monogamous for quite some time in the early part of our history.

I realise there's so many figures that can't be taken into consideration - which is why the original figures that JPN came up with were just that - completely irrelevant figures. There's not even much assumption in those figures which makes it even harder to believe. Not to mention they come up with ludicrously high figures.

At that rate all the dead bodies wouldn't be able to decompose quick enough - we'd be around 500m deep in decomposing humans and the world would have much worse problems than climate change and creationism. Though, it's hard to fathom a problem worse than creationism if we're looking at set backs to the human race.

The 2x children surviving is pure fantasy. None of my figures are realistic at all. They were simply arbitrary figures. I was hoping somebody could turn my 1.5x growth rate (population grows by 150% every 25 years) into a proper equation, which you guys could then tweak to make them realistic.

 

[Just_Plain_Nuts]

Alright here goes.....
Pn=(2(C^n-x+1)(C^x-1))/(C-1)

Where
Pn is the total population
2C is the number of children per family...so C is half that
n is the number of generations
x is the number of generations alive at once

I have used the values of C = 1.151......being 2.302 children per family a conservative figure that is even lower than our current western ones ( most cultures have a lot more especially in the past)
n = 143 generations working on 30 years between generations...once again an exaggerated number as it's normally considered closer to 25
x= 2 meaning just the children and their parents are alive at the same time...again exaggerated as most have grandparents

giving
Pn=7.17504001 billion people alive today.....I had this figure a little higher to account for actual smaller figures which would be the result of wars and famine etc
Plausible? I think so...I think the values used are quite reasonable?

 

[Surroundx]

Alright here goes.....
Pn=(2(C^n-x+1)(C^x-1))/(C-1)

Where
Pn is the total population
2C is the number of children per family...so C is half that
n is the number of generations
x is the number of generations alive at once

I have used the values of C = 1.151......being 2.302 children per family a conservative figure that is even lower than our current western ones ( most cultures have a lot more especially in the past)
n = 143 generations working on 30 years between generations...once again an exaggerated number as it's normally considered closer to 25
x= 2 meaning just the children and their parents are alive at the same time...again exaggerated as most have grandparents

giving
Pn=7.17504001 billion people alive today.....I had this figure a little higher to account for actual smaller figures which would be the result of wars and famine etc
Plausible? I think so...I think the values used are quite reasonable?

Over to slim6y...

 

[Just_Plain_Nuts]

he'll probably want to consult his maths professors first......hehe

 

[mmafan555]

We obviously need more birth control and abortion...Of course carrying capacity applies to humans like it does any other animal but I would rather we nip it in the butt earlier and prevent the mass die offs that are bound to happen if we keep reproducing and the population keeps growing at such an enormous rate that we outstrip our resources...But of course we can't because "it's taking a sacred life"(implied facepalm)

Can't we get rid of these religious retards somehow??....Always quick to moan and bitch about welfare and welfare abuses...but of course they don't have the mental capacity to think beyond their emotional driven straw-man arguments and understand that 99 percent of the time it's unwanted and abused kids who eventually end up on welfare and who live a sad depressed existence...kids who were born to irresponsible unqualified (and many times drug addicted) parents who could and should have been aborted...because the mother was unfit to properly mother and care for them....But to these idiots it's "killing the sacred unborn dur de dur!!!! And my fairy tale comic book told me this was so bad!!!!"

I honestly don't understand what is the problem?...If the mother is irresponsible and unfit to raise, love and problem care for a child to ensure its proper development.....she should have an abortion or at least put the child up for adoption...For the love of God stop with this non-applicable retarded religious dogma that you got from a 2000 year old book written by peasants who knew nothing about the world. It's a ****ing fetus...not a damn human being and human life is no anymore sacred than any other creature on this earth.