Talk:World population: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:23, 8 February 2012

Environment B‑class High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Exponential Population Growth

It is well known that the exponential is not understood properly.

Exponential population growth can ONLY occur if this occurs supernaturally.

It is impossible for normal human beings to increase the population exponentially as the birth rate and death rate would normally keep pace with one another.

But it seems that nobody has ever appreciated this. (Until now?)

This lies way outside human logic as it is designed to fulfil scripture and for no other reason.

Further proof, as if it were really needed, that the entire nature of this creation, where 'people' are half 'human' half animal based on the Great Sphinx (Abu Hol) is essentially Satanic in nature, just as it has always been.

Ian Chattan NATO SIS 80.201.241.43 (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ianchattan @ yahoo.com

"...the birth rate and death rate would normally keep pace with one another". Nonsense. If this was the case, there would be no growth in human population. This is clearly contradicted by centuries of data and estimates. Mindmatrix 18:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What high school student wrote the horrible unverified first paragraph of this article, and why hasn't it been deleted? 69.165.133.146 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop insulting other editors, and check the eight (!) references given there. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

more recent data

is there more recent data available than the UN 2004 predictions used for the headline graph in this article? Plugwash (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is, I've seen it around. Those projections are terribly out of date - both the low and mid projections have been raised considerably in particular. The demographic slowdown hasn't occurred as quickly as predicted, and as a result assumptions have changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.120.151 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

world’s (human) population will reach 7 billion at the end of October

http://www.economist.com/node/21533364 A tale of three islands; The world’s population will reach 7 billion at the end of October. Don’t panic Oct 22nd 2011, from the print edition page 18; excerpt ...

Start with the link between population and violence. It seems plausible that the more young men there are, the more likely they will be to fight. This is especially true when groups are competing for scarce resources. Some argue that the genocidal conflict in Darfur, western Sudan, was caused partly by high population growth, which led to unsustainable farming and conflicts over land and water. Land pressure (Land use) also influenced the Rwandan genocide of 1994, as migrants in search of a livelihood in one of the world’s most densely populated countries moved into already settled areas, with catastrophic results.

See Planetary boundaries. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graph "Worlds Share of Population..."

The Graph for continents has a different number of continents than its legend, and the graph proportions appear to be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.155.143 (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right and wrong, You might think it misses one (Oceania) but it actually is between orange and green, in a realy, realy, realy small blue line. The graph it self can be edited as it shows all 7 billion of the world but the stats near it will confuse the regular user (including me)
– HonorTheKing (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBC now say 107,6bn and apparently some people did live twice.

BBC News now claims there were a total of 107bn 600mio people (H. S. S.) who have lived since 50k BC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16870579

The strange thing is the genetical variance of Homo Sap. Sap. race is only enough for 70bn different gene sequences according to Wikipedia, so some humans must have lived twice already! (and James Bond was right?) That's because at least 100bn people have lived since 4000 BC, by which time human genetical evolution was already over, with various colour races already developed and bearded sumers topping clay brick towers. 82.131.133.7 (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Population Estimates

Could someone add the Angus Madsison historical populations by country?

They're in the historical population section below

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/content.shtml