Talk:World population

units

The intro states "Billions", while the illustration clearly states "Millions". Which one's correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.66.184 (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The illustration clearly shows that in around 2005 the world population was around 6500 million (6.5 billion). I really fail to see the problem here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.128.177 (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

What high school student wrote that horrible unverified first paragraph, and why hasn't it been deleted?

Table update

Previously, the table showing the years in which milestones are predicted to be reached did not indicate a particular data source, and nor did it agree with any of the published estimates featured on WP or (to my knowledge) elsewhere. I have updated it with the USCB estimates (from the World Population Estimates page) and have included USCB in the table's title.Ordinary Person (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Country Population

This article gives two population numbers that are different, one in the world population by continent table (under most populous country) and one in the Largest Population by Country table. Is either correct, and if so, shouldn't it have the same number in both tables? WikiWiki (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

2011 or 2012?

The article needs to be policed for consistency. You've got the article saying October 2011 for when the 7 billion is reached, but the Milestones chart says 2012, and there's also another 2012 source given elsewhere in the article. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No, we should report the different views (if they're from reputable sources) and attribute them clearly. The problem with our article is not this minor inconsistency in what different organisations say, it is that we do not always report clearly who is saying what. We say the global population "is projected to reach seven billion in October 2011" - but by who? Burying the answer in the following series of five footnotes isn't good enough. --Avenue (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, making note of which organisation says what is importatn, because they all use different statistical methods to come up with the conclusion. P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And of course, any serious statistician who works with demographics of this scale would tell you the incoming data are not always fully reliable (esp not for Asia and Africa) and the margin of error overall would be at least 25 million. We may already have gone several millions past the 7 bn mark.Strausszek (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)