Yes they do as this story makes
clear. What I find somewhat intriguing
is that the total number of lived lives approaches 100 billion. Why I find that interesting is that it coincidentally
is the number I have calculated as the actual carrying capacity of Terra.
Recall that our modern technology
is quickly lowering our individual direct impact and outright utilization of
the biosphere itself. We are approaching
a world in which you will own a pleasant space in an effective communal setting
that holds perhaps 200 to 400 individuals with all your energy needs provided and
the related tools to conduct your work.
The independent role of that community will be to optimize the
biological carrying capacity of the adjacent several hundred acres including
wild lands not suitable for cropping.
The living structure itself could
have a physical footprint as low as one acre.
The output value of the land could easily be sufficient to feed the
entire community although obviously healthy trade is necessary to sort out
needs.
As this blog has made clear the entire
land surface is suitable outside of the barrens and severe mountain terrain. Cheap energy makes atmospheric water stripping
practical and biochar allows a deep rich soil to be manufactured everywhere
desired.
Then there is the curious issue
of the human soul which some of you may choose to ignore. Such an entity will be inside our
capabilities inside the next two generations and we have reason to think that
the job has already been done. This
means that repetition of time spent on Earth has likely lowered the number of
extant souls and possible lives available for living on Earth.
Yet I suspect that we are actually
close enough to the 100 billion to make little difference in the end. We will evolve in a long lived populous people
acting directly on every square mile of the Earth’s surface in a continuous and
proactive manner with a flat growth curve topped out at around the 100 billion.
Do the dead outnumber the living?
By Wesley StephensonBBC News
3 February 2012 Last updated at 19:42 ET
The population of the planet reached seven billion in October,
according to the United Nations. But what's the figure for all those who have
lived before us?
It is often said that there are more people alive today than have ever
lived - and this "fact" has raised its head again since the UN
announcement about the planet's population reaching a new high.
The idea helps fuel fears that the population is expanding too fast.
It is true that if you delve back into the mists of time, the
population of Earth was tiny in comparison to today and logically it might seem
plausible that the living outnumber the dead.
It is agreed by most demographers that the UN figure for the number
alive today is reasonably accurate. The problem is, how do you calculate how
many have ever lived, and where do you start?
Wendy Baldwin from the Bureau says that the normal starting point is
when Homo +apiens first walked the earth, about 50,000 years ago.
So you have a starting point and an end figure but it's the time in
between that causes the problems. "For 99% of that time there is no
data," she says.
This means experts have to make an educated guess.
In the 20th Century, the world's birth rate dropped from 40 births per
1,000 people per year to just 31 in 1995, and today it is only 23.
But long ago, humans needed a reproduction rate of about 80 births per
1,000 people per year in order to survive, Wendy Baldwin says, because people
didn't live so long and far fewer of those born had children.
"Today, life expectancy is about 75-80 [years] and for most of
human history that was not the case," she says.
"We have some estimates for the Middle Ages where life expectancy
might have been 10-12, which means many people never made it out of childhood.
"Even if you had a lot of births, many of those never lived to
actually bear children themselves."
In other words, it would be easy to underestimate the number of people
who were born, lived and died, in the earlier part of human history. That
estimate of 80 births per 1,000 people per year looks very high by today's
standards - but in fact it is conservative, implying "a very slow
population growth, much slower than anything we see today".
Added to this educated guess for the early period is much more accurate
data from the modern era.
"Once you have written records, once you have censuses, when countries
start to collect taxes, you start developing written record," says Wendy
Baldwin.
From around 1800, and even a little before that, is where the data
becomes much better. "It then becomes plausible to say [around this time]
you have a billion people on earth."
This written record means that you can be pretty confident about the
final figure for the number of people who have ever lived, she explains.
Population growth has mostly happened in the modern period, she says,
when records were kept, so if estimates for the early period are slightly out,
this will not drastically change the overall ratio of "ever lived" to
"living".
So what are the figures? There are currently seven billion people alive
today and the Population Reference Bureau estimates that about 107 billion
people have ever lived.
This means that we are nowhere near close to having more alive than
dead. In fact, there are 15 dead people for every person living. We surpassed
seven billion dead way back between 8000BC and AD1.
Fans of science fiction may be reaching for their copies of Arthur C
Clarke's classic, 2001: A Space Odyssey, at this point.
In that book, he makes the assertion: "Behind every man now alive
stand 30 ghosts, for that is the ratio by which the dead outnumber the
living."
But Ms Baldwin points out he was not wrong.
"He was making his statement in 1968. There were maybe 3.5 billion
people currently living on earth so if you use our method, that would be one
living person to 29 dead."
And will we ever reach a point where there are more alive than dead?
This would imply a very high rate of population growth.
"Could we imagine a carrying capacity of the Earth of 100-150
billion? I find that quite unimaginable."
No comments:
Post a Comment