How old do you suppose this planet really is?

[RandomWords]

No, what you're trying to get across is how catastrophically stupid you are. Resources and the knowledge/ability to tap those resources are completely different things. We had the raw materials and resources to become an industrialized society from day one. Oil and solar energy, nuclear power, airplanes, heavy machinery etc are not magic, they're using materials that were here before us. What prevented mankind from going from fire to steam engine in a single day? Knowledge. The resources were there, but we couldn't use them.

In your cluelessness you're thinking that agriculture would work differently. There was land available. But early man didn't know what to do with it, they lacked the knowledge to farm. They had to take what the land gave them. It took hundreds of thousands of years to go from picking berries to growing wheat. In the early days 99.9% of time and effort was dedicated to survival. They couldn't go to the library to figure out how to grow food for next season because they were doing everything possible to get enough food to get through tomorrow. Give a chimp a plow and a seed drill, farmland and a well, will he be able to plant crops and increase the chimp population? Hell no, the resources don't mean jack without the knowledge on how to do it and that takes time.

You truly are the biggest dumbass on Earth because pretty much everybody on the planet except you understands how societies grow. Going from hunter/gatherer to grower is what triggers population expansion. Until you get to the point where you have the knowledge to master agriculture the land simply does not produce enough to sustain large populations. A trillion acres of potential farmland produces nothing edible if it's covered with forests and native grasses. It takes a lot of learning to get to the point where you can take a wild prairie and make a farm out of it.

And it's kind of an insult to the people who acquired that knowledge and learned how to utilize those resources to choose to remain as stupid as you are. They were capable of learning, why aren't you?

I dont know where you got all that from... resources as in food sources... you act like all we did before agriculture is hunt large animals to eat - when we were likely more like coyotes and ate everything... our argument has nothing to do with how we progressed into argriculture and how that boomed our population.

And you're saying a million is a large population for the world... i dont know about you son.

 

[KeithTalent]

Umm, did this "jesus" happen to be 50 feet tall and look like a dinosaur from the paleolithic era?

He was really tall and was holding a basketball. Looked more cretaceous to me, but I'm no expert!

KT

 

[Paratus]

But i did factor that in...

1 million outcome would make the average rate of growth lower than .01% ... its hard to find an online calculator that will compute a lower percentage... but I'm. Guessing it would be more accurate to say lower than .001% per year average growth over 180000 years to get to 1 million people... but maybe thats a logical.number.

I know someone mentioned many humanoid species and then them becoming extinct but if this was so... then they werent the first of our kind.. They were a totally different kind.. So - that can explain some of it but i wouldnt put it as "the first of our kind" was 200000 years ago maybe "the first humanoid"... which then brings up the question - when is the likely age where "the first of our kind" actually did appear.

First thing. Why do you keep assuming there was something approaching a million humans a couple of hundred thousand years ago and that number continued to increase?

If you were actually interested in learning about this topic and not just arguing a simple google search would have revealed that humanity hit a bottleneck about 70,000 years ago. The population dropped to around 1000 reproductive adults.

http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwic...ings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c

The Toba super volcano eruption put 2800km^3 of ash into the air and caused a drastic change in the climate and drove us to the brink of extinction. This is supported by genetics, paleontology, climatology, and geology.

Second thing. If all you are doing is using an online calculator how are you taking into account the death rate. You do realize that people born 200,000 years ago are no longer alive and shouldn't be counted?

What you are really trying to calculate is the replacement rate births - deaths. Otherwise yes, human birth rate has produced about 108 billion people, (but 93.5% of them are dead)

Maybe you could try and explain your postion a little clearer to all of us because quite frankly I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're on about.

 

[RandomWords]

First thing. Why do you keep assuming there was something approaching a million humans a couple of hundred thousand years ago and that number continued to increase?

If you were actually interested in learning about this topic and not just arguing a simple google search would have revealed that humanity hit a bottleneck about 70,000 years ago. The population dropped to around 1000 reproductive adults.

http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwic...ings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c

The Toba super volcano eruption put 2800km^3 of ash into the air and caused a drastic change in the climate and drove us to the brink of extinction. This is supported by genetics, paleontology, climatology, and geology.

Second thing. If all you are doing is using an online calculator how are you taking into account the death rate. You do realize that people born 200,000 years ago are no longer alive and shouldn't be counted?

What you are really trying to calculate is the replacement rate births - deaths. Otherwise yes, human birth rate has produced about 108 billion people, (but 93.5% of them are dead)

Maybe you could try and explain your postion a little clearer to all of us because quite frankly I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're on about.

The 1 million is from a chart someone posted a while back and a website mentioning around 10000 B.C. thats what scientists estimated the population to be.

1000 people would be about right 70000 years ago. (30000 years at a growth of .02%)

Yes... I'm going off the assumption that every year people created on average (of course some would be more and some less) .02% more people than they had over the course of 198000 years since world population wasnt known in any real capacity around until 1960. Thus replacing themselves and .02% more than themselves (that survived to do the same). This led to the result that we would have the 3 billion people in 105000 years (100000 years less than the 200000 "the first of our kind" appears). Thats when the chart came in to 10000 B.C. having 1 million people... so reconfiguring bacwards... you would then have 180000 years at a rate like .001% or less... and that seemed unreasonable growth over such a time.

If that makes sense...

 

[Paratus]

The 1 million is from a chart someone posted a while back and a website mentioning around 10000 B.C. thats what scientists estimated the population to be.

1000 people would be about right 70000 years ago. (30000 years at a growth of .02%)

Yes... I'm going off the assumption that every year people created on average (of course some would be more and some less) .02% more people than they had over the course of 198000 years since world population wasnt known in any real capacity around until 1960. Thus replacing themselves and .02% more than themselves (that survived to do the same). This led to the result that we would have the 3 billion people in 105000 years (100000 years less than the 200000 "the first of our kind" appears). Thats when the chart came in to 10000 B.C. having 1 million people... so reconfiguring bacwards... you would then have 180000 years at a rate like .001% ... and that seemed unreasonable growth over such a time.

Why does it seem so unreasonable? I just showed you that a climate change can knock us back to almost nothing.

The previous chart I had showed global population dipping due to the Black Plague. That was only 6-700 years ago and we certainly had more resources available to us then previous yet it still caused a death rate greater than birth rate.

It's only hard to believe if you want to ignore environmental factors like climate, scarcity, disease, etc.

When those are factored in a death rate almost the same as the birth rate is to be expected. Hell most 1st world nations have a replacement rate equal to or less than zero.

(I'm also going to respectively request you post in complete sentences since you've jumbled together several thoughts into run on sentences and weird transitions )

 

[RandomWords]

Theybare conplet

Why does it seem so unreasonable? I just showed you that a climate change can knock us back to almost nothing.

The previous chart I had showed global population dipping due to the Black Plague. That was only 6-700 years ago and we certainly had more resources available to us then previous yet it still caused a death rate greater than birth rate.

It's only hard to believe if you want to ignore environmental factors like climate, scarcity, disease, etc.

When those are factored in a death rate almost the same as the birth rate is to be expected. Hell most 1st world nations have a replacement rate equal to or less than zero.

(I'm also going to respectively request you post in complete sentences since you've jumbled together several thoughts into run on sentences and weird transitions the problem is translating them in an order that makes sense to others.

And I'd agree with you if you mentioned 70000 years ago there we 2 people and not 1000.

But in essence we can just have an issue with phrasing... for example the term i ran across - not my own phrasing was 200000 years ago "the first of our kind" ... now to you it might read "200000 years ago was the first humanoid" ... but to me thats the difference between a rottweiler and chihuahua.

Has anyone brought that up... nope... had to think of that myself... does it explain 100000 years... perhaps it does. Really exact dates arenhard to come by for things like this.

Why does it seem so unreasonable? I just showed you that a climate change can knock us back to almost nothing.

The previous chart I had showed global population dipping due to the Black Plague. That was only 6-700 years ago and we certainly had more resources available to us then previous yet it still caused a death rate greater than birth rate.

It's only hard to believe if you want to ignore environmental factors like climate, scarcity, disease, etc.

When those are factored in a death rate almost the same as the birth rate is to be expected. Hell most 1st world nations have a replacement rate equal to or less than zero.

(I'm also going to respectively request you post in complete sentences since you've jumbled together several thoughts into run on sentences and weird transitions )

Sorry... the problem is ordering my thoughts in an order that makes sense to people since i think primarily in images...

I would agree with you if you hadnt just said 70000 years ago there was 1000 people putting my estimate at roughly the right amount...

However - perhaps the problem is phrasing. See - what i read was 200000 years ago "the first of our kind" and what others might read (and maybe i should interpret it as) is 200000 years ago "the first humanoid" ... which might be the same to some but for me is the difference between rottweilers and chihuahuas...

...Or the difference between chances and odds.

... but no one brought that up and I'm thinking thats where the issue lies.

 

[PJFrylar]

Theybare conplet

Wut.

 

[RandomWords]

Wut.

I'm doing all the typing on my phone. So when i start typing before the page fully loads i get iffy results.

 

[sandorski]

State that assuming a Population Growth Rate is a fallacy, assumes a Population Growth Rate.....

 

[RandomWords]

State that assuming a Population Growth Rate is a fallacy, assumes a Population Growth Rate.....

I pretty sure i said could be... because it would be difficult to make an accurate one without knowing all the numbers for each year to average out... thats like saying you cant take all the grades and average them out to a class average... the fallacy would be in the number and not that one couldnt exist.

However... there seems to be quite a few assumptions out there for how large the population is at given times... and with that and knowledge of environmental events you can get closer to accurate numbers... but... like i said... i dont make myself clear enough.

 

[MongGrel]

I pretty sure i said could be... because it would be difficult to make an accurate one without knowing all the numbers for each year to average out... thats like saying you cant take all the grades and average them out to a class average... the fallacy would be in the number and not that one couldnt exist.

However... there seems to be quite a few assumptions out there for how large the population is at given times... and with that and knowledge of environmental events you can get closer to accurate numbers... but... like i said... i dont make myself clear enough.

You do realize having a bunch of quotes in your signature does not make you brilliant by default, right ?

 

[RandomWords]

You do realize having a bunch of quotes in your signature does not make you brilliant by default, right ?

Those are just quotes i like... but okay. I didn't know liking something and not being able to choose was a crime.

Or even relevant... or beyond a personal message...

 

[RandomWords]

Those are just quotes i like... but okay. I didn't know liking something and not being able to choose was a crime.

Or even relevant... or beyond a personal message...

... and i thought the whole purpose of discussion was to expand your thinking and hear arguments from everyone that doesn't require name calling.. but that would be a civilized give and take... and if the world was for that we wouldn't have "trigger zones" in colleges.

Edit: as it is i think a few people brought good thoughts tonthe table that i will think on... as you should go away from every discussion having... but maybe thats my outlook. I'm sure i overlooked a few good points - when you have to skip the first 3 sentences of every paragraph because all they are filled with is slander and anger then it tends to happen... but very few... until the end... really even grasped what i was trying to get across... so the converstion didnt even progress.

Hell... half the conversation is spent just wondering why people are responding in the way they did.

 

[RandomWords]

In case you start up again tomorrow...before the name calling and insults are thrown my way for not participating as seems to be the common response - i had a rough day (equate it with your dog, child, mother dying or something of value) and i dont really feel like dealing with people all day tomorrow - much less the type i dealt with today.

 

[SSSnail]

... and i thought the whole purpose of discussion was to expand your thinking and hear arguments from everyone that doesn't require name calling.. but that would be a civilized give and take... and if the world was for that we wouldn't have "trigger zones" in colleges.

Edit: as it is i think a few people brought good thoughts tonthe table that i will think on... as you should go away from every discussion having... but maybe thats my outlook. I'm sure i overlooked a few good points - when you have to skip the first 3 sentences of every paragraph because all they are filled with is slander and anger then it tends to happen... but very few... until the end... really even grasped what i was trying to get across... so the converstion didnt even progress.

Hell... half the conversation is spent just wondering why people are responding in the way they did.

"Question everything, especially your own beliefs"

 

[nakedfrog]

... and i thought the whole purpose of discussion was to expand your thinking and hear arguments from everyone that doesn't require name calling.. but that would be a civilized give and take... and if the world was for that we wouldn't have "trigger zones" in colleges.

Edit: as it is i think a few people brought good thoughts tonthe table that i will think on... as you should go away from every discussion having... but maybe thats my outlook. I'm sure i overlooked a few good points - when you have to skip the first 3 sentences of every paragraph because all they are filled with is slander and anger then it tends to happen... but very few... until the end... really even grasped what i was trying to get across... so the converstion didnt even progress.

Hell... half the conversation is spent just wondering why people are responding in the way they did.

Let's go with "bringing good thoughts to the table" and use an analogy of people bringing art projects to a table. Some people were bringing paper mache, or sculpted clay, maybe a nice mandala... and you're sitting there with a horsey made of turds held together with toothpicks. Then you're failing to understand why people are aghast at what you just set on the table.

 

[Darwin333]

But for arguments sake... let's just say you're right - I'm too stupid to see how it takes 180000 years to create 1 million people even though the food supply for humans was adequate and our willingness to move locations confirmed unlike cats who claimed territory and stayed there hell or high water... it's just too hard to fathom it would take that long.

You have to understand that along with all of the other problems, for the vast majority of our history we weren't exactly top of the food chain either. Along with the high risk of death from simply having a child and the very high infant mortality rate, simply having a child put you in greater danger and the child would have been very easy prey for a ton of animals. Having a child vastly increases your workload today, I couldn't imagine how much more difficult it was back in the hunter gatherer days so I going to wager they weren't exactly high priorities.

 

[BurnItDwn]

well thanks to my deteriorating vision, it is certainly rendered in potato quality.

Are we talking like ...
Starchy bullshit quality like Russet, or maybe somewhere in the middle like Yukon Gold, or we going for the premium-grade stuff like the red potatoes?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Are we talking like ...
Starchy bullshit quality like Russet, or maybe somewhere in the middle like Yukon Gold, or we going for the premium-grade stuff like the red potatoes?

Haha! Presbyopia means D: all of the above. Usually starts with russet when I wake up, and make it to rose gold by lunch time. But no matter what, the whole experience is being filmed through a potato. If you are unfamiliar with the expression, I first encountered the meme on imgur, thought it might originally be a reddit thing. I have to use VSR i.e. glasses now.

 

[shortylickens]

Has anybody asked Perk?
I'm pretty sure he was there at the beginning.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Has anybody asked Perk?
I'm pretty sure he was there at the beginning.

For the first 3 or 4 billion years nobody had calendars, so it's hard to get a really precise date.

 

[OverVolt]

We will follow the growth pattern of bacteria more than likely. Like bacteria in a petri dish with limited resources. Most life grows exponentially than hits a plateau. Unlike in economics where things grow exponentially and then crash, there are hardly ever any plateaus in economics. With bacteria, there are theories like signals are sent to decrease the reproduction rate, or the death rate equals the regeneration rate and such but no one really knows for sure so I guess we'll find out one day at the human scale. =)

Even though resources are stretched to their max the pace of life may actually slow down.

 

[Darwin333]

I dont know where you got all that from... resources as in food sources... you act like all we did before agriculture is hunt large animals to eat - when we were likely more like coyotes and ate everything... our argument has nothing to do with how we progressed into argriculture and how that boomed our population.

And you're saying a million is a large population for the world... i dont know about you son.

And if the rat you were hunting for food bit you first there was a pretty damn good chance you would die from infection because penicillin wasn't discovered for another 15,000 years or so (pulled the number out of my ass so don't hold me to it). Point being is that the things that gave you life could just as easily kill you despite being something as small as a mouse. Hell a scrape against a tree while you were walking could end up fatal. Bottom line is rather simple, shit wasn't simple or easy back then and wasn't very conducive to a rapid explosion of population. It wasn't until rather recently that we gained relative mastery over our environments that our population exploded, as any realistic model would predict.

 

[sandorski]

And if the rat you were hunting for food bit you first there was a pretty damn good chance you would die from infection because penicillin wasn't discovered for another 15,000 years or so (pulled the number out of my ass so don't hold me to it). Point being is that the things that gave you life could just as easily kill you despite being something as small as a mouse. Hell a scrape against a tree while you were walking could end up fatal. Bottom line is rather simple, shit wasn't simple or easy back then and wasn't very conducive to a rapid explosion of population. It wasn't until rather recently that we gained relative mastery over our environments that our population exploded, as any realistic model would predict.

On top of that, if we reverted back to the Agricultural Technology we had just a few centuries ago, we would not be able to sustain current Population levels.

 

[shortylickens]

On top of that, if we reverted back to the Agricultural Technology we had just a few centuries ago, we would not be able to sustain current Population levels.

Its been argued we cant sustain them now. I predict a couple more wars for resources in the next decade.