SH Archive World population: where are the missing trillions of people?

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2018-07-14 17:12:01
Reaction Score: 0

Because they bear their children prior to dying at 20 years old. Change it to 40 instead.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: mythstifieD
Date: 2018-07-17 22:51:31
Reaction Score: 5

Just found this high production video that tries to sell us on the population story......

(EDIT: I was rightly corrected below that the video didn't mean 1AD = 1M, but that each Dot was 1M. I'll leave my post as it was for integrity)
Dear American Museum of Natural History,

You say there was 1m people in 1AD?

Augustus Ceaser had an army of 125,000 men around that time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_army#Imperial_Roman_army_(30_BC_–_AD_284)

Please explain to the curious minds of Stolen History how Rome had an army that was essentially composed of 12.5% of the entire world's population?

Also, why is it that Rome had an estimated population of 65 million people by 100AD? Wikipedia says this represents 20% of the world's population at the time, which means your figure of 1m at 1AD is insultingly inaccurate.
Ancient Rome - Wikipedia

Don't forget that your map shows hundreds of cities elsewhere in the world at this time too, notably in India and China.

Yours truly,

mythstifieD

This one is much better but still does a weird job with the population. Apparently sourced from some academic papers. The numbers make no sense and defy math. What I mean is that why does the population rarely increase for each nation?

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: narnou
Date: 2018-07-18 01:26:33
Reaction Score: 3

You say there was 1m people in 1AD?

They say that each dot on the map is 1M people and there's a lot of dot on this map

Please, when something seems soooo off the records like this, stop for a while and take some time to see if you could have been mistaken or have not understand something right. I know there's a lot of thing out of their places that we try to look for, but you have to understand that if you're gonna question the dogma your sources and credibility must be shining like diamonds or you'll instantly be mocked anyway the time you'll come with a real issue

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: mythstifieD
Date: 2018-07-18 03:41:59
Reaction Score: 1

They say that each dot on the map is 1M people and there's a lot of dot on this map

Please, when something seems soooo off the records like this, stop for a while and take some time to see if you could have been mistaken or have not understand something right. I know there's a lot of thing out of their places that we try to look for, but you have to understand that if you're gonna question the dogma your sources and credibility must be shining like diamonds or you'll instantly be mocked anyway the time you'll come with a real issue

Thanks you're quite right!! It also a said population was 170m at 1ad.

Still feels like that's small. I can't even imagine that few people in the entire world. Changes the dynamic for politics and society.

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2018-07-18 16:06:51
Reaction Score: 1

I think all these counts are a bunch of baloney. Scientists have no clue. Who was counting back then? Their guesstimates they come up with today are just funny? What did they count, skulls?

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: mythstifieD
Date: 2018-07-18 18:52:44
Reaction Score: 3

I think all these counts are a bunch of baloney. Scientists have no clue. Who was counting back then? Their guesstimates they come up with today are just funny? What did they count, skulls?

I would guess they'd measure things like how many square miles a city was and estimate a density from that, then throw in a few more for the surrounding countryside. Seems reasonable, except mathematically it would give weight to the suspicion that Rome might not be as long ago as they say it was.

Did anyone at Ecology.com even look at those numbers before publishing?

On the low estimate we gained 20m in TWO HUNDRED years... then no one was born from 200AD to 500AD?

Or on the high estimate, we lose 200m people, then 50m, then we stop breeding.

This is crazy, I would think a site like ecology.com would care for accuracy, so how do they explain that?

Post automatically merged: 7/18/18

Here's their source table, found it here.

Historical Estimates of World Population
(Population in millions. When lower and upper estimates are the same they are shown
under "Lower.")

McEvedy--Summary-- Bira- --Durand---and Thomlinson- -UN, 1973-- UN,

Year Lower Upper ben Lower Upper Haub Jones Lower Upper Lower Upper 1995 USBC

-10000 1 10 4 1 10

-8000 5 5

-6500 5 10 5 10

-5000 5 20 5 5 20

-4000 7 7

-3000 14 14

-2000 27 27

-1000 50 50

-500 100 100

-400 162 162

-200 150 231 231 150

1 170 400 255 270 330 300 170 200 200 400 300

200 190 256 256 190

400 190 206 206 190

500 190 206 206 190

600 200 206 206 200

700 207 210 207 210

800 220 224 224 220

900 226 240 226 240

1000 254 345 254 275 345 265 310

1100 301 320 301 320

1200 360 450 400 450 360

1250 400 416 416 400

1300 360 432 432 360 400

1340 443 443

1400 350 374 374 350

1500 425 540 460 440 540 425 500

1600 545 579 579 545

1650 470 545 500 545 500 470 545

1700 600 679 679 610 600

1750 629 961 770 735 805 795 720 700 629 961 790

1800 813 1,125 954 900 900 813 1,125 980

1850 1,128 1,402 1,241 1,265 1,200 1,200 1,128 1,402 1,260

1900 1,550 1,762 1,633 1,650 1,710 1,656 1,625 1,600 1,550 1,762 1,650

1910 1,750 1,750

1920 1,860 1,860

1930 2,070 2,070

1940 2,300 2,300

1950 2,400 2,556 2,527 2,516 2,500 2,400 2,486 2,520 2,556

So we think Homo Sapiens is 200,000 years old, but by 10,000BC we only get to 1m people? In 190,000 years, we only increase to 1m people?

Now to be fair, I found this list of animal population estimates here:
List of even-toed ungulates by population - Wikipedia

Take a look at the wild animals. The White Tail Deer has 11.5m and is estimated to be 3.5 million years old. So it took them quite awhile to multiply to that size. Thing is, they're pretty dumb compared to us. The earliest "tool" is 3.3 million years old (older than us!) so it likely belonged to a smart Sapien ancestor species. But that means Sapiens, Neaderthals and Cro-Magnon, and others, all likely had more mastery of their environments than the stupid deer, and bears of the forest. We're playing with tools all that time and never think to put some chickens in a fence for 190k years--nevermind millions if we count our ancestor species?

It's not impossible. But it seriously boggles my mind that this same brain in my head wouldn't have thought of staying next to the river, build a couple of huts, and a few yards, and throw some seeds on the ground.

I guess another angle of research could be on populations of tribal people that still exist today. How does their growth rates stay under control?

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2018-07-18 19:25:14
Reaction Score: 2

Precisely. This is called a game of finding a plausible explanation to some inexplainable things. Population shenanigans make no sence but through guess work our science injects some fake one into it.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: mythstifieD
Date: 2018-07-18 19:47:17
Reaction Score: 1

They are in a quandry. They have Sapien fossils that are likely 200,000 years old (assuming they can date correctly, and lets assume they can), yet we're only 7b large right now. They have a ruins of some ancient cities so they can benchmark from there and just squeeze it all together and blame our rise on technology and medicine.

Philosophy of Science dictates the Scientific Method should be Evidence > Hypothesis > Test > Conclusion. But how do you do that with ancient population? Evidence is ruins. Test, well measurements and date testing. Now you gotta make it all fit. I'm fine with accepting the 1m mark for 10,000BC, but once we developed farming, all bets are off.

I would argue differently. I think our rise is solely due to population. Once you have enough brains out there, you'll get a lot more ideas, which will create problems that need solutions. We invent out of necessity. It's not like a culture would say "Oh well, we don't have enough farm land, I guess we'll just have one kid instead of eight..." In fact, from what I know they had large families in those days.

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2018-07-19 00:37:31
Reaction Score: 7

Looking at some of the older maps we can see thousands upon thousands of cities and towns. Some of those are absent from history altogether.

I honestly think, necessity or not, our inventions are in reality reinventions of those, who got whacked in great huge ridiculously overwhelming numbers back in the day.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: humanoidlord
Date: 2018-07-19 01:38:11
Reaction Score: 0

I think all these counts are a bunch of baloney. Scientists have no clue. Who was counting back then? Their guesstimates they come up with today are just funny? What did they count, skulls?

View attachment 4695

i suppose they use some dumb calculation or something, it is a estimation after all

 

[N.D. Magoo]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: N.D. Magoo
Date: 2018-07-20 20:59:34
Reaction Score: 6

Some highly recommend reading on this subject: "Mathematics of the Past" by chess master Garry Kasparov.

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2018-07-20 21:10:27
Reaction Score: 1

Some highly recommend reading on this subject: "Mathematics of the Past" by chess master Garry Kasparov.

Lol. I also was wondering how they used their numbers to calculate stuff.

How did Ancient Romans calculate complex numbers?

 

[anotherlayer]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: anotherlayer
Date: 2018-07-26 04:07:44
Reaction Score: 12

it's midnight and i'm about to ramble this out... about the loss of so many people over the last 200 years. no way we're 7 billion today.

all the wars, all the warriors who never made it home, the innocent civilian deaths, natural disasters, chernobyls. anyway, it all kinda makes sense that we have this history that seems to begin right around 1813. all the comets, an incredible amount of simultaneous wars (i believe there were 1.2 million wars going on, no proof, but no doubt). then we move into the individual civil wars and fires and tunguskas that start to devastate all the cities, all the countries.

then the wars really start to kick in. WWI, WWII, gotta bomb out the European towns first, make a mess of the place. scare the shit out of the lettered people. then the focus became the countries that held all the remaining secrets and understandings of it all. first we hit up the Asians. get that Vietnam war going, open up the door for Pol Pot to cleanse the remaining Khmer/Siam. then we start hitting up the Arabs throughout the 80s, silently bombing history into dust. then it's off to the gulf wars. all the while we have massive famines across Africa. brings us up to current day. we've successfully decimated Babylon, we've moved on to places like Syria and whoeverthefuckistan has the cool shit still left.

it's crazy that my wife asks me if it's still safe to go to Turkey. that's some bullshit right there. but yeah, no way we're at 7 billion. you don't just jump 6 billion in 100 years. not with all the wars. and... i dont know anyone bothering to have kids anymore. and i do see and hear about a lot of people who want kids, cant have them, resort to technology and boom, they got triplets! once we're all packed into cities, we'll be fish in a barrel.

anyway, 7 billion is a lie full stop

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2018-07-26 05:56:44
Reaction Score: 9

I watched a video some time ago where this guy added the entire population of India broken down into cities and ptovinces together, and ended up with like 375 mil instead of 1.4 bil.

You just might be right.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: humanoidlord
Date: 2018-07-27 02:23:55
Reaction Score: 9

it's midnight and i'm about to ramble this out... about the loss of so many people over the last 200 years. no way we're 7 billion today.

all the wars, all the warriors who never made it home, the innocent civilian deaths, natural disasters, chernobyls. anyway, it all kinda makes sense that we have this history that seems to begin right around 1813. all the comets, an incredible amount of simultaneous wars (i believe there were 1.2 million wars going on, no proof, but no doubt). then we move into the individual civil wars and fires and tunguskas that start to devastate all the cities, all the countries.

then the wars really start to kick in. WWI, WWII, gotta bomb out the European towns first, make a mess of the place. scare the shit out of the lettered people. then the focus became the countries that held all the remaining secrets and understandings of it all. first we hit up the Asians. get that Vietnam war going, open up the door for Pol Pot to cleanse the remaining Khmer/Siam. then we start hitting up the Arabs throughout the 80s, silently bombing history into dust. then it's off to the gulf wars. all the while we have massive famines across Africa. brings us up to current day. we've successfully decimated Babylon, we've moved on to places like Syria and whoeverthefuckistan has the cool shit still left.

it's crazy that my wife asks me if it's still safe to go to Turkey. that's some bullshit right there. but yeah, no way we're at 7 billion. you don't just jump 6 billion in 100 years. not with all the wars. and... i dont know anyone bothering to have kids anymore. and i do see and hear about a lot of people who want kids, cant have them, resort to technology and boom, they got triplets! once we're all packed into cities, we'll be fish in a barrel.

anyway, 7 billion is a lie full stop

its just very convenient that the americans and the "terrorists" always go to place with ancient structures, huh?

 

[anotherlayer]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: anotherlayer
Date: 2018-07-27 02:29:31
Reaction Score: 3

its just very convenient that the americans and the "terrorists" always go to place with ancient structures, huh?

we used to argue we went to war for oil. i don't believe that at all. or that the US was bookending the middle east between Iraq and Israel. maybe that part is a little true, but otherwise, we've been doing nothing but destroying and looting museums no one has even heard about. all the while destroying any fabric of the existing culture that still exists.

there are people out there who privately own pieces of the dead sea scrolls and sumerian tablets. they sit in vestibules and gaudy wine cellars.

 

[Whitewave]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: whitewave
Date: 2018-07-27 04:42:11
Reaction Score: 0

I hope you're right, anotherlayer. I'd hate to think it's all well and truly lost.

 

[pushamaku]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: pushamaku
Date: 2018-07-27 07:36:15
Reaction Score: 1

yes it makes us scared that whatever took them away is coming back!

Yikes! Perhaps there is a cycle to this harvest/reset/whatever and seems like we're overdue given the general BS meter is way in the red in our current timeline. Imagine all the empty sky scrapers with dumbfounded people walking around trying to make sense of things.

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2018-07-28 23:48:40
Reaction Score: 2

What's not so funny is that if we consider the world population at roughly 7.46 bln with one person taking up 2 sq feet, it would take 530 square miles to fit the entire population of the Earth.

The disturbing part is that at a current population growth rate of 1.13% per year, this planet will run our of room by 2843, and the world population will be approximately 80,150,000,000,000 people.

Essentially we have only 825 years before we are standing shoulder to shoulder. That's something to think about in reference to where all the people disappear to, and what might be coming.

1900 world population - 1.6 bln ppl
2018 world population - 7.46 bln ppl

 

[Whitewave]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: whitewave
Date: 2018-07-29 03:38:06
Reaction Score: 2

Let us not forget the Georgia Guidestones: the 10 commandments of the new age. Rule number one is to keep the population under 500 million. Written in stone! If that were implemented today, about 7 billion of us would vanish.

A message consisting of a set of ten guidelines or principles is engraved on the Georgia Guidestones[8] in eight different languages, one language on each face of the four large upright stones. Moving clockwise around the structure from due north, these languages are: English, Spanish, Swahili, Sanskrit, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, and Russian.

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

Number 3 is also interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

The known number of Esperanto speakers is unknown but a few academicians have taken a s.w.a.g at it and figure Esperantists number in the hundreds of thousands to millions.