- cross-posted to:
- dataisbeautiful@mander.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- dataisbeautiful@mander.xyz
You must log in or register to comment.
You are here
dang, how does it know, that’s crazy
They track your phone idiot
How?
Vaccinations
I leave my devices unvaccinated, thanks
The visualization is strange for this because the hour glass implies that the is a finite number of humans that can live but at the same time it is refilled from the top continously.
What happens in a billion years will it overflow?
Am I the only one with this problem?
Then God will turn it over and it starts going backwards. All the dead people will be born again in reverse order, it’s gonna be real weird.
Phew, luckily religion has all the answers.
What happens in a billion years will it overflow?
They’ll just draw it bigger.
We’ll just add a zero to each of the population counts.
“Each grain of sand represents 100 million people …”
Currently our world wide birthrate is trending towards an average of 1.9-2.1 children per woman, which is basically just enough to maintain a stable population. The main reason we exploded in population in the last couple centuries is that our kids stopped dying so frequently, so as people notice that they no longer need to have 15 kids so that 3 of them make it to puberty, they stop having huge families.
Maybe we die out because we failed to take care of the planet.
More like because we failed to take care of ourselves, by taking care of the biosphere we relied on to stay alive.
Well. Human societies have an upper limit on the amount of population they can sustain, determined by their access to natural resources, technology, and social organization.
Malthus got a lot of shit because he came up with his theories exactly when civilization was entering into a period where the advancements in technology were drastically expanding those limits, and because his ideas were instrumentalized by a lot of unsavory types, but he did find a (very incomplete) segment of truth.
Right now, the biggest danger of it all becoming relevant again is the possibility that sustained ecological disaster might dramatically lower our population upper limit without us having the capacity to react fast enough.
Human societies have an upper limit on the amount of population they can sustain, determined by their access to natural resources, technology, and social organization
But that would be represented in this analogy by a limited size on the top half of the hourglass, not the bottom one.
The glass will have to become a lot bigger if we start building civilization beyond our little solar system, haha.
I had the same thought. The top part is filling up faster than it’s emptying out… At some point it’s going to be too full. Was that point like 100 years ago?
I always wanted to see this visualized.
i think it won’t be long before we just blow up the whole hourglass with strategic nukes
What’s your plan exactly?
continue to not have any kids
But as you see people are producing them at an alarming rate (140 million!) and only 60 million go away. Sad!
Flipping it right nowWhere is Saddam?
Something like 5th uppermost row in the lower part.
Mixed in
About half of people that have ever lived have died
That’s a good visual
Technically if estimates are accurate we are all a four-point-something billion old unbroken chain of reproduction.
What is considered Human here? Homo Sapiens Sapiens?
Anyway, cool graph
And Neanderthals
Kind of makes me think about comparing the very fucking long period of time before agriculture where humans were just monkeying about compared to the shorter period of time afterward with a lot more people and then even the relatively quite fucking short modern period with even so many more people. When you think about the rate of change of human living, for instance, how fast it is now; is that just because there’s so many more of us? I mean there’s more of us because of things like the agricultural and industrial revolutions, but is it also a bit of a feedback loop? There are perhaps some frightening connotations to that - but to say my actual point, maybe it’s appropriate to think about the “amount” of history in human-years rather than just years.
It’s weird because it means the most common human experience ever will soon include xboxes and doordash.
Interesting visual, crossposting this to !dataisbeautiful@mander.xyz
Huh. Didn’t think there’d been that many of us already. Neat.
Homo sapiens?
Genuinely interesting, but I take it with a good dose of default skepticism.
What are you sceptical about? This is just a visualization of established scientific knowledge.
I suppose I’d call myself more curious than sceptical - I could look shit up and I can’t be bothered - but how do you define when humans became humans? I imagine its an estimate based from anthropological and fossil records and stuff
They’re just taking an educated guess. Based on fossil records we’ve estimated that homo sapiens sapiens emerged about 200k-300k years ago. I’m not sure if they assumed a middle ground estimate of 250k years here, but it was probably something like that. If we’re measuring by years, the margin of error is huge, but when we’re estimating the total number of people, it doesn’t matter that much, because there were so few of us for so long.
Based on fossil records we’ve estimated that homo sapiens sapiens emerged about 200k-300k years ago.
All of the estimates of when modern humans “emerged” (originally called the “Out of Africa” or “Mitochondrial Eve” hypothesis) are/were based on population analyses of samples of modern DNA (mitochondrial or otherwise) and are/were presented as being in opposition to conclusions based on the fossil record. The original such estimate was 100,000 years ago subsequently revised to 200,000 years ago (both in the mid-1980s) and since then these estimates have been all over the place, ranging from 50,000 years ago to 500,000 years ago. The fossil record shows no significant changes even within this wide time range: bipedality appears in the fossil record for our lineage around 5 million years ago, while our brains enlarged from chimpanzee size to modern human size between 2 million and 1 million years ago.
You could also argue its a moot point in the wider image - pop numbers at the time you discuss would be mean few grains difference at most.
Data and methods, please. Why are you not skeptical?
Sources and attribution at the bottom Daddio.
Based on the historical estimates from Toshiko Kaneda and Carl Haub (Population Reference Bureau) and the UN Population Division. Based on a design by Oliver Uberti OurWorldinData.org - Research and data to make progress against the world’s largest problems. Licensed under CC-BY by the author Max Roser
Easy to miss on mobile. And I assume you’ve read this and examined the primary data? And you understand the methods? Because science is not trivial.
You asked for data and methods. I didn’t post or make this. I just gave you the sources that were already available to you. If you want to check the sources, go right on ahead. But since you can’t seem to find things on mobile, here’s an excerpt from the sites section of population data.
Our team, therefore, builds and maintains a long-run dataset on population by country, region, and for the world, based on three key sources:
10,000 BCE to 1799: HYDE version 3.2. 1800 to 1949: Gapminder’s Population version 7 1950 onwards: UN World Population Prospects (2022) For former countries: Gapminder’s Systema Globalis The scripts that produce this long-run dataset can be accessed in our GitHub repository.
In all sources we rely on, historical population estimates are based on today’s geographical borders.
We provide a full citation for each source below. If you cite population data for a specific period, please cite the source. For example, for the period 1950 onwards, please cite the UN World Population Prospects. You can add “via Our World in Data” if you downloaded the data from us.
You can find the complete list of the sources used for each country and year here.
And a specific citation from that same site for the prehistoric data…
Full citation: Klein Goldewijk, K., A. Beusen, J.Doelman and E. Stehfest (2017), Anthropogenic land use estimates for the Holocene; HYDE 3.2, Earth System Science Data, 9, 927-953.
The HYDE estimates go up to 2020, but they are only available once per decade for the period 1800–2020. Therefore, from 1800 onwards, when data is available from both HYDE and Gapminder, we favor the Gapminder dataset, as it provides annual estimates
-Posted via Sync for Lemmy.
That’s one of your key answers there:
10,000 BCE to 1799: HYDE version 3.2
The infographic is counting humans back to 10,000 years ago for the total dead.
But elsewhere in this thread, people are saying bipedal apes with human sized brains have been around anywhere from 50k to 5m years.
So if we’re willing to count our slightly different cousins, whom we could probably relate to if we met them, the column of the dead in the picture would be much deeper.
That makes me think being skeptical was a good idea here. 10 kya cutoff is an interesting and significant piece of this graphic.
All of evolution is a sliding scale. There is no strict delineation.
I never claimed this was a good piece or true or perfect. That “scientist” was being over the top and purposefully myopic with sources provided, they still only desired to shit on someone else’s work and then state I didn’t read the methods.
There are no real hard facts for that era of time population wise. It’s all estimation based on something. It just depends on how you draw the lines in the sand.
There are no hotdogs, there are no sandwiches. It’s all a construct of human applied labels.
But I generally agree. 300k years is a long time.
I’ve seen the same kind of visualization made from different sources before showing the same point. There is really nothing shocking or unbelievable in the picture?
It’s fine to be sceptical because it is an estimate. However it is a qualified estimate. Read more from the source: https://www.prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived-on-earth/
If you have a better way of estimating the figure, I’m sure they would be all ears.
I do remember reading school books and science articles 30-40 years ago and the estimates then were different, but that’s just how science works.
Again it’s fine to be sceptical, but unless you can provide an alternative figure with better documentation, I really don’t understand why you’re encouraging people to be sceptical.
It’s almost as if you seem to have different motive, so I have decided to doubt your scepticism.
Because I’m a scientist and I know from being in the field that a lot of studies are wrong.
Source? 🤔
Come on then, at the very fucking least just state what you think is wrong with the post.
not op but i think your skepticism is justified
this seems to be where the image originally came from. the author explains the challenges with making speculations about historical populations in that post. the demographers, toshiko kaneda and carl haub, estimated 117 billion people have lived over the last 200,000 years. here’s the explanation given on the original post:
The majority of them lived very short lives: about one in two children died in the past. When conditions are so very poor and children die so quickly then the birth rate has to be extremely high to keep humanity alive; Kaneda and Haub assume a birth rate of 80 births per 1000 people per year for most of humanity’s history (up to the year 1 CE). That is a rate of births that is about 8-times higher than in a typical high-income country and more than twice as high as in the poorest countries today (see the map). The past was a very different place.
i think this is fairly reasonable, but original source is necessary. i think this is a more original source, and kaneda and haub are listed as the authors. their methodology seems to rely a lot on guessing, which makes sense. the 117 billion is probably not entirely accurate, but i’d say it’s a good attempt at estimating given what we know. there might be a more detailed paper somewhere but i didn’t really look too hard
edit: also lot of hostility from other people here… lemmy gone downhill. i think there’s nothing wrong with being skeptical of data or science, even if it’s coming from qualified experts. unless there’s a detailed paper that explains EVERY step of their process, you can’t be entirely sure where their numbers are coming from. that said, i agree with those other guys that there’s not a lot of room to be skeptical in this particular case, since the authors explicitly say it’s a rough estimate. based on what we know, it’s as accurate as we can get. but still, nothing wrong with asking for sources!
I haven’t read the methods. But at the very outset, I question the modeling of birth and death rates from ages before the advent of agriculture. This, immediately, gives me pause.
yes, you’re definitely right. the accuracy is dubious no matter what. in the author’s words, their approach is “semi-scientific” and “guesstimating”. not once do they say their results are definitive. but if it’s the best qualified demographers can do with what we know, then there’s not much else to it
