PDA

View Full Version : Compressed Earth Perspective



DISGUISED
11-13-2003, 12:59 PM
I am beginning my graduate studies by taking a couple of classes at night (not really sure what I am working towards yet) and one of the first courses I am taking is a STS course (Science, Technology, and Society). During the introduction, we were given a handout meant to give us a bit of perspective about the world we live in. I found it to be very interesting and I just thought I would share it.

If We Shrank the Earth's Population to 100 people....

If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look approximately like the following

57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 from the Western Hemisphere, both north and south
8 Africans

52 would be female
48 would be male

70 would not be Caucasian
30 would be Caucasian

70 would be non-Christian
30 would be Christian

89 would be heterosexual
11 would be homosexual

6 people would possess 59% of the entire world’s wealth and all 6 would be from the United States

80 would live in substandard housing

70 would be unable to read

50 would suffer from malnutrition

1 would be near death, 1 would be near birth

1 would have a college education

1 would own a computer

When one considers our world from such a compressed perspective, the need for aid, acceptance, understanding and education becomes glaringly apparent.

Felix
11-13-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by DISGUISED

When one considers our world from such a compressed perspective, the need for aid, acceptance, understanding and education becomes glaringly apparent.
What else did ya thought, with 52 women? lol j/k

caroundw5h
11-13-2003, 01:53 PM
Very interesting. However only 8 Africans? Are you sure?

ober
11-13-2003, 02:57 PM
I actually thought that number might be high. :confused:

Fountain
11-13-2003, 03:03 PM
This is more interesting-a population(amongst other stuff) meter!

Here! (http://www.osearth.com/resources/worldometers/worldcrew.shtml)

axon
11-13-2003, 04:02 PM
sure it matters, but how much...think about it: if more than 75% of the world's population would be healthy and reached a life expectancy, of lets say 65 years, than allready our planet would not be able to sustain itself. Its a sort of paradox; if you would want to help all in need, you would end up destroying everybody in the long run.

Nature is cruel, but it has to survive.

take AIDS for example...lets say we develop a cheap AIDS vaccine, and distribute it all over Africa...what happens then? well one scenario is that Africans no longer fear it and start breading by the millions!!

GSLR
11-14-2003, 05:04 AM
umm they dont fear it anyway !!

to late she cried BOOM !!!

adrianxw
11-14-2003, 05:55 AM
The planet has had an unsustainable population for years, and it is getting worse.

Aid in the form of education is necessary. Simply trying to keep everyone who is already alive - alive, there attitude to procreation must be updated. People in the third world expect a large percentage of their children to die young. Therefore they have lots of children. Save all of these children, without capping the family size simply creates unsupportable demands on the alreadt fragile agricultural systems in place, thus they starve.

Education and opportunity.

H&R
11-14-2003, 07:17 AM
adrian,
I think I've read recently about a decline in the population recently such that this could be the first century since the 1600's (Black Plague) were the population coming in is greater than that going out.(although I can't find the report now).

Axon, quite right bloody africans breedin' an that, it's a disgrace, their not even civilised like wot we are. :confused: :( :mad:



I think this is the link. njoy

anonytmouse
11-14-2003, 09:16 AM
To the OP, be a bit skeptical and tell your college to stop handing out utter and total crap(they should know better).

>> 6 people would possess 59% of the entire world’s wealth and all 6 would be from the United States <<

This line alone should tell anyone that this is crap. Anyone heard of Western Europe?

When faced with dubious information snopes is your friend:
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/populate.htm

As to the rest of the thread, unfortunately ignorance rules, even amongst programmers.

POP QUIZ: On which continent have half the global extinctions of mammals occurred in the last 300 years?

DISGUISED
11-14-2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by anonytmouse
To the OP, be a bit skeptical and tell your college to stop handing out utter and total crap(they should know better).

>> 6 people would possess 59% of the entire world’s wealth and all 6 would be from the United States <<

This line alone should tell anyone that this is crap. Anyone heard of Western Europe?

When faced with dubious information snopes is your friend:
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/populate.htm

As to the rest of the thread, unfortunately ignorance rules, even amongst programmers.

POP QUIZ: On which continent have half the global extinctions of mammals occurred in the last 300 years?


Thanks for the link. We were debating a lot of the points made in the article and I knew that some of it had to be skewed one way or the other. Now I can print that out and take it back to class next week and bring the discussion up again. As far as the professor just blatantly handing out total crap, I don't think that was his intention at all and he wasn't necessarily presenting it as 100% correct factual data from recent surveys, but I will surely bring it up with him for his benefit. I imagine he's been using the article in the course introduction for years. However, this is a high level course and he should be more thorough regarding his sources. The words "shock effect" come to mind.

I still find the corrected numbers to be disturbing. Other points made in the snopes article are more in line with what I just assumed without ever having seen the article in the first place so maybe my perception of the world isn't so far off afterall.

ober
11-14-2003, 11:47 AM
>>To the OP, be a bit skeptical and tell your college to stop handing out utter and total crap(they should know better).

HAHA!! Good one. Apparently you haven't been in a college classroom anytime recently. BS abounds.

As for that response article, that's very interesting, although not entirely unexpected.

ober
11-14-2003, 11:53 AM
OH and...

>>POP QUIZ: On which continent have half the global extinctions of mammals occurred in the last 300 years?

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark and guess... North America?

Clyde
11-14-2003, 12:40 PM
A brief sweep of the web seems to indicate Australia has had the greatest number of mammalian extinctions in recent history, but i haven't found support for the 50% figure.

anonytmouse
11-14-2003, 01:02 PM
At least your prof didn't put it up as a sign like the massive eden project (those big domes that you may have seen in the Bond film) did:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2788091.stm

>>A brief sweep of the web seems to indicate Australia has had the greatest number of mammalian extinctions in recent history, but i haven't found support for the 50% figure.<<

You win. Australia, with a population density of less than three per square kilometre(7.5 per square mile) has a very large proportion of the world's mammal extinctions to be proud of. I posted this to counter the usual rubbish that all the world's environment troubles are because 'people in the developing world
have too many babies'.

As for the figure, this page claims the figure is now down to 25%(due to the rest of the world 'catching up'):
http://www.wwf.org.au/tsn/TSN_about_plight.htm

While these pages claim the figure is one third:
http://audit.ea.gov.au/ANRA/docs/fast_facts/fast_facts_35.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/22/1050777255475.html

In addition, all these creatures were entirely 'human compatible'. This compares to the somewhat harder to live with lion, elephant and rhino which are mostly still around. (Although the lion is endagered and four out of five species of rhino are critically endagered or functionally extinct).

PJYelton
11-14-2003, 01:24 PM
What is it about Australia to be leading in this catagory? I'm really curious.

>>This compares to the somewhat harder to live with lion, elephant and rhino which are mostly still around.<<

Well this is a little misleading since if humans had their way they would be extinct. They only exist because they are protected and because people think they are cool. Compatable animals tend to get pushed around a lot more by humans since we don't notice we are infringing on them until it is too late.

Likewise since most of Australia is uninhabitable for humans and most animals, the three people per square is misleading as well. Take the population density of habitable regions and this number goes way up.

bennyandthejets
11-14-2003, 05:30 PM
Yay, finally my country is famous for SOMETHING! I didn't realize that we were this bad though. And it's true, most of the country is uninhabitable. On the eastern seaboard, where most of the population is, it is fairly dense, but still not as dense as other parts of the world.

anonytmouse
11-14-2003, 07:57 PM
>>Take the population density of habitable regions and this number goes way up.<<

Yes, but... The size of NSW, Australia's most populated state is 800 642 km^2 while the population is less than 7 million. That compares with Germany at 357 000 km^2 and a population of more than 82 million. (NSW is actually bigger than Germany, Italy and the Netherlands combined, a population in excess of 150 million.)

Yet, Germany has a higher percentage of protected areas.

>>most of Australia is uninhabitable for humans and most animals<<

Most of the extinct and endangered animals inhabit(ed) the arid areas of Australia.



According to the CoA (1998), we have 33 endangered mammals and 21 vulnerable mammals, or a total of 54 nationally threatened mammals. This is 20% of our extant native species. According to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals (1996) we have 58 threatened mammals, which ranks us 6th in the world - we have more threatened mammals than 97% of the world's countries. We also have 19 extinct mammals (CoA 1998) - more than any other country (CoA 1996a) or continent (Strahan 1995) on Earth. In the arid zone, about 33% of mammal species in the sandy and stony desert ecosystems are known to be regionally extinct and 90% of mammal species weighing between 35 grams (mouse size) and 5,500 grams (small wallaby size) are either extinct or endangered (NSW Government 1997, p.328).


http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/policy/biodivsum/

Note, from the list above at the above site, many developing countries also have a higher proportion of protected ares than Australia (while we're laying the boot in!).

PJYelton
11-15-2003, 02:36 PM
All I am saying is that just because Australia has a low population density doesn't prove that it isn't the increase of populations fault that there are so many extinctions on the continent. Perhaps Australia's ecosystem was so precarious that only a small population increase in humans sent it on a tremendous tailspin that affected the entire continent like dominoes.

Maybe it does have nothing to do with population increase, I don't know. I'm curious what scientists think.

anonytmouse
11-15-2003, 10:09 PM
In summary, most authors agree that the introduction of exotic predators, especially the European Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) and Feral Cat (Felis catus), the introduction of exotic herbivores, especially the European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), Sheep (Ovis aries) and Cattle (Bos taurus), and changed fire regimes, particularly in the arid grasslands, have contributed to the decline and extinction of an array of species in Australia.
...
Land clearing has been the major factor in the demise of one species and the decline of others.
...
In summary, it appears that the interaction of three factors changes to habitat caused by introduced herbivores, homogenisation of habitat following changed fire regimes and, particularly, the spread of exotic predators has been mainly responsible for the high extinction rate of marsupials since European settlement of Australia. Habitat clearing has also affected the extent of occurrence of many species.


http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/action/marsupials/9.html

Silvercord
11-16-2003, 03:31 AM
i think there should be some sort of international birth control law or something. I mean, the earth can only sustain so many people. china already needs to do it

Sayeh
11-19-2003, 09:25 AM
When one considers our world from such a compressed perspective, the need for aid, acceptance, understanding and education becomes glaringly apparent.

Wrong. The answer is _not_ another giveaway, handout, financial band-aid on the part of the US. We've already given away 14 times more money than is necessary to raise the educational and living level of every human on earth to America's "middle class" status.

The reason people are in a mess is because of their corrupt governments or their own laziness, selfishness, or plain greed. Their governments horde the money and food and medicine we send, making their people starve so they can control them.

Enough of this "feed the poor" cr@p. They can feed themselves. If those people really wanted help, they'd ask us to teach them how to farm, and build and so forth-- they wouldn't ask for money.

Problem is, America is hated by most of the Earth because they want what we have-- and they don't want to earn it. They want it just handed to them like they deserve it.

-- Wrong. We died to get here, we learned it and earned it. We have open borders in our society because we are _peaceful_ people, not religious or racially motivated zealots.

I'm sick and tired of hearing the minority whine about how badly they are treated. I'm treated badly too-- but I don't get assistance based on racial classification or gender. I don't get tax cuts. I don't get subsidies. I don't get free this that and the other thing. I couldn't afford college today, if I had to do it over. I don't get a fat monthly paycheck for every child I create. No. I'm the little white guy that's scraping and clawing and bleeding to pay for "their fair share".

But hey, I'm used to it. I'm the lowliest, least advantaged person on earth-- the white American male.

IMHO.
[Wow. I didn't realize I felt so strongly about this... hmmm. Opinions, anyone? I'm interested in perspectives from India, Mexico, Middle East.]

Felix
11-19-2003, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Sayeh

Enough of this "feed the poor" cr@p. They can feed themselves. If those people really wanted help, they'd ask us to teach them how to farm, and build and so forth-- they wouldn't ask for money.

So true... almost all the food produced in Africa is sent to Europe to feed the pigs that provide our meat

Clyde
11-19-2003, 10:04 AM
Wrong. The answer is _not_ another giveaway, handout, financial band-aid on the part of the US. We've already given away 14 times more money than is necessary to raise the educational and living level of every human on earth to America's "middle class" status.


I'd love to see the calculation behind that claim.



The reason people are in a mess is because of their corrupt governments or their own laziness, selfishness, or plain greed.


Whilst invariably corruption is a huge problem to the third world, the question is WHY, why is corruption much more of a problem there? Do you really believe the people are inherently lasier, more selfish or more greedy?



Enough of this "feed the poor" cr@p. They can feed themselves


Jesus christ.



If those people really wanted help, they'd ask us to teach them how to farm, and build and so forth-- they wouldn't ask for money


..... are you for real?



Problem is, America is hated by most of the Earth because they want what we have-- and they don't want to earn it. They want it just handed to them like they deserve it.


How do you know what they want? Or what they think?



I'm sick and tired of hearing the minority whine about how badly they are treated


But........ they are treated badly.



'm treated badly too-- but I don't get assistance based on racial classification or gender


Is your bad treatment institutionalised? Or is it just because you're an arse?



But hey, I'm used to it. I'm the lowliest, least advantaged person on earth-- the white American male.


LMAO, yea poor you, damn those lucky females who get born into starving villages governed by religious fanatics.

Get a $$$$ing clue.

ZerOrDie
11-19-2003, 10:09 AM
Wrong. We died to get here, we learned it and earned it. We have open borders in our society because we are _peaceful_ people, not religious or racially motivated zealots.


:rolleyes: typical american... egocentric...

How peaceful you are what you invaded TWO countries in the last year? Heil BUSH! Comming soon the sun never sets on the American empire.

Felix
11-19-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Clyde
Do you really believe the people are inherently lasier, more selfish or more greedy?
Erm, it is 'proved' that Africans have less intelligence then others... Ever heard of 'positive discrimination'?



Originally posted by Clyde
Jesus Christ
Read my previous post.

Clyde
11-19-2003, 01:19 PM
Erm, it is 'proved' that Africans have less intelligence then others...



Bull$$$$.

The bell-curve was ripped apart a long time ago.

Felix
11-19-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Clyde
Bull$$$$.

The bell-curve was ripped apart a long time ago.
Then why positive discrimination? :rolleyes:

Clyde
11-19-2003, 01:42 PM
Then why positive discrimination?


What on Earth are you gibbering about?

anonytmouse
11-21-2003, 07:15 PM
>>Erm, it is 'proved' that Africans have less intelligence then others...<<

Would this tolerated if the word Arficans was exchanged for 'blacks', 'Jews', 'Christians'?

If not, can I ask the moderators why racial hatred is tolerated against Africans while not against other cultures, religions and races.

adrianxw
11-22-2003, 03:44 AM
>>> racial hatred is tolerated

The guy is a racist bigot - and is having his point torn to shreds. Sweeping it under the carpet acheives nothing. Seeing it, he may actually begin to see the light.

Felix
11-22-2003, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by anonytmouse
>>Erm, it is 'proved' that Africans have less intelligence then others...<<

Would this tolerated if the word Arficans was exchanged for 'blacks', 'Jews', 'Christians'?

If not, can I ask the moderators why racial hatred is tolerated against Africans while not against other cultures, religions and races.
I'm just stating the facts.
If you want to join a 'University for 'Talented People' ', if you're a normal blank person, and make the average test, you're accepted. If you're a black person, and you score lower, you're still allowed. If you're a jew, and you make an average test, you're not allowed sometimes, because jews are looked at as if though they're smarter then others.

Clyde
11-22-2003, 06:14 AM
I'm just stating the facts


No, you're not.

There is nothing suggesting that non-caucasians are any less smart than caucasians.

Felix
11-22-2003, 07:52 AM
Really? Then why does the average 'black' person score less on an intelligence test? And why is almost everything on this world invented by blank or yellow people? And why do we have positive discrimination? Tell me why.

adrianxw
11-22-2003, 08:36 AM
Given the same upbringing and presented with the same opportunities, I would suggest that any racial group would produce a similar range of intellect.

The differences you may think you are seeing are more likely to be artefacts of the first clause of the above paragraph not being the case.

Since the human species arose in Africa - one could say that the "blank", (never heard that expression before), and yellow people are a product of Africans.

Clyde
11-22-2003, 09:59 AM
Really? Then why does the average 'black' person score less on an intelligence test? And why is almost everything on this world invented by blank or yellow people? And why do we have positive discrimination? Tell me why.


The people who developed IQ test simply changed the questions untill they got a the result they wanted: a bell curve with reasonable correlation with academic ability and other "markers" of "intelligence". But there sample population was caucasion.

The IQ test shows cultural bias towards caucasian populations, there are types of problems within IQ tests that people get better at the more they practise within given limits.

An example is:

All As are Bs are all Bs As?

The bell-curve which presented the arguments that Africans were not as intelligence as their caucasian counter parts was ripped apart by the scientific community as a result.

There is no decent evidence nor reasoning from accepted theory that points to any innate differences in intellect between the different "races".

Invention relates to far more than intelligence, wealth and cultural direction play a huge role.

And whatever elements of "positive discrimination" that exist within Western societies are invariably there to counteract the huge amount of NEGATIVE discrimination that did and continues to exist.

Felix
11-22-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Clyde
And whatever elements of "positive discrimination" that exist within Western societies are invariably there to counteract the huge amount of NEGATIVE discrimination that did and continues to exist.
I still think that's doubtful. Because Jews are discrimanted, but they don't get positive discrimination.

All the others ofcourse can be true.

doubleanti
11-22-2003, 01:27 PM
>we learned it and earned it

Not speaking from my american culture, but rather from my Asian culture, I concur. I'm don't like hearing about reverse discrimination or discrimination itself, but what's done is done and there's not much use crying over spilt milk. It also bothers me that often times the discrimiation against Asians and Asian Americans is often downplayed because of us being stereotyped as a "model minority". Of the world, one of every two people you may meet would be Asian, and unfortunately though still America's boiling pot of ethnicities remains primarily caucasian. Perhaps it is a question of values what makes people earn such things?

>I don't get assistance based on racial classification

Hm, have you heard of CRENO? I'm not sure if this is a Californian-specific proposal, but if you happen to have, I wonder if you bothered to vote.

>And whatever elements of "positive discrimination" that exist within Western societies are invariably there to counteract the huge amount of NEGATIVE discrimination that did and continues to exist.

I agree, speaking solely on behalf of an Asian-American. And another thing, I fail to see how others find it their right to be able to speak on behalf of another culture or religion, or even sometimes their own because it gives rise to falsity and generalizations come about. For example, of the people speaking in this thread, whom have in the least spoken for their own culture or ethnicity or religion?