Random Facts

[Gre]

Not just them. 'In a nuclear attack on London the destruction of Clapham Junction will entail London Transport providing a shuttle bus service between the London Centre and the undamaged part of the railway line south of Clapham. It is estimated that 500 buses could be withdrawn for the removal of the homeless. This could cause severe delay in getting workers home.'

[diddly-dee]

The most commercially successful film produced by Hammer Film Studios was the feature film version of 'On The Buses'.

[the real new messiah]

Ringo starr once made a comercial in Japan for apple sauce, which is the literal translation of his name

[worm]

Oh by the way, for those still interested in the 'more people alive today' thingy, it's time lived by those living today than time lived by those that have died.

My bad.

[Purple Monkey]

Oh by the way, for those still interested in the 'more people alive today' thingy, it's time lived by those living today than time lived by those that have died.

My bad.

[ampersand]

i'm still not understanding it...

[Greeny_Musicchild]

i'm still not understanding it...

[worm]

So, we're saying that the complete life span of all the people alive today is greater than the the complete life span of all the people that have ever liveddied?

[ampersand]

Take the ages of everyone who has ever died and add them up.

Take the ages of everyone alive today and add them up.

The second number would be higher than the first number. Apparently. It certainly seems more plausible than the other one.

[worm]

aye i thought that's what it meant. that seems no more/less plausible than the other one though.

[Ed209]

hmmm ... not so sure.

Suppose that estimate of 100bn people who have died is correct, and that there are 7bn people alive today. For the sum of the ages of people alive today to be greater than the sum of the people's death ages, it would mean that the average life expectancy across history would have to be 1/15th of the average age of the current world's population. I find that very unlikely

[ampersand]

hmmm ... not so sure.

Suppose that estimate of 100bn people who have died is correct, and that there are 7bn people alive today. For the sum of the ages of people alive today to be greater than the sum of the people's death ages, it would mean that the average life expectancy across history would have to be 1/15th of the average age of the current world's population. I find that very unlikely

[worm]

agreed. especially when now you still get a lot of infant deaths in third world countries. or developing or whatever they're called now. plus you're counting the deaths of people who have died in the past 50 years where expectancy was hardly 40 in developed countries. sceptical.co.uk

Edited March 2, 2011 by worm

[worm]

hmmm ... not so sure.

Suppose that estimate of 100bn people who have died is correct, and that there are 7bn people alive today. For the sum of the ages of people alive today to be greater than the sum of the people's death ages, it would mean that the average life expectancy across history would have to be 1/15th of the average age of the current world's population. I find that very unlikely

[ampersand]

The ratio has been approximated in this thread at 6 billion out of 90 billion people being alive right now. That's 1:15.

So out of the 90 billion dead people, you're saying that a huge number were infants and that a massive proportion didn't even make it to 40.

Do you see?

[worm]

yeah but i still think the dead number would vastly beat the alive number. though i'm clearly not informed enough to be sure.

Edited March 2, 2011 by worm

[Ed209]

Even if the average age of a person today was 50, which due to the bottom heavy demographic of the third world is imo a vast over exageration, that would mean that the average age of death over human history would be 3.5 years

don't buy it

[Ed209]

Lets say that 50 billion were infant deaths 0-1. Lets say that 49 billion were 1-30. 0.95 billion for 31-40. And 0.05 for 60+.

Compare that (however hypothetical) with the living.

[jump]

OK, so with those figures you can approximate the total time lived by the dead to be about 550 billion, say. That would mean the average age of a person alive today is 78!

Edited March 2, 2011 by jump

[Ed209]

It's 67, already googled it.

Just played with my spreadsheet at work I can't get the figures to work on 67 x 7 billion (although that was be too high as not all people are old yet) it would be 469 billion compared to if the appox. of 106 billion that lived averaged out to live for 10 years it would still be over at 1060 billion (or 1 trillion?) so people how use to live need an average of 4 years.

[jump]

You mean the life expectancy is 67? That's not the average age of the human population. That can't be 67

Edited March 2, 2011 by jump

[Ed209]

Are yep, my bad.

Just googled it and it's 24.3.

[worm]

that would mean that the average age of death over human history would be 3.5 years

Edited March 2, 2011 by worm

[worm]

OK, so with those figures you can approximate the total time lived by the dead to be about 550 billion, say. That would mean the average age of a person alive today is 78!

Edited March 2, 2011 by worm

[Ed209]

I reckon it's far, far less. For dead people that is.