quote:

---

since the creation of the world?

---

..depends on when you think the world was created....


 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
I thought of that, Farmgirl. Obviously it's a lot simpler if you can just multiply from two a couple of thousand years ago .
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Xavier -- that was a cool link! I liked reading that.

So that center estimates 106 BILLION people? Wow! That is a mind-boggling number.

Now Katarin's second question -- how big of a spcae would be needed if they were all alive at one time? How do we figure the space-per-person needed?

FG
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
When I was a girl in Hebrew School, the Rabbi told us that in the time of Moshiach (Messiah), all the dead people would be resurrected. So I asked my Rabbi how the world would be able to fit so many people -- it seemed that we couldn't fit the ones we have already.

He said that it would not be a problem. Cemetaries would no longer be needed, so we could build high rise apartments on the cemetary grounds to hold all the resurrected.

Neat, huh?
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
I wonder what all those resurrected people will think of high rise apartments... and the internet!

I need at least 18 inches of personal space around my person...but I'd rather have 24..

-Katarain
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
If everyone was ressurrected, most would be babies and kids. Sad.
Unless there's an arbitrary cut-off age, like in Phillip Jose Farmer's Riverworld series. I believe he estimated about 38 billion adults (over age 5). So recent humans would make up a larger proportion of adults than 5% among total past popualtion. Perhaps 10%?

quote:

---

Life expectancy at birth probably averaged only about 10 years for most of human history.
...
Infant mortality in the human race's earliest days is thought to have been very high — perhaps 500 infant deaths per 1,000 births, or even higher.

---

Wow, I knew infant mortality used to be high, but 50% or more??
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
That's also the thing that confuses people about the average life expectancy in the middle ages and the like. The main reason its lower is because infant mortality was far higher. It doesn't mean that it was all that hard to find a 70 year old man.

Edit: Doing a google search to substantiate this claim, I found a like that says Angola has 192.5 deaths per thousand infants and a life expectancy of 36.8 years. That fits about what I've heard about the middle ages' stats.

Considering that a modern country has a 19% infant mortality rate, I'm not surprised that it was over 50% at some point in our species' past.
 

---

Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
 
At least as many as will ever die.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Actually, that brings up an interesting statistical exercise. The probability that something will happen is the number of times it happens, divided by the number of trials made. So if 95% of all people who have ever lived, are dead, that means you have only a 95% chance of dying, statistically speaking.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
KoM, that was the most amusingly bad abuse of statistics I have ever seen.

Think again about what would constitute a random sample from the overall distribution to see why your attempt at statistical analysis is silly.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
(I realize you know your result is silly, but you seem to think your methodology is in at least some small way proper, which it isn't; I could be wrong, of course).
 

---

Posted by eyetell (Member # 8229) on :
 
For Tante Shvester,
Most likely, no one will be ressurected.
The def of ressurected would imply that the deceased gain new flesh.
That will only happen if Hell is on earth where people are as they were before they die.
The Bible says that the deceased believers in Jesus will assend into heavon, but have a new spirit.
So, therefore mostlikely "no onewil be ressurected.
You may believe that if you want, I take no part. I only present info as i know it and am glad to be proven wrong.
~unbiased~
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Well, since Tante Shvester doesn't believe in that part of the bible, she is unlikely to find your cite very convincing.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Come on, fugu, of course I know that! It's still amusing.
 

---

Posted by eyetell (Member # 8229) on :
 
What part of the bible, I'm still nuetrally interested.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
She's Jewish, which should explain things.
 

---

Posted by eyetell (Member # 8229) on :
 
Not really, I don't know "everything"
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
That stuff that happens including and after Jesus, they don't believe in. If they did believe in it, they would be called Christians.
 

---

Posted by eyetell (Member # 8229) on :
 
ah, i c.
I'm not niave, in fact i knew that, but i was more wondering "why", Tante will probably shoot me but why, how can u faithfully serve one part of the Bible and throw out the rest.
~Still unbiased~
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
We don't. (I say we because I am Jewish as well.)

We keep the original text, and ignore that which was added later -- and which contradicts large chunks of the original.

That which you call "the New Testament" is of no interest to us.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Tante will probably shoot me but why, how can u faithfully serve one part of the Bible and throw out the rest.

---

*whispers* Dude. Are you unaware that the Old Testament is called the Old Testament by Christians because it came first? Before, in other words, the New Testament -- the bit with Jesus in it -- was written?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*twinkle* I think I like Tom's answer better than mine.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
Eyetell,

Yeah, what rivka said. For the Jews, the Bible (what we call "Torah") is true and given to us directly from G'd. Up to a certain point, where it ends. This is what Christians call the "Old Testament" Everything after that, we do not accept as G'd given gospel.

So, it's not exactly like I faithfully serve one part and throw out the rest. It is more like I faithfully serve the whole thing, and nothing further.

Of course, this is the Jewish perspective. I mean no disrespect to those who accept as Word of G'd that which came after the Torah. So, if the New Testament, Koran, Book of Mormon is holy to you, I respect your beliefs.

And as to the truth about any life after death, I am willing to postpone knowing it until later. It is not a cornerstone of the Jewish faith.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Dude, I said this once already, so try listening this time. There's only room for one religious troll on these here boards, and the position is already taken. Shape up or move on.

Incidentally, remind me never to be in the same room as eyetell. We would probably both annihilate in a flash of radioactivity, or something.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*wants to watch*
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
BEHAVE!
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Yes, Ima!
 

---

Posted by eyetell (Member # 8229) on :
 
i c... Now,
I'm seriusly unbiased and i'm sorryKing of Men if i come accross "unnattractive" i'm just asking provacative questions, such as what contradictions.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
"Ima"! Hey! That's Shvester to you!
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
And eyetell, I'm not offended. Not unless someone gets mean. Curiousity (and associated ignorance)is best cured by asking questions and learning.

Hope you are.
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
<Was wondering why rivka was talking to littlemissattitude, who hadn't posted in this thread. Understands now.>
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

BEHAVE!

---

is inconsistent with Shvester. At least, any I have -- I don't have any older siblings.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papa Moose:
<Was wondering why rivka was talking to littlemissattitude, who hadn't posted in this thread. Understands now.>

---

 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
But rivka, I wasn't -ing YOU.

Can't we please be Shvesters?

(Oy, I've got to leave this scene. My cholent is on the the blech, and it's about time to bentch licht. I'll leave it to the West Coast Jews to explain this to the rest of you)
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
I heard (no sources on this, sorry) an estimate based on the Christian start of man; or in other words: about when Adam is thought to have lived. It was around 30, to 32 billion.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
But rivka, I wasn't -ing YOU.

Can't we please be Shvesters?

---

*blink* Oh! I thought I was being chided for wanting to watch the militant-atheist/anti-atheist Big Bang.

Sure, Sis!

[ June 17, 2005, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
If you don't mind, could you please spell 'atheist' tight? 'Athiest' sounds like a superlative. "I'm athier than you are! I'm the athiest man in this room!"
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*mortified* The ONE time I forgot to spell-check!
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 

quote:

---

could you please spell 'atheist' tight?

---

Could you spell "right" right?

And according to my terrible calculations, each person if alive today would get 0.0013963185411527606983695309909532 square kilometres of land each. Which is a little over a metre each. 1.396 sq metres.

However, that is counting land only. If the sea was open for colonisation...

0.0047913150821181997509169589324475, which is nearly five square metres EACH! WOW! That's space to lie down on! Space to pace in!

[ June 17, 2005, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
I'm just amused by the whole thread. *laughs* "I'm athier than you are! I'm athier than you are!!"

Ahem. I mean, the same thought went through my head. I'm just surprised at KoM expressing something I thought. That just, like, well, NEVER happens.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
'Tight', obviously, is rhyming slang. I'm surprised at you, Teshi, for not seeing that. Surely it's obvious?
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
*hangs lump of lead*

You're Isle of Wight. I should have pearly queen it coming. I do beg your Osama, I must be barb wired.

Tongue = Brigham Young? Who knew LDS had invaded cockney rhyming slang?
 

---

Posted by ChaosTheory (Member # 7069) on :
 
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_085.html


Hmmm...When will the world of Hatrack learn to use The Straight Dope?
 

---