explain this chart

[cheka.]

according to so-called scientists, humans have been walking the earth for millions of years. sources vary on how many million -- average seems to be around 3 or 4 million years

so why does this chart look like this? and it only goes back 12,000 years. :confused:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Population_curve.svg/350px-Population_curve.svg.png

[cheka.]

http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/03/01/human-population-evidence-for-a-young-earth/

If we started with two people 50,000 years ago, and the population doubled at the very slow rate of once every 150 years, 332 doublings would occur. And the world’s population would be an enormous figure—a 1 followed by 100 zeros; that is:

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

[Cebu_4_2]

It represents how many people are on food stamps.

[osoab]

Our world is much younger than the claims.

[Ares]

It also doesn't take into account birth / death. Humans had a much shorter life span, even as little as 100 years ago. If you were 40-50 years old 100 years ago you were considered relatively old.

The chart also doesn't take into account that humans as a whole only just started a population explosion because of the industrial revolution. Most nations (Africa in particular) could never amass a population the size it has now without the industrial revolution or global subsidies.

Population growth is relatively recent, and a lot of factors went into it, looking at history and attempting to explain it with a linear graph doesn't do it justice without looking for the factors that contributed to the growth.

[Horn]

http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/03/01/human-population-evidence-for-a-young-earth/

If we started with two people 50,000 years ago, and the population doubled at the very slow rate of once every 150 years, 332 doublings would occur. And the world’s population would be an enormous figure—a 1 followed by 100 zeros; that is:

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

You forgot to factor in when the Firmament were removed.

[Neuro]

It also doesn't take into account birth / death. Humans had a much shorter life span, even as little as 100 years ago. If you were 40-50 years old 100 years ago you were considered relatively old.

The chart also doesn't take into account that humans as a whole only just started a population explosion because of the industrial revolution. Most nations (Africa in particular) could never amass a population the size it has now without the industrial revolution or global subsidies.

Population growth is relatively recent, and a lot of factors went into it, looking at history and attempting to explain it with a linear graph doesn't do it justice without looking for the factors that contributed to the growth.

Technology and population growth is intertwined. Looking back only 150 years there was more than 50% of children who died before the age of 5 in Europe

[woodman]

I wonder just how closely the corelation between population and number of acres under cultivation is. You would then ask is human population just following the increase in agriculture or is the increase in agriculture following population. The carrying capacity is limited only by the agricultural question. Also figure in the advent of modern antibiotics.

[Neuro]

Also figure in the advent of modern antibiotics.Plumbing and refrigeration is more important.

[Ares]

Plumbing and refrigeration is more important.

Agreed food preservation, and waste disposal have had a huge impact on the number of people who can live within the same geographic area.

Technology, food, waste disposal, clean water etc. All contributed to the population growth.

The chart presented in this thread attempts to state that the Earth is only 6000 years old and attempts to use human population growth to provide evidence for their claims. The problem is they are only looking at 1 piece and not looking at any of the factors that contributed to it.

While the Earth may only be 6000 years old as they claim, they're going to need to provide evidence to justify their claims.

Population as a whole over a long history is a very poor indicator.

[Cebu_4_2]

]Agreed food preservation, and waste disposal have had a huge impact on the number of people who can live within the same geographic area.

Technology, food, waste disposal, clean water etc. All contributed to the population growth.[/B]

The chart presented in this thread attempts to state that the Earth is only 6000 years old and attempts to use human population growth to provide evidence for their claims. The problem is they are only looking at 1 piece and not looking at any of the factors that contributed to it.

While the Earth may only be 6000 years old as they claim, they're going to need to provide evidence to justify their claims.

Population as a whole over a long history is a very poor indicator.

Didn't they have all this in Egypt? Perhaps the orgies took them out?

[Ares]

Didn't they have all this in Egypt? Perhaps the orgies took them out?

They had agriculture, and clean water from the Nile. But I don't remember reading anything about plumbing. Nothing of their structures that survived to this day do not show evidence (that I've seen anyway) to indicate that they had an effective way of removing waste.

The other aspect of Egypt was that while they were technologically advanced for their time, they pale in comparison to the scale of farming needed to support a large population with adequate food. Since they had little means of food preservation outside of salt (which was just as valuable as gold to them) they would not have the means to support say 10+ million Egyptians. That number is easy to support now with modern agriculture, and food preservation techniques.

[woodman]

Plumbing and refrigeration is more important.
Debatable. China became the most populated country in the world but I doubt the average Chinese family had plumbing. They used 'night soil' to fertilize the crops and it was fairly recently that they had access to refrigeration on a wide scale. What about India? The bastards crap in the street but they seem to be breeding like rabbits. So no, I believe improved agriculture and access to antibiotics trumps plumbing and refrigeration.

[Cebu_4_2]

They had agriculture, and clean water from the Nile. But I don't remember reading anything about plumbing. Nothing of their structures that survived to this day do not show evidence (that I've seen anyway) to indicate that they had an effective way of removing waste.

The other aspect of Egypt was that while they were technologically advanced for their time, they pale in comparison to the scale of farming needed to support a large population with adequate food. Since they had little means of food preservation outside of salt (which was just as valuable as gold to them) they would not have the means to support say 10+ million Egyptians. That number is easy to support now with modern agriculture, and food preservation techniques.


I am sure they had some way of getting rid of shit, they had running water. If they could support any sort of population I am sure they had agriculture... Think about that for a second... in a desert. Was it in fact a desert back then?

To dump the dung they could simply flush it down below the topical sand level.

[woodman]

I am sure they had some way of getting rid of shit, they had running water. If they could support any sort of population I am sure they had agriculture... Think about that for a second... in a desert. Was it in fact a desert back then?

To dump the dung they could simply flush it down below the topical sand level.
Interesting to ponder...Perhaps the rise in population was due to various agricultural issues. Improved methods of growing and storing/fermenting could make a huge difference. Also the development of improved varieties through selective breeding could have an enormous impact on resources. Look at wild varieties of vegetables such as carrots and compare them to cultivars and the difference is staggering.

[cheka.]

It also doesn't take into account birth / death. Humans had a much shorter life span, even as little as 100 years ago. If you were 40-50 years old 100 years ago you were considered relatively old.

The chart also doesn't take into account that humans as a whole only just started a population explosion because of the industrial revolution. Most nations (Africa in particular) could never amass a population the size it has now without the industrial revolution or global subsidies.

Population growth is relatively recent, and a lot of factors went into it, looking at history and attempting to explain it with a linear graph doesn't do it justice without looking for the factors that contributed to the growth.

that reads like popular science or washington post - easily offset/discredited. as one of our more thoughtful posters, you can do better.

[cheka.]

the death of kids model is offset by ZERO birth control and abortions, no? the sows must've been dropping babies every 12 months. half of them died, but they had 12 kids each - so 6 lived?

compounding for 3 million years? 'science' is poisoned by liars that are trying to frame us as animals....so 'they' can treat us as such

[woodman]

The more I think about it, the more it would seem that a confluence of many factors had a hand in the rise of population. Of course there is always an ebb and flow in nature. Even a climax ecosystem has natural ebb and flow of species due to predator and prey, host and parasite interaction. Think about this though: About the time of the boom in population, we started to develop the printing press and also scientific methodologies, so perhaps education and documentation had a part to play. If more people are able to spread knowledge about successful methods for agriculture, then it is a easy stretch to believe that it could be a significant factor in producing more food. Couple this with a widespread recording of likely frost dates and a plethora of useful tidbits for planting and harvesting.

You must also consider the development of trading practices that could have a huge impact upon what were heretofore local economies. The synergystic effect of faster trade routes and access to improved tools such as harrows and more efficient plows would have widespread consequences. Taking this to it's logical conclusion, we can think that the development of maritime routes and sailing technology would make a huge difference. Then there is the harvesting of seafood which has undeniably increased yields due to technology.

The list is almost endless but I still believe that antibiotics and as much as I detest the medical establishment, other medicines, have made the world a more hospitable place for mankind.

It is all coming to a screeching halt however. I don't know when, but we are quickly approaching the point where we will foul our Earth beyond remedy and it is simply due to greed. This 'algal bloom' of humanity is on a crash course.

[cheka.]

wood

alex, give me bullsh-t skype would say for $100

3 MILLION years of compounding. the skype arguments can't even stand up against 50k compounding

[Ares]

that reads like popular science or washington post - easily offset/discredited. as one of our more thoughtful posters, you can do better.

Not at all. It asks a lot of questions which the original post didn't even bother to answer. Or do you really think the population could of ballooned to it's current size without technological advancement, agriculture, clean water, sanitation, etc?

It also doesn't even ponder the question of how many people didn't make it due to RH factorization alone. Prior to the 20th century if an RH negative mother was pregnant with an RH positive offspring the chances were high that the mothers body would of killed the fetus. In the early to mid 20th century there are shots that the mother has to take at the onset of pregnancy to keep her body from aborting it.

Popular science, Washington post accusation or not, these are legitimate questions that did not even factor into the chart in this thread. The author took a CURRENT doubling method and attempts to apply it to humanity from the past. Sorry that does not pass the smell test.

[Neuro]

Debatable. China became the most populated country in the world but I doubt the average Chinese family had plumbing. They used 'night soil' to fertilize the crops and it was fairly recently that they had access to refrigeration on a wide scale. What about India? The bastards crap in the street but they seem to be breeding like rabbits. So no, I believe improved agriculture and access to antibiotics trumps plumbing and refrigeration.

Good points. I was thinking of the horrid conditions of big cities in Europe a 150 years or so ago, where lack of fresh vegetables in wintertime, combined with cesspools of shit in the streets from outdoor toilets created infant mortalities where more died than survived. Indias toilet problem is actually quite recent, due to enormous population growth combined with urbanization. It is not too long ago Indias population was a fifth of what it currently is and most lived in the countryside. 50-60's actually, and perhaps antibiotics have something to do with this. A different aspect is that since India is tropical/subtropical it has constant supply of fresh fruits and vegetables and thus refrigerators are not needed for preservation...

Europe has barely had any population growth since the advent of antibiotics.

[cheka.]

it occurs to me that the parabola happened during the time that western countries birth rates fell dramatically. but the third world continued cranking them out..

that third world, esp africa, is probably not that far removed from the thousands of generations that preceded them.

so the skype b.s. - 'parabola because modern society and inventions' falls flat on its face. the undeveloped have no problems growing population

[hoarder]

Do they have a chart for these things? Methinks it would look the same as the chart in the OP.

[cheka.]

those things slowed down population growth (in civilized areas). before them you intentionally bred to produce workers - the more the better

[cheka.]

http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/03/01/human-population-evidence-for-a-young-earth/

If we started with two people 50,000 years ago, and the population doubled at the very slow rate of once every 150 years, 332 doublings would occur. And the world’s population would be an enormous figure—a 1 followed by 100 zeros; that is:

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

a very conservative estimate - in this calc, he used population growth of less than 0.5% per year

[hoarder]

those things slowed down population growth (in civilized areas). before them you intentionally bred to produce workers - the more the betterThat was only White people. The mass media/Hollywood chart looks the same and that's what caused to population reduction of Whites.

[Neuro]

it occurs to me that the parabola happened during the time that western countries birth rates fell dramatically. but the third world continued cranking them out..

that third world, esp africa, is probably not that far removed from the thousands of generations that preceded them.

so the skype b.s. - 'parabola because modern society and inventions' falls flat on its face. the undeveloped have no problems growing population

It's because we help them reduce infant and childhood mortality, with maternity clinics, Food programs, doctors w/o borders giving antibiotics, well digging projects. Without our unlimited good will they would have hit the glass ceiling long ago re population growth. Still most people in the west feel bad about 'exploiting' the poor niggers in AFRICA. Total success by the elders of Zion. Convince our women that ultimate freedom is not to be tied down with children, while convincing us that we owe the niggers in Africa to save their population explosion, that now in the name of equality is coming to wipe the white race out in Europe across the Mediterranean

[Neuro]

a very conservative estimate - in this calc, he used population growth of less than 0.5% per year

Until 500 years ago you didn't have that. Don't believe it? Try surviving and thriving naked in the forest (baseline). Report back to us a year later and tell us how it went if you are still alive...