AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Number of people alive today vs. forever
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
One of the important religious questions arises when thinking about reincarnation if the number of people alive today is greater than the number of people who have ever died.

According to Snopes.com, this assertion is false.

The rationalization for this judgment is based on a rough estimate. Snopes asserts that estimates for the number of people who have died since the pyramids were built (i.e., about 5,000 years ago) are around 6 billion, which is fairly close to the current world population. The estimates vary about how long modern man has existed and in what numbers. Snopes says most demographers peg the number of dead at approximately 60 billion, which means that there are several dead ancestors for each one of us, and we're not likely to catch up for a long, long time — if ever.

I think these demographers are not mathematicians. If its taken 5,000 years to reach 6 billion, then the population increase is exponential in nature. meaning the increase is not linear but on an upswelling curve. For a good example, ask a friend to take your house for free, and the only payment he has to make is to put a penny on a checkerboard, and then double it on each square. If he falls for this, then you are rich beyond your wildest dreams, because there is not enough money in the world to pay off 2 to the 63rd power. At 2^32 it would equal $42,949,672,96, and you're only halfway through the board. Consider this kind of increase in population - and I think we can assume a very small primordial population.

The curve may not be 2^n, but 1.2^n or less.

Anyone with a good guess on how many generations mankind has existed? or how many times we've almost been wiped out?
I've considered this subject over the years, and the population numbers simply don't add up for reincarnation to be viable.
If population growth exponentially, than present population is equal to the sum of all dead ones. Because exponent is equal to its integral (if I recall correctly). :lol:
Its mathematics, to hell with it. S5
Gunnen4u Wrote:Its mathematics, to hell with it. S5
ag Wrote:If population growth exponentially, than present population is equal to the sum of all dead ones. Because exponent is equal to its integral (if I recall correctly). :lol:

Integral [exp(a*x)] = exp(a*x)/a

so you're correct only in the special case of a=1. None of this implies that present population is equal to the sum of all dead ones.
WmLambert Wrote:Anyone with a good guess on how many generations mankind has existed? or how many times we've almost been wiped out?
If you tell me when the mankind originated, I'll answer. Each generation is about 25 years, as a first approximation.
Remember, the bubonic plague killed at least one-third of the human race. And there have been other instances of mass killings in human history, from natural disasters as well as from virtually constant warfare.

But if we ignore the distant past, and just look at the past four generations, with 22-25 years per generation, the math there should be easier to handle, conceptually. How many of the first few generations are still alive, and how many have died so they are available to be reincarnated? We should be able to estimate the general increase in population through four generations. If not enough people have died in the past four generations to provide reincarnated souls for all the people presently living, then this is a circumstance that should always be true. You go back four generations, and perform the same calculation for the previous four generations, and you will probably wind up with about the same discrepancy. Logically, no matter how far back you go, the discrepancy will remain true, even discounting any possible near-extinctions among humans.
shurochka Wrote:
ag Wrote:If population growth exponentially, than present population is equal to the sum of all dead ones. Because exponent is equal to its integral (if I recall correctly). :lol:

Integral [exp(a*x)] = exp(a*x)/a

so you're correct only in the special case of a=1. None of this implies that present population is equal to the sum of all dead ones.
Oops. I just noticed that you cought me in a sloppiness. Thanks. :oops:
I wrote the original post with a thought to demonstrate that the exp model is spectacularly wrong: there are no stable processes exist that confirm to it long enough to be relevant. Usually the exp can be used as a short transitional regime to a (more relevant) sigmoid, bell, oscillatory, or power-law shape. Or some combination of all. However, IFF one insists on using the exp model, then:
Integral of exp(ax) for the interval from x=0 to x=now: I(now) = (1/a)* (exp(a*now) – 1)
Population now: P(now) = exp(a*now)
And: P(now) = I(now)*a + 1 and with “now” being large the additional term “1” can be ignored so the population now is equal to the number of all who lived in the past multiplied (one can say scaled) by “a”. Whatever "a" is. And their graphs are the same. S1
What about the people who were reincarnated as animals? Can your math magicians come up with a varible for that?
HellRazer Wrote:What about the people who were reincarnated as animals? Can your math magicians come up with a varible for that?

Ah, you have arrived, welcome!

I stick by my earlier comment concerning math. S1
Gunnen4u Wrote:Ah, you have arrived, welcome!

Yes, Gozar has returned. Let today mark the beginning of the end for you mere mortals. :twisted:
Hmmm... HellRazer rhymes with Mazer - but there the similarity ends.

Thank goodness for both of us.

Awaiting your avatar with bated breath, or baited, if you prefer to eat worms.
HellRazer Wrote:
Gunnen4u Wrote:Ah, you have arrived, welcome!

Yes, Gozar has returned. Let today mark the beginning of the end for you mere mortals. :twisted:


Let me guess.........mmmmm............16y/o? maybe............15y/O?
I've raised a few sons 8) S1
Math and religion don't mix.