So take a look at statistics : http://www.worldometers.info/
- Quite interesting. How accurate is it? ^_^;;
not very from the looks of it
Well, the rates at which the numbers change are probably based on accurate statistics. I'd guess it's accurate enough, the updating numbers just make it more dramatic.
If it were accurate, I fear the figure for military spending would dwarf everything else... 
You really think a new person is becoming overweight every second, that's not how getting fat works. There are others to are obliviously incorrect just making a point.
Definitions of "overweight" based on body mass index are nothing to be worried about. BMI can't tell the difference between muscle and fat. So if you have more muscle than the average fellow, you're overweight but not overfat.
Quote:
Well, the rates at which the numbers change are probably based on accurate statistics. I'd guess it's accurate enough, the updating numbers just make it more dramatic.
Exactly. This is probably not accurate in itself, but based on accurate statistics to change the number in real times using linear approximation, so, unfortunately, it should not be that wrong.
Yes the updating numbers are frightening, especially the amount of people that are hungry and don't have acess to water. 3 times more births than deaths can't be a good thing either (not that I don't like children but I'm speaking for natural resources).
When I see the number of people that don't have acess to safe drinking water increase I immagine the guy oppening up the faucet and nothing comes out... probably not accurate but still terrible.
tepples wrote:
Definitions of "overweight" based on body mass index are nothing to be worried about. BMI can't tell the difference between muscle and fat. So if you have more muscle than the average fellow, you're overweight but not overfat.
True, and I'm pretty sure I have much less muscles than the average fellow
3 times more births than death is really a problem. I think this is the most frightening stat of all the page.
I indeed think that many of other "bad" stats would be rapidly corrected if there was less births...
I indeed think that many of other "bad" stats would be rapidly corrected if there was less births...
I agree. They should really distribute huge qutities of condoms in poorer countries, among with other things.
Now let's see what great catastrophe awaits us in 2012 :p
Now let's see what great catastrophe awaits us in 2012 :p
Bregalad wrote:
They should really distribute huge qutities of condoms in poorer countries, among with other things.
It wouldn't work. Here in Brazil for example the government does (or used to do, I'm not really following) this really stupid thing where they give a certain amount of money per child to poor families, and another amount for each child in school.
This is supposed to help poor families and improve education, but guess what happens? People have more kids on purpose to get more money! And I doubt those kids are raised well with parents like that.
I think they should prevent people to have more than 2 children, and more than 1 in really surpopulated areas, until world population goes lower than 2-3 bilion. If they did that to my parents, I wouldn't be born and wouldn' thave to suffer the pain of life.
Bregalad wrote:
I think they should prevent people to have more than 2 children, and more than 1 in really surpopulated areas, until world population goes lower than 2-3 bilion. If they did that to my parents, I wouldn't be born and wouldn' thave to suffer the pain of life.
Life is very painful, yes. I subscribe to the theory that nobody should do more reproductively than replace themselves [or less]. So far, so good. After all, I have two kids and can't imagine being able to handle more. Then I go to work and there are people with 8 - 11 kids!
I found the "end of oil" and "end of gas" numbers most troublesome. That, and the fact that oil and food are "linked" -- but how valid is that link if it is just two graphs that appear to have the same profile over time? In 42+some years will planes fly?
NESICIDE wrote:
I found the "end of oil" and "end of gas" numbers most troublesome.
We can live without oil and gas just fine. I'd worry about water and air pollution.
^^yeah cause we definitly don't need plastics and have plenty of other fuel sources. 
Jeroen wrote:
^^yeah cause we definitly don't need plastics and have plenty of other fuel sources.
You don't need any of that if your body can't have air and water. I didn't say life would be the same without oil and gas, it would certainly be different, but while there's water and air there will at least be life.
Well yeah what you need is pure air, clean water and decent food in order to matain life. Easy acess to common drinkable water and comfortable toilets is a huge plus. I however really wish the humanity could deal with only renewable sources of energy, so that it can go on forever without returning to a new stone age. But I'd say a new stone age may be better than the end of all humanity - but still I wouldn't be happy about both.
We all know there are alternative fuels and there are materials close to petroleum based plastics. If all the oil where to mysteriously dissapear tomorrow I believe we would be back on track (but not exactly where we where) in less than 5 years. (I would really miss vaseline 
)
We would probably be better off in the long run as certain crazy organizations based in the middle east would lose there power and it would probably result on more income coming into the USA.
Naturally since oil is not going to dissapear tomorrow we ain't gonna stop using huge amounts of it till we really do run out.
)
We would probably be better off in the long run as certain crazy organizations based in the middle east would lose there power and it would probably result on more income coming into the USA.
Naturally since oil is not going to dissapear tomorrow we ain't gonna stop using huge amounts of it till we really do run out.
Well - all that matters to me is that all sources of energy the humanity uses will eventually become renewable so that technology can continue to exist for a much longer time - and that the air, water, fire and earth remains safe enough for humans and animals to survive.
Now as long as there will be sucky governments arround the world they will be problems. My country is supposely the 8th more democraty country in the world, and I can promise you guys its really not that much democratic at all. This makes it very frightening for the 159 countries which follows.
Now as long as there will be sucky governments arround the world they will be problems. My country is supposely the 8th more democraty country in the world, and I can promise you guys its really not that much democratic at all. This makes it very frightening for the 159 countries which follows.
Really a democracy is suppose to be based on popular opinion and even if that where the case the popular plan is not usually the best idea. Especially when you take into consideration how easy it is to control what the masses think. Although since people are people any other system would just result in even greater corruption.</state obvious>
Bregalad wrote:
Well - all that matters to me is that all sources of energy the humanity uses will eventually become renewable so that technology can continue to exist for a much longer time - and that the air, water, fire and earth remains safe enough for humans and animals to survive.
Oh, a complete switch to renewable sources of energy (apart from the odd little emission here or there) is going to have to happen a lot sooner than that. In fact, the question is no longer preventing harm to the biosphere or humanity itself, but reducing it.
Quote:
Now as long as there will be sucky governments around the world they will be problems.
Yes, the governments do not even take it seriously. They care about SLOWING the GROWTH of emissions, purely as a political gesture, when, for the sake of the continuation of diverse life on this planet, carbon emissions need to be even less than they were 30-40 years ago. Well, actually, the governments of island nations like the Maldives care about global warming, since their existence is endangered.
It's not just the environment, though. Due to the current global economy's exploitation of developing countries, most of the world's industry has a direct human cost as well. Profit tends to win out over ideas of universal human rights and dignity. One noteworthy example is the general dependence upon 'conflict minerals' from the Congo for the cheap production of today's gadgets.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section002gr ... _the_congo
Not a pretty picture, but one that would be solvable if the international community actually cared. But, again, they care about easy and cheap trade, and there is no real accountability. Business is business. It's been said that there is now more slavery in the world than ever.
Sorry, I live in a country (United States) where a lot of people just want to keep consuming and not think about any of this. It's frustrating...Rid wrote:
3 times more births than death is really a problem. I think this is the most frightening stat of all the page.
I definitely agree there. If you've seen the growth curve over time, it has literally skyrocketed in the past few centuries. And yet the far right are worried that gays will end the human race due to no more reproduction.
On the "bright" side, our entire economic system, based on usury, relies on exponential growth of the population (and thus, of consumption) as well; on a planet with finite resources.