What are the chances of that?

[Lee Ayrton]

Headline:

Study: Drinking coffee will lower your overall risk of death


Correctly if I'm wrong, but isn't the probability of my dying a solid 1.0?

[Shawn Wilson]

Eh. There is an implied "within X time period", which makes the math
work out.

[Peter Boulding]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 19:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com>
wrote in <jpgou3$9e$2...@reader1.panix.com>:

>Headline:
>
>Study: Drinking coffee will lower your overall risk of death
>
>
>Correctly if I'm wrong, but isn't the probability of my dying a solid 1.0?

Nonsense. More than half of all human beings haven't died.

<takes sip of coffee>


--
Regards, Peter Boulding
pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Images and Music: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music

[Greg Goss]

I think that they mean in any given year.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.

[Greg Goss]

That's what I just said. Then, the moment I hit "send", I realized
the word "overall" implies well, the overall risk, not just a
particular period.

[bill van]

In article <jpgou3$9e$2...@reader1.panix.com>,

Soitenly. It's a bad headline. Given what I've read of this study, it
should probably say something like

Study: Coffee drinkers may live longer

But, uh, "Correctly if I'm wrong"? Overactive spill chucker?

bill

[Mark Brader]

Lee Ayrton:

>> Correctly if I'm wrong, but isn't the probability of my dying a solid 1.0?

Peter Boulding:

> Nonsense. More than half of all human beings haven't died.

Well, more than half of all human beings now living haven't died.
But the others lived in the past when things were different, so we
obviously can't go by them.
--
Mark Brader The World Wide Web:
Toronto bringing you style over substance since 1993.
m...@vex.net -- Steve Summit

[Boron Elgar]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:34:52 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Lee Ayrton:
>>> Correctly if I'm wrong, but isn't the probability of my dying a solid 1.0?
>
>Peter Boulding:
>> Nonsense. More than half of all human beings haven't died.
>
>Well, more than half of all human beings now living haven't died.
>But the others lived in the past when things were different, so we
>obviously can't go by them.

Yeah, there were no Starbucks franchises in the Rift Valley.

Boron

[art...@yahoo.com]

It's a good thing, or people might have picked up some bad habilis.

[Kevin]

You have to feel sorry for all the people who rift there.

[Mary]

On May 22, 3:34 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Lee Ayrton:
>
> >> Correctly if I'm wrong, but isn't the probability of my dying a solid 1.0?
>
> Peter Boulding:
>
> > Nonsense. More than half of all human beings haven't died.
>
> Well, more than half of all human beings now living haven't died.
> But the others lived in the past when things were different, so we
> obviously can't go by them.

I'm pretty sure that ALL of the human beings now living haven't
died.

I mean, I know I haven't.

I think Peter's right though - due to rapid population growth, the
current population of the earth is something like half of all the
people who've ever lived.

Mary

[danny burstein]

In <7259a832-f709-4934...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> Mary <mrfea...@aol.com> writes:

>I think Peter's right though - due to rapid population growth, the
>current population of the earth is something like half of all the
>people who've ever lived.

Now STOP THAT, or we'll round up the AFU contingent
and learn you some lessons.

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[Mark Brader]

Mark Brader:

>> Well, more than half of all human beings now living haven't died.

"Mary":

> I'm pretty sure that ALL of the human beings now living haven't
> died.

I was allowing room for experimental error.

> I think Peter's right though - due to rapid population growth, the
> current population of the earth is something like half of all the
> people who've ever lived.

On this point, you think wrongly. It's not even close.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "This one isn't close. It's not even close to
m...@vex.net | being close." --Adam Beneschan

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Lee Ayrton]

Yeesh. I blame fat fingers. "Correct me if..."

[Lee Ayrton]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:07:06 -0600, Greg Goss wrote:

> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 22, 12:20 pm, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Headline:
>>>
>>> Study: Drinking coffee will lower your overall risk of death
>>>
>>> Correctly if I'm wrong, but isn't the probability of my dying a solid
>>> 1.0?
>>
>>
>>Eh. There is an implied "within X time period", which makes the math
>>work out.
>
> That's what I just said. Then, the moment I hit "send", I realized the
> word "overall" implies well, the overall risk, not just a particular
> period.

That's what I was thinking.

[Mary]

On 5/22/2012 4:29 PM, danny burstein wrote:
> In<7259a832-f709-4934...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> Mary<mrfea...@aol.com> writes:
>
>> I think Peter's right though - due to rapid population growth, the
>> current population of the earth is something like half of all the
>> people who've ever lived.
>
> Now STOP THAT, or we'll round up the AFU contingent
> and learn you some lessons.
>

Ooooh. So what percentage of all the people who ever lived who are
currently alive, then?

Mary

[BillT...@invalid.com]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:06:14 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Headline:
>>
>>Study: Drinking coffee will lower your overall risk of death
>>
>>
>>Correctly if I'm wrong, but isn't the probability of my dying a solid 1.0?
>
>I think that they mean in any given year.

OK. How 'bout me, year 2018?

[M C Hamster]

This guy estimates it's 12%.
http://blog.1000memories.com/75-number-of-people-who-have-ever-lived

This Scientific American article estimates it's 6%.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-living-outnumber-dead
--

"Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival

[M C Hamster]

On 23 May 2012 03:19:23 -0500, M C Hamster

The SciAm article says this: "And the U.N. predicts the world
population will stabilize at 10 billion inhabitants sometime after
2200." I'm somewhat unclear how or why this will happen. Will it be
economic realities (e.g., shortages of food) which force this? Will
there be forced sterilization to make sure it doesn't continue to
grow? As long as people are getting married and having sex, aren't
they going to continue to have children and while the replacement rate
may be fairly close to zero, won't it likely exceed zero?

[Mark Brader]

"M C Hamster":

> The SciAm article says this: "And the U.N. predicts the world
> population will stabilize at 10 billion inhabitants sometime after
> 2200." I'm somewhat unclear how or why this will happen. Will it be
> economic realities (e.g., shortages of food) which force this? Will
> there be forced sterilization to make sure it doesn't continue to
> grow?

I have not researched this question.

> As long as people are getting married

(Why is that relevant?)

> and having sex, aren't they going to continue to have children

It seems likely.

> and while the replacement rate may be fairly close to zero, won't
> it likely exceed zero?

Well, evidently the UN thinks that's *not* likely. Personally
I wouldn't be surprised if it stabilizes well below 10 billion
after a global crisis well before 2200, but I hope not to see
this proved right.
--
Mark Brader "How many pessimists end up by desiring
Toronto the things they fear, in order to prove
m...@vex.net that they are right." -- Robert Mallet

[Greg Goss]

Wealthy societies invent retirement funds that make children less
necessary. And recognition of women as sentient beings, combined with
the availability of technological birth control means that sex doesn't
have to mean babies unless you want them.

Wealthy wives tend to have few babies.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 23, 10:44 am, M C Hamster <davol...@nospam-speakeasy.net>
wrote:

> The SciAm article says this:  "And the U.N. predicts the world
> population will stabilize at 10 billion inhabitants sometime after
> 2200."   I'm somewhat unclear how or why this will happen.  Will it be
> economic realities (e.g., shortages of food) which force this?   Will
> there be forced sterilization to make sure it doesn't continue to
> grow?  As long as people are getting married and having sex, aren't
> they going to continue to have children and while the replacement rate
> may be fairly close to zero, won't it likely exceed zero?

Economic development lowers fertility rates (via various social/
behavioral and technological means). We are now living near the end
of an unusual time when we had technology lowering mortality, but
habits keeping fertility high. This caused the 'recent' population
explosion. Habits do catch up eventually. 1st world countries, as a
rule, are not growing in population organically (US population growth
is almost entirely a function of immigration), and a great many
countries have *declining* (and aging) populations.

Your fascist fantasies of forced popualtion control notwithstanding,
the world's population will stabilize entirely on its own.

[Peter Boulding]

On 23 May 2012 12:44:01 -0500, M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net>
wrote in <c58qr7le99lfef9td...@4ax.com>:

>The SciAm article says this: "And the U.N. predicts the world
>population will stabilize at 10 billion inhabitants sometime after
>2200." I'm somewhat unclear how or why this will happen. Will it be
>economic realities (e.g., shortages of food) which force this? Will
>there be forced sterilization to make sure it doesn't continue to
>grow? As long as people are getting married and having sex, aren't
>they going to continue to have children and while the replacement rate
>may be fairly close to zero, won't it likely exceed zero?

1. There won't be enough food to go round.

2. For reasons not yet fully understood, sperm counts are plummeting. This
has, as yet, no observable effects but the tipping point is fast
approaching.

3. Thanks to ever-increasing disparity, those who have got enough food will
be so obese that they won't be able to procreate (even with their eyes
shut).

4. According to current social trends we'll all be either gay or married to
Buicks.

5...

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

On 05/23/2012 10:44 AM, M C Hamster wrote:
>
> The SciAm article says this: "And the U.N. predicts the world
> population will stabilize at 10 billion inhabitants sometime after
> 2200." I'm somewhat unclear how or why this will happen. Will it be
> economic realities (e.g., shortages of food) which force this?

Mostly other economic realities. Rich countries are mostly already
shrinking, except for due to immigration. And poor countries are
getting richer.

> Will
> there be forced sterilization to make sure it doesn't continue to
> grow? As long as people are getting married and having sex, aren't
> they going to continue to have children and while the replacement rate
> may be fairly close to zero,

The replacement rate is slightly over 2.

Xho

[M C Hamster]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 18:23:00 -0700, Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
<xho...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 05/23/2012 10:44 AM, M C Hamster wrote:
>>
>> The SciAm article says this: "And the U.N. predicts the world
>> population will stabilize at 10 billion inhabitants sometime after
>> 2200." I'm somewhat unclear how or why this will happen. Will it be
>> economic realities (e.g., shortages of food) which force this?
>
>Mostly other economic realities. Rich countries are mostly already
>shrinking, except for due to immigration. And poor countries are
>getting richer.
>

I didn't realize our population was shrinking once immigration is
removed from the equation. I tried to find a cite but was not
successful.

This page gives three projections of population growth for the US, but
appears to be old, possibly from 1990 or so.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html

I guess as I just think about it a little that if people simply do
what we did, which is have two kids and stop there, the population
will not grow. It doesn't mean they are denied the joys and ancillary
aspects of raising children.

> > Will
>> there be forced sterilization to make sure it doesn't continue to
>> grow? As long as people are getting married and having sex, aren't
>> they going to continue to have children and while the replacement rate
>> may be fairly close to zero,
>
>The replacement rate is slightly over 2.
>

Oh yeah, right, I erred.

[Greg Goss]

M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:

><xho...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Mostly other economic realities. Rich countries are mostly already
>>shrinking, except for due to immigration. And poor countries are
>>getting richer.
>>
>
>I didn't realize our population was shrinking once immigration is
>removed from the equation. I tried to find a cite but was not
>successful.

Canada has a fairly high immigration rate, mostly fairly young people
who are still willing to have kids. Supposedly this high immigration
rate of younger people makes us one of the best countries in the world
to weather the baby boom retirement disaster. (among those countries
that actually had a postwar baby boom.)

[Jesper Lauridsen]

On 2012-05-23, M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>> In<7259a832-f709-4934...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> Mary<mrfea...@aol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I think Peter's right though - due to rapid population growth, the
>>>>> current population of the earth is something like half of all the
>>>>> people who've ever lived.

For that to be true, every generation would have to be *at least* twice
as big as the previous generation.

> The SciAm article says this: "And the U.N. predicts the world
> population will stabilize at 10 billion inhabitants sometime after
> 2200." I'm somewhat unclear how or why this will happen. Will it be
> economic realities (e.g., shortages of food) which force this?

Not a shortage of food, but experience shows that wealth leads to
decreasing birth rates.

I don't see how they can fix on a number, though.

[Hactar]

In article <jqojve$ap1$1...@dont-email.me>,

Jesper Lauridsen <uselastname...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-05-23, M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> In<7259a832-f709-4934...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
> Mary<mrfea...@aol.com> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I think Peter's right though - due to rapid population growth, the
> >>>>> current population of the earth is something like half of all the
> >>>>> people who've ever lived.
>
> For that to be true, every generation would have to be *at least* twice
> as big as the previous generation.

ITYM s/generation/lifetime/ BICBW.

--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool;
and he who dares not is a slave. -Sir William Drummond