NationStates Jolt Archive

If Earth's population was shrunk into a village of just 100 people- with all the human ratios existing in the world still remaining-what would this tiny, diverse village look like? That's exactly what Phillip M. Harter, a medical doctor at the Stanford University School of Medicine, attempted to figure out. This is what he found.

57 would be Asian.

21 would be European.

14 would be from the Western Hemisphere.

8 would be African.

52 would be female.

48 would be male.

70 would be nonwhite.

30 would be white.

70 would be non-Christian.

30 would be Christian.

89 would be heterosexual.

11 would be homosexual.

6 people would possess 59 percent of the entire world's wealth.

All 6 would be from the United States.

80 would live in substandard housing.

70 would be unable to read

50 would suffer from malnutrition.

1 would be near death.

1 would be pregnant.

1 would have a college education.

1 would own a computer.

The following is an anonymous interpretation

Think of it this way...

If you live in a good home, have plenty to eat and can read, you are a member of a very select group. And if you have a good house, food, can read and have a computer, you are among the very elite.

If you woke up this morning with more health than illness... you are more fortunate than the million who will not survive this week.

If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation... you are ahead of 500 million people in the world.

If you can attend a church meeting without fear of harassment, arrest, torture, or death...you are fortunate, more than three billion people in the world can't.

If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof overhead and a place to sleep...you are richer than 75% of this world.

If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change in a dish someplace ...you are among the top 8% of the world's wealthy.

If your parents are still alive and still married...you are very rare.

If you hold up your head with a smile on your face and are truly thankful... You are blessed because the majority can, but most do not.

If you can hold someone's hand, hug them or even touch them on the shoulder...you are blessed because you can offer healing touch.

If you can read this message, you are more blessed than over two billion people in the world that cannot read at all.



--------------------
His Royal HIGHness, King Noah Fentz, Kingdom of Slywolfe.

6 people would possess 59 percent of the entire world's wealth.

All 6 would be from the United States.

Is it wrong that I smiled when I read that bit?

We'll need to carbon date this sucker...

I'm sure all those numbers dont add up to 100... did you meant 1000 or are the numbers on the list percentages?

I'm sure all those numbers dont add up to 100... did you meant 1000 or are the numbers on the list percentages?
Some of the '100' fit into more than one catagory.

We'll need to carbon date this sucker...
Indeed. I think the cutsy email should end by saying, "All 100 are now dead from old age."

On the contrary, although the source may be several years old, it still remains fairly accurate.

http://www.randomania.net/

I'm sure all those numbers dont add up to 100... did you meant 1000 or are the numbers on the list percentages?

If 100 is the number at the top thery're all percentages ;)

If Earth's population was shrunk into a village of just 100 people- with all the human ratios existing in the world still remaining-what would this tiny, diverse village look like? That's exactly what Phillip M. Harter, a medical doctor at the Stanford University School of Medicine, attempted to figure out. This is what he found.
Wonder what he was taking when he thought of doing this?

14 would be from the Western Hemisphere.
What and where is "The Western Hemisphere"?


6 people would possess 59 percent of the entire world's wealth.

All 6 would be from the United States.
Now this is where cutsy facts like this go wrong.
I assume it means that since the US owns 60% of the World's wealth, but only has 6% of the world's population, then the 6 US village people own 60% of the wealth.
(If it was about the World's 6 richest men you have, according to Forbes, 3 Americans, 1 Indian, 1 Mexican and 1 Swede [not in that order])
It doesn't work like that. Wealth in the states, in case this good doctor hadn't realised, isn't distributed evenly. By reducing it down to simple terms, you reach a point where it stops making sense.
It's a good way to get ppl thinking about things, but you can't take it as fact, or even seriously.

btw, showing how old this list is - the US is <5% of the Worlds population now, not 6%.



If you can attend a church meeting without fear of harassment, arrest, torture, or death...you are fortunate, more than three billion people in the world can't.
Why would I want to?

On the contrary, although the source may be several years old, it still remains fairly accurate.

http://www.randomania.net/

Not quite.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/populate.htm

Isn't it great when statistics are denounced based on statistics from a different source? What is the sources' motivation? Is it accurate or self-serving? The motivation for my post was simple... instill thought and for each and everyone in this forum to realize just how fortunate he/she is...

What part of statistics used to denounce statistics didn't you get?

Isn't it great when statistics are denounced based on statistics from a different source? What is the sources' motivation? Is it accurate or self-serving?

The nice thing about Snopes is that it is very open about those things ;) And provides sources.

The motivation for my post was simple... instill thought and for each and everyone in this forum to realize just how fortunate he/she is...
Which will work for about 10 seconds... and then people will start bitching about how expensive gasoline is getting an that they cannot afford a third car and fourth tv.

Snopes statistics come from a definate source (Why do yours have no source?)

However if you look at the site, its saying that the e-mail which did the rounds a few years ago, is innacurate. But it's not saying that we are as bad off as the average. By being able to read this, especially on a home computer you are fortunate.

If my world was broken down into a village of one hundred people, I still wouldn't give a fuck about your humanist crap.

Rawls is so right.

What and where is "The Western Hemisphere"?

LOL. You were joking, right?

If the world was a hundred people they would die from the nuclear winter.

If the world was broken down into a village of 100 people, I'd account for a sizable portion of alcohol consumption.

If my world was broken down into a village of one hundred people, I still wouldn't give a fuck about your humanist crap.

If the world was to be populated by 100 people, I'd make sure you're not gonna be one of them.:sniper:

And that means a lot, I have this pacifist tick.:D

*snip*

Let's do this math. 70% can't read. Over 2 billion can't read. Now, if one is logical over two billion would likely mean between 2 and 2.5 billion and closer to 2, but we'll be generous and say 2.3 billion. So 2.3 billion/.70 = 3.3 billion people in the world. How old is this email? When did we have 3.3 billion people in the world or did this professor just really, really suck at math?

Meanwhile, as was pointed out, the 60% of the wealth he was referring to would not be distributed to the 6. He clearly didn't really research these statistics before deciding to create spam that would eventually be debunked on every chat server and forum in the world.

I wonder what it's like to be proven wrong by people all over the world, over and over again, about the same thing, repeatedly, for a decade?

EDIT: Make that 3.5 decades because we hit 4 billion people in 1974 and since he was talking about a time when we were at less than 3.5 billion...

Or again, perhaps he just really, really sucked at math.

Let's do this math. 70% can't read. Over 2 billion can't read. Now, if one is logical over two billion would likely mean between 2 and 2.5 billion and closer to 2, but we'll be generous and say 2.3 billion. So 2.3 billion/.70 = 3.3 billion people in the world. How old is this email? When did we have 3.3 billion people in the world or did this professor just really, really suck at math?

Meanwhile, as was pointed out, the 60% of the wealth he was referring to would not be distributed to the 6. He clearly didn't really research these statistics before deciding to create spam that would eventually be debunked on every chat server and forum in the world.

I wonder what it's like to be proven wrong by people all over the world, over and over again, about the same thing, repeatedly, for a decade?
We probably had 3.3 billion people in the world in the mid sixties.

We probably had 3.3 billion people in the world in the mid sixties.

Yeah, I just found that.

If the world was to be populated by 100 people, I'd make sure you're not gonna be one of them.:sniper:

And that means a lot, I have this pacifist tick.:D
That's a great attitude. :rolleyes:

If the world were broken down into 100 people, 20 of them would be forum spammers.

Isn't it great when statistics are denounced based on statistics from a different source? What is the sources' motivation? Is it accurate or self-serving? The motivation for my post was simple... instill thought and for each and everyone in this forum to realize just how fortunate he/she is...

The source's motivation is to show how inaccurate your spam email was. Your spam email uses no sources. The link uses a source for every peice of information. Your spam email has glaring inaccuracies even if we bastardize the worst of information we have and your spam email doesn't even agree with itself. It's poorly written. It's inaccurate. It's gives a false picture of the world and appears to do it on purpose.

Annoing and BS is not a good combination.

If the world were broken down into 100 people, 20 of them would be forum spammers.
Duh, only one would have a computer and what would be on there would be of his creation and he would suck cos' he'd be illetriate anyhow:P

That's a great attitude. :rolleyes:

Thank you...although I thought I made clear I myself noticed that it's not a great attitude in that same comment.:mp5: :p

Duh, only one would have a computer and what would be on there would be of his creation and he would suck cos' he'd be illetriate anyhow:P
Well, he's a spammer, and because he's a spammer, he needs his fellow spammers to come cluster around and show the spammer love. So every day he'd invite the 19 most spammish people to his house, and they'd all use his computer to spam.

Assuming a population of 6 billion people, if the world were split into 100 people each person would weigh an average of about 3,800,000,000 kilograms.

Sexual relations would easily be mistaken for earthquakes.

Assuming a population of 6 billion people, if the world were split into 100 people each person would weigh an average of about 3,800,000,000 kilograms.

Sweet Ken Lay's Zombie!

This giant woman will devour us all! AEEIIIII!!!

*snip*
--------------------
His Royal HIGHness, King Noah Fentz, Kingdom of Slywolfe.

Looks like this is nOOB UL week.

Welcome to the internet. Please remember that what you read on line, much like what you read in real life, is often unreliable, at best, and quite frequently downright false. Passing this along makes you look silly. As does posting "in
character" in NSG.

Aisle of Man



Claim: If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people, that village would resemble one described in this piece.

Status: Not quite.

Example:


If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look something like the following.

There would be:

* 57 Asians
* 21 Europeans
* 14 from the Western Hemisphere, both north and south
* 8 Africans

* 52 would be female
* 48 would be male

* 70 would be non-white
* 30 would be white

* 70 would be non-Christian
* 30 would be Christian

* 89 would be heterosexual
* 11 would be homosexual

* 6 people would possess 59% of the entire world's wealth and all 6 would be from the United States.

* 80 would live in substandard housing

* 70 would be unable to read

* 50 would suffer from malnutrition

* 1 would be near death; 1 would be near birth

* 1 (yes, only 1) would have a college education

* 1 would own a computer

Origins: This
thing has been circulating for ages (in Internet time) now, and people seem to find the contrasts it highlights between the "haves" and "have-nots" of the world compelling. However, much of the information it presents is questionable, out of date, or poorly-defined:

57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 from the Western Hemisphere, both north and south
8 Africans

According to the United Nations World Population Prospects document, the world population in the year 2000 was about 6.1 billion, with this geographic distribution:

* Africa: 794,000,000
* Asia: 3,672,000,000
* Latin America and Caribbean: 519,000,000
* Europe: 727,000,000
* North America: 314,000,000
* Oceania: 51,000,000

If we calculate the corresponding percentages (and lump North America, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Oceania into the "western hemisphere" category), we get the following ratios for our population of 100:

* Asians: 60
* Europeans: 12
* Western Hemisphereans: 15
(9 Latin Americans/Caribbeans, 5 North Americans, 1 Oceanian)
* Africans: 13

52 would be female
48 would be male

According to that same United Nations document, the world population in the year 2000 consisted of 3,051,099,000 men and 3,005,616,000 women, which (with a little rounding) breaks down to 50 men and 50 women in a population of 100.

70 would be non-white
30 would be white

Here we run into definitional problems trying to lump entire continents' worth of people into one class based on some nebulous concept of color. What makes a person "white" or "black"? If we say that Africans are considered "black," does that categorization apply equally to Nigerians, Egyptians, and South Africans? (Is the Middle East part of Africa or Asia?) Should the classification of Asians as "white" or "non-white" be based solely upon skin tone, or upon geographical and cultural factors as well?

The numbers given here seem to be based upon the classification of Europeans and Western Hemisphereans as "white" and Africans and Asians as "non-white" (and the assumption that those continents are homogeneous in racial composition). With those qualfications, a population of 100 (based on year 2000 numbers) would include 27 whites and 73 non-whites.

70 would be non-Christian
30 would be Christian

According to the chart at Adherents.com, which provides estimates of "the number of people who have at least a minimal level of self-identification as adherents" of a particular religion, the world's population in early 2001 was 33% Christian. So, our reduced population of 100 would be composed of 33 Christians and 67 non-Christians.

89 would be heterosexual
11 would be homosexual

This one is almost impossible to estimate with any reasonable degree of accuracy. The classification of people as being either "heterosexual" or "homosexual" is too dependent upon subjective criteria, and the answers of respondents to surveys about their sexual habits are too easily influenced by other social factors. The common figure of "10% of the population is homosexual" is often bandied about, but that number is derived from a misapplication of a Kinsey study which was not based upon a representative sample of the population. One can find estimates that place of the percentage of the population considered to be homosexual anywhere between 1-2% and 25%-35%, but a reasonable survey of the more controlled studies would put the figure in about the 2-3% range (for males, at least).

6 people would possess 59% of the entire world's wealth, and all 6 would be from the United States.

This claim demonstrates the precariousness of trying to summarize a very large, diverse population in a few simple statistics. For starters, our miniature world of 100 people only includes 5 people from all of North America, so any statement involving 6 people from the United States just doesn't compute!

"Wealth" is a concept difficult to measure with any precision, but we can use Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a reasonable approximation. If we take some figures from the CIA's World Factbook 2000, we find that the estimated GDP of the United States in 1999 was $9.255 trillion, out of a world total of $40.7 trillion. In other words, in 1999 the United States possessed about 23% of the world's wealth. If we assume that all 5 North Americans in our miniature world are from the United States, and that they have inherited an amount of wealth proportional to that held by the United States in the "real" world, together they'd still have only 23% of the world's wealth, not 59%. Even if you could find some combination of 6 people in our putative population of 100 who held 59% of the total wealth, they wouldn't all be from the United States.

80 would live in substandard housing

This statement can't be assessed without knowing the definition of "substandard" being employed here. "Substandard" by whose standards? And if a full 80% of the world's population truly lives in "substandard" housing, doesn't that indicate whatever standard is being used must be too high?

Estimates for this figure are all over the map as well (some United Nations housing statistics are informative but don't really answer the question), but a 1999 article in International Wildlife puts the estimate at 33%, not the 80% figure offered here.

70 would be unable to read

A 1998 UNICEF study put the world illiteracy rate at 16%, well short of the 70% claimed here.

50 would suffer from malnutrition

The World Health Organization puts the malnutrition figure at about 33%.

1 would be near death
1 would be near birth

This statement is simply too vague to evaluate. At any given time, one person in a hundred is near death? Just how "near"? Is age a factor in this statistic?

1 (yes, only 1) would have a college education

Again, we have to know whether our miniature world's inhabitants represent current population trends in age as well as other factors. According to the United Nations World Population Prospects document, the median age of the world's population was 26.5 in 2000, with that figure being lower in less developed (and more populous) areas of the world. (The median age of Africans, for example, was only 18.4 in 2000.) So, this statistic could be true simply because much of our miniature population would be too young to have finished college yet (assuming that "having a college education" means "graduated with the equivalent of a bachelor's degree"). However, if we assume everyone in our miniature world is of sufficient age and apply the current graduation rates of the USA (33%) to its share of the population (5), we'd have almost two college graduates from America alone. And other parts of the world (e.g., New Zealand, Netherlands, Britain, and Norway) have graduation rates equal to or higher than the USA's.

1 would own a computer

Computer ownership rates in the USA now indicate that over 50% of American households have computers, so if we assume that "households" can be equated with "people" in our miniature world, our 5 Americans alone would have at least two computers between them.

On the other hand, if this is the kind of material having a computer gives one access to, the inhabitants of our miniature world just might opt to do without them.

Last updated: 27 March 2001
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/populate.htm

Too bad the numbers of heterosexuals and homosexuals are odd numbers...I guess the 89th heterosexual and the 11th homosexual will just have to work something out. :cool:

Too bad the numbers of heterosexuals and homosexuals are odd numbers...I guess the 89th heterosexual and the 11th homosexual will just have to work something out. :cool:

Or just have some polygamy ;)

If Earth's population was shrunk into a village of just 100 people- with all the human ratios existing in the world still remaining-what would this tiny, diverse village look like? That's exactly what Phillip M. Harter, a medical doctor at the Stanford University School of Medicine, attempted to figure out. This is what he found.

57 would be Asian.

21 would be European.

14 would be from the Western Hemisphere.

8 would be African.

52 would be female.

48 would be male.

70 would be nonwhite.

30 would be white.

70 would be non-Christian.

30 would be Christian.

89 would be heterosexual.

11 would be homosexual.

6 people would possess 59 percent of the entire world's wealth.

All 6 would be from the United States.

80 would live in substandard housing.

70 would be unable to read

50 would suffer from malnutrition.

1 would be near death.

1 would be pregnant.

1 would have a college education.

1 would own a computer.

The following is an anonymous interpretation

Think of it this way...

If you live in a good home, have plenty to eat and can read, you are a member of a very select group. And if you have a good house, food, can read and have a computer, you are among the very elite.

If you woke up this morning with more health than illness... you are more fortunate than the million who will not survive this week.

If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation... you are ahead of 500 million people in the world.

If you can attend a church meeting without fear of harassment, arrest, torture, or death...you are fortunate, more than three billion people in the world can't.

If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof overhead and a place to sleep...you are richer than 75% of this world.

If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change in a dish someplace ...you are among the top 8% of the world's wealthy.

If your parents are still alive and still married...you are very rare.

If you hold up your head with a smile on your face and are truly thankful... You are blessed because the majority can, but most do not.

If you can hold someone's hand, hug them or even touch them on the shoulder...you are blessed because you can offer healing touch.

If you can read this message, you are more blessed than over two billion people in the world that cannot read at all.



--------------------
His Royal HIGHness, King Noah Fentz, Kingdom of Slywolfe.
Makes you realize how lucky you are.

Makes you realize how lucky you are.

Nope. Not lucky - silly, if you're falling for this old POS.

Makes you realize how lucky you are.

It would...


...if it were true.

An interesting idea... but i'm never serious about the real world. :p

I think world PC ownership is now something like 10.8% of the world's population and is going to double by 2010 to over 1 billion PCs...even Snopes' data is getting outdated. The village would probably have 10 or so PC owners.

Or just have some polygamy ;)

You know, for some reason that didn't occur to me until right AFTER I posted. Yeah! Why not!

A better rule of thumb is how many Earths would be required to sustain your standard of living, were it to be spread to the entire world population. The New Scientist magazine published a really handy ecological footprint questionnaire around 2000.

The summary was that our standard of living is enjoyed by around 15% of the world's population. Over two thirds are in the shit.

Assuming a population of 6 billion people, if the world were split into 100 people each person would weigh an average of about 3,800,000,000 kilograms.

Sexual relations would easily be mistaken for earthquakes.
That would explain why only one woman in the village is pregnant.

Makes you realize how lucky you are.
In the same way the Hang in There (http://d21c.com/tas/mtag4/p76_hang_n_there.jpg) cat tells people to persevere...

If my world was broken down into a village of one hundred people, I still wouldn't give a fuck about your humanist crap.

OK, I suspected the provenance of this OP's attached screed. And I'm scratching my head on the actual stats.

But I don't have a real problem with the intent (so far), as it seems to just be saying where we in the first world stand, more or less.

But then this chief had to gas it out.

Yeah, let's give him a hand, guys! Yaaaaaay, Greater Alemannia! You're so forthright and tough-minded. You're not an A-hole, you're just "brutally honest".

Seriously, I really, really need to see a post from you that makes me not pray that someone gets the right idea, and drops you down a sewer.

"Humanist"? What the hell is up your ass? "Yeah, how dare that OP show some incidental concern for humanity as a whole ,or as a set of interdependent communities...what a pussy."


Really, if the village were only 100 people, then poisoning your breakfast with cigarette ash would be easier. Then we could all sit round and laugh while you shat your life out.

(Various unpleasantries)
I have no idea where that came from, especially considering Greater Alemannia was not addressing you, and indeed it is impossible to say to whom he was replying, regarding what.

Thus you are encouraged to take a refreshing week-long break from the forums, and reconsider where you wish to direct your hostility.

If my world was broken down into a village of one hundred people, I still wouldn't give a fuck about your humanist crap.
Exactly. There'd be no rednecks, no religious fundies and no terrorists...