Well... I suppose colonizing other planets wouldn't be terribly difficult if we couldn't die.
Also, we would have like an unlimited amount of times to experiment crazily on people with little consequence.
Once we successfully create a Hulk/Superman/Whatever, he will simply fly us to Mars.
On a slightly separate note, are we invulnerable, or just always regenerate? I suppose the latter could be like an unlimited food source...
Originally posted by Original Smurphinvulnerable.
Well... I suppose colonizing other planets wouldn't be terribly difficult if we couldn't die.Also, we would have like an unlimited amount of times to experiment crazily on people with little consequence.
Once we successfully create a Hulk/Superman/Whatever, he will simply fly us to Mars.
On a slightly separate note, are we invulnerable, or just always regenerate? I suppose the latter could be like an unlimited food source...
lol. i have heard about wolverine not starving by eating chuncks of himself, let it regenerate and repeat. 😂
Originally posted by Bardock42
Anyways, dadudemon and I talked about the silly question the thread starter posted, and he was going to do the maths, but apparently didn't yet, so imma go do it and you guys may tell me where I went wrong.
HEY! You and I agreed that the calculation would be almost unusable due to the social variables that would change the relative rate. 😠 😠
But, the formula was really simple, so, it was no biggie.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So, first we are going to take the land mass of the earth from wikipedia....that's a nice and small 148,940,000 km².Now, we'd rather have it in m² cause that's less hard on the old brain. So we add 6 zeros, cause 1 km² is 1,000,000m², aight?
Awesome, so earth's land mass is 148,940,000,000,000m²
We agreed that a person standing up needs about 0.2m² standing space, I think he heard on TV once someone estimating a packed gathering with 2 square feet, but that's close enough. And it makes calculating that much easier. So anyways to fill the whole land mass of earth we'd need 5 people per m² so
Yup. So far, so good. And, it was a "government" number where they were measuring how many protesters were packed in an area by the Washington Monument. It's pretty reasonable. FYI, KMC peeps, it was actually 2ft² which comes to about .185m²...but we rounded up to .2m² because Bardock joked that Germans are fatter these days. 😆 (Americans are definitely fatter these days so they deserve the boost up to .2m²)
Originally posted by Bardock42
148,940,000,000,000 * 5 = 744,700,000,000,000 people. Everyone with me?
You probably need to explain the where you got the number 5 from: 5 comes from the reciprocal of .2m²...which would be 5 over 1...because you have to multiple by the inverse in order to get the "people per unit area" because you want 1 to be the denominator. Hard to explain...but consider it a conversation factor or something silly.
Damn, talking in circles...
Basically, how many people can fit into one square meter? If ONE person fits into .2m²...then FIVE people can fit into an area five times that large which happens to be 1m².
Make sense? I hope so. 🙁
Originally posted by Bardock42
Now dadudemon figured this to be a easily solvable equation which would pretty closely show the population increase per year. and I do agree that it is sufficient:Final Population = Current Population * (1+birth rate)^time in years.
So we solve for the power
Final Population/Current Population = (1+Birth Rate)^time in years
(ln(Final Population/Current Population))/ln(1+Birthrate)=time in years
Birth rate is around 2% I believe. Death rate won't matter. This assumes that the immortal beings all can have children forever and want them...at the same rate we want them now. If that was not the case I believe the model would be very similar to what it is now in real life, since "death" would be exchanged for "infertility due to age" so I suppose you can look that up and make some calculations based on current numbers, I won't though.
Anyways, the calculation is
(ln(744,700,000,000,000/7,000,000,000)/ln(1+0,02) = t
ln(106386)/ln(1.02)=t
11,57/0.02=t
578,5 = t
So it would take 578.5 years! Sounds plausible? Any problem with the calculation? Played too fast and loose with the decimals?
Here's his math explained step by step, and solved using log instead of ln...with some algebraic simplification to keeps thinks easy to "mess with":
FP/CP = (1+r)^t
Where FP is final population, CP is current population,
r is rate of change, and t is time in years.
Replace your variables with your values:
744,700,000,000,000 = 7,000,000,000 * (1 + .02 ) ^ t
First, you must isolate t with simple algebra so
divide each side by 7 billion:
744,700,000,000,000/7,000,000,000 =7,000,000,000/7,000,000,000 (1+ .02)^t
Then, simplify each side and round to the nearest hundred thousandth:
106385.71428 = (1 + .02)^t
Now, use logorithms to solve for t:
log of 106385.714 base 1.02 = t
Since we will be using a regular calculator and not
a scientific one, we have to solve that using a base 10
log like so
logarithm base y (x) = log(x)/log(y)
that comes to...
logarithm base 1.02 (106385.71428) = log(106385.71425)/log(1.02)
That equals 584.50964
So, 585.5 years.
We could be sticklers for decimal places to adhere to the "scientific accuracy decimal places rule"...but naaaaah.
In other words, Bardock42, your numbers are correct and you did everything correctly. (Did you even doubt that? awesome )
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Maybe nature has a built in security valve for when a race gets too populious, ie releasing some nasty ass disease, letting a few mega volcanoes like in Yellowstone (or the other one) & the Eifel in Europe.Not to mention the human built in " lets start a war " effect that comes up very often.
😆 😆 😆
What a shitty way to go: ass disease!
😆
Alright, alright, I'm done...honest.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosOf course he will. Hulk will punch the silly logic that tells us otherwise.
I don't think Hulk will fly us to Mars 😬
Originally posted by MindshipTouche. That requires Galactus' arrival first. We could repel him by throwing our excess population at him.
Get serious.This also permits excess population BFR via inboard trapping.
How many years for humanity to become large enough to cover Galactus? Get on the math, guys.
--------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dadudemonWell, he said a number in the 570's. So there would be like, a mountaintop in Europe that we would be waiting for babies to cover and people would be celebrating way early. Numbers weren't correct enough. uhuh
So, 585.5 years.In other words, Bardock42, your numbers are correct and you did everything correctly. (Did you even doubt that? awesome )
Originally posted by Original Smurph
How many years for humanity to become large enough to cover Galactus? Get on the math, guys.
That's a much more difficult question to answer because of several reasons:
1. Galactus' size is variable.
2. Galactus' shape is not an easily definable geometric shape: similar to what archimedes did with a many sided figure, it would take lots of different shapes to get a more and more a accurate measure of Galactus....and even one square km could be a VERY significant difference in number.
3. Galactus isn't shaped liek a regular human, as well: he's got that armor and hat shit going on.
However...heh heh....it's something similar to what i did in a second year physics class when working with objects traveling through a fluid.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So it would take 578.5 years! Sounds plausible? Any problem with the calculation? Played too fast and loose with the decimals?
I guess we are assuming they are invincible, but there is an upper limit to the number of children a person is going to want to produce, even if not determined by age. In fact, I might argue that invincible people would be less inclined to reproduce than mortals.
also, it would be at least 12-13 years (if we assume child sex laws are relaxed) before the new population becomes fertile. The increase would come in generational cohorts, rather than as a linear function.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you actually making the argument that population density 89 people/sq km in Asia means that there cannot possibly be overpopulation?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I agree with you here. inimalist is using the word overpopulation incorrectly. It's not a matter of population density its one of how much population the planet can sustain. Because the economics of farming are insane, apparently burning excess food is better than selling it cheaply to starving people, there's no good way to resolve the problem of feeding increasing numbers of people.
fair enough, I may not have explained what I meant clearly enough.
'Overpopulation', to me (obviously), is a nearly vacuous term. At best, it might describe an epiphenomenon that occurs when infrastructural, developmental and scarcity issues are exacerbated by a growing population, but the population, imho, is not the problem, and it think phrasing it in such a way has a non-trivial effect on the way we interpret the problem.
So, for food, there are plenty of solutions. Some include not wasting 40% of the food bought in the West. Some might involve investing in technologies for higher yield crops in climates currently not suited for agriculture. Some involves reversing crazy IMF aide requirements that force local farmers to grow cash crops, and similarily, some involves reducing the international flow of drugs which produce another non-edible cash crop that takes up valuable farm land. And some might even involve a top down command economy with regard to basic food.
The problem with feeding people isn't that there are too many people. We produce more than enough food to feed the world's population as is, the issues are of an entirely different nature that, at least I feel, are totally ignored by conceptualizing the problem as "overpopulation".
the relevance of using pop density stats is basically that I wanted to show that places that are heavily populated though developed are not "overpopulated", though those that are less populated but under developed are "overpopulated"
Like I said earlier, what you call "over population" I would call "under development"
Originally posted by inimalist
I guess we are assuming they are invincible, but there is an upper limit to the number of children a person is going to want to produce, even if not determined by age. In fact, I might argue that invincible people would be less inclined to reproduce than mortals.also, it would be at least 12-13 years (if we assume child sex laws are relaxed) before the new population becomes fertile. The increase would come in generational cohorts, rather than as a linear function.
Yeah, we disregarded those problems, although we are aware of them.