6 people to 1 billion in under 1 thousand years calculation

I did this calculation quickly as I was interested in knowing how fast population growth was possible. If there are any mathematicians or anyone good at maths who sees an error or issue I would be interested to correct the process.

the result of this calculation lends weight to the earth and universe being much younger than is promoted in mainstream education and media.

this calculation is based on an initial 6 people, 3 couples, and with an average of 4 offspring for each couple throughout the generations. I thought 4 was quite a modest and reasonable average as the majority of families before contraception would probably have had in excess of 4 offspring, and this number would more than make up the average for the minority of couples who produced fewer or who were sterile.

__________

3 couples- each have 4 children

their 12 children marry into 6 couples and each have 4 children

their 24 offspring marry into 12 couples and each have 4 children

the offspring of 48, marry into 24 couples and each have 4 children producing,

96 offspring, who marry into 48 pairs and each have an average of 4 children producing;

192 offspring, marrying into 96 pairs, have 4 children each producing

384 children, who marry into 192 pairs, each having on average 4 children resulting in;

768 offspring, who marry into 384 pairs, each having 4 children, producing;

1536 children, who marry into 768 couples, having 4 children each producing;

3072 children, who marry into 1536 couples, each having 4 children producing;

6144 children, who marry into 3072 couples, each having 4 children producing;

12,288 children, who marry into 6,144 couples having 4 children each producing;

24,576 children on earth after 11 generations of reproduction, generation average 30 years = 330 years

those 24,576 offspring marry into 12,288 couples each having on average 4 children, producing;

49,152 offspring, who pair off into 24,576 couples and each have 4 children resulting in;

98,304 offspring, who pair off into 49,152 couples and each have 4 children resulting in;

196,608 offspring, who marry into 98,304 couples and each have 4 children producing;

393,216 children, who pair into 196,608 couples and each have 4 children to produce;

786,432 children, who pair into 393,216 couples each having on average 4 children producing;

1,572,864 – 1 and a half million global population after 17 generations of reproduction, with an average of 4 offspring per couple, in an average generation of 30 years. 510 years

that 1,572,864 population then pair into 786,432 couples and each have an average of 4 offspring producing;

3,145,728 children, who then pair into 1,572,864 couples and each have 4 children producing;

6,291,456 children, who then pair into 3,145,728 couples and have 4 children each producing;

12,582,912 children pair into 6,291,456, who have 4 children each producing

25,165,824 children marry into 12,582,912 couples who each have 4 children producing;

50,331,648 children who pair into 25,165,824 couples, each having 4 children, resulting in;

100,663,296 – 100 million population reached after 22 generations

those 100,663,296 marry into 50,331,648 couples and each produce on average 4 children, resulting in;

201,326,592 become 100,663,296 couples, each producing 4 children, resulting in;

402,653,184 children, pair into 201,326,592 couples, each having 4 children, producing;

805,306,368 offspring, who couple into 402,653,184, each having 4 children, resulting in;

1,610,612,736 children – over 1.5 billion reached after 25 generations x 1 gen. 30 years = 750 years

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “6 people to 1 billion in under 1 thousand years calculation

  1. So why doesn’t africa have a trillion people by now? Oh yeah, they have to eat and drink and not die in childhood…

    There are spiders that lay a thousand eggs – why aren’t we drowning in them? It’s not simply a matter of breeding, the trick is not starving, freezing, dying of disease etc. The population of the world was 2 billion in 1950 and much less before that and for most of human history it was probably in the tens of millions. The recent spike in population growth was made possible by modern medicine keeping people from dying (especially health standards and vaccines saving children from dying) and the ability to mass-produce, mass-distribute and preserve food. Irrigation, fertilization, genetically modified crops, preservatives, etc allow us to feed those huge multi-billion people populations, not to mention sewage and water treatment systems to provide enough safe drinking water and prevent disease and a million other things.

    Like

    • even taking into account illness the figures of the calculation would not be much different. As I say above, an average of 4 offspring is a low and modest average, most families would have probably produces up to and over 10 children.

      human offspring can’t be compared to larvae, spiders eggs or tadpoles, much more attention and protection giving in fewer offspring.

      If you believe the human population remained fixed for millions of years or even hundreds of thousands I think that is severely deluded and the result of indoctrination.

      Medicine has improved, but the consequences of science has also caused allot of the sickness, disease and death that has occurred since its advent – for example environment pollution from industrial revolution and fossil fuels, thalidomide, aspartame sweeteners which have been proven to cause tumours in lab rats, destruction of ozone allowing greater radiation damage to cells, fall out from nuclear accidents and weapons which adds to the genetic damage.

      To a large extent modern medicine, technology & science is mending the hole it made.

      And I do not believe the secular naturalist indoctrinated myth that the average life span 1000 years ago was something preposterous like 30 years old. If you review famous figures from the past, of whom we have their ages of death, you will find that stretching back to 2000 years ago people were aging into their 60’s and 70’s from a variety of backgrounds, for example some of the early church saints lived over to over 70 and were living in poverty, travelling, poor conditions. No I think the whole idea of human life span only extending recently is a myth. There was a dip in the last few hundred years, but this may be down to things like the plague, but if we review the historical figures of note from the past, the majority of them lived to the same kind of ages we do today, and that includes figures living in poverty as well as some in wealth.

      As for the supposed saviour of science providing food for the world, how is that working out in africa? – we do not actually need more crops or food, we just need a better distribution of it as it has been found in studied recently a half of the global food goes to waste, mostly in the industrialised nations.

      And GMO’s are more of a hazard than a cure. It is very dangerous and unwise for humans to mess about with the genetics of the food chain, it has been found in studies that genetically modified foods can trigger cancer in lab rats, because of the way the food is broken down. This study was funded in the UK, but when the scientist revealed his findings He was discredited and fired from the establishment. What we need is an end to genetic meddling with natural organisms, not a continuation of the manipulation which may well be one of the main causes for the huge increase in cancer levels.

      And the same goes for water. What we need is spring water, in the developed nations and in africa, NOT artificially sanitised water, as this leaves in trace chemicals which are harmful. For example Chlorine is the main chemical used to kill bacteria, but what long term consequences is Chlorine having on our cells? Did you know Chlorine is a poison that was used in the concentration camps? Thats why it is used in water, because it kills, it kills the bacteria, but is it also “slow-killing” us without us realising the culprit? – possibly more ignorantly harmful consequences of science and technology.

      A return to self farming solves most of these issues. And there is plenty of land on earth to hold trillions of people and millions of un-farmed land. As for sanitation – sure it is convenient – but if you’re living in nature, do the toilet in a hole and it actually provides fertiliser for the land, no mystery or real milestone solution. Of course living in modern housing a different system had to be constructed.

      I hope you think these things through – it is good you brought these points up though so I could address them.

      However you did not address the actual calculation. And even accounting for some struggles, deaths, the calculation was designed to get a rough idea of how fast population can grow. And this shows it can grow incredibly fast and certainly does not require millions of years. In fact if the earth has been around millions of years, or even hundreds of thousands, even factoring in some premature deaths, and adding in lack of contraception, the population on earth just now would be trillions.

      This calculation shows that no, we do not need a long time at all to reach a large population, and shows just how quick it could happen

      Like

      • “even taking into account illness the figures of the calculation would not be much different. As I say above, an average of 4 offspring is a low and modest average, most families would have probably produces up to and over 10 children.”

        You ignore the fact that without modern medicine women would have often died in childbirth and the infant mortality rate would have been much higher than it is now. In the US 3% of babies die during birth, more are still-born and 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. In afghanistan (which has access to more modern medical techniques than people had thousands of years ago) 13% of babies die during birth and 50 years ago 30% did. Infant mortality and childhood illness rates have dropped steadily over the past few centuries and in ye olden days it was not uncommon to have child after child die within the first few years of life.

        “human offspring can’t be compared to larvae, spiders eggs or tadpoles, much more attention and protection giving in fewer offspring.”

        I wasn’t comparing them, I was saying that the birth rate is only half of the equation, you are ignoring the other half.

        “If you believe the human population remained fixed for millions of years or even hundreds of thousands”

        I didn’t say that, I said that it was probably not as high as it is now at any earlier point because we lacked the things that allow for such large populations.

        “I think that is severely deluded and the result of indoctrination.”

        It’s just common sense.

        “Medicine has improved, but the consequences of science has also caused allot of the sickness, disease and death that has occurred since its advent – for example environment pollution from industrial revolution and fossil fuels, thalidomide, aspartame sweeteners which have been proven to cause tumours in lab rats, destruction of ozone allowing greater radiation damage to cells, fall out from nuclear accidents and weapons which adds to the genetic damage.”

        That is true, but it’s not like science invented toxins and cancer. Overall science, technology and modern medicine have saved many more lives than they’ve cost, even factoring in pollution and warfare. There are single inventions and discoveries that have saved or are predicted to save over the next few decades over a billion lives.

        “To a large extent modern medicine, technology & science is mending the hole it made.”

        Yup : )

        “And I do not believe the secular naturalist indoctrinated myth that the average life span 1000 years ago was something preposterous like 30 years old. If you review famous figures from the past, of whom we have their ages of death, you will find that stretching back to 2000 years ago people were aging into their 60′s and 70′s from a variety of backgrounds, for example some of the early church saints lived over to over 70 and were living in poverty, travelling, poor conditions. No I think the whole idea of human life span only extending recently is a myth. There was a dip in the last few hundred years, but this may be down to things like the plague, but if we review the historical figures of note from the past, the majority of them lived to the same kind of ages we do today, and that includes figures living in poverty as well as some in wealth.”

        This is not a myth, but a misconception. It’s an average, not the typical age people died at. Most of the deaths occurred as infants or in childhood, once you survived childhood you had a good chance of surviving to a relatively old age, but probably not 90 or a hundred like today. If half of a population dies at 1 year old and the other half dies at 100 years old, the average lifespan is around 50 years old. That doesn’t mean everyone dies around age 50.

        “As for the supposed saviour of science providing food for the world, how is that working out in africa?”

        I think africans are better off now than they were a hundred years ago, but to a large degree it’s a matter of geology and geography, some areas just don’t support agriculture.

        “– we do not actually need more crops or food, we just need a better distribution of it as it has been found in studied recently a half of the global food goes to waste, mostly in the industrialised nations.”

        I agree. It’s worth noting that we’re a lot better at preserving and transporting food than we used to be, which saves a lot of lives.

        “And GMO’s are more of a hazard than a cure.”

        I’ve heard many general claims along these lines but they’re usually sketchy as far as specifics.

        “It is very dangerous and unwise for humans to mess about with the genetics of the food chain,”

        This is known as the naturalistic fallacy, the idea that something being natural makes it good and something unnatural or deviating from nature is necessarily bad. But of course arsenic in the drinking water is natural and MRI machines are not, so this is often not true. While yes tinkering with nature can be hazardous if you study biology you know that life is fluid, it changes constantly and we’ve been genetically modifying life for thousands of years. All domesticated crops and cattle are genetically modified. Sometimes that’s good, sometimes it’s bad. But we should try to understand and distinguish the good from the bad, not go outside and eat grass or shut down the local supermarket.

        “it has been found in studies that genetically modified foods can trigger cancer in lab rats, because of the way the food is broken down.”

        Source? And lots of natural foods can cause cancer.

        “This study was funded in the UK, but when the scientist revealed his findings He was discredited and fired from the establishment.”

        Link?

        “What we need is an end to genetic meddling with natural organisms, not a continuation of the manipulation which may well be one of the main causes for the huge increase in cancer levels.”

        I don’t think “nature knows best” is a good rule of thumb, after all cancer occurs naturally.

        “And the same goes for water. What we need is spring water, in the developed nations and in africa, NOT artificially sanitised water, as this leaves in trace chemicals which are harmful.”

        I think it’s a beggars can’t be choosers situation. Chlorine pellets are easier to transport than millions of tons of water.

        “For example Chlorine is the main chemical used to kill bacteria, but what long term consequences is Chlorine having on our cells?”

        I have no idea, but they’re probably better than the short-term consequences of drinking stagnant water with parasites in it.

        “Did you know Chlorine is a poison that was used in the concentration camps?”

        Chlorine gas. When you inhale something it effects your body differently. For instance inhaling water isn’t very healthy either. Doesn’t mean you should stop drinking it.

        “Thats why it is used in water, because it kills, it kills the bacteria, but is it also “slow-killing” us without us realising the culprit? – possibly more ignorantly harmful consequences of science and technology.”

        Every time you step outside the sun kills your skin cells. You have trillions of skin cells so you only notice when enough of them die that your skin starts to change color and slough off (peel). This can, over time, cause cancer to develop and speed up the appearance of aging. Does this mean you should permanently stay away from sunlight and only go out at night? Or just try to limit your exposure? Our bodies can tolerate small amounts of almost anything, our bodies heal and repair themselves and replace damaged skin and tissue all the time. Any time you walk or pick something up it causes cells to die and tissue to be damaged. There is only a problem when the damage exceeds our bodies’ capacities and it can no longer cope. But we will never live in a world completely free of toxins or radiation or mutagens.

        “A return to self farming solves most of these issues.”

        A luxury not everyone has time for, but yes.

        “And there is plenty of land on earth to hold trillions of people”

        Not if they all want fresh water to drink and land to grow crops and certainly not if they want to live like americans and produce garbage and pollution like we do.

        “and millions of un-farmed land.”

        Even farmers cannot harvest from all of their land, they have to wait for the land to renew itself.

        “As for sanitation – sure it is convenient – but if you’re living in nature, do the toilet in a hole and it actually provides fertiliser for the land, no mystery or real milestone solution. Of course living in modern housing a different system had to be constructed.”

        Cities allow for much more than agrarian societies alone do.

        “I hope you think these things through – it is good you brought these points up though so I could address them.”

        I also had a few valid points of my own.

        “However you did not address the actual calculation. And even accounting for some struggles, deaths, the calculation was designed to get a rough idea of how fast population can grow. And this shows it can grow incredibly fast and certainly does not require millions of years.”

        Ideally, sure. But in reality, no. Otherwise as I said why doesn’t africa have trillions of people by now? Or do you think people have only lived in africa a few hundred years? Because by your math they should have waaaaay more people by now. We know historically that the population growth in the billions is very recent because it happened in the modern era where we have census data from many countries. That it is a recent phenomenon is not hypothetical or based on a calculation or projection.

        “In fact if the earth has been around millions of years, or even hundreds of thousands, even factoring in some premature deaths, and adding in lack of contraception, the population on earth just now would be trillions.”

        You don’t think a society’s ability to produce food puts a cap on it’s maximum population size? For most of human civilization we lived in agrarian societies and we could only support cities with populations in the order of thousands of people. Cities like new york with ten million people are a recent phenomenon. Censuses were performed dating back to biblical times, they’re even mentioned in the bible – the 3 kings met jesus when joseph and mary went to bethlehem for the census.

        “This calculation shows that no, we do not need a long time at all to reach a large population, and shows just how quick it could happen”

        It’s not realistic, or historically accurate.

        Like

        • “You ignore the fact that without modern medicine women would have often died in childbirth and the infant mortality rate would have been much higher than it is now.”

          and women sometimes still die in childbirth, but this was never a common occurrence, it has always been rare relative to overall births.
          Modern medicine might have saved some lives, but modernity & science is also responsible for many deaths of mother’s and children. Many deaths of mother and child can be put down to smoking or the type of medications they were on, the development of the child in the womb is very sensitive and can even be effected by mercury in filings, and its advised women don’t have fillings done when pregnant due to the need for a pure system uncontaminated by toxins. Also the lack of nutrients in the diet could be responsible for many still borns and premature births.

          modernity has helped to some degree, but in ignorance it has also caused harm through pollution of environment and the body. There is even some speculation ultrasound could damage the child in the womb. As with thalidomide we should not blame God or nature for damage that may well be from the hand of science and man.

          Even factoring in lesser medical attention in the past, the more natural, pure environment and closer relationship with God would have lead to a morality rate at least as good as the most modern nations in my view, if not easily better.

          ——

          “I said that it was probably not as high as it is now at any earlier point because we lacked the things that allow for such large populations.”

          actually we don’t didn’t lack the things required for high population in the past – all that is required is reproduction – in fact we lacked the things that limited population – such as mass produced contraception, legalised and catered abortion.

          ——-

          “Overall science, technology and modern medicine have saved many more lives than they’ve cost, even factoring in pollution and warfare.”

          that is debatable actually – especially when you factor in science’s responsibility for the mass slaughter of unborn human life. But aside from that even, the death and suffering from technology enabled war, combined with nuclear fallout and its impact, combined with processed foods, you are very probably looking at more harm than good.

          For example the prevalence and increase of cancer in humans must be in part down to the new methods of food technology, processing, genetically modification in the food chain and the damage to o-zone from nuclear and other chemicals, leading to stronger solar radiation.

          ——

          “If half of a population dies at 1 year old and the other half dies at 100 years old, the average lifespan is around 50 years old.”

          As we don’t know the infant mortality from 2000 or 3000 years ago you can’t know such an average. But the examples I cite disprove the notion that old age is a recent phenomena. I here atheists all the time say the average life span a few hundred years ago was 30 and they believe very few made it beyond that – but the reality is thousands of years ago humans made it past 70 and yes some examples of 100 – of course we don’t have a census to know mass averages but the examples I’ve checked come from a mix of backgrounds, some saints living in poverty making it over 70.

          ——-

          “I think africans are better off now than they were a hundred years ago, but to a large degree it’s a matter of geology and geography, some areas just don’t support agriculture.”

          to a greater extent it is the corruption of leaders misusing funds probably, but if science had a conscience and prioritised properly it would think of ways to enable more nature wells and farming and also by-pass poor leadership politically. This would be of better use of money than sending robots to mars.

          ——–

          “I’ve heard many general claims along these lines but they’re usually sketchy as far as specifics.”

          the mainstream food industry controlled by giants like monsanto of course want you to dismiss concerns over the GMO they make money from. Check into the work and censored studies of Dr. Arpad Pusztai.

          ———

          “This is known as the naturalistic fallacy, the idea that something being natural makes it good and something unnatural or deviating from nature is necessarily bad. But of course arsenic in the drinking water is natural and MRI machines are not, so this is often not true.”

          tampering with the natural design being dangerous and wrong is no “fallacy” – theres many examples of how artificial additives in food and processed foods are dangerous and unhealthy. Science arrogantly and ignorantly goes ahead with changing the genetics of food, and does short term or no study at all of the human effects of such things then unleashes it into the food chain, well is it any wonder there is such an epidemic of cancer in human’s and it has sharply been increasing as science manipulates the food chain artificially?

          There needs to be a much wiser solution to food than modifying it dangerously. In fact there already is enough food globally, it is just wasted in developed
          nations.

          Oh an arsenic is not naturally part of spring water – and lots of technologies using radiation are having some degree of damage on cells

          ———
          “Ideally, sure. But in reality, no. Otherwise as I said why doesn’t africa have trillions of people by now?”

          My argument is that if the earth has been around millions of years there should be trillions of humans – most regions on earth are inhabitable and any areas which were not would have died out, but this should still mean there would be trillions upon trillions if earth is very old.

          ———

          We know historically that the population growth in the billions is very recent because it happened in the modern era where we have census data from many countries. That it is a recent phenomenon is not hypothetical or based on a calculation or projection.

          actually it is hypothetical – as you only have census from very recent past. This shows an increase recently, but it indicates a relatively small number of humans globally 1 thousand years ago – I think the estimates are around 30 million then? – so it becomes improbably to believe that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, with no contraception, and yet only amassed to a few tens of millions.

          ——-

          “You don’t think a society’s ability to produce food puts a cap on it’s maximum population size? For most of human civilization we lived in agrarian societies and we could only support cities with populations in the order of thousands of people.”

          there really is no limit on self farming – the land is able to produce for many times more than even current population, in the past self and community farming would have meant no limit really, as nearly everyone farmed their own food.

          ——

          “Cities like new york with ten million people are a recent phenomenon. Censuses were performed dating back to biblical times, they’re even mentioned in the bible – the 3 kings met jesus when joseph and mary went to bethlehem for the census.”

          – actually the Bible records the tribe of Israel being over a million at one point if I remember – almost half a million men – and no doubt babylon and Egypt must have had over a million in their cities –

          but the point is, human life has been around 100,000’s years its biggest cities would be trillions. – even factoring in wars, famines, deaths

          for example total population has doubled over the last 100 years – the notion it took hundreds of thousands of years to get into the millions is unrealistic and fanciful, but what the mainstream education and media indoctrinates.

          ——-

          aside from these issues you don’t seem to dispute the actual figures of the calculation, which is the main interest and point – as I think an average of 4 offspring is a conservative figure and shows how short a time it takes to reach the current level of population.

          even if you factored it a slightly higher infant and material mortality rate (which I think is disputable considering the curses modernity has brought along with its blessings) with periods of famine and disease (which still occur today) an average offspring for a family being 4 I think is still very conservative and probable, especially when we consider there was no contraception or abortion clinics.

          Like

comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s