Population: 100

I agree, although it isn't that shocking, it still manages to leave some things to think about.

Those are skewed statistics.

I call shotgun on being the white non-Christian European with a college education and a computer. [rolleyes]

Quote:

Original post by Tiffany_Smith Those are skewed statistics.

???

(shame the forums have no "confused" smiley ...)

too late. my computer. and im not sharing.

Quote:

Original post by 23yrold3yrold Quote: Original post by Tiffany_Smith Those are skewed statistics. ??? (shame the forums have no "confused" smiley ...)

Well I'm far from good at math so I expect to be well and truly put in my place here, but if 6% of the global population possesses 59% of the worlds wealth how could that 6% be from the US when the entire US doesn't even possess 59% of the worlds wealth?

From Snopes.com

Quote:

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 However, much of the information it presents is questionable, out of date, or poorly-defined: 57 Asians 21 Europeans 14 from the Western Hemisphere, both north and south 8 Africans According to the United Nations World Population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 demontrates 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

Quote:

Original post by AnonymousPosterChild From Snopes.com Quote: 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 demontrates 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

A digital bitch slap, if you may. Good read.

Quote:

Original post by AnonymousPosterChild From Snopes.com

I been looking for that website for such a long time hehe. But I don't think that's where I got my info.

I got that e-mail a long time ago... And I checked it out on Snopes, too :)

Quote:

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.

lol.

Swedish saying (roughly translated; don't know if there's already an english version of it):

"There's lies, there's bloody lies, and there's statistics."

Just because you're poor doesn't mean you're less happy then us people in the rich countries. And no, I'm not saying starving/dying people are all happy, just don't swallow that quote whole without thinking about it.