Hawaii's sort of obvious, but wow, Maine, nice going, what's your secret?
Nevada's fairly obvious. Nobody tells us when to stop partying.
Nevada's fairly obvious. Nobody tells us when to stop partying.
DEyncourt wrote:I have some problems with that population graphic.
First, the usual reckoning for human generations is about 30 years and not the 20 years (5 generations per century) used there. Certainly a particular generational separation could be as small as 14 or as large as 45 (ignoring lab-implanted embryos for a few women further past menopause as this has been available only for the last generation) but usually 30 is used as an average for the general popluation in the long run. Using 3 generations per century one winds up with a genetic pool of 2^18 or about a quarter-million people in 1400 CE--still a large number but not the billion people in that graphic.
Second, aside from the emigrant exodus from Europe, Asia and (sometime involuntariry) Africa which began as a trickle in the early 1500's and reaching into the millions per year by the late 1800's, humans are mostly a stay-at-home bunch. Sure, war and drought and other natural and man-made disasters have caused some mass movements at times, but even after such there is a tendency for people to return to where they are from if it is at all possible. Even for much of the immigrant population into the US which have almost entirely stayed there was the strong idea that after these people got rich in the US that they would return home wherever that might be.
There is also the (sub)urbanization of local populations where to one degree or another the Industrial Revolution has forced people to move from farms to cities (and then to the suburbs in the 20th century), but this can be viewed as a kind of man-made "disaster" for which the movement was more often one way than not, and this is a more modern phenomenon dating from about 1750 CE or later depending on from which particular people you are descended.
Still, even today there are many localities in Europe and Asia and Africa where despite considerable modern mobility there are distinct local populations that share characteristic speech and sometimes ethnic distinctions. To be sure: this was sometimes because some groups were despied by others like the Jews or the Untouchables in India, but even when you discount these prejudicial cases you can find considerable distinctions between people from relatively close Old World towns like, say, Liverpool and Manchester in England. Confine yourself to the travel possibilities of 1400 CE and these local populations were all but locked to the locality (aside from such disasters as cited above).
So are you "related to everybody...twice" by statistical reasoning? It is a nice sentiment but not at all realistic. My ancestors in 1400 CE Japan were highly unlikely to have had even a notion of anyone's ancestors in 1400 CE Europe or Africa much less engage in sex and thus be directly related. On the other hand each of us is likely to be related to nearly everyone in the district or town of origin in 1400 CE via dozens if not hundreds of paths.
Not to mention that it only accounts for ancestors having one child per couple. That's totally unreal. And, of course, more kids means that the population doesn't exponentially double each previous generation the way the picture portrays it as happening.
(In other words, I have two siblings, but all of us combined only have one set of parents. The graph assumes that every single person in the population has two unique parents; according to the graphic there would need to be six people one generation ago for me and my siblings)
Surely the graph is at least partially meant in jest?
Metacell wrote:Surely the graph is at least partially meant in jest?
Everything on the internet must be taken seriously, or the terrorists win.
carpet.png
That is beautiful.
StaticAge wrote:DEyncourt wrote:I have some problems with that population graphic.
First, the usual reckoning for human generations is about 30 years and not the 20 years (5 generations per century) used there. Certainly a particular generational separation could be as small as 14 or as large as 45 (ignoring lab-implanted embryos for a few women further past menopause as this has been available only for the last generation) but usually 30 is used as an average for the general popluation in the long run. Using 3 generations per century one winds up with a genetic pool of 2^18 or about a quarter-million people in 1400 CE--still a large number but not the billion people in that graphic.
Second, aside from the emigrant exodus from Europe, Asia and (sometime involuntariry) Africa which began as a trickle in the early 1500's and reaching into the millions per year by the late 1800's, humans are mostly a stay-at-home bunch. Sure, war and drought and other natural and man-made disasters have caused some mass movements at times, but even after such there is a tendency for people to return to where they are from if it is at all possible. Even for much of the immigrant population into the US which have almost entirely stayed there was the strong idea that after these people got rich in the US that they would return home wherever that might be.
There is also the (sub)urbanization of local populations where to one degree or another the Industrial Revolution has forced people to move from farms to cities (and then to the suburbs in the 20th century), but this can be viewed as a kind of man-made "disaster" for which the movement was more often one way than not, and this is a more modern phenomenon dating from about 1750 CE or later depending on from which particular people you are descended.
Still, even today there are many localities in Europe and Asia and Africa where despite considerable modern mobility there are distinct local populations that share characteristic speech and sometimes ethnic distinctions. To be sure: this was sometimes because some groups were despied by others like the Jews or the Untouchables in India, but even when you discount these prejudicial cases you can find considerable distinctions between people from relatively close Old World towns like, say, Liverpool and Manchester in England. Confine yourself to the travel possibilities of 1400 CE and these local populations were all but locked to the locality (aside from such disasters as cited above).
So are you "related to everybody...twice" by statistical reasoning? It is a nice sentiment but not at all realistic. My ancestors in 1400 CE Japan were highly unlikely to have had even a notion of anyone's ancestors in 1400 CE Europe or Africa much less engage in sex and thus be directly related. On the other hand each of us is likely to be related to nearly everyone in the district or town of origin in 1400 CE via dozens if not hundreds of paths.
Not to mention that it only accounts for ancestors having one child per couple. That's totally unreal. And, of course, more kids means that the population doesn't exponentially double each previous generation the way the picture portrays it as happening.
(In other words, I have two siblings, but all of us combined only have one set of parents. The graph assumes that every single person in the population has two unique parents; according to the graphic there would need to be six people one generation ago for me and my siblings)
Um, no.
There is nothing in that population graphic about siblings--it is only about a given person's direct ancestors. Going back N generations there are 2^N slots to be filled, and for almost everyone when N=18 there are likely many individuals who fill several of the 256K slots of that generation, perhaps as often as hundreds of times for some particular ancestors. It matters not if while tracing back your paternal line that your (great^X)-grandfather was a single child or was in a family with 10 siblings because none of those siblings are your direct ancestors (unless, of course, they are through another branch).
rjprice wrote:
<Error>
<Code>AccessDenied</Code>
<Message>Request has expired</Message>
<RequestId>E277CBA2AD961490</RequestId>
<Expires>2013-02-17T17:41:25Z</Expires>
<HostId>
5OMbGGHEpFrM0wQg6/QMHHnMVaYkKS/FrMG9KCWrbKylGQmqFIrt0pHJeDuMuBHb
</HostId>
<ServerTime>2013-02-21T16:43:27Z</ServerTime>
</Error>
Darwin...
DukeofNuke wrote:rjprice wrote:
<Error>
<Code>AccessDenied</Code>
<Message>Request has expired</Message>
<RequestId>E277CBA2AD961490</RequestId>
<Expires>2013-02-17T17:41:25Z</Expires>
<HostId>
5OMbGGHEpFrM0wQg6/QMHHnMVaYkKS/FrMG9KCWrbKylGQmqFIrt0pHJeDuMuBHb
</HostId>
<ServerTime>2013-02-21T16:43:27Z</ServerTime>
</Error>
I dunno. It worked when I hit preview and showed up when I hit submit but it is borked now. I'll see if I can find the image again.
Last edited by rjprice on Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:13 pm.
Found it! If this doesn't work then we'll just have to blame the internet.
DEyncourt wrote:StaticAge wrote:DEyncourt wrote:I have some problems with that population graphic.
First, the usual reckoning for human generations is about 30 years and not the 20 years (5 generations per century) used there. Certainly a particular generational separation could be as small as 14 or as large as 45 (ignoring lab-implanted embryos for a few women further past menopause as this has been available only for the last generation) but usually 30 is used as an average for the general popluation in the long run. Using 3 generations per century one winds up with a genetic pool of 2^18 or about a quarter-million people in 1400 CE--still a large number but not the billion people in that graphic.
Second, aside from the emigrant exodus from Europe, Asia and (sometime involuntariry) Africa which began as a trickle in the early 1500's and reaching into the millions per year by the late 1800's, humans are mostly a stay-at-home bunch. Sure, war and drought and other natural and man-made disasters have caused some mass movements at times, but even after such there is a tendency for people to return to where they are from if it is at all possible. Even for much of the immigrant population into the US which have almost entirely stayed there was the strong idea that after these people got rich in the US that they would return home wherever that might be.
There is also the (sub)urbanization of local populations where to one degree or another the Industrial Revolution has forced people to move from farms to cities (and then to the suburbs in the 20th century), but this can be viewed as a kind of man-made "disaster" for which the movement was more often one way than not, and this is a more modern phenomenon dating from about 1750 CE or later depending on from which particular people you are descended.
Still, even today there are many localities in Europe and Asia and Africa where despite considerable modern mobility there are distinct local populations that share characteristic speech and sometimes ethnic distinctions. To be sure: this was sometimes because some groups were despied by others like the Jews or the Untouchables in India, but even when you discount these prejudicial cases you can find considerable distinctions between people from relatively close Old World towns like, say, Liverpool and Manchester in England. Confine yourself to the travel possibilities of 1400 CE and these local populations were all but locked to the locality (aside from such disasters as cited above).
So are you "related to everybody...twice" by statistical reasoning? It is a nice sentiment but not at all realistic. My ancestors in 1400 CE Japan were highly unlikely to have had even a notion of anyone's ancestors in 1400 CE Europe or Africa much less engage in sex and thus be directly related. On the other hand each of us is likely to be related to nearly everyone in the district or town of origin in 1400 CE via dozens if not hundreds of paths.
Not to mention that it only accounts for ancestors having one child per couple. That's totally unreal. And, of course, more kids means that the population doesn't exponentially double each previous generation the way the picture portrays it as happening.
(In other words, I have two siblings, but all of us combined only have one set of parents. The graph assumes that every single person in the population has two unique parents; according to the graphic there would need to be six people one generation ago for me and my siblings)
Um, no.
There is nothing in that population graphic about siblings--it is only about a given person's direct ancestors. Going back N generations there are 2^N slots to be filled, and for almost everyone when N=18 there are likely many individuals who fill several of the 256K slots of that generation, perhaps as often as hundreds of times for some particular ancestors. It matters not if while tracing back your paternal line that your (great^X)-grandfather was a single child or was in a family with 10 siblings because none of those siblings are your direct ancestors (unless, of course, they are through another branch).
I know it doesnt mention siblings, thats my point. If going back each generation really doubles the population, you have to think about how at some point it also must taper off to an ancient common ancestor. How would that happen?
Imagine there are three sets of parents, each of them have one boy and one girl, the children pair off and also have one boy and one girl who also pair off, etc the next generation doesnt increase, and while the gene pool might seriously suffer, at that rate of production, the population is sustained at the same rate, maybe for a long time. If you tried to do the same exponential trick where the population is assumed to double each past generation, you'd get messed up results. That same reason is why the graphic also doesnt seem to work from my perspective, but starting at a much larger gene pool.
TOS wrote:you want darwin, i got darwin
That's beautiful.
My first reaction is it must be staged, but the way the guy in the middle gets thrown, I am not to sure.
That chart ignores disease, famine and the like. For example a third of Europe died off during the plague.
I certainly hope so. I can't imagine that much stupid sitting in one tree.
Séamas wrote:TOS wrote:you want darwin, i got darwin
That's beautiful.
My first reaction is it must be staged, but the way the guy in the middle gets thrown, I am not to sure.
I certainly hope so. I can't imagine that much stupid sitting in one tree.
If they still aired Looney Tunes, they would know better.
they seemed to think the higher branch they were holding onto would hold them
The middle guy was pulled down by the left guy. The middle guy did not have a grip on the right guy or he would have likely followed the other two. If the middle guy had wrapped his legs firmly around the branch he might have held on. The underwear shot was a nice touch.
What's more important, having knowledge stuck in your head, or knowing how to find the information you need?
Séamas wrote:If they still aired Looney Tunes, they would know better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Looney_Tunes_Show
TOS wrote:i thought this one was pretty:
Pretty, yes, but someone gets fired/demoted here right?
The Russians have always wondered where they lost that one.Freakout Jackson wrote:
Pretty, yes, but someone gets fired/demoted here right?
DukeofNuke wrote:TOS wrote:
I see Dave 7 times.
yeah that quite annoyed me ... i thought that surely others could have been found