100 Humans

[RedAnarchist]

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

The following is also something to ponder.....

If you woke up this morning with more health than illness, you are
more blessed 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 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 a mong the top 8% of the world's
wealthy.

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

[mEds]

If i could count the hundreds of people who already posted this on every forum, website, famly gathering......................................... .................................


why do you have to post the same stuff over and over.. this thread needs to be PRUNED>

[RedAnarchist]

I didnt realize it had been sen so much. Its the first time i've seen it anyway.

[RedAnarchist]

Trash this thread please, moderators. Thanks

[John Galt]

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/populate.htm


Its false.

[DaCuBaN]

It's not perfect, but lets quote the author of THAT documents figures - they're really not an awful lot better.

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

50 men
50 women

27 white
73 non-white

33 Christians
67 non-Christians

anywhere between 1-2% and 25%-35% homosexual, author claims 2-3%


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

No, fair enough: there's plenty of rich outside the US now too - the author was being unfairly biased here.

But here he shows his true colours...


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?

In other words there are people living in opulence and those who live in squallor. He just won't admit that directly :D

Those are the important ones - from here it goes into the iteracy rates on which the two authors are probably both wrong - if anyone has some current figures they'd be appreciated, and then onto college rates and computer ownership - which in all honesty I can't see the relevance of.


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?


I personally took this one to mean that there would be one baby and one on death's door

Bear in mind the initial document was intended to show a 'sample' of the world, not some imaginary 100 person society. The author was perhaps a little foolish to ues this analogy

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 08:05 PM
In other words there are people living in opulence and those who live in squallor. He just won't admit that directly :D
This is the problem with using a relative standard. Relative to a millionaire, 99.99999999% the entire world lives in "substandard" housing. He's right; the standard being used is set too high.

[DaCuBaN]

So you agree that those in opulence need to do more about those in squallor?
I'd be interested to hear your views on this subject, but I loathe to start a thread for something so small

[Loknar]

World hunger is typically the fault of the host nation of the ones starving. There is more than enough food to go a round.

[DaCuBaN]

So it's nothing to do with the ever-increasing demands from the west, or the debts that these 3rd and 2nd world nations have from which most can only pay off the interest?

Sure, they took the loan. Sure it's their responsibilty - but i believe they call it compassion. Have you none?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 11:45 PM
Sure, they took the loan. Sure it's their responsibilty - but i believe they call it compassion. Have you none?
Compassion is a deceptive word. What you mean is wealth redistribution.

[Osman Ghazi]

Wealth redistribution is a deceptive term. What you really mean is that you would rather have people die then give them any of your dirty money.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 11:45 PM
So it's nothing to do with the ever-increasing demands from the west, or the debts that these 3rd and 2nd world nations have from which most can only pay off the interest?

Sure, they took the loan. Sure it's their responsibilty - but i believe they call it compassion. Have you none?
These nations and these people were around long before America, or even the west, was colonized. Who did we blame their poverty on then?

Yes, famine, disease, and poverty was admamant in these nations back then as well. The usual scapegoats, however, were not.

Compassion is not a reason to excuse someone not honoring debts that they voluntarily engaged in.

[DaCuBaN]

Compassion is not a reason to excuse someone not honoring debts that they voluntarily engaged in.

If, like I surmise at least 75% of the regulars at Che-Lives live in the 'western world' then you are in a position to help. What is it drives you to refuse? Yes I've admitted these loans and such are perfectly legal and that it was their own fault for getting involved in the first place. But we can't just sit idly by and watch people die. I just can't understand why people don't give a damn - please, enlighten me.


Compassion is a deceptive word. What you mean is wealth redistribution

You show your true colours here - you would be more than willing to exploit each and every person you know if it was in your benefit. Every man for himself eh? Remind me never to fight for you.


In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.
-Martin Niemoller

Is the idea of 'compassion' sinking in yet? I feel horrible using this poem to appeal to the selfish side of your nature, but I can see no other way :(


World hunger is typically the fault of the host nation of the ones starving. There is more than enough food to go a round

This isn't even worth dignifying with a response. Look at subsidies and surplus in the developed world.

[Osman Ghazi]

1. The organizations that took the loan was the government.
2. The governments of Africa are, generally speaking, not democracies.
3. Therefore, the people had no say in whether or not the government took out a loan, yet you have no trouble suggesting that they should pay the cost with their lives. God bless America.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 11 2004, 10:56 AM
Wealth redistribution is a deceptive term. What you really mean is that you would rather have people die then give them any of your dirty money.
It's easy to despise what you do not posess.

[DaCuBaN]

were those nine words of wisdom worth the effort? :rolleyes:

Can a surmise your lack of response can be taken as an understanding of 'compassion' then?


These nations and these people were around long before America, or even the west, was colonized. Who did we blame their poverty on then?

The same people who were blamed for the poverty of everyone else - not the USA but the idea of accrueing personal wealth and self-preservation

Or at least that's what I blame ;)


Yes, famine, disease, and poverty was admamant in these nations back then as well. The usual scapegoats, however, were not.

Compassion is not a reason to excuse someone not honoring debts that they voluntarily engaged in.

Famine disease and poverty aren't linked to the US - but they were in a position to help and did not - this would be compassion. It is not a 'reason' as you suggest.

[Osman Ghazi]

It's easy to despise what you do not posess.

Now, now moneybags, assuming makes an ass out of you and me. Well, you anyways. I actually come from a petty-bourgeous family so I actually have a fair degree of wealth. So now what is your brilliant solution as to why I despise wealth? Hmmm?

Y2A's 'communists are really rich suburban kids' generalization is far more accurate for this board.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 11 2004, 09:47 PM

Y2A's 'communists are really rich suburban kids' generalization is far more accurate for this board.
Not to toot my own horn, Osman, but I had the pleasure of submitting a thread (and a more well written one at that) to thisa effect long before Y2A was even here. It was one of the greatest posts in this forum's history, 199 reponses!!! It really got to you commie pukes because it ws so darn accurate and hit very close to home.

Here you are:

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...c=7628&hl=fakes (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=7628&hl=fakes)

here as well:

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...ck+commie+pukes (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20392&hl=i'm+back+commie+pukes)

[thatCHEr]

No shit sherlock, certain countries are more developed and have better living standards than others. At the same time, these countries have one main ethnicity and are not representative of the earths population.

Thanks for the revelation.