4 ms·

The crazy thing is there has only been 1.6 billion seconds since 1970. There have been more babies since 1970 than there have been seconds. Which is crazy. Bac

The crazy thing is there has only been 1.6 billion seconds since 1970. There have been more babies since 1970 than there have been seconds. Which is crazy. Back then, Earth's population was on 3.7 billion. Now it's 7.8 billion. That means that (ignoring deaths) 2.5 babies have been born for each unix second. Or roughly 1 baby every 400 milliseconds.

city41 6y ago
I don't think that's too crazy. Seconds are serial, babies are parallel :)
- iso1210 6y ago
  Yet while one woman can generate 1 baby in 9 months, 9 women can't do it in 1 month
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - browserface 6y ago
    Underrated comment. Reply anticipation: this is not reddit. Preemptive response, I know, doesn't change the fact that this comment is underrated :);p xx Only thing I want to add: not yet, maybe with CRISPR and artificial wombs there could be some way.
thomaslkjeldsen 6y ago
According to https://ourworldindata.org/peak-child https://ourworldindata.org/peak-child (2018) the number of children in the world is plateauing ("very close to a long flat peak") meaning that the total number of children may stay constant in the future.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  Except in Africa. It is pretty important to everyone to increase the median wealth of people in Africa.
throwaway744678 6y ago
IIRC, it's ~5.5 births and 3 deaths per second (worldwide). Also, see: https://www.worldometers.info/ https://www.worldometers.info/
- browserface 6y ago
  That sounds about right. Approx 50 million deaths per year in that frame. 50 years....2.5 billion deaths. So 2.5+1.5 births and 1.5 deaths a second. If you round up deaths to whole numbers, 3 deaths per 2 seconds, maybe that's the error, adding the 3 deaths per 2 seconds to 2.5 deaths per 1 second. Or 8 births and 3 deaths every 2 seconds. Or 1 death every 700ms.
disown 6y ago
Linear vs quadratic growth.
- browserface 6y ago
  Good point and great way to think about it. It would be weird if the number of seconds grew quadratically. I guess considering "particle interactions" and "light cone" the number of interactions among particles (and interactions among interactions) grows quadratically over time. I wonder how the universe doesn't end up with a backlog of information it hasn't yet processed. Maybe that's gravity/dark matter. :p ;) xx hehe
kseistrup 6y ago
Also crazy to think of, is: If you have a billion (i.e., 1E9) dollars, or any other currency, and you spend $86,400 dollars a day, it will take you more than 31 years and 8 months to spend the entire billion.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

city41 6y ago

I don't think that's too crazy. Seconds are serial, babies are parallel :)

iso1210 6y ago
Yet while one woman can generate 1 baby in 9 months, 9 women can't do it in 1 month
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- browserface 6y ago
  Underrated comment. Reply anticipation: this is not reddit. Preemptive response, I know, doesn't change the fact that this comment is underrated :);p xx Only thing I want to add: not yet, maybe with CRISPR and artificial wombs there could be some way.

thomaslkjeldsen 6y ago

According to https://ourworldindata.org/peak-child https://ourworldindata.org/peak-child (2018) the number of children in the world is plateauing ("very close to a long flat peak") meaning that the total number of children may stay constant in the future.

ncmncm 6y ago
Except in Africa. It is pretty important to everyone to increase the median wealth of people in Africa.

throwaway744678 6y ago

IIRC, it's ~5.5 births and 3 deaths per second (worldwide). Also, see: https://www.worldometers.info/ https://www.worldometers.info/

browserface 6y ago
That sounds about right. Approx 50 million deaths per year in that frame. 50 years....2.5 billion deaths. So 2.5+1.5 births and 1.5 deaths a second. If you round up deaths to whole numbers, 3 deaths per 2 seconds, maybe that's the error, adding the 3 deaths per 2 seconds to 2.5 deaths per 1 second. Or 8 births and 3 deaths every 2 seconds. Or 1 death every 700ms.

disown 6y ago

Linear vs quadratic growth.

browserface 6y ago
Good point and great way to think about it. It would be weird if the number of seconds grew quadratically. I guess considering "particle interactions" and "light cone" the number of interactions among particles (and interactions among interactions) grows quadratically over time. I wonder how the universe doesn't end up with a backlog of information it hasn't yet processed. Maybe that's gravity/dark matter. :p ;) xx hehe

kseistrup 6y ago

Also crazy to think of, is: If you have a billion (i.e., 1E9) dollars, or any other currency, and you spend $86,400 dollars a day, it will take you more than 31 years and 8 months to spend the entire billion.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]