4 ms·
Part that got me midway through was the suspicion (confirmed at the end) that maybe the current 8,000,000,000 estimates for world population numbers have some r
by araes 2y ago
Part that got me midway through was the suspicion (confirmed at the end) that maybe the current 8,000,000,000 estimates for world population numbers have some rather large inaccuracies.
From the discussion:
> how reliable current global population estimates really are. For example, is it possible that global population estimates from the United Nations (7.98 billion in 2022) or World Bank (7.95 billion in 2022), both relying heavily on national population censuses, miss a significant part of the world population?
- PostOnce 2y agoIt seems like we could get some good estimates based on non-census data. For example cellular data or ad data, rf emissions, CO2 or other chemical emissions, satellite photography of human activity (mowing, cropping, logging, building, etc), food or fuel shipments, etc. A census may miss people, but the rest of the data wouldn't.
- svnt 2y agoAlmost none of this exists for these time periods and populations. Tree cover is mentioned as a problem preventing satellite imagery.
- svnt 2y agoThere is also mentioned the fact that according to their data estimates significantly improved from 2000 to 2010. This could mean that apparent population growth during that period was much slower than it appeared, and instead down to improved measurement.