What is the total number of people who have ever lived on the earth? And where are they all buried? I’m concerned that I am inadvertently walking on zillions of old bones.
Welcome to the SDMB! 
I’m sure Cecil did a column on this, but I’ll give you the facts as I unnerstanum:
-
This is a tricky question to answer.
-
It’s tricky to answer for several reasons.
-
Those reasons are:
a) From an evolutionary standpoint, it’s difficult to determine when Homo Whatever became Homo Sapiens
b) Just about every scientist you ask is going to give you a different date for when Homo Whatever became Homo Sapiens
c) Then there are the creation scientists who profess that The Human Race began at a specific point in time and suggest that we count people starting with them.
d) Regardless of whether you believe in creation or evolution, when you try to determine how many human beings have walked on the earth you’re still just guessing. It’s not like they have death certificates going back to Cro-Magnon man.
Having said all that, I’ve heard estimates ranging from 36 billion or so to upwards of 90 billion. A lot of scientists from both camps (creation and evolution) seem to think 36 billion is as good a number as any. (And no, I can’t back that up with a cite. I’m just pretty sure I read it somewhere.)
Are you walking on zillions of old bones? Probably. But I’m quite sure that most of those old bones have disentigrated beyond recognizion, as all things do eventually.
My $ .02
Here is Cecil’s column on this topic - basically what rastahomie said.
As for walking on zillions of bones - many bodies are cremated, and most of the rest have disintegrated in the ground and its component molecules/atoms recycled by bacteria, plants, and then animals. Not only are we walking on billions of dead bodies, we’re eating and breathing them in all the time - and we ourselves are made up of them.
Having reviewed Cecil’s Column, with the link generously provided by scr4, I humbly admit that my estimate of 36 billion was low.
In his column, Cecil makes this statement: Some may feel the creationist figure is entirely to close to the “real” figures for comfort.
I don’t understand this. Is Cecil basically saying “Creationists cannot possibly come up with any scientifically valid ideas. So the fact that their figures and ours are close means that our figures are obviously wrong.”
I don’t get it. Maybe somebody can explain.
Intellectual snobbery? ::shrugs::
–Tim
I think Cecil explains himself in the subsequent sentences. He seems to be saying that someone scientifically calculated the total number of people based on flimsy evidence and came up with a number that was close to the “counting the people mentioned in the Bible” method. He then intimates that since we already knew answer, it was hardly worth calculating it scientifically. This sarcasm is similar to the logic of numerous politicians today. (e.g. “They spent $250M and one year to study school children and they found out that reading is good for children! Dang, my dog coulda told you that.”
Cecil may also be hedging on his own argument by saying that his two independent sources for the right answer may actually have come from the same common source.
I didn’t take it as disparaging.
Creationists are not scientists, even when they try to dress up their religious beliefs in scientific langauge.
OK that statement is just plain rude. Just because someone is a creationist precludes them from being a scientist? WTF??? What if his field of study has nothing to do with biology/anthropology. If you were, say, a doctor (and doctors are scientists), would you write off one of your colleagues as a kook because he was a creationist?
I think he is talking about Creation Scientists, not just scientists who believe in Creation.
On the other hand, it has happened. Scientific American decided to let go one of their columnists (I’m not sure that he’d even started work) because of his belief in Creation–even though they admitted he was the best person for the job. Forrest Mims, I believe.
I have heard that there are more humans alive today than the combined total of those humans that have died.
Is this correct, impossible, or just plain silly?
Thanks for listening.
I believe I heard the total human population is 10 billion. This sounds low when I think about it, but I can’t say for sure. Keep in mind, 5,000 years ago, the largest city had 150 people, IIRC.
Is it me, or do you get the feeling people are not reading responses anymore?
PeeQueue
I believe that 3000 BC Ur had a population of half a million. In fact, Uruk a thousand years earlier was also huge (cannot recall the number, but it was similar).
Bill
Precisely, although I would have my doubts about the later also (if we are talking about those who believe in creation in the strictly non-allegorical way that ‘Creation Scientists’ do.). My comment came in the context of the quoted opposition between scientists and so called ‘creation scientists’ – who are not scientists.