Think once about this...
If we'd reduce the whole population of our Planet to a village of 100 inhabitants (but taking into consideration the proportions!), we would get this:
57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 Americans (North & South)
8 Africans
52 women
48 men
70 non-whites
30 whites
70 non-Christians
30 Christians
89 heterosexuals
11 homosexuals
6 people would own 59%of the whole riches (all 6 of them would come from the United States and Europe)
80 would not have sufficient housing conditions
70 would be illiterate
50 would be underfed
1 would die
2 would be born
1 would have a computer
1 would have an academic grade
If you are (today) healthy and not ill, you are happier than 1 million people, who won't see next week.
If you have never been in war, in prison (innocent!) and in a famine, you are happier than 500 million people.
If you can go to church, without fear of being imprisoned or murdered, you are happier than 3 billion people.
If you have got something to eat in your fridge, if you own clothes, a house and a bed, you are richer than 75% of the world's population.
If you have got a bank account and money in your wallet, you are one of the 8% of wealthy people in the world.
If you read this article, you are NOT one of the 2 billion people who can't read...
True... it's about time our governments erased the debt of the third world countries, that would be a good first step in the right way...
cramoukji: Let's take the United States, the richest nation on the planet, as an example. The U.S. is a few trillion dollars in debt, and falling deeper and faster into debt every year. How then, would richer governments like the U.S. 'erase' the debt of third world countries? I think it's far more important for nations to learn to be self-sufficient (probably with some help, though), or else it'll be like giving money to the drunk homeless person who uses it to buy more booze. Oops, did I just compare impoverished nations to whinos? You know what I mean.
1922: Your point about 30 Christians and 70 non-Christians is roughly correct but may be misleading. You might say something like: 33 Christians, 22 Muslims, 15 Hindus, and 14 Non-Religious people.
And what do you mean by '1 would have an academic grade'?
Where did you get the stastic on the ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals? I've heard that ratio, but it was just for the United States. Has the ratio been found to hold true across the rest of the world?
Also, what do you mean '2 would be born' and '1 would die'? In what time span? And wouldn't that change the nature of '100 inhabitants'?
I wonder how many languages would be spoken in that group. 5? 10? 15?
Thx for the excellent post.
First of all, I have got to make sth. clear. It is NOT me who has made this list. I found it in a German magazine, and well, I thought it might also interest other people. (frankly the list was much longer, and I left a few things out)
About the religions: That is absolutely correct what you say. I dunno why they split it up like that. Your examples are by far more interesting.
People with academic grade are surely people that have made their studies at university.
The ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals is certainly true for the whole world (but this might also be an estimation, I don't really know).
2 born/ 1 die: these proportions are general. For one person who dies, 2 are born. And of course, the population would increase then. 100 inhabitants is the original situation.
There was nothing about languages in the list. I think Spanish, Mandarin and English would be the leading languages. But how many? No idea about that.
The United States indebted themselves... Colonization kept the third world countries in a state of dependency from our so-called "developed democraties"... yes, I see your point, but no, I cannot consider it as valid. And by "erasing the debt" I meant to stop asking the third world countries to keep paying interests to banks and rich governments... The US might have a public debt of trillion dollars but it keeps inflating its defense spendings to historic highs and the administration and president currently in power have in the past few years spent for weapons and war operations times and times more than the amount of money it spent on education or health... the state of Mississippi boasts an incredibly high statistic of illiterate people and of people who do not have access to sanitation and clear drinking water so yes, third world countries are not the only ones suffering in the world but does that mean rich governments have the right to let millions of people die in Africa simply because there is no oil or other economically interesting resources there ?
And by the way, double check your world stats, Luxemburg is the world's richest country, closely followed by Switzerland, I am afrid the USA only manage a low rating in the top 10 these days...
Thank you for reading.
Sure, it's the United States' fault (or more precisely, Bush's fault) that we're so much in debt. I seriously doubt lukeprog would argue with that. But no matter how many people are suffering in the U.S. or anywhere else, the point is that our government is in no position to help third world countries - we have financial problems of our own. I agree with lukeprog, it would be more beneficial to everyone if we helped third world countries become self-sufficient rather than depending on someone richer.
You're right, sorry: should've said 'one of the world's richest nations'. And, you make 'low end of the top 10' sound pretty low, but out of 193 nations, that's pretty good.
Some very cool statistics. I feel very fortunate to be a U.S. citizen, but I think more of us need to look at things from the perspective of "One World" as opposed to "One Nation."
I feel that world peace of sorts is possible depending on two big factors that I can think of:
1. having a world language that everyone speaks as a second language (whether it be newly created or already established)
2. having a United Nations that is the highest military authority, guided by one major principle - when one country attacks another, all the countries of the world unite against the agressor
Excellent ideas. I agree on everything!
1. Creating a new language would be a huge waste. Anyway, this language that everyone speaks as a second language is English, the international language of business. Everyone I have ever spoken with in non-English-speaking-nations is learning or has learned English as a second language as a required part of their basic education. Of course, this gives lazy Americans* like myself another excuse to not learn another language.
2. Scary. Don't know if it's any scarier than the present situation, though.
* Man, I hate the term 'Americans'. I'd never use it ever if I didn't hate 'United Statesians' or 'citizens of the United States' even more. Can we please come up with a short term for people currently living in the United States? It's funny, most people I know don't realize they're basically referring to the entire Western Hemisphere (half the planet) when they say 'America'.
Interesting. I wondered how much English was being taught in other countries.
I agree that consolidating military authority in an evolved United Nations would be scary, because consolidating power can be dangerous in a "1984" Orwellian sense. However, I envision a U.N. that does not have a world military force, but rather that each individual nation has it's own military. Each nation's military would be used for keeping civil order, disaster relief, and committed towards international peace operations. Of course, each nation would have to have an option to veto their military's involvement in a conflict. But there needs to be significant incentives to following U.N. edict (like cheaper food, oil, etc.) that would ensure that countries only withold their military contribution if there was a serious reason. Since war has been the norm throughout history, it's difficult to believe that world peace is a credible possibility. There'll always be flaws and dangers, but in my opinion, they are some worthwhile risks if we are to survive as a civilization as the world population climbs to worrisome levels.
I'm pretty sure that Spanish and not English is the language that is spoken by most people in the world. A close second would be Mandarin, and English would 'only' make a third place...
Well, just for information.
"...the little language that could."
"...in 1974 it was made the sixth official language of the United Nations."
"To say 'hello' in English, say 'What's up, freak?' (watz-UP-freek)."
"...each word can be pronounced in four ways (or 'tones')."
Ni hao!
Thanks, 0dysseus, for this excellent post (well, as usual)!
Then we will all have to learn Mandarin! (now I'm happy that I have already started learning it. :) ).
Bonjour!
Thank you for noticing, it's very nice to hear.
I have decided to pay more strict attention to the lessons provided by fortune cookies. If I'm remembering properly then Mandarin is a beautiful, rounded, fricative language. With four different tones I imagine that there must be some supremely great poets in Mandarin.
Except for Mandarin, world languages are more evenly distributed than I'd have guessed. The population ratio of 2nd-ranking language speakers to the 10th-ranking language speakers is less than 4-1. Impressive! Just as impressive are those who can comprehend that second eft-up sentence.
Woah, Israel is the 4th most athiest nation (ot at least, it was in 1991). Wouldn't have won that bar bet. I guess the perpetual religious bloodbath is enough to athieize just about anyone.
Another bet I'd have lost: in 1997, 85% of the U.S. was Christian.
I'll take some salt with that, please.