Talk:Human

pic
can we use it ÇЋЇŒʢ ʕЛΆΝќAegis Company  βĻά βĻά βĻάɰЊάł Ḷ ḍõИШ  01:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe...

The Sarge  Comm CSV 03:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't go very far into the future... and, it seems to imply a very low birth rate, which isn't consistent with the Halo canon description of "massive population surges"

http://www.halowars.com/GameInfo/Timeline.aspx

Also, your 99 million births per year estimate is flawed and makes no sense. Population growth is a differential equation of the current population, so dP/dt = kP

If we use separation of variables, we get:

dt = dP/kP

int(kdt) = int(dp/P)

kT = ln(kP) + C

P = e^(kT - C)

P(T) = Ce^(kT)

So, if k is the rate of change of population, C is the initial population, and T is the time, P(T) is our population. If we accept C as 6 billion, and k as 2%, by 2553 we get a world population of 314 trillion.

I personally believe that population growth will remain exponential for a while, but in developed countries today population is starting to level out due to birth control.

--CaptainZoidberg 02:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC) in reallity the population grow up about 1,67% each year but all calculator system i try wassnt able to give me the resultC F 0 0 1 01:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy Crap I just finished a crapload of edits on this page. Well, I may as well explain myself.
Wow. This page was missing a lot I must say. Ended up tweaking and flat out adding a lot of details concerning humanity's advancement as a species. For one thing, the scientific method alone cannot account for modern humanity's unprecedented growth rates. The 18th thru 20th Century, *not* just the 20th century alone, as initiated by the Industrial Revolution are benchmark eras behind our recent turning point as a species: with the advent of Constitution style democratic/republic societies securing the human rights necessary for us to utilize our fullest potentials.

Its the fact that nowadays we can produce veritable legions of talented minds AND efficiently back them up with the resources they need to do their job (thanks to Capitalism becoming the ever preferred economic system of the world, resulting in big-ass think tanks known as "Corporations"), as opposed to the old days when we might have had only one genius per century (whom we promptly executed for threatening our paranoid ideals). And originally all this article had to cite was the scientific method? I mean I know it helped but wait...That's it? That's when we became omgfast at improving our tech? Huh?

Also, I have to say, I was really unimpressed by the population estimate. In the form I found it in it demonstrated a gross lack of understanding concerning population growth and generational demographics within developing nations. First of all, the historically record high population counts have less to do with perceived increases in "birth rates" and way way WAY(!) more to do with *drastically* reduced death rates. You know, what with us not engaging in bloody combat that lasts for decades cause my monarch has some kind of emo love affair with your monarch and all. You know, what with us no longer getting pwn'd by no0b diseases, etc, etc. Additionally, many people have unheard of the typical demographic shifting of generations as a nation goes from "2nd World" to "1st World". While a societal demographic is still developing, its common from them to exhibit an explosion (note that explosions are known for being brief) of birth rates for the first generation or so of growth (a baby-boomer generation as its were), followed by abruptly reduced birth rates for the next generation after that demographic has brought itself up to full speed; birth rates that are generally even lower than what was happening before the baby boom hit. In other words, birth rates tend to be LOGARITHMIC across generations and are far from linear. Again, not that it matters because the real reason more people are on Earth today is because no one is dying the way they used to, giving old people more time to plot neo-communist takeovers of the entire solar system. Ahem, had no choice but to make the population section reflect that. Hope no one minds.

One last thing: Space is not finite. Us crafty humans can reorganize our architecture to make it do more with less if and when the time comes. Market forces will, as always, dictate how we develop our land, but its not like "OMG eVarY squar kILO Of daE EARTH pLuS ItS ATMOSPHERE aND ev3n The Same witH thE soL ColoniES iS occupIed sO itS NOT Even l1KE WE CAN EV3N jUS7 simply mAke a sLIGHTly talleR aPARTmENT buILding OH NOES!!!" Nah, if we develop FTL, that's not how our migration is going to be. The real reason we'll colonize isn't because we "need" to as though our very survival depends upon it, but simply because the real estate over there is cheaper and more convenient what with less bureaucrats getting in your way. And cheap convenient real estate that also happens to sit on a mountain of titanium (or what have you) = $$$ = migration efforts reminiscent of the Gold Rush. Some vague prospect of "develop FTL and colonize or face extinction" would've had nothing to do with it; more like humanity had to move lest it pay higher stupid mortgages. Planets, by definition, are pretty whopping places that are hard to literally fill up especially given creative enough architecture, hence, if in the future suddenly "we" (as in, humans) decided that "we" (as in, not the planet itself), had run out of "space" it probably has more to do with something lame like bureaucratic zoning restrictions or some other kind of idiotic red tape born of moron policy that was inhibiting our ability to reshuffle our currently utilized space in anticipation of new real estate demands. Therefore an understandable amount of unrest if suddenly the "Earth (Sol colonies included)" is perceived as "overpopulated" for precisely these shadowy reasons.

Thus, for that above plethora of mega complicated reasons, I simply added little one word adjectives as "deemed" or "considered" in front of words like "overpopulated", and words like "comfortably" or "reasonably" in front of parts concerning the Earth being unable to "sustain" humanity. Sheesh, Earth will sustain humanity for as long as market forces give us incentives not to abuse resources without considering our wallets. I'm appalled by how much the article seemingly underestimated our ability to adapt when I first found it.

Anywho, I think that about sums up everything I tinkered around with. Well ok, maybe "sums up" isn't the word for it. More like: I think that excessively rants about everything I tinkered around with.

~TheHolyDarkness Out~ --TheHolyDarkness 06:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Rampant Speculation
Seriously, this is getting beyond ridiculous. If I am not mistaken, isn't one of the policies on this page to post information that is fully canonical and not just air-headed speculation?

I was just going through this page out of curiousity, and I found these in the trivia section:

'''*Another less common but more likely theory is that the Forerunners were actually humans (today's humans, not in-game humans). This theory is supported by the fact that the Halos were fired approx. 100,000 years before the events of Halo: Combat Evolved (2552). Assuming that Earth is within the range of at least one Halo Installation, all sentient life on Earth would have been wiped out at about 97,448 B.C., and about 102,552 years after humanity started looking like they do today. Therefore, humanity would have died in the first firing of the Halo rings, and a new race of very similar sentient beings evolved on Earth again.

*In Halo: Combat Evolved, 343 Guilty Spark refers to human history as "a record of all our lost time", giving further evidence that humans are possible descendants of the Forerunners.'''

The first quote is both strange and nonsensical. Whoever posted this claims that with the Halo Array firing 100,000 years before the events of the series, any sentient life on Earth would have been eliminated. While that is correct, the poster asserts that Humans were destroyed, and then magically reappeared in the ensuing time period. The poster has missed some very important details; Humans had already existed on Earth for over 100,000 years prior to Array firing, and they were also a part of the several million year-old Hominid lineage of Earth.

Another detail is that that the Humans had been Indexed and sent to the Ark. While their math is correct, the interpretation is not; the Human inhabitants of Earth were already safe when the Array fired, so after that event, they were returned to Earth and became as they are in the Halo trilogy. There wasn't a new "sentient species" evolving out nowhere; the original sentient inhabitants were taken away, and put back afterwards. This place has far too much loopy logic.

The second quote, however, is far more difficult to address. While it is true that this is the first revealing of Humanity's relation to the Forerunner, it is not free of contradictions. As is characteristic of Bungie, cryptic storytelling makes quotes like these having a very ambiguous context. Many factors have to be considered, which includes changing ideas within the story canon which makes earlier material dubious or irrelevant, and this one is hard to assess.

As revealed by IRIS and the Terminals, Humans were already found on Earth when the Forerunner found them, they were "chosen" above the other races for the "Mantle", and then indexed and sent to Ark, upon which they were later returned. If they were descendants of the Forerunner, then Humanity would not have existed on Earth at all until the Forerunner came, which if you look at the relevant information, did not happen. Humans were merely taken elsewhere and then returned to their homeworld.

Finally, the connection between the Forerunner and Humanity is not a simple one, as theories like these would attest. Here you have two separate species who "appear" to be identical and even related, but the exact nature of that is left ambiguous. IRIS and the "Castaway" false book seem to point us in the right direction, by saying that the Humans of Earth were altered in some subtle way, distinguising them from the rest of Earth's life.

The Forerunner saw something in Humanity that was unique, as IRIS mentioned in Server 5 that Humans provided "answers" to their own mysteries. This could mean that Humans had the same genetic markers as they did, or they found that they both came from a common ancestor or contributor, such as the Precursors mentioned so often. But all of this is a far cry from saying that the Forerunner "settled on Earth, gave up all their technology and their cilivization, and degenerated into modern Humans" fan theory.

I wish people would stop throwing in their pet theories and passing them off as factual information just because it suits them. There is a difference between inferrences and off-the-limb speculation. I hope that people here will know the difference.

--Exalted Obliteration 22:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And how exactly would humans that long ago make halo? I cant imagine cavemen making a giant space ring out of unknown materials, in outer space...an unkown distance away from earth, plus, other than the portal, there was no forerunner "relics" on earth. All of that plus, it contradicts already known information. So yes, that theory was, putting it softly, stupid.Papayaking 07:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A way forerunners are humans...
the forerunners were not a species but a group of species like the covenant.See that humans were part of the forerunner group and they were the newest addition before the firing of the rings.They somehow survived and the population grew and so on from there. is that logical to anyone else?--Sangheili wunna be 19:18, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Population
"It is likely that a policy like Chinas One-child policy was introduced to prevent such an huge overpopulation."

Why was this sentence deleted?


 * Because it's just speculation and not an established fact. And speculation isn't allowed.--Jugus 18:59, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but the the entire "Population" article is just speculation. Shouldnt you delete the whole section?


 * Every attempt has seen the section quickly returned, and an outbreak of consternation on the subject. --  Administrator  Specops306  -   Qur'a 'Morhek   00:41, November 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * I explained it to him on his talk page.  Smoke Sound off! 00:52, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

connection to the forerunners
Personally i don't like the way it's worded. sure in the episode seeing how the forerunners have combat are which depicts them having similar body shape to ours. but towards the end after a forerunner put's it's armor away you can see the outline of it's face to see 2 "spikes" protruding on the side of the face. you can also see later "it" use a hand to lock the Armour away, showing it to be blue and look similar to cortana's hand due to the marks on it.

in other words we look "exactly the same" when they have armor on. other than that 1 reference we know nothing of how they look and until we know more i think we should lay off sating such a "connection" as a fact.grey 21:15, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Population...
On page 351 of Halo: Evolutions it says that "they will be left behind just the other twenty thre billion that preceded them were left behind." I know it sounds like a lot, but compared to how many people there will be in 500 years, it seems pretty small. Could it be military casualties or could have humanity suffered less then we thought? I think its an error on Robt Mclees part, but what do you guys think?--Sgt.T.N.Biscuits 03:26, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

i also think it a small number perhaps they suffered less, perhaps more colonies survived the war, this number just seen weird. Future information will perhaps help us. C F 0 0 <font color="GreenYellow">1 05:03, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Btw how many colonies did the UNSC had and average population and vs how many where destroyed?--Chairman Jack the BlackCOGskull.jpg 05:08, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * 800 colonies and a population around 230 Billion. (The latter part is just speculation though).--Sgt.T.N.Biscuits 15:22, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

SGT.T.N.Biscuit you mean 23 billions? <font color="LimeGreen">C <font color="RoyalBlue">F <font color="Salmon">0 <font color="Gold">0 <font color="GreenYellow">1 03:02, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I mean 230 Billion. That's what you get if you calculate what the population would be in 2500. (Assuming it follows the same birth rate as now).--Sgt.T.N.Biscuits 04:17, January 29, 2010 (UTC)