Talk:Human

Picture?
I suggest using a different pictures as Avery J. Johnson is overly used. How about a crew member of The Pillar of Autumn--Gzalzi 07:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Expansion?
I think this article would do well if we integrated some of the things on the UNSC page, weapons, worlds, and vehicles.
 * Not necessarily. Humans are a species, not a faction. -- ED ( talk )(shockfront) 22:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

thought
i had a thought about another reason why the covenant haven't asked humans to join them,maby they don't ask races that are already an empire to join them(i.e. if they would meet us today in real life, they might ask us to join,but if we where to colonized other planets some time in the future,they would attack us like in halo)Johnny 00:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's something to think about: the Covenant doesn't ask if you want to join, they conquer you so that you don't have a choice. And yes since the UNSC is a force to be reckoned they won't try to take us over like the others. They probably would do it if they met us today. But there might be another reason behind the annihilation initiative. --[[Image:Final Goji.jpg|30px]] Lordofmonsterisland  "Roar to me"  00:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ya but it is a good idea for another reason why they havn't tryed to make or ask humans to join themJohnny 00:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Humanity in the covenant? i think not
sorry i'm not quite sure how to reply but, i think Humanity would choose a decent place within the Covenant if asked rather than total genocide, Human tech and world would have been gladly incorporated into the covenant i think, then we would have discovered the true purpose of halo by screwing with it (as we always do with things) and then we'd rebel, therefore putting us back at square one, genocide :P

ya we always screw with things don't we,and some times it's screws up everything when we do Johnny 01:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

human - covenant
if the covenant know the forerunners treat humans as 'reclaimers', then why fight the humans? After all the covenant worship the forerunners, it's like going against the forerunners choices.  What  did HaloDude  Do!?!  11:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the UNSC was in the way of what the Covenant was searching for and instead of asking if they could look, they decided to kill everyone. Alexspartan117 12:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ya that could be why Alexspartan117 Johnny 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is more then likely that Truth was in charge of the Covenant at the start of the war. As we know truth thought of himself as a god, so any other race favored by the god that might lessen his power would obviously have to be eliminate. For example, the Elites. ProphetofTruth 05:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Humans and Forerunner
I noticed that the section about the forerunner and humans was very biased against the theory the humans are decendants of the forerunner, despite the huge amount of [obvious] evidence supporting it, and that all that evidence was left out, so I put in the evidence that supports humans are forerunner incarnate and that the issue of whether that is true is still up to debate because of bungies cryptic way of getting the forerunners story across. I did not remove any information.

rename.
Here is something to consider, in all other articles concerning a particular race they've had their general name, then their official name, like: Grunts(Ungguy). So, I think we should rename this article "Humans(Homo-Sapien)". What do you think?

ya but we're only called humans,unlike the coives who call them selfs by their names not by the human names for them Johnny 14:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Merged
Should this page be merged with Marines?--Karzhani 04:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Marines is the military force, while Human is the race. Is Sangheili merged with Sanheili Minor? -- Sgt. <font color="Black">johnson [[Image:General-gr1.gif|30px]] 02:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Weight
I tried to add the Weight category into the template, but it won't show up. If there's anyone who can make it show up, that would be appreciated, thanks. Pyro Python 17:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Future Population
The population predicted in this article is grossly inaccurate. Having studied demographics, I can tell you that growth would only remain contant if birth control practices, healthcare, standard of living, and a myriad of other factor remained unchanged. As the figure stated in the article is, unfortunately, conjecture, I would recommend its reassessment or removal. Blackhawk003 04:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Eridanus II
Could it be only the people from Eridanus II are related to the Forerunners? <font color="00008B">Matoro3311 <font color="C0C0C0">"Shout At Me""My Contribs" 16:59, 14 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 humanities advancement as a civilization. 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 threating 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 had to 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. Hence 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 with.

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