top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 112 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I've already been born so my odds should be updated.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This is actually percent of each population that believes in reincarnation

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    New Zealand’s gone missing again, I’m assuming it’s lumped in with Australia.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    No chance of being born in New Zealand I see

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    Maps without New Zealand

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So me being born in Australia was like getting a mythic prize in a loot crate.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Do you come from a land of plenty?

    Statistically, no.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Holy shit mum, im in the 1%!
    Time to retire and enjoy my vast fortune of Tim Tams

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Also, your easy access to Bundaberg root beer :(

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Thats Ginger beer, root beer has a distinctly different taste (i actually love both though).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Technically Antarctica isn't 0. There's a civilian colony and at least one baby has been born there.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 70 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    It’s not zero for Antarctica, just nearly zero. 11 people have been born in Antarctica. Mostly argentinians but also a couple chileans.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Okay and that would still be less than 0.00% which is the significant figures on the chart. They can't just put 0.01.because 11 out 8 billion people were born there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago*

    They could have put <0.01 but either way there's no real society/culture there to bwgin with. I personally wouldn't have even included it on the map.

    I will say if they were included on education stats, they would probably top all global charts.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think those chances vary a lot based on where your parents live.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [+] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Same way Russia can be split in two continents I suppose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    With all the scientists and cruises that tour around Antarctica, I am not convinced that the chances of being born there are a flat 0. It might be less than 1% but no way it's 0.

    At least 11 babies have been born in Antarctica.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm not so sure I would trust any statistics from a map that's missing New Zealand.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    How about chances of being born in the ocean, or even on this planet?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    We'd need data on beings born on other planets to determine that. Currently there's a 100% chance that you were born on this planet if you're a human.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    if you’re a human.

    You can leave this out, unless we are considering fission “born”. Even experiments like ant colonies in orbit are arguably within the confines of earth. Unless we want to start defining “on” in which case I posit that a baby born in an airplane is not born a citizen of earth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You can leave this out

    No, because it's highly likely that organic beings are born all the time on other planets out there. That was an impersonal "you."

    If you're born in Earth's atmosphere, I would consider that being born "on" Earth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Y'all probably already knew about the Valeriepieris circle, I guess.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    Remember everyone: 100.00% does not mean all, and 0.00% does not mean none, just like 50.00% does not mean exactly half. They all are accurate to 0.005% points.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    So there's a chance I'll be born in Antarctica?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Can't believe I used up all my luck for that

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    What time frame does this represent?

    Births in 2025 might be majority subsaharan Africa.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    It would be really interesting to see chances of being born across all time. Like what is the probability of being born here and now vs. somewhere else in the past or the future.

    You would have to make some predictions based on population growth and maybe model a few different possible apocalypses (average species lifetime/meteor probabilities/nuclear doomsday/climate disaster etc.) but it would be a fun model to play with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    If you limit it to births to date, it's going to be mostly Africa again, for a different reason. If you were to stick to a few millenniums back it could be interesting, I guess, because agricultural regions will dominate. I would suspect data for the late Paleolithic isn't known with any certainty.

    Past a century into the future, it becomes basically all assumptions. Humans are a very prosperous species and it seems likely we'll have descendants on Earth for hundreds of millions of years. Even if we manage to destroy civilisation, any group of survivors could be back up and building cities in a geological instant.

    If things stay progressive and prosperous, the natural birth rates are going to collapse because people just don't bother to reproduce. Are we going to do Brave New World baby factories? If we do, population becomes a matter of policy. Unless people migrate far more than today, which doesn't seem impossible, in which case you have to make assumptions about where they'll want to go.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Humans are a very prosperous species and it seems likely we'll have descendants on Earth for hundreds of millions of years. Even if we manage to destroy civilisation, any group of survivors could be back up and building cities in a geological instant.

    As longs as climate doesn't change faster than we and our food systems can adapt, scorching heat, unbreathable air and raging storms can end our prosperity in a geological instant too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    It's so, so far between where we are now and dying.

    The Inuit survived with primitive tools, no land prey or edible plants and almost no wood in an environment that's lethal within minutes without protection. We'd have to somehow be in tougher conditions than that even with our technology. Basically, if there's still flies or earthworms, there will still be some of us clinging to life somewhere.

    At worst, fossil fuel-induced climate change might cause large-scale migration away from the equator, maybe mostly in poor regions. In no scenario is the air unbreathable (and if it were, there are ways to adapt to that as well). It's not even sure to cause a decline in harvests, because many agricultural regions will benefit from hotter temperatures and CO2 fertilisation.

    Other animals and whole biomes will probably be fucked. Our quality of life will be degraded. But, there will still be future generations to judge us.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Idk about that. Some social science people say that due to lack of surface deposits, it becomes much harder to restart civilization again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    That's true, I'd expect they'd go to our old ruins and scrapyards for ore rather than natural deposits. It's way higher grade anyway. And, they'd have aluminum right off the bat!

    They probably couldn't use fossil fuels the same way, which would slow them down, but obviously renewables can work for power. I'd estimate a century or two of additional time to industrialise. For the refining, where they still need to refine, they'd have to slum it with biomass. I wonder if they'd figure out hydrogen refining faster with the different economics.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, population sizes overall would have been much smaller in the past, so paleolithic times would probably be comparitively insignificant (even 2000 years ago the entire population was less than 200 million and now it's 8 billion more than that).

    I wonder if you could get a very rough statistical estimate of humanity's downfall just by assuming that we are somewhere in the middle of history. Like if I was born as a random person, I'm more likely to be born at a time where more people are born than when few people are born. So if you model that and make some assumptions about population growth/decline rates, could you put some numbers on when the last person is likely to be born within a margin of error?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Yeah, population sizes overall would have been much smaller in the past, so paleolithic times would probably be comparitively insignificant (even 2000 years ago the entire population was less than 200 million and now it’s 8 billion more than that).

    True, but it was also an unfathomably long time, so IIRC it cancels out. Uhh... nope, I remembered wrong. Per OurWorldInData, pre-agricultural people about equal living people in count, meaning about 15% of the total. I'll cross that out.

    I wonder if you could get a very rough statistical estimate of humanity’s downfall just by assuming that we are somewhere in the middle of history

    I feel like I've seen this done. Yep, it looks like it was a guy named Richard Gott that first wrote about it in the 90's with respect to population, while the whole concept is called Lindy's law.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Underrated comment. Given that African population is rocketing towards a projected 2 billion, while Asian birthrates are dropping thru the floor (even India is now only at replacement), the data from this map must be out of date.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    It might be just a map of present population. So, births in the last 85 years, roughly, although migration would noticeable source of error without adjustment for regions like North America.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Ok, now make this but per land area.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I misread this as "Chances of being born in each Connecticut" and while I know humans are fond of naming places after existing places, I'd be surprised if every continent has a place officially named Connecticut

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

    Why is Europe a continent but not Russia and its culturally similar bordering countries?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Racism, mostly.

    Continents are a human convention, not an objective fact of reality.

    The 7 continent model most English speakers learn is one convention.

    Personally I prefer a 6 continent model that combines Europe and Asia into Eurasia.

    Latin Americans use a 6 continent model that merges North and South America into "America". Personally I think this is silly because there's no rational basis to merge those and not merge Afro-Eurasia into one mega-continent.

    Which you could do. A 4 continent model with Afro-Eurasia, America, Antarctica, and Oceania.

    There are also completely distinct ways of deciding continents. The conventional ones above are mostly "large contiguous landmasses", with a bit of a cultural overlay.

    You could do a much more heavily culturally-inspired take, which would make Arabia a distinct continent, and the Indian subcontinent, and probably separate Northern, Eastern, and Southern Africa into at least 3 continents.

    Another completely different way of defining it is, of course, tectonic plates.

    And the final one I'll mention is biogeographic realms which, among other things, moves the split between Oceania and Asia from the border between PNG and Indonesia to (probably—there are a few alternatives) the Wallace Line between Borneo and Sulawesi in Indonesia.

    None of these is really more correct than the others in any objective sense. It's just human convention.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    In France 5 are taught.

    America, Oceania, Europe, Asia, Africa

    Yeah. Continent conventions are political, not geographical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Antarctica: am I nothing to you?

    (In fairness, there is an argument to be made—though personally I disagree with it—that Antarctica is an archipelago underneath the ice, and shouldn't be a continent for that reason.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Most of Russia is in Asia. A lot of the more visible people are in Europe. But there's plenty of groups living in the east. Man, sometimes I just think to myself, "someone's ancestors chose to live there". Idk which route they took to get to Siberia, but either way, they went through some pretty good spots and went, "nah, I'll go to the icy desert" lol

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yet Americans act like they're 90% of the world and no one and nothing outside the US matters.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Challenge accepted! Proceeds to breed in Antarctica

  • source
  • It would be nice if there were a year attached to this. Is this supposed to be based on the current day? Or was this map put together several years ago?

    There should at least be a decade listed, as birth trends today aren’t going to be identical to trends from the recent past. For example, China only ended their “one child policy” in 2016. If this map were made before that, it might need an update by now.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›