_ Do you think you belong to the young or old? You are the NaN person alive on the planet. This means that you are older than % of the world's population and older than 34% of all people in Lithuania. _
I suspect that it's because you're on the young end of the user population. So most new birthdate entries precede yours. The site doesn't have a global birthdate database. It's building one ;)
Why is it that so many sites (everything from flight booking to comment registration) have problems with February 29th? I'm disappointed that this site overlooked the most important day that only comes around every 4 years :(
As a fun game, try to click around finding the country with the worst life expectancy. Kazakstan was the worst I could come up with, but there's bound to be some place worse.
Do they seriously apply life expectancy at birth to people who was born 30 years ago and did not die yet?
I would also say dated life expectancy at birth, data from five years ago probably.
Kind of okayish infographic, but data should come first.
(To you non-computer programmers, that means "Not a Number")
The response I got was:
"Do you think you belong to the young or old? You are the NaN person alive on the planet. This means that you are older than % of the world's population and older than 80% of all people in Israel."
So how do these future dates take future health and medicine into consideration? I'm sure there's some model that people use.
I know some futurists predict preposterous worlds of custom-built DNA-based organ factories and tiny bioengineered machines that go around and zap cancer cells.
I'd presume that these models use a probability quotient on such a world and factor it in as a possibility?
If that's the case they should also factor the worse case scenarios such as nuclear apocalypse reducing everyone's life expectancy. And the possibility of that happening is still far from zero, even in 2015.
There's broadly two approaches actuaries use (I can't speak for this particular site which uses UN projections):
- One is to look at the average level of mortality improvements in the past at a population (or cohort) level and project those forwards. There are lots of models that do this, for example based on some combination of age, sex, year of birth and calendar year. You make the assumption that even though the specific advances in the past won't be repeated, future advances will follow a similar trend. The Lee-Carter model is an easy to understand example, although it's not particularly cutting edge.
- The other is to look at individual mortality factors (falling smoking levels cause less instances of cancer, etc) and project those forwards based on a mixture of historic advances and expert judgment. With these models you have to take into account that the people not dying of e.g. cancer are now at risk of dying from something else. These models are a lot harder to create because they rely a lot more on expertise. You also don't get information about the whole population, so you would end up using a combination of this with the first model.
Also, the site sounds like it is using period (i.e calendar year) life expectancy rather than cohort, so it might not be projecting ANY future improvements. I'd need to find their actual data source to be sure.
Beautiful presentation of the data... I'd love to see the creators add additional species...
Comparing human population graphs to nearly every other species on the planet makes for an interesting exercise - however unsurprising the results:
https://wikipop.org/species/humanshttps://wikipop.org/species/rhinos
Etc. Then in addition to estimations on human death dates they could add estimations on the date each species will go extinct.
52 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 124 ms ] threadThis sounds comical, but what does it mean?
!!
Unless I misunderstand, how is the world generating additional instances of people older than me? That should be strictly decreasing.
Yes! I'm not a number!
Are you collecting everyone's DoB ?
Do they seriously apply life expectancy at birth to people who was born 30 years ago and did not die yet? I would also say dated life expectancy at birth, data from five years ago probably.
Kind of okayish infographic, but data should come first.
I think they have some debugging to do.
(To you non-computer programmers, that means "Not a Number")
The response I got was:
"Do you think you belong to the young or old? You are the NaN person alive on the planet. This means that you are older than % of the world's population and older than 80% of all people in Israel."
Creepiest feature I've ever seen on a site. Interesting nonetheless.
http://xkcd.com/1577/
That's creepy.
I know some futurists predict preposterous worlds of custom-built DNA-based organ factories and tiny bioengineered machines that go around and zap cancer cells.
I'd presume that these models use a probability quotient on such a world and factor it in as a possibility?
- One is to look at the average level of mortality improvements in the past at a population (or cohort) level and project those forwards. There are lots of models that do this, for example based on some combination of age, sex, year of birth and calendar year. You make the assumption that even though the specific advances in the past won't be repeated, future advances will follow a similar trend. The Lee-Carter model is an easy to understand example, although it's not particularly cutting edge.
- The other is to look at individual mortality factors (falling smoking levels cause less instances of cancer, etc) and project those forwards based on a mixture of historic advances and expert judgment. With these models you have to take into account that the people not dying of e.g. cancer are now at risk of dying from something else. These models are a lot harder to create because they rely a lot more on expertise. You also don't get information about the whole population, so you would end up using a combination of this with the first model.
Also, the site sounds like it is using period (i.e calendar year) life expectancy rather than cohort, so it might not be projecting ANY future improvements. I'd need to find their actual data source to be sure.