If the world consisted of 100 people...

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I received the bi-annual magazine from Mission Strategy US/Canada recently. It feels like I get like 10-12 different regular periodicals from the General Church (none of which I actually subscribe to). Anyway, I thought this one had some good information and challenges in it.

One side bar was particularly interesting:

If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look like this:

THERE WOULD BE:

57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 from the Western Hemisphere (north and south)
8 Africans
52 would be female, 48 male
70 would be non-Christian, 30 would be Christian
89 would be heterosexual, 11 homosexual
50 would suffer from malnutrition
80 would live in substandard housing
70 would be unable to read
59% of the wealth would be in the hands of only 6 people, and all 6 would be from the US
1 would be near death, 1 would be near birth
Only 1 would have a college education, and 1 would own a computer


Some of these numbers don't make sense when looked at together, but looked at individually, many are very interesting to me. Thoughts?

[Gary Swartzlander]

Interesting information. Points out the fact that we have lots of work to do both here and overseas.

[Dennis M. Scott]

It would be interesting to see how those items would compare if we'd represent membership in the COTN. I would appreciate it if the Naz list omitted a couple items, but as to wealth, geographic oreintation, etc., it would be interesting.

[Stan Hall]

Very interesting list.
It should be noted that that 6% created 50% of the wealth and that they voluntarily give away more of that wealth than any other country in the world.
Also... substandard housing? By whose standards? Are our standards the only ones worthy of consideration?

[Hans Deventer]

I wonder, how wealthy would those 6 be, had they been born in Dafur? Perhaps they were just lucky to be born in a wealthy area.

[Diane Likens]

Very interesting list.
It should be noted that that 6% created 50% of the wealth and that they voluntarily give away more of that wealth than any other country in the world.
Also... substandard housing? By whose standards? Are our standards the only ones worthy of consideration?

"6% created 50% of the wealth"? What does that mean? And "they voluntarily give away ... that wealth"?

It's been my experience that corporate leaders break the backs of their employees in order to "create" their own wealth. Then they get society's accolades when they "give away ... that wealth". Perhaps some of it can then trickle down to the children and/or grandchildren of the employees who worked themselves to death.

The substandard housing? That's where the employees who survived their 30 or 40-year working careers live after they've retired.

[Stan Hall]

Hans, you make a good point. Clearly I was too brief.
The US was not a wealthy country when it started. The wealth was created by the ingenuity of the people coupled with (and this is the important factor) the individual freedom afforded by our unique system of government. Other factors come into play as well, but freedom is the largest contributor.
Diane, I hope the above answers your initial question.
The citizens of the United States voluntarily give away a larger percentage of their income to charities, both domestic and foreign, based on a percentage of GDP than any other country in the world. This is in addition to what's taken from them in taxes to give to others.
I work as Safety Manager of a fairly large corporation and I know of no one who has broken their back working for a corporation. Corporate leaders don't just create their own wealth; they create wealth for all their employees and stockholders. They take major risks in doing so. If the company doesn't do well, people lose their jobs.
Are you saying that all retired working people live in substandard housing??? I know better than that. Actually, the formost factor is how well each person plans for his own retirement.
It's true that some wealthy people get publicity and accolades from giving to charitable causes; especially actors. But many give privately and we never hear about it.

[Dave McClung]

I received the bi-annual magazine from Mission Strategy US/Canada recently. It feels like I get like 10-12 different regular periodicals from the General Church (none of which I actually subscribe to). Anyway, I thought this one had some good information and challenges in it.

One side bar was particularly interesting:

If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look like this:

THERE WOULD BE:

57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 from the Western Hemisphere (north and south)
8 Africans
52 would be female, 48 male
70 would be non-Christian, 30 would be Christian
89 would be heterosexual, 11 homosexual
50 would suffer from malnutrition
80 would live in substandard housing
70 would be unable to read
59% of the wealth would be in the hands of only 6 people, and all 6 would be from the US
1 would be near death, 1 would be near birth
Only 1 would have a college education, and 1 would own a computer


Some of these numbers don't make sense when looked at together, but looked at individually, many are very interesting to me. Thoughts?

Even when I know the source of statistics, I question them. The one that stands out here is 11% homosexuals. That isn't a number with credibility. I would guess that the author got that statistic from a source with a prohomosexual agenda.

I also question the 59% of the wealth statistic. In my opinion, it would be even higher in the concentration in the U.S.

How does one define "substandard" when it comes to housing? Who sets the standard? If only 20% of the World's population lives in that kind of home, how can it be the "standard?"

How does noe define "malnutrition?" Is a person who does not get enough vitamins suffering from malnutriton? How about those who eat too much fast food? Isn't that a form of malnutriton? If the statistic means that 50% of the people in the world go to bed hungry, that can't possibly be true. There are pockets of real hunger in the world, but they don't include anything like 50% of the population.

Anyway, count me as a skeptic.

PS: I did a little research to check the "homosexual" data. Here is a link to a count that is more accurate:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html

[Dennis M. Scott]

1 would be near death, 1 would be near birth
?

Is that the same thing as saying "One would be the oldest, and one would be the youngest?"

I want a job where they pay you to make statements like that.

As Jeremy said, some of these things don't make a lot of sense.

The link Dave gave provides two different percentages for Kinsey: easy to understand how it could be confusing.

Out of context statistics frequently aren't reliably used to prove someone else's point. Gary's comment is probably about as helpful as intended: the haves have the opportunity to do a lot of work in the name of the Lord.

[Andrew Henck]

Gary's comment is probably about as helpful as intended: the haves have the opportunity to do a lot of work in the name of the Lord.

To add to that...

The haves not only have the opportunity but have a responsibility to do a lot of work in the name of the Lord.

[Bruce Carriker]

It's optional, Andrew. It's optional.