Oops, Scientists May Have Severely Miscalculated How Many Humans Are on Earth
Popular Mechanics ^ | October 31, 2025 | Darren Orf
Posted on 11/01/2025 10:33:41 AM PDT by Red Badger
We have to start counting from 1 again...
========================================================
Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story:
* While most estimates place the current human population at around 8.2 billion, a study suggests we might be vastly underrepresenting rural areas.
* By analyzing 300 rural dam projects across 35 countries, researchers from Aalto University in Finland found discrepancies among these independent population counts and other population data gathered between 1975 and 2010.
* Such underreporting could have consequences in terms of resource allocation within a country, but other experts remain skeptical that decades of population counting could be off by such a wide margin.
==========================================================
Homo sapiens is the most successful mammalian species in Earth history, and it’s not even close. The species thrives on nearly every continent, in a variety of adverse conditions, and outnumbers the second-place contender—the rat—by at least a cool billion. However, a new study suggests that the impressive nature of humanity’s proliferation may have been vastly underreported.
Most estimates place Earth’s human population at around 8.2 billion, but Josias Láng-Ritter—a postdoctoral researcher at Aalto University in Finland and lead author of the study published in the journal Nature Communications—claims that these estimates could be underrepresenting rural areas by a significant margin.
“We were surprised to find that the actual population living in rural areas is much higher than the global population data indicates—depending on the dataset, rural populations have been underestimated by between 53 percent to 84 percent over the period studied,” Láng-Ritter said in a press statement. “The results are remarkable, as these datasets have been used in thousands of studies and extensively support decision-making, yet their accuracy has not been systematically evaluated.”
How exactly do you test the accuracy of global datasets used to derive population totals in the first place? Well, with a background in water resource management, Láng-Ritter looked at a different kind of population data gathered from rural dam projects—300 such projects across 35 countries, to be precise. This data focused on the years 1975 to 2010, and these population tallies provided a significant dataset to check against other population totals calculated by organizations like WorldPop, GWP, GRUMP, LandScan, and GHS-POP (which were also analyzed in this study).
“When dams are built, large areas are flooded and people need to be relocated,” Láng-Ritter said in a press statement. “The relocated population is usually counted precisely because dam companies pay compensation to those affected. Unlike global population datasets, such local impact statements provide comprehensive, on-the-ground population counts that are not skewed by administrative boundaries. We then combined these with spatial information from satellite imagery.”
Part of this discrepancy likely stems from the fact that many countries don’t have the resources for precise data collection, and difficulty traveling to far flung rural areas only exacerbates census-counting discrepancies. A widespread underrepresentation of rural populations across the world could have profound impacts on those communities, as censuses are central to figuring out how to divvy up resources.
However, not everyone is convinced by this research. Stuart Gietel-Basten from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology told New Scientist that while increased investment in rural population data collection would be beneficial, the idea that Earth could contain a few billion more human inhabitants that we thought is extremely unlikely. “If we really are undercounting by that massive amount, it’s a massive news story and goes against all the years of thousands of other datasets.”
When trying to count such a massive population, a few hundred or maybe even a few thousand may slip through the cracks. But a few million or even billion would upend our understanding of human occupation on this planet. Scientists will need a bit more evidence before rethinking decades of dataset research.
TOPICS: Food; History; Military/Veterans; Society
KEYWORDS: scientists
Message from Jim Robinson:
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
1 posted on 11/01/2025 10:33:41 AM PDT by Red Badger
To: Red Badger
Most of us have known for a long time that it’s off by a few billion. They like to throw out big numbers for their manufactured crises and agendas. At the end of the day the answers are right the Bible. Read and gain discernment.
2 posted on 11/01/2025 10:37:12 AM PDT by Bulwyf
To: Red Badger
quote “The relocated population is usually counted precisely because dam companies pay compensation to those affected”
there is your answer, hidden deep in the article.
since dam companies pay compensation to those affected... magically those affected went up dramatically.
To: Red Badger
Zero and negative birth rate notwithstanding, the so-called scientists will once again find a way to cry overpopulation to counter families with children making a comeback.
4 posted on 11/01/2025 10:39:42 AM PDT by skr (1 Peter 1:15 - But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation)
To: Red Badger
The people being relocated are the ones who lived in the lowlands right along the dammed rivers. I’m curious about what assumptions the researchers made about population distribution farther away from those rivers.
In any case, I’d be willing to bet that every human on earth has been observed and counted by satellites by now, with the possible exceptions of those few who remain indoors or underground at all times, and I wouldn’t even be too sure about them.
To: All
We are way under 8 billion...does anyone really think we are getting accurate populations from Niger, Uzbekistan, Iran, etc...we don’t even know how many people are in the USA.
6 posted on 11/01/2025 10:43:26 AM PDT by DHerion
To: TexasFreeper2009
Very good point. Maybe three people lived in a particular hut, but eight claimed compensation. Multiply by thousands.
To: Red Badger
Conservative realistic estimate: ~9.1 billion
To: Bulwyf
Back in the 40’s or 50’s it was estimated that the Earth could easily support 40 Billion people..................
9 posted on 11/01/2025 10:46:45 AM PDT by Red Badger (Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegals are put up in 5 Star hotels....................)
To: Red Badger
Looking at the author ----\
"Darren lives in Portland, has a cat, and writes/edits about sci-fi and how our world works. You can find his previous stuff at Gizmodo and Paste if you look hard enough."
Portland cat person. I smell Democrat times two.... But that's only an estimate.
To: Red Badger
Not to worry. There is a die-off coming soon.
11 posted on 11/01/2025 10:52:17 AM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is opinion or satire. Or both.)
To: Red Badger
Are these the same type of “scientists” who say that cow farts lead to Armageddon? Stop eating meat, don’t drive a SUV.
I prefer the P.E.T.A Principle
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals
I love animals, they’re delicious!
12 posted on 11/01/2025 11:01:33 AM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus III (Do, or do not, there is no try )
To: HartleyMBaldwin
I’d be willing to bet that every human on earth has been observed and counted by satellites by now
Only if the satellites can avoid recounting on subsequent passes. In short, they can't help with this.
13 posted on 11/01/2025 11:02:05 AM PDT by GingisK
To: Red Badger; All
“The relocated population is usually counted precisely because dam companies pay compensation to those affected.
Disagree with the premise. It is just as likely, perhaps more so, that the number would be highly inflated by people wanting to get in on the gravy train.
Also plenty of reason for government official corruption to skim money from the project.
14 posted on 11/01/2025 11:04:23 AM PDT by marktwain
To: Red Badger
It is important that we locate and identify every human on earth for their upcoming Mark.
15 posted on 11/01/2025 11:09:18 AM PDT by BipolarBob (These violent delights have violent ends.)
To: GingisK
I’m sure there are algorithms to do repeated estimations and eventually come out pretty close. I doubt that they can keep tabs on every individual on the planet, at least not yet.
To: Bulwyf
Humans have been conducting censuses for 5000 years. You’d think they could get at least a ballpark within 10%, but then those censuses were conducted by societies with some semblance of productivity. There are likely thousands of people living in tribes in South America, Africa, and parts of southeast Asia that we don’t even know exist.
17 posted on 11/01/2025 11:23:48 AM PDT by rarestia (“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” -Hamilton)
To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; Bockscar; BraveMan; cardinal4; ...
While most estimates place the current human population at around 8.2 billion, a study suggests we might be vastly underrepresenting rural areas.
I don't see anyone nearby... ?
18 posted on 11/01/2025 11:27:51 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (NeverTrumpin' -- it's not just for DNC shills anymore -- oh, wait, yeah it is.)
To: Red Badger
I’m confused.
The article is saying there are likely *more* people than estimated.
But the commenters seem to think the article is saying there are *fewer* people than estimated.
Did anyone read the article before commenting?
19 posted on 11/01/2025 11:28:38 AM PDT by Theo (FReeping since 1997 ... drain the swamp.)
To: rarestia
A satellite can identify a single marijuana plant in a forest. It does that by analyzing the spectrum of reflected light. That same satellite can spot the heat signature of individuals in a jungle, forest, or even through a roof. Given that satellites provide full coverage of the Earth every few hours, I suspect they know where people have collected.
20 posted on 11/01/2025 11:30:20 AM PDT by GingisK
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
