More alive than dead?

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: More or Less – “More Alive Than Dead?”

Host: Tim Harford
Date: February 3, 2012
Theme: Debunking widely circulated “zombie statistics” – particularly, the claim that there are more people alive today than have ever died.

---

Episode Overview

This episode of More or Less tackles a perennial myth: the assertion that there are more people alive now than have ever lived and died throughout human history. Tim Harford and his guests break down the numbers behind this claim, drawing on demographic research and historical context to provide a data-driven answer. The team also investigates a viral news story about Michelle Obama’s purported $50,000 lingerie shopping spree, exposing how dubious statistics can be used to fuel sensational headlines.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The “Zombie Statistic” – Are There More People Alive Now Than Ever Died?

(00:40 – 05:40)

• Tim Harford introduces the so-called “zombie statistic,” noting that it’s one of More or Less’s most frequently asked questions:

  “Are there really more people alive today than have ever lived?” (00:34)

• Harford reads from an old BBC report repeating this myth, and shares a variation attributed to science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke, who said:

  “Behind every man now alive stand 30 ghosts... For that’s the ratio by which the dead outnumber the living.” (01:29)

• Expert Interview:
  Wendy Baldwin, President of the Population Reference Bureau, provides the actual numbers (02:14):

  • Current world population (as of episode date): ~7 billion
  • Estimated total number of people ever born: ~107 billion
  • Ratio (2012): 1 living person to 15 dead ones.

  “That would be a ratio of 1 to 15, which makes it look like Arthur C. Clarke was wrong. But that’s not actually the case, because he was making his statement in 1968... If you use our method, that would be one living person to 29 dead. He said 30. I’d say that’s a draw.” (02:14–02:50)

Debunking the Myth:

• In the 1970s, claims circulated that “75% of all the people ever born were on the planet today”—which Baldwin and her colleagues investigated and disproved.

  “It gives the sense of very, very rapid population growth. But it was wrong.” (03:22–03:25)

• Estimating the total number ever born is difficult, especially for prehistory, but “for most of the history when we have been building up this population, it does occur during the more modern period where we do have some written records” (04:10–04:25).
• The uncertainty in early numbers doesn’t significantly affect the overall ratios due to the small size of early populations.

Memorable Exchange:

• Tim Harford: “Will we ever get to a one to one ratio?” (04:59)
• Wendy Baldwin: “Oh, my. That certainly would imply very, very high rates of population growth... I find that quite unimaginable.” (05:13–05:40)

---

2. The Michelle Obama Lingerie Shopping Myth

(05:40 – 08:44)

• Tim Harford pivots to another example of statistical mischief: a widely circulated story claiming Michelle Obama spent $50,000 at a New York lingerie store.

  “Here on More or Less, we have a more-than-skeptical mind. $50,000 on underwear? Really? That’s a lot of lacy, frilly stuff. There’s only one person for this job, Wesley Stevenson.” (05:40–06:11)

Investigation by Wesley Stevenson:

• The story appeared in the Daily Telegraph, claiming the U.S. First Lady’s shopping spree helped boost sales at Agent Provocateur (UK lingerie chain):

  “If you read the article, you’d be right to be [suspicious] because there are no quotes and no source. And in fact, actually, there’s very little detail...” (06:28)

• Fact-check:

  • Even if Michelle Obama bought one of every single lingerie item on the site, it would amount to “around $30,000.”
  • To get to $50,000, “she would have bought around 60 pairs of panties, 30 bras, not to mention corsets, suspenders, Basques and Waspies, whatever they are.” (07:51)

  “She could have got closer to $50,000 if she’d added in their kimonos, dressing gowns, and slips. But even that would have been some shopping spree.” (07:51–08:08)

The Larger Issue:

• The story gained traction online and was brought up at White House press conferences, despite no confirmation that it originated from the company or was true.

  “When they [Agent Provocateur] realised that there could be unintended consequences to this story... they told us it was completely untrue.” (08:44)

Notable Quote:

• Tim Harford: “As so often, a striking number will grab the headlines... and very few people bother to ask whether the number could possibly make sense.” (08:44)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Wendy Baldwin on Demographic Estimates:

  “First of all, you have to figure out, when are you starting from? …For 99% of that time, basically, there is no data.” (03:25–03:51)

• Tim Harford, on mythbusting:

  “It’s always dangerous questioning the wisdom of those deemed to be a genius by their fans…But we are fearless on More or Less, and we know it’s our duty to get to the bottom of it.” (01:54)

• Wesley Stevenson, on product research:

  “When it comes to generating essential frisson, the only thing that I need to do is look at a spreadsheet.” (07:00)

---

Timestamps of Key Segments

• 00:40 – “Zombie Statistic” introduction
• 01:29 – Arthur C. Clarke’s “30 ghosts” quote
• 02:14 – Wendy Baldwin explains population ratios
• 03:02–04:00 – Demographic assumptions and historical context
• 04:59–05:40 – Could we ever equal the number of living and dead?
• 05:40 – Michelle Obama’s $50,000 lingerie myth
• 07:42 – Calculating if such a purchase is even possible
• 08:44 – Myth thoroughly debunked; consequences of unchecked statistics

---

Summary Takeaways

• The claim that more people are alive now than have ever died is demonstrably false; currently, the ratio is closer to 1:15 (living:dead).
• Arthur C. Clarke’s “30 ghosts” estimate was actually accurate for his time.
• Sensational numbers in the news deserve skepticism and fact-checking—exemplified in the story of Michelle Obama’s alleged extravagant shopping trip.
• More or Less champions a spirit of statistical scrutiny and mythbusting, debunking figures that, while catchy, don’t stand up to investigation.

---

Transcript

[A]

You're listening to a download from the BBC. This is More or Less. We make an edition of the programme for BBC Radio 4, but this is a download of a special edition broadcast on the World Service. Hello and welcome to More or Less on the BBC World Service. We're your weekly guide to the numbers in the news and in life. And I'm Tim Harford. In a moment, we'll be putting our in depth investigative resources into action to look at Michelle Obama's reported love for lingerie shopping. But first, we'll attempt to slay yet another zombie statistic, one that no matter how often you think you've cut it down, it picks itself up and lumbers on. This is a question that we get asked more than any other on More or Less, and perhaps one which taps into people's fear of a population explosion. The question is, are there really more people alive today than have ever lived? It's often quoted as a fact. Take this example from a BBC reporter. Ever the tactful colleagues will leave him Anonymous. Back in 2008, it's sobering to think that there are already more people alive today than have ever lived and died in the whole history of the human race. Now it looks like this zombie has been spotted once again. Both Norman Hester and Maureen Erskine emailed more or [e-mail] to say they'd heard it recently and wondered if it's true. But what really spurred us into action was this unusual angle. In an email from loyal listener Richard

[B]

Hales in 1968, Arthur C. Clarke stated in 2001 A Space Odyssey that behind every man now alive stand 30 ghosts.

[A]

For that's the ratio by which the

[B]

dead outnumber the living. Was that true?

[A]

And how has that ratio between the

[B]

living and the dead changed?

[A]

It's always dangerous questioning the wisdom of those deemed to be a genius by their fans, such as science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke. But we are fearless on More or less, and we know it's our duty to get to the bottom of it. To test Arthur C. Clarke's theory and lay a zombie to rest, we turn to Wendy Baldwin, president of the Population Reference Bureau in Washington, DC.

[C]

If you look at the data we published, there's 7 billion people today. We estimate that overall there have been 107. So that would be a ratio of 1 to 15, which makes it look like Arthur C. Clarke was wrong. But that's not actually the case, because he was making his statement in 1968. And when he made that statement, there were maybe three and a half billion people currently living on Earth. So if you use our method, that would be one living person to 29 dead. He said 30. I'd say that's a draw.

[A]

Yeah. He's surprisingly accurate from Arthur C. Clarke, or maybe that should be no surprise to his fans. What made the Population Reference Bureau work these numbers out? I mean, it seems a kind of curious number to calculate.

[C]

Yes, it is a little bit. In the 1970s, there was a lot of interest in this because some people were saying that 75% of all the people ever born were on the planet today in the 70s. And our demographer, Carl Hobb looked at that and said, I wonder if that's really true, because it gives the sense

[A]

of very, very rapid population growth.

[C]

Right? That's right. But it was wrong. But it's not so straightforward to figure out what a good number is. First of all, you have to figure out, when are you starting from? I would say that there's probably fair agreement that humans have been occupying the earth for about 50,000 years, because.

[A]

So before then you just say, well, they were. They weren't human, they were our ancestors,

[C]

they weren't Homo sapiens, they were ancestors. But we're not going to try to count back further than that. And then you have to have the current figure. And certainly since we've hit 7 billion, there's good agreement there. So you've got a starting date and you've got an ending number. Now you've got to fill in the middle. Boy, that is hard to do because for 99% of that time, basically there is no data. So you really have to look at what kind of assumptions are plausible and defensible and what conclusion do they lead to. But for most of the history when we have been building up this population, it does occur during the more modern period where we do have some written records. And so if we were off a little bit about what happened 25,000 years ago, it probably isn't going to change that ratio of currently living to ever living on Earth.

[A]

So you may be speculating about these very early years, but even if you're wrong by a factor of two or three or four, these are not very large numbers relative to your Overall figure of 100 billion.

[C]

That's correct.

[A]

Now, you said the figure back in the late 1960s was 29 or 30 dead people, 29 or 30 ghosts for everyone alive. It's now 15. Will we ever get a one to one ratio?

[C]

Oh, my. That certainly would imply very, very high rates of population growth for the Globe to get to a 1 to 1

[A]

because we're starting at over 100 billion.

[C]

We're starting at over 100 billion. We have 7 billion today. Could we imagine a carrying capacity of the globe that was 100 billion or 150 billion? I find that quite unimaginable.

[A]

Wendy Baldwin of the Population Reference Bureau. It's been reported this week that Michelle Obama likes her underwear. That's not a phrase I thought I'd find myself saying, but according to reports, she likes it so much that she spent $50,000 at a lingerie store in New York. But here on More or Less, we have a more than skeptical mind. $50,000 on underwear? Really? That's a lot of lacy, frilly stuff. There's only one person for this job, Wesley Stevenson. Hello, Wes.

[B]

Hi, Tim. Yes. This story appeared in the UK newspaper the Daily Telegraph under the headline Argent Provocateur saw sales jump 12% helped by U.S. first lady Michelle Obama spending $50,000 in one shopping spree.

[A]

Well, frankly, I'm suspicious.

[B]

Yeah, I'm not surprised. And if you read the article, you'd be right to be because there are no quotes and no source. And in fact, actually there's very little detail given about the shopping spree itself other than it wasn't just Michelle Obama, apparently it was also the Queen of Qatar. But it certainly drew a lot of attention to the sales figures of British lingerie chain Argent Provocateur, known for their risque clothes. They were up 12%.

[A]

You know, it sounds like a stunt to promote the company's sales figures. Is this just a cheap shot so you can look at underwear on the Internet while you're pretending to work?

[B]

Tim, you know, when it comes to generating essential frisson, the only thing that I need to do is look at a spreadsheet. I just simply felt that this number needed further investigation. I mean, just how much lingerie could Michelle Obama buy for $50,000? After all, this would be the equivalent of an eighth of her husband's presidential salary.

[A]

Yes, yes, but you still had to look at women's underwear on the Internet to do this.

[B]

Strictly in the line of my statistical duties, Tim. So I went on the Agen Provocateur website, which is quite an eye owner. I started by adding up the cost of the underW, which seems to be inversely correlated with the amount of material they use. But if you add up all the lingerie, they do sell other stuff, but the lingerie, it comes to around $30,000.

[A]

So if Michelle Obama really had been to agents Provocateur. Even if she bought one of everything that they sold in the lingerie section, she still wouldn't have spent $50,000.

[B]

No, nothing like. And she would have bought around 60 pairs of panties, 30 bras, not to mention corsets, suspenders, Basques and Waspies, whatever they are. She could have got closer to 50,000 if she'd added in their kimonos, dressing gowns and slips. But even that would have been some shopping spree.

[A]

I suppose there's a more serious side to all this, too. A story about Michelle Obama spending tens of thousands of dollars on underwear. It's going to be used as ammunition by anybody who wants to throw mud at the president.

[B]

Yes, and I thought I should speak to Argent Provocateur and ask them actually, if the story was true. Initially, they declined to comment, but on some political blogs, people had started to describe this shopping trip as obscene. Reporters were even raising it in White House press conferences. So I went back to the company and when they realised that there could be unintended consequences to this story, which I must add, we don't know came from them, they told us it was completely untrue.

[A]

Well, thank you, Wes. As so often, a striking number will grab the headlines, I suppose it helps if a famous person's underwear is also mentioned and very few people bother to ask whether the number could possibly make sense. Well, that's all we have time for this week, but if you have any numbers you want us to explore or fear you may have witnessed a bit of statistical sleight of hand, you can contact us at more or lessbc.co.uk thank you for listening to More or Less. More or Less was presented by me, Tim Harford of the Financial Times. The producer was Wesley Stevenson and the editor was Richard Varden.