[removed]

It's close to even. But not exactly. The current population is approximately 51% female, 49% male. And that difference is almost entirely explained by the fact that women live longer.

Those extra 2% women are all elderly. The population of actually reproducing men and women is more or less equal.

My guy💀

Women have a far more dangerous modern day issue facing them than men, giving birth.

While we've mostly overcome that issue in the modern world, it's still one of the most dangerous things that you can do, and only half the population can do it.

The birth rate for males is higher. For 2020, the ratio varied between around 1.02 males/female to 1.13 males/female, depending on which country you're looking at. Since those children then go on to have higher likelihood to die before maturity than the females, the two groups are pretty close to 1 male/female at maturity.

That is the thing that the Fisher principle predicts - an environment where males die without reproducing more frequently than females do will produce a selective pressure that means more males will be born in order to compensate.

[removed]

To elaborate... I don't have the source but only about 50% of the male population is reproducing anyway so the more men dying in war/etc... just get swallowed up in the 50% not reproducing

Some people die twice.but men die earlier. So women live more years, so at any given time you´d expect more women to be alive than men.

But because of this there are more men born than women (105/100), so it almost evens out in the long run

About 52% of births are male. By the time you reach 18 the population is near 50/50 due to a higher male death rate. In later adulthood there are more women. So it averages to approximately 1:1.

Which people die twice, exactly?

Yeah, I also remember reading somewhere that the mortality rate for women giving birth in the US is the highest in the “first world”. Considering the costs associated with it too, it’s outrageous.

It’s not something that will be effectively addressed the way things are right now either.

1. Jesus
2. I guess people who’s hearts stop, are then revived, then die for good sometime later.

I don’t think these groups are large enough to meaningfully affect the gender balance statistics.

Assuming they mean you can be “dead” but resuscitated immediately. It makes a great story and technically it’s a true statement, but you don’t get a death certificate for your heart stopping for 10 seconds. You are only recorded as dead once.

Women can give birth and also are naturally necessary for child rearing although many varying circumstances dictate actual living situations and conditions. Genetically speaking this means women are more necessary than men on survival terms for life itself. Men only donates the other half of a complete set of chromosomes in order to make another human. After that job is done genetics say the male is less necessary than the woman in terms of genetic survival. Many species such as in the insect kingdom the males die off after reproduction.

More than a few of the most populous countries on earth still prefer boys over girls. And we sort of know what happens after that. I’m thinking China, India…maybe Bangladesh? Pakistan.

Did anyone poke Jesus with a stick to make sure he was dead? No they did not. Those ancient people knew nothing. Jesus will NOT be coming back because he knows someone will poke him with a stick.

I was joking but there´s always the weird stories..

So nobody gets to be declared dead twice?

Well maybe not this one

Or this one

In wartime there´s also a chance

Or This

And this

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Loaded questions are not allowed on ELI5. A loaded question is one that posits a specific view of reality and asks for explanations that confirm it. A loaded question, by definition, presumes that something must be true in order for the question to stand.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Did you just try to outplay the largest religion on earth...

With a stick?

I like you

No, I believe the tickle test was the primary test for death at the time. While it was pretty good for the technology of the time, it’s nowhere near as accurate as the stick test

Thanks. If in a future copy of the Bible there appears a phrase that infers that someone DID poke Jesus with a stick, my job is done.

Well.. now I thought about it.. wasn´t there that roman soldier that not only poked him with a stick, but with a lance, and drew blood?

There´s been one or two, or a thousand pictures painted of it I seem to recall

Edit: Ow, they even gave the dude a nickname

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longinus

Ha. Stabbed Jesus with a lance? Saint. Obviously.

Things didn't work out well for him (the unnamed soldier), he should have used a stick.

Cured from blindness, became a saint.

Just pick and choose whatever you like. That´s how it works, no?