WI: the world with half the population?
- Thread starter ArKhan
- Start date
nooblet
Banned
The only way this happens is if large parts of the world are turned into police states, and forced at gunpoint to adhere to the family planning wishes of the eugenics movement. Or the world is turned into a total hellhole. Or somehow, the developed nations institute zero birth rates and draw their entire population from the rest of the world, and then indoctrinates the newcomers with the same ideology, which is just bizarre and totally at odds with the population control agenda. Or some kind of event that would be either a sudden shock to the population, or occurs so far in the past that it affects far more than population.
Given all possible scenarios, the world would be shaped by why the world has so few people, rather than the fact that there are few people.
If, somehow, the world just lost half of its people (say ASBs cause a drop in fertility that somehow isn't realized, in the space of several decades) - then nothing much changes. The population control movement is entirely committed to a far lower figure of population, all for the ceaseless glorification of the so-called best and brightest. It's likely that if their efforts were more successful, we'd see even more open commitment to extermination, not less, because the so-called best and brightest are not the targets of population control, and thus compose more of the population.
Given all possible scenarios, the world would be shaped by why the world has so few people, rather than the fact that there are few people.
If, somehow, the world just lost half of its people (say ASBs cause a drop in fertility that somehow isn't realized, in the space of several decades) - then nothing much changes. The population control movement is entirely committed to a far lower figure of population, all for the ceaseless glorification of the so-called best and brightest. It's likely that if their efforts were more successful, we'd see even more open commitment to extermination, not less, because the so-called best and brightest are not the targets of population control, and thus compose more of the population.
Japhy
Banned
Or the Green Revolution never happens. That cuts things down a lot. And of course when I say "Cuts things down" I mean a world with much more in the way of horrific famines, with hundreds of millions starving to death and the survivors having fewer, more malnourished children.
But it would help do the job of course.
But it would help do the job of course.
Based on todays falling birthrates in the Western/Westernized world, short of a few catastrophic events happening the world would have to be very prosperous / developed much earlier then OTL so as to make it pointless raising more children for many people regardless of creed, as the opposite seems to cause more people to be born.
Other factors include there being no war, women gaining overt political / societal power / complete reproductive rights much earlier and the destruction of the family unit through misandric laws and popular culture, which causes people to focus on the self in the present as opposed to being selfless for the sake of the future.
In such a climate Bachelorhood would probably be considered very desirable for many men, to the point where a universal Pro-Bachelor Anti-Marriage movement forms that focuses on men's own happiness and self-improvement for one's own sake rather then being shamed into getting married (given what they'd stand to lose in a divorce).
The effects of a smaller world population would depend on which regions end up being sparsely populated, which regions are ageing or have more younger people as well as which regions have more of one gender then another.
Other factors include there being no war, women gaining overt political / societal power / complete reproductive rights much earlier and the destruction of the family unit through misandric laws and popular culture, which causes people to focus on the self in the present as opposed to being selfless for the sake of the future.
In such a climate Bachelorhood would probably be considered very desirable for many men, to the point where a universal Pro-Bachelor Anti-Marriage movement forms that focuses on men's own happiness and self-improvement for one's own sake rather then being shamed into getting married (given what they'd stand to lose in a divorce).
The effects of a smaller world population would depend on which regions end up being sparsely populated, which regions are ageing or have more younger people as well as which regions have more of one gender then another.
Last edited:
Or have it forty years later so 2013 is like 1973.
Short of a major disaster, I don't see how the population would be as low as 3.5 billion in 2113, especially given this chart (from Wikipedia):
Uh, what?
Developed nations generally have very low birth rates, at replacement or below (sometimes far below) - there's no 'instituting' anything, it's just a natural consequence of child survival rates approaching 100% and it costing a quarter of a million dollars to rear each offspring.
Third-world countries have very high birthrates with very high mortality until someone introduces modern-ish medical principles and enough food to avoid starvation, at which point the population explodes. Then, if the economy keeps up, eventually the country becomes 'developed', the population stabilizes, and they start importing third-worlders to do the dirty jobs.
Everyone gets all hung up on china, but it's very much the exception that proves the rule.
The whole 'ocean of humanity' phenomenon is mostly due to countries which have got stuck at the 'moderate poverty' point where their populations can manage to keep most of their kids alive but don't have the education and economic prospects to decide that they and their kids will be better off with a smaller family.
Compare these two maps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WorldMapLiteracy2011.png
Get all countries to some moderate degree of development early (say, world-wide literacy rate at 95% by 1950) with decent economic growth (even 2% a year is probably enough) and it will mostly take care of itself. How you accomplish those herculean task is another matter, obviously. The easiest thing is probably to avoid half the planet getting stuck in various central planning dead-ends and smashed up by wars.
Take india as an example - nowadays the birth rate is down to something like 2.3 which is about replacement level. The sooner this level is reached, the less the population balloons before stabilising.
OTL economic growth was approx 1% a year for the 30 years after independence due to mismanagement of the economy. Make that 2% and the economy in 1977 would be a third larger than OTL. 3% makes it 80% larger.
Assume that does not impact the population growth for the first 30 years and you have 345MM at independence, 630MM in 1977 as OTL. If the extra wealth then halves the rate of population growth then the 2013 number becomes 925MM instead of the OTL 1,220MM - 295MM people (24% of OTL population) have vanished. That's not taking into account all the complexities about lengthening life expectancy, population structures and whatnot which obviously complicates matters.
Or have it forty years later so 2013 is like 1973.
Short of a major disaster, I don't see how the population would be as low as 3.5 billion in 2113, especially given this chart (from Wikipedia):
That chart actually demonstrates how viable a hugely different population size is. I regularly have to deal with demographic projects in my job and slight changes in birth and death rates make huge differences, as compounding has massively more impact than humans intuit. Within 90 years, the high case scenario is more than 2.5 times the total population of the world in the low case. Thus, with a POD in, say, 1800. You can easily reduce the 2013 population by 50%. A bit more female education here, a bit more use of birth control there, a bit higher tar content in cigarettes here, a bit less of a push for high population under Mao there.
Nonsense. A large part of the population growth in Africa has been a product of meddling with the death rate, artificially reducing it, while doing nothing about the birth rate--&, in fact, actively working to prevent nations from reducing it the only way proven to work: by raising standards of living.nooblet said:
In short, then: if global standards of living were high enough for long enough, population would rapidly stop growing. It would not now be 7 billion in that case. Exactly how far back you'd have to start to end up at 3.5, IDK.
nooblet
Banned
The developed world can be sold on population control, under the delusion that they will benefit from lower population. Children are made into a burden.
Telling someone who lives in Africa that they need to cut their population for the sake of some rich white people in the developed world doesn't go over as well.
Yeah, stopping famines and curing diseases, how dare anyone do that. How horrible!
Telling someone who lives in Africa that they need to cut their population for the sake of some rich white people in the developed world doesn't go over as well.
Yeah, stopping famines and curing diseases, how dare anyone do that. How horrible!
A nuclear that would cut the population would probablly have to occur post 1965-70. Previous to 1970 the number of nuclear weapons actually usable was not all that high, tho it seemed to us at the time. The proliferation of small warheads and masses of reliable delivery systems meant a vastly larger portion of the infrastructure would be attacked and disrupted. The global disruption of the transportations system of the 1970, and the petroleum industry rapidly collapses food distribution and preservation. Production may fall off, but it does not matter. The inability to move food to the urban populations and to provide them with heat and medical care means close to a billion early deaths and and near vertical surge in infant mortality. Even if it only takes a decade to stabilize this the global population could drop by one billion simply from child mortatlity. The death rate at the other end dropping from above sixty years of age to below eliminates millions more. In the industrial nations the inability to sustain people with long term health problems, like diabetics, cancer, heart disease would eleminate more people.
Worst case is a late 1980s nuclear war trashe the infrastructure of most nations beyond recovery in anyones lifetime. In that case multiple succesive famines, and waves of regional epidemics could halve the global population.
Worst case is a late 1980s nuclear war trashe the infrastructure of most nations beyond recovery in anyones lifetime. In that case multiple succesive famines, and waves of regional epidemics could halve the global population.
Birthrates have been falling all over most of the world -- including Africa. Places like Zambia and Senegal have seen the average number of children per woman drop from six or eight to four or five... still high, but the trend is pretty clear. There are a lot of reasons for this, but female education seems to be one of the most strongly correlated factors, as does female access to birth control.
The world's population growth *rate* peaked around 1975-80. In absolute terms, the net number of humans added each year is still growing, but that figure is expected to peak before 2020 and then decline.
As to the OP, it's just not a meaningful question without specifying a POD.
Doug M.
The world's population growth *rate* peaked around 1975-80. In absolute terms, the net number of humans added each year is still growing, but that figure is expected to peak before 2020 and then decline.
As to the OP, it's just not a meaningful question without specifying a POD.
Doug M.
Nonsense. Lower birthrates mean more wealth is passed into the next generation, because there are fewer splitting it up. Why do you think the birthrate fell as the death rate fell?nooblet said:
It is when you think there are more & more people competing for the same amount of resources, since the standard of living damn sure isn't rising.nooblet said:
I don't consider condemning a population to that a compassionate act.Actually, I think there's a half a dozen movies & at least one TV series...Tentrees said:Theres a timeline and a story there...
Last edited: