What if the Europeans had caused about 75% of Africa's population to die?

Didn't the Baby Boom make up the population losses of WWII (and then some) for all the countries involved? Vietnam and Cambodia also suffered massive casualties in their wars but their populations now are greater than ever before.

I do agree though that if Africa had suffered a population catastrophe a century ago, it would not have its present population, as it would still have massive growth but a lower starting point.
This should be for France:

loadimg.php
https://www.cairn-int.info/loadimg....idPAS_D_ISBN_pu2004-06s_sa02_art02_img008.jpg

WW1 doesn't seem to have recovered that much, but WW2 seem to have risen above previous birth rates, but that's more correlated with the economic boom, considering even Sweden was affected by it.

Neither Vietnam nor Cambodia suffered 75% casualty rates and neither was my point that it couldn't regrow back, just that it would be lower than it otherwise would have been, in the case of both these countries, the war and the genocide set them back in the implementation of birth control or of the demographic transitition but that isn't really the case for this Subsaharan Africa which mostly is still quite on the first 2 stages(outside the South and some exceptions)
 
There is something called a carrying capacity. Basically, what the area in question can sustain in terms of population. Given the tech and practices current. If something dropped a populating far below carrying capacity it would absolutely rebound. Absent some ongoing pressure keeping it down.
This is only true pre-industrial and with longer timespans, a 1000 sized tribe in a lush land ideally capable of feeding a million people wouldn't be able to reach that without some centuries for example, even with low death rates.
 
This is only true pre-industrial and with longer timespans, a 1000 sized tribe in a lush land ideally capable of feeding a million people wouldn't be able to reach that without some centuries for example, even with low death rates.

Well, theoretically it'd take just over a century. It all depends on what kind of pressures you have. Human populations can expand massively in the absence of negative factors. Historically, the growth of populations in the Canadian territories give a hint of it.
 
Well if we saw 75% percent death rate in Africa, I expect even the Europeans would react with horror, it would pretty much destroy the economic system of Africa and likely result in complete change in social norms not just in Africa but also across the world, because a earlier AIDS epidemy wouldn't stay in Africa. We would likely see much more puritan sexual norms than in OTL. Demographic if we see the population collapse from 1920-1940, we would likely see a greater influx of European and Asian blue collar workers. We would also see a much slower decolonisation. The need for workers in Africa could weaken the effect of the Great Depression as many unemployed in the 30ties could see as future in Africa.

Pretty much, I just didn't bring it up because of the tangential nature to OP's question. IIRC, something like a fifth of Europeans got exposed to STDs during the course of the Great War; now imagine if that was AIDs instead and they're far removed from contemporary treatment options; now also add in the Spanish Flu hitting while so many are weak not only from AIDs but also famine. I think it's safe to say the Great War very would be apocalyptic in that ATL, with the potential for civilization to collapse in many areas of the world.
 
Pretty much, I just didn't bring it up because of the tangential nature to OP's question. IIRC, something like a fifth of Europeans got exposed to STDs during the course of the Great War; now imagine if that was AIDs instead and they're far removed from contemporary treatment options; now also add in the Spanish Flu hitting while so many are weak not only from AIDs but also famine. I think it's safe to say the Great War very would be apocalyptic in that ATL, with the potential for civilization to collapse in many areas of the world.

The much lower AIDS rate outside Africa and in African regions outside southern and eastern Africa and among Eurasian populations in the African region with high AIDS rate indicate, that there's cultural reasons that AIDS have spread so successful there and have been less successful in other regions, including the region where AIDS likely first developed (Congo).
 
The much lower AIDS rate outside Africa and in African regions outside southern and eastern Africa and among Eurasian populations in the African region with high AIDS rate indicate, that there's cultural reasons that AIDS have spread so successful there and have been less successful in other regions, including the region where AIDS likely first developed (Congo).
One factor might be genetic resistance to HIV. Northern Europeans as population apparantly have a higher percentage of people who are immune to HIV/AIDS.
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/601za4/10_of_europeans_resistant_to_hiv/
https://www.nature.com/news/2005/050307/full/news050307-15.html
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/viruses101/hiv_resistant_mutation?isForcedMobile=Y
https://www.hivplusmag.com/research-breakthroughs/2016/3/23/anyone-immune-hiv
https://www.wired.com/2005/01/genetic-hiv-resistance-deciphered/
 
That doesn't explain the much higher infection rate in Eastern Africa versus Western Africa.
You are right, but it is certainly a factor. Especially in the difference in HIV among african origin and eurasian origin populations in southern Africa.
 
You are right, but it is certainly a factor. Especially in the difference in HIV among african origin and eurasian origin populations in southern Africa.

Except the genes you talk about are common among the Germans, Scandianvian, East/West Slavs, Balts and Finns, not amount the Dutch and French, which the Afrikaans mostly descend from.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I don’t think you could get that high a death rate but what about an earlier spread of HIV/AIDS across Africa? IIRC it started in the Congo in the early 1900s and spread from there.

It is hard for a Virus like AIDS to thrive in a world of measles, smallpox and the other great killers. Each time you get a major outbreak of these disease in an area, the AIDS epidemic would have been nipped in the bud. Really hard to move AIDS back much in time, IMO.
 
The much lower AIDS rate outside Africa and in African regions outside southern and eastern Africa and among Eurasian populations in the African region with high AIDS rate indicate, that there's cultural reasons that AIDS have spread so successful there and have been less successful in other regions, including the region where AIDS likely first developed (Congo).

As a biochemist who used to work with HIV, it's not seriously believed by those in the field that HIV spread has anything to do with cultural reasons. The differing infection rates appear to differ more as a result of local microbiomes (especially vaginal microbiomes) that are more susceptible to infection. It's also believed that genetic resistance plays a role, but the relative contributions of genetic factors and microbiomes are not yet known.

Also HIV/AIDS won't kill off too many people because that would be disadvantageous for the virus, from an evolutionary perspective. It would more likely evolve to become less deadly, like it currently appears to be doing.
 
The much lower AIDS rate outside Africa and in African regions outside southern and eastern Africa and among Eurasian populations in the African region with high AIDS rate indicate, that there's cultural reasons that AIDS have spread so successful there and have been less successful in other regions, including the region where AIDS likely first developed (Congo).

Genetics, as someone already beat me to saying, is a major factor but you're probably right culture does in some respect play a part in this; for example, the belief in South Africa that raping virgins is a cure for the disease. The main issue for an earlier transmission of the disease is the extreme lack of medical care and thus treatment options as well as prevention techniques, as well as the fact the mobilization for the Great War allowed for mass exposure to normal STDs.
 
Top