I never really liked Earth Abides myself. Another dated but good story about life after Doomsday is Pat Frank’s Alas Babylon.
[Presumably, in the long-term humans would breed back to overcrowding levels]
There would still be over a billion of us left. It could be argued we’d still be at overcrowding levels.
Myself Id think there woudl be huge upheavals, countries and governments would fall, but overall we’d come back from it. If it was perceived as a man-made issue, the biggest problem would be the high possibility of some sort of MAD nuclear situation resulting to help cap things off.
Otara
A truly even 80% distribution across social and national lines is a magic spell, not a plague. Real epidemics take months to infect whole populations, even in the new world of jet planes. The rich can plan better, and faster than the poor.
Real term plagues would have associated consequences, and risk factors. The very old, they very young, the very poor, the otherwise ill, those in close propinquity by lifestyle or economic pressure would all have greatly increased rates of mortality. The rich would receive better medical treatment, and if not more survivors of the specific plague, and certainly more survivors of secondary diseases.
The agrarian western farmer can live in near isolation with only a week’s notice, for months on end, and still provide food to the survivors in the cities. Will he? Hard to say. The millions living in the streets of Rio, Calcutta, Beijing, and other major cities will have far greater levels of infection, more deaths, and more secondary infections by other diseases. They will also suffer first, and most from “economic dislocation.”
Military forces often live in close quarters, and rely on support for survival. If they survive, they represent a significant danger to surviving civilian populations, in much of the world. The same could be said of Governments in general.
Tris.
You might well have been depressed, so would be a percentage of the population that survived. Some would have given up, others would attempt to make the best of it. The book did not attempt a gung ho scenario, just a try at a how it could be. Realistic in fact, IMO.
If we look at the USA and using the figures of a 20% survival rate there is a population of 293,166,656 would end up with approx. 58,633,331. ( give or take a few) On the face of it, this seems enough to keep things ticking over, but it would need some kind of interim government to organise things. Would that happen or would the country just fragment into separate groups? Perhaps fighting amongst themselves for available resources.
I think 20% would ensure man’s survival, we would have to give up some things, like our swimming pools and holidays in Sri Lanka but in about 200-300 years we could be back fighting in the Middle East and looking for weapons of mass destruction again.
Why? Wouldn’t there be more to go around?
Or do you mean finished products that were no longer being made?
On second thoughts, what would make them fight over finished goods, either? It would not be as if they were fighting for survival and surely a semblance of society would survive.
Plagues and vast disasters like the Dust Bowl have historically been ignored by the population boom. The worldwide influenza epidemics of WWI were recouped by 1922.
Although I mentioned a central government I imagine the likeliest scenario would be separate groups trying to gain ascendancy. You appear to envisage everyone pulling together - I don’t.
There would be many different groups with many different aims. This would be an opportunity for them. Different political/ religious/ racial/ etc. etc.
Just imagine,one group has some light aircraft but no fuel, the other group has fuel but no aircraft.
It’s just a guessing game, you’re probably more optimistic than I am. I might have read too many science fiction stories about what happens after the nuclear holocaust/ world-wide epidemic/ invasion by aliens and so on.
But, essentially, you would still have the same social structure as now.
At first, there would be disruption as everyone came to terms with the death of 80pc of family and friends but I am interested to know why you think they wouldn’t carry on as they do now: 20pc of today’s police force could, presumably, keep in check 20pc of today’s criminally-intent.
I agree with this.
Remember the parodied New York Times headline?
Depending on the disease characteristics and how it spreads, it will affect different populations differently. The First World will be least affected, Asia and Africa most.
Regards,
Shodan
Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Societal institutions have threshold numbers, below which they do not function. Also, if it is a plague of some sort, as has been noted, certain countries will be wiped out while others are hardly touched. But even those that are not hardest-hit will show a disproportionate die-off in certain areas. You can’t just assume that 20% of the cops are going to survive. In fact, cops would be a group that would be more likely to die-off, due to exposure to disease carriers and violence associated with the collapse of Civilization as we know it. This pattern will be repeated in all sorts of ways, with some groups and occupations wiped out, and others sailing through untouched.
I would expect an immediate resurgence of Imperialism, as the West moves to secure resources in suddenly unpopulated former Third-World areas.
The situation I was imagining in the OP was a affliction that basically hit the entire population on Earth at the same time. The only survivors would be the 20pc immune to it.
Thus, 20pc of ALL populations, including the police force, would survive. Basically, I am wondering how the world would react to an 80pc reduction of humans across the board.
That still doesn’t address the question of which 20%? My town has about 10 cops. We lose all but the burn-out nearing retirement, and the Chief. Available police for the town: zero. The same thing happens with any skilled profession. Any way you slice it, there are going to be gaps. A genetic hiccup that kills all but 20% is going to affect certain populations more than others. Ditto any kind of natural disaster. Even waving a magic wand to reduce the population will cause problems. The survivors will have all sorts of “survivor’s guilt” and other psychological trauma to deal with, as well. You might see the rise of a number of intensely theocratic mini-states in the wake of such a die off. No, I stand by my “collapse of society as we know it” scenario. 
Anyone ever read “A Canticle for Leibowitz” by Walter M. Miller, Jr? An excellent book about the aftermath of the nuclear apocalypse and the rise of the next civilization. This was written back in 1959 during the height of the Cold War and fear of nuclear death. Although the characters in the book find plenty of written references from the prior civilization, a few hundred years after the event, they have lost the knowledge to understand what they read in anything they find among the ruins. They cherish and preserve what they find form the old civilization which makes for some interesting stories. But all the knowledge from the scraps of materials they find are essentially useless to them.
I found an old and interesting discussion on the book over at Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/books/99/11/29/0827208.shtml
Not necessarily. One of the more frightening aspects of the Great Flu Pandemic was that it struck down young adults in their physical prime.
One point to ponder:
By striking down 80% of the population, you are talking about taking the US back to roughly its 1880-1890 population level. We maintained a functioning society then. No reason to think that after a period of adjustment we could not do so now.
I think a lot of it would depend on what the government would do, and how fast the disease works.
In “The Stand”, the gov’t originally tries to cover up the disease, but that rapidly collapses when within a week, people are dying all over. There is a brief reference to a battle occuring between national guard units and regular army (most of whom are presumably already sick)…
Also, how bad is this sickness? I’m imagining the total collapse of our medical infrastructure, as it is flooded with people dying and getting sick.
I think the big issue is the fact that the majority of our population is concentrated in a few big cities… New York, LA, Miami, Chicago… etc.
Once the rioting spreads, I don’t think it would take long for the total breakdown of society. How interested in stopping a guy with a gun is a cop gonna be if he’s trying to flee a city with his family…?
Total societal breakdown, with some areas probably trying to hold onto the identity of “we’re the USA”.
I know that if I lived, I would try to find out if enough of my friends had lived, and then we’d go homestead… hehehehe…
…because none of us (non-military, non-medical) born after 1974 have been vacinated against it. They’re not sure how much immunity that people who had been vacinated now have, but any at all is higher than it is for us. I can’t think of a single other disease global outbreak that would be as likely to doom the spieces…once you kill off most of the kids and the majority of the fertile women, what can you do? None of the save-humanity possiblieies are likely to be too pleasant regarding the civil liberities of the young women and children who do survive.
Something like this is the best chance of making a senaro like in The Handmaiden’s Tale a reality, and children would be both worshiped and locked away from any and all possible harm… Not to mention that there would be far fewer people to support the old folks, so younger men too would probably face new limits on their rights. Manitory 80 hour work week? Threats of imprisonment for slackers? And good-bye to non-labor pursuits like arts and entertainment!
Holy crap. My spelling is really suffering today, sorry. I think the 1.5 extra hours of work a day all this week is taking its toll on my brain. :smack:
What the heck, might as well wade in…
Accepting, for the moment, the idea that 80% of the world’s population ceased breating in a short time span… and this was spread roughly uniformly… that would, as someone pointed out, still leave us with over 1 billion people worldwide. That is certainly enough to sustain both civilization and the human species since, for most of mankind’s history, there were far fewer people in existence.
If we’re talking about some illness, though (unlike meteor strikes, nuclear warfare and the like), we DO retain the technology and infrastructure of the early 21st century.
Some advantages we enjoy over past generations from, say, 1800 and earlier:
Widespread literacy: At least in Europe, North America, Australia, and much of Asia like China, Japan, and Korea. A higher percentage of people read fluently than ever before in history, and that’s important, because when the Big Bad Thing occurs I may not know how to do a lot of survival tasks but I can read a reference book, instructions for tools and medicine, and so forth.
Technology and infrastructure: Roads may acquire potholes, but they can be neglected for a short while. And in some places - like mountains - the heavy work of roadbuilding has been done, so even if the roads fall to ruin in some place rebuilding them later will not be as difficult as the initial project. As an example from Europe, some of the roads, viaducts, and other infrastructure built by the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago are still in existance and still being used. Surely part of the US interstate system would remain intact and usable for a considerable length of time, especially with 80% less traffic.
Communications, likewise, would continue. Even if the electrical and phone systems fell to rot quickly (and there’s no saying they would) CB’s and batteries would last awhile. The technology might regress from cellphones and integrated circuits back to bakelite phones and transitors or even (heavens!) vacuum tubes for awhile but the idea would survive, as well as reference documents on how the devices were built.
Properly maintained, items like automobiles can last decades, and they don’t necessarially require tons of spare parts (just oil and fuel). With 80% of vehicles suddenly available for “recycling”, canablization of spare parts would be an option. And, my goodness, I could probably keep my Toyota Echo running for a couple months on the gas I could siphon from 4 or 5 SUV’s
So what I’m saying is that manufacturing can slide for awhile, along with some maintenance, until the initial chaos is straightened out.
Average health is better than in the past: Yes, it’s true - our worst diseases are those of excess, and excess will be less of a problem after such a disaster. Between childhood immunizations and modern knowledge of sanitation (which is not to be sneezed at - just regular bathing and hand-washing can have an enormous effect on health, and such practices were not universal even in “advanced” civilizations until relatively recently) there is less disease than in the past. That’s why we die of cancer and heart disease these days rather than measles and tetnaus. Of course, many immunities wear down with time, but the biggest problems will be the first few years initially after the Big Bad Thing.
There will be lots of stuff lying around: No joke. This touches back on technology again, but from a different angle. I won’t have to make a coat my first winter after the Big Bad Thing - I already own a coat, and there are lots of coats already made, and 80% fewer people to buy them. There is canned food - lots of canned food, and 80% fewer people to buy it. And it lasts a couple years. So if the first harvest isn’t that great it’s still survivable. There will be extra tools. Extra vehicles. Extra houses. We would not be starting over from a blank slate.
Lots of people have survival skills: I know people who can their own food, brew their own beer, make their own soap… heck, I know basic gardening, I own a weaving loom… a lot of things our ancestors did for survival are now down for hobbies, and given incentive, hobbies can be turned back into survival skills. How many amateur carpenters do you know? How many people do work on their own cars? How many people have taken at least a basic first aid course?
On the downside:
Mental illness up the wazoo: post-traumatic shock, depression, grief, anger… lots of bad stuff that may lead to violence, suicide, riots, and other destructive manifestations. Lose 80% of my family? Wow. There will be a LOT of orphans. The tendency to rely on family won’t work too well when family isn’t there - those who make friends and allies easily will be at a distinct advantage.
The death rate will go up: It’s the high-end medical specialties that will be hurt the hardest. If you get your hand chopped off in an accident it will be less like you will find a hand surgeon able to sew it back on. Likewise, head injuries will be more likely to be fatal, just because an 80% loss would decimate the supply of neurosurgeons. Regular doctoring - suturing wounds, wrapping sprained ankles, casting broken legs, lancing boils, etc. will continue though, just because the pool of people with that knowledge is so large enough will survive to pass on the knowledge to other survivors. We may not be able to perform organ transplants for awhile due of lack of surgeons AND deteriorating transportation, though. Also, you’ll have people doing things they’re not accustomed to, like heavy duty farming or animal husbandry, and those can be dangerous occupations even for those who know what they’re doing.
There will be a severe labor shortage: Well, it’s not all bad - unemployment will disappear, but the fact is, until we ratchet down supply, adjust to new demands, and basically re-order civilization there will be more to do than warm bodies to do it. In some cases we might be able to keep automation going and even improve on it. In other instances, we’ll need honest-to-goodness ditch-diggers again, with old-fashioned shovels.
It would be chaotic as all hell for awhile, but I don’t see the human race going extinct. Massive, massive social upheaval, yes. It will be a different society/ civilization on the other end.