If there were a major biological disaster, and 99.9% of the world’s population died out, would it be a major boon for a lot of the survivors to have access to so much technology and resources, or would it be an unmitigated disaster because everything we like about modern societies depends crucially on having a large population? Obviously we wouldn’t have as many power plants and McDonalds, but if all the survivors gathered on one continent, would we be ok?
Some knowledge would be lost forever, sure. But that’s only an argument that we’d be set back about 20-50 years, and that’s a pretty good lifestyle for a whole planet of resources to share only among 5 million people. If we consider worldwide education levels to not be so great, then I guess you’re arguing we’d be set back 100 years instead? Still not so bad, the start of the 20th century was a pretty great time in a lot of places, excepting war, which I would like to rule out based purely on the premise that there’s so much available for everyone that no one cares to fight.
Assuming the seriousness of the situation did not lead to some kind of Hobbesian war and we came together to form some kind of representative government, would life be better off, or does our existence not only depend on having had the population we do, but also its continued existence?
Considering that New Zealand doesn’t have much in the way of manufacturing or technology, obviously no; which would be true for almost any other country - the modern world is just too interconnected for any one country to continue as if nothing happened (maybe if it were some seclusive state like North Korea).
Population size probably isn’t as important, since that just mainly determines how much resources are needed; the more people, the more resources. If anything, a lower population (although probably more than a 99.9% die-off) would be able to enjoy a higher standard of living, as long as it was relatively even across the population and basic industries continued to operate (e.g. oil production capacity would now greatly exceed demand).
Also, I’d expect that it it were some biological disaster, such as a bird flu pandemic, countries like the U.S. would fare better due to better heath care, so the remaining population would have a higher level of technological know-how (albeit not necessarily the knowledge needed to make, for instance, a computer, and I mean down to the silicon chips and the like, not going to a store and buying a CPU, RAM, etc; not that a pandemic would wreck existing computers or factories).
As with most things, it’s a question of what we have adapted to. Our current society has adapted to there being around 6 billion people spread around the planet as we have now. Suddenly changing that will put our whole society into shock leading to much worse life for everyoe. On the other hand if this occurred slowly over a long period (say 100 years), it’s possible that life would be better without the crowding.
It’s basically the same as global climate change. A warmer climate isn’t inherently worse than the climate we have now except for the fact that all life on earth has adapted to current conditions and so a rapid change of condition would lead to catastrophe.
How can you think that oil production capability would now be much higher than demand, now that 99.9% of oil workers are now dead?
A 99.9% die-off of oil workers means a greater than 99.9% contraction of oil production, because oil production is dependent on a very large number of links in the production chain. Start breaking the links and the chain totally falls apart.
When 999 out of 1000 people die, the remaining survivors might be able to scavenge the remaining stock of goods for a while, but production will stop. That level of dieback means that pretty much everyone you know is dead. How many thousands of people do you know? For every thousand people, one of them is alive.
People would be much better off if the die-off wasn’t random, and everyone outside New Zealand died but New Zealand itself remained mostly intact. How are you going to rebuild civilization without existing nuclei of social units? It’s one thing if billions of strangers die, it’s another if every human being you’ve ever known is now dead. Your spouse, friends, co-workers, neighbors, kids, parents, siblings, cousins, softball teammates, all dead.
I would be willing to stipulate that the entire country of Denmark, 50% of Ohio, New Zealand… whatever was what was remaining, if that helps you address the issue of population size by yielding ready-made family units or social units or whatever, that’s cool.
If Ohio by itself stayed alive, they’d be better off than a worldwide random sampling. But they wouldn’t be better off, no. Ohio lacks resources needed for a modern lifestyle, and you can’t just send little units now “Civlization”-style to grab and exploit them. There is no oil in Ohio, so far as I am aware, so how are you going to get and refine oil? There are no tropical fruits, citrus, or coffee. There is no rubber, no iron, no bauxite (aluminum) or copper. Ohio is a net exporter or some things and a net importer of others, and so the lack of non-Ohio suppliers and customer would cause an immediate and drastic shock to Ohio’s standard of living.
Things would be terrible if it was actually a loss of 99.9% of the population. You’re talking about reducing the population of the entire United States down to that of a small to moderate city.
If you want to theorize saving the most ideal 6,000,000 people on the planet, magically having them live in the most ideal locations, magically having them all work together with the goal of keeping a relatively modern standard of living using only what remains left behind: I’d still predict abject failure.
I would question if we could handle losing 50% of the population and still maintaining the way of life we have now. Not that it would be impossible to change if it happened over a long time, it’s just that we’re currently set up to handle so many more.