What % of the human race could be wiped out before civilization collapses

[griffin1977]

@Chimera

There’s 3 million truck drivers in this country. 5% dying would not ‘bring everything to a halt’.

Although if the plague is slow to spread, quarantine zones may be more of an issue.

I am not sure about that at all. Once an pandemic reaches the point that everyone knows someone personally who has died, I think the economy grinds to a halt. And even if the guy driving a truck from A to B turns up, what about the guy who delivers the fuel for the truck, the guy that loads the truck, the guy that unloads the truck, the guy that drives from B to C, and the guy that packages the food that goes in the truck, etc. etc.

If any of the those people don’t turn up, then the food doesn’t arrive at C (and as Kobal points out there needs to be a lot of them working every day to ensure a major city is fed). There are lot of interlocking parts that ensure that food turns up on your supermarket shelves, if any of them break, then there is no food for you. And the world economy is set up to make them work just as efficiently as possible without any waste (which translate as slack in the system)

[dorvann]

@Sage_Rat

If 99.9994% of everyone died, there would be plenty of canned and dried food left in the city for everyone. It’s when all or most people are all alive that for shortages in cities are an immediate issue.

If 99.9994% of everyone died, there would also be plenty of “meat” available to eat. (What? No love for Soylent Green?)

[Chimera]

Yeah, civilization would be dead at that point. There would be 32 survivors in my state. Less than 7,000 people in India.

[Flyer]

@Kobal2

A propos of nothing : while writing this I looked up US import/export of oil. Y’all import 0.67 Mbarrels from Mexico a year, and export 1.06 right back to Mexico. The hell is up with that ? Is this some kind of Brownian motion live demo or somesuch ?

There are several grades of oil; “sweet” crude, “sour” crude, etc. US refineries can handle grades that most foreign refineries can’t. So they ship us their oil; we refine it; and ship back various finished products.

[nelliebly]

@Lemur866

This is silly. With absolutely no food you’re going to get hungry and dizzy after a few days, but you don’t just drop dead. This is a constant mistake people make in survival situations, prioritizing getting food over more immediate needs, like shelter and water.

Rule of threes: you can survive 3 minutes without air, 3 hours without shelter, 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food.

Obviously “shelter” is a wild card here, because on a partly cloudy spring day you don’t need any shelter at all. But cold and heat can kill you very quickly if you’re not prepared. You’re much more likely to die from hypothermia or heat stroke than you are to starve to death.

Anyway, starving in 3 days is not going to happen. And bulk weight of food needed to keep people from starving is really small compared to our existing transportation infrastructure. So even if transportation is reduced to a trickle it’s going to be a long time before people are literally dropping dead.

I’m still stuck on not surviving more than 3 hours without shelter. Plenty of people work outside without shelter for a lot longer than 3 hours. Homeless people often don’t have real shelter for days at a time. What am I missing here?

[Sam_Stone]

@Measure_for_Measure

Assuming 99% drop out at random, 88.6% of 12 member Boards of Directors of Fortune 500 companies and heck charitable organizations would lose all their members. The Presidential line of succession has 18 members I think, plus the President himself. .99^19=82.6% chance of losing them all.

Such a disaster would require a lot of improvisation, probably top-down.

‘Top-down’ improvisation is the surest way to make sure the recovery is as slow and inefficient as possible. That’s how you get Venezuela.

If you want to recover as fast as possible, you need to allow the economy to adjust itself. The people closest to the problems need to be allowed to make decisions, as they are the ones with the most knowledge.

My worry would be the effect of our just-in-time inventory practices and the incredibly long and specialized supply chains most companies have. The days where one company takes in a bunch of raw materials and outputs finished goods are long gone. It wouldn’t take too many supply chain breaks to bring entire industries to a grinding halt.

[John_Mace]

@Sam_Stone

‘Top-down’ improvisation is the surest way to make sure the recovery is as slow and inefficient as possible.

“Top-down” improvisation sounds like an oxymoron.

It’s often said that 99% of the people in the world are just basically in the way, so a loss of 99% of the people would solve that problem. But it would have to be the right people. The ones that are just in the way.

[silenus]

@John_Mace

The ones that are just in the way.

As some day it may happen that a victim must be found
I’ve got a little list — I’ve got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!
There’s the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs —
All people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs —

[CCitizen]

Even one death is a tragedy.

But Humankind can start a new civilization with about 1000 men and 1000 women left. Noah’s family had less people.

[CCitizen]

Given that we see thousands of deaths onscreen, many modern people do not see the infinite value of every Human Life. Every loss of a life is an irrecoverable loss of a unique personality.

But Noah and Naama recovered civilization with a single family.

[silenus]

Or…we can deal with facts and not mythology.

[Flyer]

@nelliebly

I’m still stuck on not surviving more than 3 hours without shelter. Plenty of people work outside without shelter for a lot longer than 3 hours. Homeless people often don’t have real shelter for days at a time. What am I missing here?

That timeframe applies to severe conditions. If it’s 70 degrees with a gentle breeze, of course you can survive much longer than 3 hours. But if it’s extremely hot, or very cold, or some other extreme weather event, if you don’t find or make shelter rather quickly, you might not live very long at all.

[DavidwithanR]

1. The Noah story is pure fiction.

2. I believe I possess the correct answer to the OP: Nobody knows, nobody has a way of knowing, or even a way of making an educated guess, the discussion is unfortunately of zero practical value because there is no relevant data and no valid conclusion to be drawn from any of it. I have nothing against randomly flapping my gums about various topics, but IMO random gum-flapping is all anyone can possibly have to offer on this one.

[dorvann]

I think the likelihood of survival is really dependent on what type of calamity caused the deaths. Here’s two scenarios to consider:

1. There is a massive pandemic that kills off 95% of the United States population, but leaves almost all of the infrastructure (buildings, roads, bridges, power plants. etc.) intact.

2. There is a massive nuclear war and the United States is carpet bombed with nuclear bombs and missiles that results in 95% of the United States population dead and most of the infrastructure is destroyed as well.

Obviously, the second scenario would be more likely to result in a total collapse. How much infrastructure survives is probably more important than how many people died. Rebuilding power plants, bridges, and roads take a lot of manpower and time. If they’re destroyed I think a collapse is inevitable.

[Quartz]

If 90% of the UK’s population died, we would be back to pre-industrial revolution levels and civilisation managed just fine.

[Jonathan_Chance]

For certain levels of civilization, of course. Our current civilization - US, UK, wherever - couldn’t possibly survive such a die off.

Reduce human population by 90% - to about 70 million worldwide - and we’re back to the population seen roughly 500 BC. Now specialization comes from population and food production. We’d see a return to small city-states and a LOT of farmers of one sort of another. No more winter blueberries in Boston.

Our technological civilization would simply end. Not only for food production but the steps needed to maintain it would be gone. No more global supply chains to get the metals and refined plastics to production facilities. The iPhone would be over, as would the Internet and satellite communications. The pony express might come back, though.

So a reduction in force of 90% doesn’t need aerospace engineers and such. It’ll need farmers and carpenters. When population grows, though, the knowledge will be there. That would be the one real advantage the survivors would have over our predecessors.

[Jonathan_Chance]

Oh, and to head things off…

Any discussion of the Noah story will be considered a hijack of the thread. It’s irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

[DesertDog]

We could survive a 1/3 reduction just fine, so long as they’re on the B-ark (except the telephone sanitizers; we’d have to pull them off).

[Horatius]

@nelliebly

I’m still stuck on not surviving more than 3 hours without shelter. Plenty of people work outside without shelter for a lot longer than 3 hours. Homeless people often don’t have real shelter for days at a time. What am I missing here?

For survival terms, I suspect you’re over-estimating what would be considered “shelter”. A lean-to will help you survive, as will the typical homeless-type cardboard box. Just something to break the wind, get out of the rain, and help you retain heat/avoid direct sunlight (as appropriate) can make the difference between life and death.

We’re not talking comfortable, here, we’re talking “alive” as a minimum standard.

[griffin1977]

@nelliebly

I’m still stuck on not surviving more than 3 hours without shelter. Plenty of people work outside without shelter for a lot longer than 3 hours. Homeless people often don’t have real shelter for days at a time. What am I missing here?

I can’t find a cite for what the actual origin of the “rule of threes” is (a lot of this kind of stuff was popularized by the SAS Survial Handbook) but different sites put it differently (and also extend it to three minutes without oxygen). Thismakes much more sense to me (people survive without shelter for more than three hours in the toughest environment:

3 HOURS WITHOUT BODY CORE TEMPERATURE
You can survive for three hours without maintaining your core body temperature (getting too cold or too hot outside the thresholds of survivable body core temps). When analyzing deaths of persons lost in the wilderness, most lose their life due to hypothermia (cold) or hyperthermia (overheating).