Hypothetical Catastrophic Event

Imagine for a moment that there is a global catastrophic event. Assuming that the event does not make the world uninhabitable, what do you think would be the minimum number of people that must survive so that humans can a) survive as a species and b) allow us to maintain our standard of living? If we don't have this, "critical mass" of people do you think it would be possible, given a few thousand years to return to our current lifestyle?

I would argue that, for humanity as a whole to go on without drastic changes in lifestyle, a large percentage of the world's population must survive this catastrophic event. Just think about how far removed one is from a typical product - like a computer for example. Would you know how to build one from scratch? Do you know the physics behind it? Can you build a factory to mass produce it?

It's amazing to realize that we've become so specialized in a certain area and are masters of one of many branches of knowledge. Could this ultra-specification of knowledge ultimately be our downfall? What sector of society would be most valuable in a situation like this, i.e. which professions must exist for our species to survive and eventually recuperate? How many of us have "survival skills" to begin with? For the most part, I think we are all pampered. Can you imagine a world without electricity?

Just something to think about... You can pose your own hypothetical situation if you're bored.

Depends on what time period we're talking about, really. If we're talking about now or sometime in the near future, we would probably survive off a few thousand people (5000+ or more), especially if said people are professional scientists. Humans could repopulate through artificial insemination or possibly repeated cloning of those who are most fit and healthy.-Jiggles-

I disagree. Humans are still humans, and I know that I for one wouldn't want to be a brood mare. No matter how desparate we would be. >.>;

At any rate, I could definately go without electricity. I can start a fire and I know how to build a mostly adequete shelter. I believe we would do best in small groups, but my biggest fear would be from desperate people who happened upon the camps.

I think it'd be interesting to try to teach our children without school, though.

I would argue that, for humanity as a whole to go on without drastic changes in lifestyle, a large percentage of the world's population must survive this catastrophic event. J

entropyecho

I agree. If we're looking for a situation where daily life is not dramatically impacted (other than the horrors of the actual loss of the all those people) we would need large numbers of people well distributed around the world to maintain all the industries that support modern living.

If a catastrophic event happened and say about 25% of the human population survived...I think we'd be alright and would be able to build ourselves up again. fat_rob

In how much time - thousands of years, hundreds, a generation or two?

All you need is me, and an couple of hundred hot chicks. I'll rebuild civilization in no time. ;)bangell99

You wouldn't need a living male to populate the world. You could have clones, as someone mentioned, or a sperm bank provided there were scientifically advanced people among the living and infrastructure to inseminate women.

I also think that the location of the living would play a big role. As mentioned before, I think a pretty large number of people distributed throughout the entire world would be necessary.

It shows you how dependent we are on our own unique abilities.

It also demonstrates how seriously one should take their education.

If 25% of the population survived, there is no way we would easily be able to return to our current standard of living very quickly at all. Of course if there were a large density of the population focused in one area, it would make it easier, but it would still be extremely difficult to train the people who survived (if you even could) to be able to do everything that was needed. Everything today relies on so many other things.

25% distributed throughout the world might not be as bad, because if its evenly distributed there might be just enough people everywhere to manage to live on, but it would still require quite a radical change.

Humanity in it current standard of living is quite fragile. With such a globalized world, services and products rely on other services and products halfway around the world. It would be easier however to rebuild because we already have discovered so many things.

[QUOTE="bangell99"]All you need is me, and an couple of hundred hot chicks. I'll rebuild civilization in no time. ;)entropyecho

You wouldn't need a living male to populate the world. You could have clones, as someone mentioned, or a sperm bank provided there were scientifically advanced people among the living and infrastructure to inseminate women.

I also think that the location of the living would play a big role. As mentioned before, I think a pretty large number of people distributed throughout the entire world would be necessary.

It shows you how dependent we are on our own unique abilities.

It also demonstrates how seriously one should take their education.

I know; I just want to have a mass sex festival, starring me.

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]Depends on what time period we're talking about, really. If we're talking about now or sometime in the near future, we would probably survive off a few thousand people (5000+ or more), especially if said people are professional scientists. Humans could repopulate through artificial insemination or possibly repeated cloning of those who are most fit and healthy.Katafran

I disagree. Humans are still humans, and I know that I for one wouldn't want to be a brood mare. No matter how desparate we would be. >.>;

At any rate, I could definately go without electricity. I can start a fire and I know how to build a mostly adequete shelter. I believe we would do best in small groups, but my biggest fear would be from desperate people who happened upon the camps.

I think it'd be interesting to try to teach our children without school, though.

True, but I think society will look towards what's most efficient in such a dark time, rather than what is more morale.

If the whole population was completely morale and opposed artificial breeding, cloning, etc then the entire existance of humanity could be in jeopardy.

It may not be the best of decisions, but if it's the only thing that'll keep humanity alive, then I don't see why not.

Humanity in it current standard of living is quite fragile. With such a globalized world, services and products rely on other services and products halfway around the world. It would be easier however to rebuild because we already have discovered so many things. diped

I agree on this point, but how many of the living do you think are knowledgeable about our current discoveries? Let's say only third world countries remained. Their education, generally speaking, is very poor compared to the E.U., U.S., etc. Now, I am not arguing that they don't have the capacity to progress, I'm just saying that depending on the survivors, the rate of progression would be dramatically different.

But this again begs the question, would one favor the more scientific-minded, or the people with "survival skills" ?

How many scientists need to survive to ensure survival? I would argue not many, but without them the rate of prorgression would be very slow. Then again, I guess it depends on your definition of progress.

But then this begs the question, what type of scientific discipline would be most valued in a sitution like this?entropyecho

I'd bet Medicine and Chemistry.

[QUOTE="entropyecho"]

[QUOTE="bangell99"]All you need is me, and an couple of hundred hot chicks. I'll rebuild civilization in no time. ;)bangell99

You wouldn't need a living male to populate the world. You could have clones, as someone mentioned, or a sperm bank provided there were scientifically advanced people among the living and infrastructure to inseminate women.

I also think that the location of the living would play a big role. As mentioned before, I think a pretty large number of people distributed throughout the entire world would be necessary.

It shows you how dependent we are on our own unique abilities.

It also demonstrates how seriously one should take their education.

I know; I just want to have a mass sex festival, starring me.

Technically, you can do that now:P You don't have to wait for Armageddon!

[QUOTE="bangell99"][QUOTE="entropyecho"]

[QUOTE="bangell99"]All you need is me, and an couple of hundred hot chicks. I'll rebuild civilization in no time. ;)entropyecho

You wouldn't need a living male to populate the world. You could have clones, as someone mentioned, or a sperm bank provided there were scientifically advanced people among the living and infrastructure to inseminate women.

I also think that the location of the living would play a big role. As mentioned before, I think a pretty large number of people distributed throughout the entire world would be necessary.

It shows you how dependent we are on our own unique abilities.

It also demonstrates how seriously one should take their education.

I know; I just want to have a mass sex festival, starring me.

Technically, you can do that now:P You don't have to wait for Armageddon!

Well the women are already queuing up. :D

We may have almost been on the way out. Take it or leave it, but it's an interesting article.

Honestly, we'd probably survive as a species if nearly all of the human population died.

Right now, the human population of the entire planet is more than 6,000,000,000 A mere 1% of that is 60,000,000 people. A mere tenth of 1% is still 6 million people.

If 99.9% of humans died, there'd still be more than 6 million people left. Assuming they're not scattered too thinly around the world, that ought to be way more than enough to eventually recover.