Population Reduction in SHTF

[Ghost]

Mods- seems to be the best place for this, if not please move.

As the title says. Note I'm talking about the elimination of people here simply just how much would the world's population reduce in SHTF? Granted there are too many factors specific to just what type of disaster but at a high level?

Starting population- almost 8 billion
http://srv1.worldometers.info/world-population/

Question is if something truly horrific happens world wide, enough to say impact food production and delivery or stop it completely what are we looking at? In other words things might be more like The Road than The Walking Dead. Sarcasm aside, given enough scale the initial die off is likely to be high. Especially when one considers:
- lifestyle; obesity is a big problem in the US.
- meds, need insulin? Major problem if it goes long enough.
- food? Major cities will be war zones quickly as food runs out. NYC alone has a rough population of 7.5 million people with near zero growing of actual food.
- water, again cities especially are going to have issues.
- sanitation- going to kill mode people than anything, just how quickly?
-elderly. There is a reason people didn't typically live to 75+, if for no other reason than it takes a lot to maintain someone older.
- climate; the US has a fair number of states in northerly climates with cold a good chunk of the tar with houses largely reliant on natural gas. When that runs out?

I'm sure there are plenty more I haven't listed.

To round it up I'm guessing a post apocalyptic world we might find ourselves is going to be drastically underpopulated relative to right now; if for no other reason than the explosion of the worlds population since 1950:
https://blog.globartis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/World_population_growth_1700-2100_2019_revision-1.jpg

I'm thinking big enough we're talking about reduction to at least half if not late 1800/early 1900s levels. In the neighborhood of 85%. Granted while modern sanitation will not be present the knowledge of it won't immediately be lost which likely accounted for a lot of deaths throughout history.

To close: again this is just a thought exercise as to just how sparsely populated a SHTF world might be.

Discuss.

[flybynight]

You mean like this ?


https://youtu.be/Kv531fVJ02g

[EBuff75]

The report done about EMP back around 2008 estimated that as much as 90% of the US population would die during the first year after a major EMP (whether natural, or man-made).  The impact on countries which aren't as reliant on utilities (power, water, sanitation, natural gas, phone, internet) would be far less.  But even in lesser developed areas, part of the reason that they have seen decreased infant mortality / increased lifespan in recent years has been due to increased availability of vaccines and modern medicine, which would also take a big hit.  I would assume that your scenario would have a potential similar die-off, presuming that it's something which happens rapidly, and not just a slow, downward collapse.

Disease would be a big killer, particularly due to lack of sanitation, but also a sort of snowball effect of increased number of bodies to deal with and the eventual breakdown of modern mortuary standards.  We haven't heard much about this yet from Ukraine, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are already issues starting in some of the areas where the local sanitation and utilities have stopped functioning. 

[Raptor]

Discuss? Ok

IMO The answer is that an approximate 65% population reduction worldwide is probable.

My Assumption & Logic:

A SHTF event can vary wildly in its immediate impact.

No Nukes are used:
That said for my assumption I am going to assume that there is an event that significantly impacts electrical transmission worldwide. I will not speculate on what happens simply that I am assuming that generators, steam powered (any type of fuel)power plants, batteries, solar panels, hydro-electricity  and wind generators still function locally (say at most and 50 mile radius for power plants) but that on a world wide basis long distance power transmission is AFU'ed for an a multi month basis with perhaps a year or more to restore the power. In this scenario we would have the 8 billion people competing for resources that are rapidly dwindling.

The upshot of the is that many things that need power would be at best iffy and at worse non-available.
You point out a lot of the problems:
Other Examples:
1. medical refrigeration for meds.
2. kidney dialysis
3. power for food storage (no frozen food, milk, butter, cheese, meat, poultry and/or seafood).
4. No power for internet, cell towers & phones.
5. Minimal (or no) banking systems. Cash only
6. Liquid fuels (diesel & gasoline) could still be produced since the large plants frequent produce much (but
    not all) of their own power but gas stations would for the most part not have generators initially to pump
    fuel (some do not manty do not).   
7. Food could be transported but without refrigeration capability the supply chain disruptions would make
     2020 look fun.
8. Manufactured goods would basically cease until the grid could be fixed for that area. So no
    pharmaceutical/medicines, no replacement parts (no transformers, wire for grid restoration and/or normal wear items like tires, batteries, etc) of any kind. You need to fix the grid with what you have on hand or can cobble together.

The list goes on but clearly first on the list of casualties will be the medically impaired. Then those in need of significant medical intervention. Heart attacks, gun shot wounds even minor things like appendicitis and infections will become fatal. Even minor cuts and infections could be life threatening.

Those who are not physically fit will also see a tremendous increase in mortality and reduced life span.

This is just assuming "civilization" keeps it together. We all have our opinions on that likelihood...Me? I am in the column labeled not very likely.

In this situation it be logical to assume that in the first 6 months the food shortages would not result in mass starvation in the US. Between the inventories piles of food (wheat, grain, etc.) and the limited production that could be mustered there could be enough to provide a minimum level of food. This may be long enough to pivot the remaining energy supply to increase canned good production to continue providing this minimum level of food.

That said the social unrest cost of this would be immense. Add to that the inability to treat diseases and injuries and I could easily see a staggering death count. In WW-2 ~3% of the entire world population died.
Germany lost about 9% of its population and the USSR lost over 13% of its population . As a contrast COVID killed ~ .07% of the world population while the Black Death when coupled with the Great Famine 1315 -1317 accounted for anywhere from 30% to 60% of the entire Eurasian & Middle East population.

(Note these figures are generally accepted estimates and not hard and fast #)

With all of this in mind in the scenario above I would estimate that a 3% casualty rate world wide in the first 6 months is not unreasonable. If conditions do not improve within that time frame I would estimate that a 10% casualty rate is not a high estimate. I think after 2 years that casualty rate could go as high and 20% to 30 % due to disease outbreaks and after that it could get a lot worse if this situation was not corrected  within 5 years.

My Math:

I would put the population floor at about 2 to 3 million people.
I base the above statement on the historical population from 1850 to 1950 which ranged from 1.5 to 2.5 billion people.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/international-programs/historical-est-worldpop.html

This level of population experienced many of the privations of no medical care, poor sanitation and general untreated disease and pestilence. I am opting for a higher number because for instance we know now that mosquitos cause many issue that were attributed to "vapors" or other incorrect causes. That and for instance sewerage is not good to mix with drinking water. All of this current knowledge will help to some extent reduce deaths.

This level of population is IMO sustainable with a level of tech that is equal to US Civil War vintage technology.

The real question is what parts of the world would be impacted most. Again my answer is simple. The part that relies the most on technology to survive today. An estimate of 90% for these areas would not an argument from me. Rural areas would of course see an impact by major metro areas would see bear the brunt of the issues. YMMV

A list of areas IMO most impacted: (BTW this list of 81 cities has over 1 billion people)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities


Edited to add:
In this scenario it is entirely possible that natural gas powered energy would be available. Natural gas utilities frequently use natural gas powered compression engines and transmission units. So if you have a NG powered generator this type of fuel could very likely be available. So cooking and heating by NG may be available. 


   

[Raptor]

free bump

[Anianna]

I wonder about the impact from water infrastructure.  On our farm, we would have had to get a manual well pump or start hauling water from the creek.  Here in civilization, the water still runs even when the power is out, but what happens when the water treatment facilities stop functioning?  Would boiling the tap water be enough in that scenario or would it be a case of water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink?  I suspect a lot of urban/suburban dwellers will succumb to filthy water. 

[Ghost]

I wonder about the impact from water infrastructure.  On our farm, we would have had to get a manual well pump or start hauling water from the creek.  Here in civilization, the water still runs even when the power is out, but what happens when the water treatment facilities stop functioning?  Would boiling the tap water be enough in that scenario or would it be a case of water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink?  I suspect a lot of urban/suburban dwellers will succumb to filthy water. 

Dysentery and other diseases are likely to kill far more people in the long run than anything else.

As a general thought to all the more I research this the more I'm convinced that if bad enough an 85% die off could very well happen. As a floor? 50%? Sanitation alone will be killer or just imagine a "minor" die off from say a solar flare/EMP event in say January. How much of North America north of Mason/Dixon could survive 3-4 months of winter and if like anything around here, 1-3 months of cold wet spring?

I'd say not likely.

I keep coming back to that cities are now unsustainable, and if food stops rolling in that old chestnut of "nine meals till anarchy" becomes a truism.

[Raptor]

I wonder about the impact from water infrastructure.  On our farm, we would have had to get a manual well pump or start hauling water from the creek.  Here in civilization, the water still runs even when the power is out, but what happens when the water treatment facilities stop functioning?  Would boiling the tap water be enough in that scenario or would it be a case of water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink?  I suspect a lot of urban/suburban dwellers will succumb to filthy water. 

Dysentery and other diseases are likely to kill far more people in the long run than anything else.

As a general thought to all the more I research this the more I'm convinced that if bad enough an 85% die off could very well happen. As a floor? 50%? Sanitation alone will be killer or just imagine a "minor" die off from say a solar flare/EMP event in say January.

How much of North America north of Mason/Dixon could survive 3-4 months of winter and if like anything around here, 1-3 months of cold wet spring?

I do not disagree with any of the thoughts. 

Especially with regard to sanitation. Everyone is used to turning on a faucet and getting water that is safe to drink.

IMO the Mason/Dixon line is less the dividing point than rural vs. urban may be. Rural inhabitants tend to be (but not universally) more prepared and aware of basic common sense things like sanitation. 

Still if anyone relies on technology they have a bigger risk for such an event...looking at residents of LA/CA basin and NE corridor. Still NYC, London and Paris have been in existence long before electricity was a thing...much less the internet. 


   

[Ghost]

I wonder about the impact from water infrastructure.  On our farm, we would have had to get a manual well pump or start hauling water from the creek.  Here in civilization, the water still runs even when the power is out, but what happens when the water treatment facilities stop functioning?  Would boiling the tap water be enough in that scenario or would it be a case of water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink?  I suspect a lot of urban/suburban dwellers will succumb to filthy water. 

Dysentery and other diseases are likely to kill far more people in the long run than anything else.

As a general thought to all the more I research this the more I'm convinced that if bad enough an 85% die off could very well happen. As a floor? 50%? Sanitation alone will be killer or just imagine a "minor" die off from say a solar flare/EMP event in say January.

How much of North America north of Mason/Dixon could survive 3-4 months of winter and if like anything around here, 1-3 months of cold wet spring?

I do not disagree with any of the thoughts.

Especially with regard to sanitation. Everyone is used to turning on a faucet and getting water that is safe to drink.

IMO the Mason/Dixon line is less the dividing point than rural vs. urban may be. Rural inhabitants tend to be (but not universally) more prepared and aware of basic common sense things like sanitation.

Still if anyone relies on technology they have a bigger risk for such an event...looking at residents of LA/CA basin and NE corridor. Still NYC, London and Paris have been in existence long before electricity was a thing...much less the internet.


 

When I say Mason/Dixon I'm using as a dividing line for climate. Get to say southern Virginia for example? Relatively survivable all year round. Where I live? Blistering humid from late June through early August, wet cold Fall, subzero winters January to March, and then rainy cold spring.

As far as urban v rural, that's kinda my point. Cities are unsustainable in any grid down or long term SHTF. Rural if for no other reason than less population density will (likely) fair better.

As to the last part, sure the cities will survive but the inhabitants? Some likely will. Most are so wrapped up in a bubble where everything "just magically appears" on their plate or doorstep. Probably a lot of suburbanites too.

I live in a peculiar spot, go 400 feet from where I live and its farm country and rural real quick, basically the edge of suburbia. While no one is likely immune to the hardships of SHTF, those living in cities will be like playing a video game on expert mode with no cheat codes.