Nearly all problems we face would get significantly worse if we lost half the population.

The energy grids would collapse over night as would monetary systems.

War woukd increase as people fight to control now limited resources.

We'd go back to burning wood, deforesting vast swathes of land.

Food and clean water would become luxuries.

Healrh care would be centered around who can keep a saw sharp.

Imagine the worst of sub Saharan Aftica being the best lifestyle in New York.

This world is built on the concept of the growth of everything. If only one thing stops, it all comes crashing down....

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

If we lost 90%, then yup, exactly that.

50%, we'd have a rough year but come back up.

There would be a loss of certain gigfactories, semiconductor market might breakdown completely.

If the electrical grid came down, it would get really ugly, really fast. Especially in urban areas, where most people now live.

Oof. And canalization. Just think of the disease...

100%. But a 50% loss isn't enough for that, unless it disproportionately takes engineers.

You greatly overestimate how much personal the electrical grid has. Take out two guys in the wrong spot, and the whole thing collapses.

That was your own point, before, about mechanization bringing fragility.

Personell, excuse my German.

Admittedly my 50% is guesswork, but there's more redundancy than that. The point at which we go from "voltage fluctuations within spec" to "lost sync, you're all islanded now" is quite uncertain.

My home inverter keeps me updated on the grid voltage outside. Its a bit concerning to see it rise or fall 10% in a matter of minutes, but the lights stay on...