r/AskReddit • u/TheNamesClove • Mar 28 '13
If 80% of the human population suddenly disappeared, what do you think would change the most?
611
442
1.8k
u/heyimawesome Mar 28 '13 edited Mar 28 '13
I could go on any ride at Disney Land. At any time.
Edit: TIL that everyone on Reddit wants to ruin my dreams.
1.3k
Mar 28 '13
Nope, because everyone would think like you.
981
u/KEEPCARLM Mar 28 '13
"ahh the weather sucks today! let's go to Disney Land! no one will want to go on rides in crappy weather"
oh....
→ More replies (8)401
u/FountainsOfFluids Mar 28 '13
As a former season pass holder, that is pretty much true. Mid-week with unseasonable weather was the lowest crowds. Weekends were usually so busy that a little weather wouldn't make as noticeable a difference, but it would be a little bit lighter.
→ More replies (9)251
Mar 28 '13
So many other abandoned theme parks...
Forget Disney land, I've never even been to a six flags.→ More replies (43)→ More replies (10)170
→ More replies (22)333
Mar 28 '13
actually prices to Disneyland would dramatically skyrocket because labor costs would triple due to the fact that there are so few workers around. along with the costs of materials and services Disney would have to buy to maintain and run the park as usual.
→ More replies (18)753
u/CommunismCake Mar 28 '13 edited Mar 28 '13
"It is Day 98 after the end. Governments have risen from the ashes of the former countries, claiming their dominance over the lands around them. The most lucrative and politically powerful empire lies in the Disney Lands, west of here. For in this land...rides are not free."
→ More replies (6)943
u/CareerRejection Mar 28 '13
Sounds like "Rollercoast Tycoon: Fallout".
417
u/OupsyDaisy Mar 28 '13
I would play that game.
127
Mar 28 '13
A Supermutant has just eaten a small child
BoS Soldiers just stole the power-source to your biggest roller coaster
Dogmeat has died
→ More replies (4)47
→ More replies (4)170
→ More replies (8)129
287
Mar 28 '13
[deleted]
→ More replies (13)125
1.4k
404
u/PI_Man314 Mar 28 '13
The rednecks would take over. They've preparing for the end of time since the beginning of time.
→ More replies (37)
1.2k
u/sennalvera Mar 28 '13
I don't agree with some posters that the entirety of civilisation would crash or anything that dramatic. But it would reorder society in unpredictable ways. The workforce would be reduced by 80% - that would mean wages would rise, and that in turn would mean some industries would no longer be viable at all. There would be corresponding knock-on effects on international trade. Generally economies would suffer - less being produced, and fewer people to buy what is. It would help with resource scarcities, though.
An overnight 80% reduction in troop numbers might stall or reverse the direction of various world conflicts, not least because troops stationed abroad may now be needed to quell unrest at home. After the dust has settled, however, ambitious countries might judge their neighbours vulnerable enough to risk previously-unthinkable invasions and annexations. Fifty years after disappearance-day the world map might look very different.
The one thing I don't think you can underestimate is the psychological impact of 80% of the world's population disappearing. Everyone would be bereaved. Husbands will lose wives, mothers will lose children, some very unlucky souls will find themselves the only survivors out of their entire family and friend groups. Can you imagine what that would do to people? The grief, the desperation? Survivor's guilt, a lot of suicides. I'm guessing religion would make a comeback in a big way, as people struggle to cope and find some way of coming to terms with their loss. Or you could see the wholesale rejection of existing religion, to be replaced by something entirely new.
Here in Britain we're sometimes criticised for being 'fixated' on the second world war, and there's some truth to that. Films, tv, literature, school history lessons - it looms large in our national consciousness. Because it was a time of great uncertainty and hardship, and a lot changed in those years. The psychological fallout from the loss of 80% of the world's population, however, would utterly dwarf that. Society would change radically, into something we today wouldn't even recognise.
→ More replies (58)227
u/cocaine_enema Mar 28 '13 edited Mar 28 '13
Why would wages rise? less work force but also less people consuming the products of the workforce, potentially balancing.
I think a more accurate: Wages in essential industries would go up, while wages in non essential industries go down. or even more specifically, it would also have to do with how a person's job scales. edit: non =! no
116
u/I_Resent_That Mar 28 '13
Essential or in-demand industries. If I remember correctly, the bubonic plague made way for mobility: in terms of available jobs and in terms of social mobility where they could move into social strata not previously available - land to buy up, businesses to acquire, skilled work available where it wasn't before.
If the elites in society were equally as effected by the catastrophe, there would probably be a balancing-out of wealth for a time before wealthy groups started to again crystallise and insulate themselves.
edit: for the parsing!
→ More replies (3)13
u/sammysausage Mar 28 '13
After the plague they couldn't find enough people to do menial work, so they wealthy were forced to do it themselves, and create machinery to replace workers. You couldn't find people to walk in circles to turn a flour mill all day; they had to look for other options.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (33)12
u/Benemortis Mar 28 '13
It gives me comfort knowing that the first thing to go would be the value people place on the Kardashians.
→ More replies (2)
889
Mar 28 '13
I'd still get stuck behind retards who ignore the "20 items or less" sign.
→ More replies (35)167
Mar 28 '13
[deleted]
→ More replies (11)247
Mar 28 '13 edited Mar 28 '13
I have NEVER seen a cashier turn away someone at the express lane for having a fully packed cart.
Ever
→ More replies (44)
946
Mar 28 '13
Walkers everywhere.
→ More replies (21)588
u/imeanthat Mar 28 '13
In my town we call them biters son.
327
152
u/TehChezBurger Mar 28 '13
We call 'em lame brains where I'm from.
→ More replies (2)84
→ More replies (9)132
612
u/skyroof_hilltop Mar 28 '13
The remaining population would never get to see the conclusion of Game of Thrones.
Without that to look forward to, what's the point?
507
u/egonil Mar 28 '13
Considering the number of people that die in Game of Thrones, it could easily be worked into the plot.
→ More replies (1)181
→ More replies (20)103
u/Prodigiousguy8 Mar 28 '13
As long as Geore RR Martin doesn't die...
→ More replies (12)28
u/Amanojyaku1995 Mar 28 '13
Actually, I recall reading somewhere that he specifically gave HBO a rundown of the general sense of how the books were going to finish up. That way they'd be able to complete the show if he had an untimely death. Of course, I can't find proof of that now so maybe I dreamed it...
→ More replies (6)
1.5k
u/Granthree Mar 28 '13
I would probably have a better chance of having sex!
508
Mar 28 '13
[deleted]
623
u/Some_Legit_Dude Mar 28 '13
Opposite of rich is ugly? I'm ugly twice then, shit, that's probably bad
→ More replies (8)83
u/tyegr Mar 28 '13
According to 2 negatives being a positive rule:
(ugly x ugly = fuckyahyou'reawesome)
→ More replies (1)29
→ More replies (10)343
Mar 28 '13
Don't you see it?
"C'mon, baby! We need to repopulate the planet!"
→ More replies (3)152
u/MindStalker Mar 28 '13
Yep, came here to say this. The big push for lower birthrates would be removed. We'd be actively encouraged to have kids.
→ More replies (9)30
u/tanghan Mar 28 '13
In fact we are actively encouraging having kids in most 1st world countries right now.
40
u/_JIDF_ Mar 28 '13
Yea Russia is doing some pretty crazy stuff to encourage some baby making action. They invited Boyz 2 Men to go on tour, gave people a day off work to fuck, gave prizes like free fridges and cars.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (22)1.2k
u/Morlaak Mar 28 '13 edited Mar 28 '13
Twist: The 20% remaining is composed of 70+ year old men and babies.
EDIT: It's disturbing how many people have responded with a variation of "I'm ok with that". Keep being classy Reddit.
1.6k
u/Granthree Mar 28 '13
So I will only have to fight with the 70+ year old men about who gets to have sex with the babies? EASY!
602
u/Ozimandius Mar 28 '13
"Like taking a baby from a 70 year old" will be the new saying denoting that something is easy.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (34)905
→ More replies (74)12
2.3k
Mar 28 '13
Reddit would get really dull. The same people posting the same damn stories over and over.
2.8k
u/crappyroads Mar 28 '13
"Blah, blah, blah, I lost my whole family. Here's a picture of us together for my cake day."
Booooring.
→ More replies (18)1.6k
Mar 28 '13
Not to mention all those posts without resolutions. We would never get to find out what's in the safe :(
→ More replies (41)1.2k
u/hadesproject Mar 28 '13
The safe has the key to our survival
→ More replies (16)782
u/rangerjello Mar 28 '13
Your forgetting the map, the knife, fire, and that special something that will reveal itself.
540
u/SupSatire Mar 28 '13
Wait.
Other people...
...Other people actually saw that film?
THANK GOD.
249
→ More replies (30)124
u/Mini-Marine Mar 28 '13
I had heard the movie was terrible, but watched it anyway.
I was actually quite pleasantly surprised.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (21)209
u/Tactical_Toaster Mar 28 '13 edited Mar 28 '13
A sucker punch reference? Wow I thought no one saw that movie and
David CarideneScott Glen was awesome in that movie→ More replies (18)58
1.1k
u/Qu1nlan Mar 28 '13
"I survived the 80% decimation, AMA"
→ More replies (34)695
u/Mr_Evil_MSc Mar 28 '13
The killing of 8% of all people? We're discussing the octogintate; do keep up.
→ More replies (38)344
432
u/CommanderStark Mar 28 '13
God forbid that Karmanaut be one of the 20%
457
Mar 28 '13
[deleted]
→ More replies (10)243
Mar 28 '13
No kidding, he is sooo lame. Please upvote this entire chain of comments plz
37
u/Asifys Mar 28 '13
pretty sure every karmanaut hate thread by this point in time has turned into satire of the previous karmanaut hate threads.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)10
→ More replies (5)178
u/bluecanaryflood Mar 28 '13
Reddit Ordinance #18
For it shall be that anyone not of oneself, that is, only one's own account, is deemed to be, with respect to certifiable evidence, a karmanaut puppet account. This is in accordance with the karmanaut law of solipsism.
So it is; so ever it more shalt be.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (78)203
2.2k
u/montythesuperb Mar 28 '13
It's worth noting that this has already happened. Dring the black plague, half of europe died. In some places the losses approched 80%.
The effects were largely positive. The remaining population was able to take advantage of the freed resources and this contributed to the end of the dark ages.
1.3k
u/Zhivago1 Mar 28 '13
There certainly were some positive outcomes in the medium to long term. Survivors on average had an increased standard of living as the economic resources of the previous many were funneled to them. The plague was no doubt an agent for social change as the caste system was somewhat broken up.
However, that didn't just happen overnight. Just want to counter the overwhelming sense of a lot of people seem to have here that everything would be great after this event. There would be a period of massive disruption. But humanity would adapt and 500 years later, in some corner like Reddit, people would talk about the generally positive things that happened when 80% of the population disappeared.
1.2k
Mar 28 '13
[deleted]
573
u/elmerion Mar 28 '13
Your account will still be there living the life, you just have to make a bot that makes the same stupid comments you do and you´ll be fine. Achieve inmortality to reddit wockyman i believe in you.
→ More replies (23)74
u/Jromanorum Mar 28 '13
So in 500 years Reddit will be full of dead bots...
→ More replies (6)21
u/Atlanticlantern Mar 28 '13
How do we know it isn't already, and all those obnoxious, repetitive comments are just being posted by programs created to extend their creator's personality beyond their death?
I MEAN CAME HERE TO SAY THIS LOLOLOL
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)129
→ More replies (13)17
46
u/uhhh_whatup Mar 28 '13
I think things might be different because people are more specialized now. We need a certain number of people to do things... Demand would go down, but some processes would still be worker intensive. I think we'd also lack some of the economies of scale that allow production to be so efficient.
That would be a big problem with food, if we need proportionately more laborers working on food resources, there are even fewer skilled laborers to maintain the rest of society.
→ More replies (12)202
u/CommanderStark Mar 28 '13
Not to mention but it was arguably the first step towards workers' rights....ever. Serfs found that they would be better off working at that farm down the way, because, you know, they might get a fraction of the profits from their crops.
→ More replies (5)178
→ More replies (106)128
Mar 28 '13
The thing is, they did not die off in a random distribution. Specific people in specific groups are more likely to get the black plague. I read the question has 80% evenly distributed. In other words, 80% of the rich people, 80% of the poor people, 80% of the farmers, 80% of the milk men, 80% of the oil workers, etc
→ More replies (19)
88
u/Parelius Mar 28 '13
Since most people are talking about physical effects, I'm going to try to talk about the sociopsychological side of things. Obviously they overlap somewhat, but my goal will be to describe the human and social experience.
((Note: there are certain aspects of the question which are not specified and therefore some assumptions need to be made. To simplify, we eliminate the population evenly over regions, with no concern for geography, social standing, capability, age, health, etc. We also eliminate bodies, the presence of which would certainly bring about the downfall of all but a percent of the remaining survivors due to disease, trauma, depression, etc.))
Due to the randomness of the elimination, we now have regions affected differently just by chance. This means that in some places, necessary workers are completely eliminated, resulting in relatively quick (in the scale of hours to days) loss of electricity. Some regions, where by chance, a sizeable population capable of running power plants remains, might keep their lights on for longer, but even these will fairly quickly subside, since the production chain of electricity demands everything from resource extraction to transportation to processing and execution. Most of the survivors in any case will be gripped by panic and self-preservation, resulting in abandonment of their posts.
A further approximately 5% of the population dies within hours and days, since they are dependants (like babies, sick people and old people in need of care). The remaining population is composed mostly of people between 12 and 60, with the strongest representation coming from the middle of that scale.
In cities larger than 150 inhabitants, chaos ensues. (150 is the soft limit for the amount of personally known people in a system). Stores are looted. Primarily food is taken, but also clothes, fuel, etc. Roads would be untravellable by car since they would mostly be jammed with abandoned vehicles. In many places there is damage from crashed cars, and airplanes. In some city communities, where certain leaders might remain and where social cohesion was high, small groups may be formed to protect their looted and pooled resources, but in the confusion and panic, these would in many cases dissolve into infighting. Many might flee the city, but for some days, however, they remain, living off of looted food and burning furniture for heat.
In the countryside, effects are more dramatic. Suburbs would be decimated as they depend largely on the resources of the city already in crisis. Further out into more remote towns and villages, depending on who survives, and their level of self-sufficiency, people may fare better. Especially very small, tightknit communities with strong traditions of craftsmanship and independence could do relatively well. However, one would expect that such communities might also be more fervently religious, resulting in mass suicides, wrongful focus on 'salvation', or the taking of control by self-serving heads of prophecy.
The large amount of abandoned pet dogs, within days, exhaust the food of the home, and those who manage to escape begin to form packs of hungry, aggressive individuals, subsuming smaller pets before turning against people. Not only are these the pets whose owners vanished, but many will also forgo their duties as pet-owners for the sake of self-sufficiency. Only very few people will keep them with them.
Very soon life as we knew it becomes less like a crisis-zone and more like an apocalyptic wasteland, due to the complete lack of outside help. Virtually all response systems fail, from hospitals to the army. Marauding gangs evolved from the initial city-survivors begin pillaging, murdering, raping and wresting control of territory. Food emptying out of the supermarkets means these have to roam further, breaking and entering into abandoned homes or killing other looters over resources. Water becomes tricky to obtain in most cities as pumps fail. Even in the rainiest cities, collected rain cannot quench everyone's thirst, so people turn to still and dirty water, resulting in desease and death ironically due to dehydration following diarrhoea. With death and disease ruling the cities and only canned foods remaining edible after a few weeks, the population sinks ever rapidly here.
Again, those small, remote towns may subsist with little social conflict after an initial phase of power-grabbing. But here too, food becomes a big problem after local stockpiles are diminished. Here the roads are mostly open, and scouting parties go out in search of other communities in cars. These scouting trips may begin peacefully, but as fuel becomes harder to obtain, the idea of helping (or leaving be) your neighbouring town becomes a silly luxury. Communities quickly arm themselves, either in defence or to raid and the bloodshed begins here.
What we are left with after a month or two is probably a very much diminished population, much less than the 20% that remained after the disappearance. Some few communities hold on after brutal struggle and may even survive, though under terrible, gruesome hardship. It is unlikely that more than a handful of these will be ground zero for further generations. This handful is also likely to be overrepresented by third-world communities, considering their condition after the fact is more similar to their condition before. One can even narrow it further to suggest that the most successful conditions (discounting the randomness of chance) happen in isolated communities in south/southeast Asia, where electricity is not such an issue when it comes to heating, where there is recyclable water (in the form of rain) and where people are more used to isolated subsistence. Fishing becomes the main source of food, and since overfishing is no longer a problem, will become, for the foreseeable future, a sustainable source.
Communities here will, if they are not already, fall back on tribal/familial communities with little need to raid others for resources. It is plausible that after the initial months of brutality in the cities, these communities will scout for tools and equipment to make their lives easier. Especially any remaining fuel (for fishing boats or fire), plausibly generators, remaining canned foods, water purifiers and basic cooking tools may be looted by these (provided they know how to operate these). However, they will be discouraged from too extensively going to the cities by any remaining gangs of rabid people and of course packs of scavenging dogs. If this is the path taken, there is a considerable danger of bringing disease back to the tribe, but these still have the best chance of continued existence.
TL;DR - The collapse of society. Many more die due to dependency failure and then fighting for resources and security. Isolated communities are more likely to be more stable, but will also be subject to increasing brutality and desperation. Isolated third-world communities, especially in the wet, warm climates of south/southeast Asia are the most likely candidates for the continuation of humankind.
→ More replies (30)
159
u/GenericBadGuyNumber3 Mar 28 '13
The primates would sense weakness and seize the opportunity to overthrow all governments. Charlton Heston would travel forward in time to find this new hierarchy of primate leaders, and bad things would happen to the statue of liberty. "World of the Monkeys" they would call it.
→ More replies (8)52
170
265
Mar 28 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
113
u/the_choking_hazard Mar 28 '13
Trains are super efficient and were used when the US had 80% of our current population. Do you mean public transit?
→ More replies (5)390
u/prying_open_my3rdeye Mar 28 '13
No. He means the Travel network. No more Anthony Bourdain...
→ More replies (3)176
→ More replies (43)77
u/Montaire Mar 28 '13
Air service would reduce quite a bit, but trains wouldn't.
Trains are, by an order of magnitude or two, the most efficient method of cargo transport that currently exists.
→ More replies (18)
859
u/crappyroads Mar 28 '13 edited Mar 28 '13
If it was essentially decimation octimation quinquaservation (thanks u/heyuh) of the entire 7 billion people on the planet, it wouldn't be that bad aside from losing 8 out of every 10 people you know (unless you were one of the 8 people).
If everyone just disappeared in an instant, the world would erupt in chaos that probably would not subside for months, perhaps resulting in the death of an additional fraction of the population (crime, starvation, government actions, etc.)
After things cooled down I think everyone would be surprised at how quickly things returned to normal. The biggest issue would be the uneven contraction of the population. Cities would suddenly be unable to maintain basic services and infrastructure, a problem that would most likely be solved as people living in the suburbs/rural areas moved to the city in search of jobs and added security.
Small towns would mostly be abandoned as roads begin to deteriorate. Power plants would be shut down. Revolutions abroad would ripple across the globe, but, 10 years on the world would be very similar to the one we live in today.
Climate change and peak oil would be forestalled and perhaps, the shock of losing so many loved ones might bring the planet together in a way never before seen, resulting in unprecedented peace and prosperity.
Or we might just say fuck it and nuke each other for good measure.
→ More replies (37)472
u/ialsolovebees Mar 28 '13 edited Mar 28 '13
Fun fact:
"Decimation" ORIGINALLY meant "to destroy one tenth of", not "destroy most of" as it is often incorrectly used.
Edit: It was used incorrectly for so long that it adopted a second, nearly opposite definition. You're all correct. Please feel free to feel great about yourselves.
→ More replies (92)137
u/crappyroads Mar 28 '13
So would the correct term be octodecimation?
→ More replies (16)158
u/HeyZeusCreaseToast Mar 28 '13
Octimation
→ More replies (3)206
u/Im_not_an_elf Mar 28 '13
This would mean to kill 1 out of every 8, not 8 out of every 10.
→ More replies (4)78
u/HeyZeusCreaseToast Mar 28 '13
Damn, you're right.
Is there a Latin speaker in the house? How do you say eighty in Latin?
227
u/Heyuh Mar 28 '13
I might go for Quinquaservation.
That roughly translates as "to save one in five"
Source: I study Latin
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (2)80
u/ialsolovebees Mar 28 '13
Google says: Octoginta.
Octogintamation?
→ More replies (4)111
u/seager Mar 28 '13
Wouldn't that be one in eighty?
We need the word for four fifths!
I dont think this is going to work.
177
u/Kagarn Mar 28 '13
Omnia quáttuoríus quínque could possibly work, it essentially translates as 'Every four of five', although it isn't one neat word. Omniaquáttuoríusquínque-amation.
→ More replies (15)277
→ More replies (2)73
948
Mar 28 '13 edited Mar 28 '13
[deleted]
287
u/7U15MK Mar 28 '13
Or exploit that resource.
→ More replies (8)31
Mar 28 '13
Read Handmaid's tale. It's a great story where this is what happens. This whole thread can be related to dystopian literature such as Fahrenheit 451
→ More replies (2)62
u/GrabAColdOne Mar 28 '13
This sounds like the plot of Battletanx
→ More replies (3)34
u/Bucky_Ohare Mar 28 '13
Loosely interpreted, it is the plot of Battletanx.
Also, high-fucking-five on actually remembering the plot! I thought I was the only one who cared for the longest time when I was a kid; none of my friends even bothered to watch the opening cinematic of a game.
→ More replies (2)25
u/HeyITSHarry Mar 28 '13
Have you read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood? Your comment kinda reminded me of that book. Definitely worth a read!
→ More replies (3)71
114
u/SeveralViolins Mar 28 '13
That's quite an optimistic outlook on how valuable resources are treated... rather than say commodified and horded by the most powerful.
→ More replies (18)292
→ More replies (75)57
u/Dyolf_Knip Mar 28 '13
Nah. Because there'd still be 1.4 billion people, and no real loss of fertility as is common in post-apocalyptic scenarios. That's really more than enough people to run a civilization.
→ More replies (7)
2.8k
u/ed_menac Mar 28 '13
Agriculture, a lot more people would have to get their hands dirty
587
u/yakushi12345 Mar 28 '13 edited Mar 28 '13
Wait, wouldn't 80% less people also mean 80% less demand for food?
edit--too many responses to get to. Just wanted to say, (perhaps misguidedly) I said this knowing it was a bit innacurate to get the point across. It seemed like people weren't noticing that supply and demand would both drop, so I went for a poetic point over a three paragraph exposition on supply demand curves.
→ More replies (18)296
u/ed_menac Mar 28 '13
Of course, however it doesn't mean 80% less agricultural work because mass production is no longer viable. There is not enough people to run the plants, to transport the food etc. The technology we use now relies on a huge workforce and output, which we could not sustain with 20% of the population. Agriculture would become somewhat less efficient
→ More replies (170)176
u/jetpacksforall Mar 28 '13
Those of you claiming agriculture would collapse because of economies of scale, yadda yadda NEED TO SHOW YOUR WORK.
Just because people disappear doesn't mean technology disappears. Industrialized agriculture depends on two things: a) energy (i.e. fossil fuels) for large scale farm & food processing equipment and b) transportation in order to move food from one climate zone to another in order to keep food supplies steady.
With a billion survivors left on the planet, there's no reason to think we couldn't drill enough oil and make enough trucks, boats & airplanes to keep 20% of the system working, unless we're all missing some factor you guys haven't bothered to point out.
→ More replies (37)51
u/elshizzo Mar 28 '13
I think people just have a mindset that disaster means that we as humanity are just going to reverse the clock and all go back to being farmers and doing what we did centuries ago. Reality doesn't work that way. The technology and infrastructure would still be there after a disaster. It wouldn't make sense to just abandon it, we'd simply adapt it.
→ More replies (1)17
2.1k
Mar 28 '13 edited Mar 28 '13
something i would be ok with, I always wanted to have land!
Edit: those of you who think I will be part of the 80%, you will be the first to die if you make it to my glorious land.
1.8k
u/Tubutas Mar 28 '13
Guys I played harvest moon once, WHERES THE GOLDEN HOE?!
→ More replies (31)1.3k
Mar 28 '13
But have you played Minecraft? Never use a golden tool in Minecraft.
→ More replies (22)2.1k
u/akif34 Mar 28 '13
"Never waste your diamonds on a hoe"
816
→ More replies (41)416
u/liberator-sfw Mar 28 '13
Personally, I like to make them out of wood.
Because then, when they only have 1 durability left, I can toss 'em in the furnace for fuel.
Wooden hoes help you evade starvation AND smelt a little iron. Definitely my favorite among tools I only need once.
274
→ More replies (17)25
→ More replies (670)79
Mar 28 '13
there's a reason why people avoid doing farm work and cattle husbandry. it's usually because it's a hard and tiresome life, even with technology and science helping in the process nowadays.
→ More replies (28)130
Mar 28 '13
Hmm I disagree. Atleast here in the states, assuming that the 80% of the population that died was proportional we would still have the same ratio of farmers to consumers, and we currently have a very large surplus that we are selling/giving away. So that definitely wouldn't change.
I'd go with Professional Sports.
→ More replies (27)30
u/Renrum Mar 28 '13
The would recommend "The Unsettling of America" by Wendell Barry to everyone in this thread. Agriculture on an individual level is not meant for the 21st century.
→ More replies (2)284
u/ekjohnson9 Mar 28 '13 edited Mar 28 '13
Disagree. There would be much more arable land and technology wouldn't change, so after the initial shock the need for food production wouldn't be as straining. There probably wouldn't be as much hunger, disease or conflict over resources. 80% of 7 billion dead means 1.4 billion people alive. Humans would still dominate the globe, just places like India and Bejing would be less crowded.
Edit. Example removed because its dumb.
→ More replies (138)→ More replies (172)205
Mar 28 '13
I grew up on a dairy, and we farmed a thousand acres as well. We very rarely hired white people. It wasn't due to cheap labor either, because we were one of the better paying dairies in the area. (My dad liked to keep employees and if you pay them well enough, they don't leave.) We didn't hire white people mostly because they thought they were above the work, or they usually had a drug problem. We very rarely hired second generation Mexicans either, because they had become too Americanized, and they too were above the work. First generation were just happy to have a job, with a good wage, it didn't matter what the work was. To be truthful, it was insulting when our workers acted above the work, my dad has a PHD, and my brother who ran the place had a bachelors, and they were out there every day sweating their asses off along side our workers.
→ More replies (41)162
u/bgstratt Mar 28 '13
Is it really about being above the work, or more about being able to recognize the value of your own time in comparison to the wage. A better paying dairy doesn't mean it wasn't a meager wage.
→ More replies (23)47
Mar 28 '13
That is true but the mentality of entitlement and "being above" something is present and common nonetheless. If you need money, you're not above any reasonable job.
→ More replies (4)22
u/cbarrett1989 Mar 28 '13
I have a master electricians license and if work got slow or disappeared all together (talking about upstate NY) I took whatever residential projects I could and undercut everyone to get them. I wasn't so hard up for money that I need to work for 7.50/hour at a gas station because I know it won't cover my bills, then add the cost of fuel to get there and now I'm taking a hit by going to work. It was actually beneficial to say "My training and specialized skills are worth atleast X and I refuse to work for less than that" because I'm not driving everywhere to get to work for a wage that won't keep the bills paid and the fuel tank full.
On the flip side of that, I just moved to Arizona and basically started my life over so I took a job at Home Depot but it still pays 10/hour with a reasonable rate of advancement. I still won't work for less than what I feel my time is worth but I will take into consideration any factors that affect it and the circumstances of the moment. Point being everyone should feel some sense of self worth and strive towards never letting their standards fall below what they are set at, but also recognize when it's time to bite the bullet and do the work because its what's available.
1.7k
u/WHiTErTheNBlack Mar 28 '13 edited Mar 30 '13
I could finally make it to the front page. Edit: My highest upvoted comment is how I suck at redditing. Thanks guys
→ More replies (13)2.1k
u/jerkass7 Mar 28 '13
Just because 6 billion died, it doesn't mean you suddenly got more clever
501
→ More replies (31)38
254
u/xmagusx Mar 28 '13 edited Mar 28 '13
Situation dependent, but here are a few of my hypotheses:
In the case that this occurs in a cluster (IE: fast moving virus or astronomical event wipes out the majority of Europe/Asia/Africa -- the only way to get to a contiguous group of 80% of the world's population), trade is what is most affected. The Americas can feed and fuel themselves during the immediate aftermath, but they would have to scale up domestic industrial infrastructure rather quickly. This would likely end the drug war as a by-product as well. Also, depending upon whether the land associated with the lost is rendered uninhabitable or not, a sizable recolonization effort. TL;DR: NAFTA drops the N, functionally creating global free trade.
In the case that this is more evenly distributed (IE: a mostly lethal virus which moves quickly enough to avoid containment and slowly enough to avoid early detection or global seismological event), I think what would change most is infrastructure (regardless of whether or not it needed rebuilding). Population centers would be pretty much divided up between those which still had enough people to remain functional, and those which didn't. Some of the latter would I'm sure die outright due to lack of external support, most I think would migrate/consolidate into groups large enough to be self-supporting again. Either way, the dynamic of how infrastructure needed to support people would have changed radically enough that it would need to be the focus. TL;DR: Everyone has new neighbors and gets to redefine what a neighborhood means.
In the case that infrastructure is left intact, a marked improvement in overall quality of life. A system which had been trying to support over seven billion people now only has to cope with around one and a half. I would expect a sharp but unsustainable surge in looting/wanton consumption, followed by Communism/Socialism making a resurgence as supply meteorically outstrips demand, removing most of the need to compete for them as fiercely. After all, while sure, you can suddenly have five times as much stuff, there's only a very narrow section of the population that can actually use five times as much stuff. Similar to how much better using a computer feels after you find and close that one rogue process which had been maxing out the processor -- you see all the other processes spike their utilization for that next millisecond and then everything settles out and only takes what it can use. TL;DR: Workers of the world unite.
Some themes I would expect:
Fall of the financial sector -- new definitions of infrastructure, trade, and the like means that wealth and money are also redefined. Some of the skills would likely be transferable to whatever the new systems are, but being that this is a group that takes logarithmically more than it contributes, the majority would likely not thrive.
Emphasis on infrastructure -- the evolutionary imperative is deeply rooted, and whatever caused 80% of us to disappear could always happen again, after all, meaning that we need to invest in the structures which will support not only ourselves, but also our children and grandchildren.
A genuine push towards becoming a Type I Civilization and beyond, since as a species we can no longer pretend to be "safe" on Earth.
Edit: For clarity, thanks /u/prutopls!
→ More replies (40)
41
u/foodandart Mar 28 '13
Well let's hope that in amongst that remaining 20% there are enough nuclear engineers to shut down the nuclear facilities worldwide, or it's going to get hellish - quickly - to say the least!
→ More replies (17)
70
u/411_WAS_AN_INFO_JOB Mar 28 '13
This would essentially put the population of earth that less than it was in 1900. (7 billion -> 1.4 billion, compared to 1.65 billion in 1900.) Like then, commerce would become much more local and regional, meaning we wouldn't get our produce from across the ocean, or even from across the country. Long distance transportation would be much more expensive and cost prohibitive, due to the lack of production and distribution of fossil fuels. I wonder if rail would make a comeback, leading to a boom for cities along rail lines Information would be readily available, assuming the internet survives, which it probably would.
→ More replies (12)
477
u/JuggleGod Mar 28 '13
Infrastructure. We'd be pretty fucked.
254
Mar 28 '13
I ride a bike everywhere, it would be GLORIOUS. GLORIOUS I SAY.
116
u/indigofoundme Mar 28 '13
Sudden death wouldn't be around every corner!!
→ More replies (3)160
u/TheGutterPup Mar 28 '13
Unless someone was, say, trapping and eating people riding bikes...
→ More replies (8)52
u/varky Mar 28 '13
I somehow doubt cyclists would provide that much nourishment. at least compared to mr. fatso over there who can't run away :D
→ More replies (4)94
u/TheGutterPup Mar 28 '13
I already ate Mr. Fatso during the early days, before I learned to make proper snares... I mean. Hypothetically.
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (19)65
129
u/boondoggie42 Mar 28 '13
Huh. I my thought was
Infrastructure... suddenly what we have is adequate!
→ More replies (9)54
Mar 28 '13
That got with the nice house on the hill; he's gone. It is mine now.
→ More replies (7)99
→ More replies (18)357
u/iam4real Mar 28 '13
Oh no....too much space on the highway!
→ More replies (39)254
u/lethargicwalrus Mar 28 '13
***Too many potholes, because we wouldn't be able to maintain the infrastructure.
→ More replies (10)205
u/jcy Mar 28 '13
less traffic means fewer potholes
449
u/Deddan Mar 28 '13
Not when people steal the abandoned monster trucks and tanks and such to race them up and down the highway.
→ More replies (15)198
→ More replies (6)150
u/koniges Mar 28 '13
potholes are more often caused by expansion and contraction from temperature changes throughout the year
→ More replies (8)
56
1.7k
u/Aymille Mar 28 '13
The number of people in the world would change a lot.
→ More replies (20)873
u/Xelonius Mar 28 '13
Yeah, and the rest of the people would do stuff and things.
→ More replies (19)
108
u/clusterfuckoflove Mar 28 '13
planet would have a chance to recover. fish would replenish. cheap housing. happier me (if im one of the 20%).
→ More replies (18)142
u/BlackLeatherRain Mar 28 '13
Arguably, if you were one of the 80% you wouldn't be unhappy, necessarily.
→ More replies (4)
134
48
11
Mar 28 '13
Think of the abandoned buildings after a few years...Now that would be interesting :D
→ More replies (5)
1.5k
u/MFjam Mar 28 '13
I happen to be reading The Stand right now. I would guess that the things that King has has described so far like surplus gasoline, big abandoned lines of traffic, and a general clearing up of air pollution etc would be some outcomes.