22 November 2010

How Quickly Could Humans Re-Populate After a Die-Off?

Although the European population of the world has been shrinking steadily for a number of decades, the global population continues to expand -- almost exclusively among third world populations, and populations of low average IQ. As higher IQ populations shrink, and lower IQ populations grow, one might detect the beginnings of a self-correcting mechanism for the planet's supposed human population problem. After all, it is the innovations of the high IQ populations which have allowed the lower IQ populations to grow out of their normal bounds.

The politically correct intelligentsia of the western world has been obsessed with the "population bomb" and the dangers of overpopulation, for several decades now, but they cannot bring themselves to point to the distinct populations which are growing. That would not be politically correct.

According to the chattering class, all humans are now doomed to a planetary blowback, or die off. Whether the die-off will come via climate doom, resource depletion doom, starvation doom, emerging infection doom ... it doesn't really matter. However it falls, the coming doom and dieoff will be the fault of human hubris, human greed. It is absolutely necessary that humans -- particular humans -- are to be blamed for whatever massive doom and dieoff is to come.

The goal of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, the Dieoff.orgiasts, and the entire leftist-linked faux environmental movement, is the reduction of global human population to approximately 100 million persons or fewer. Even well respected academics at large universities have publicly advocated for an "ecological re-balancing" of the planet by the forced reduction of the human population.

Suppose the dieoff.orgiasts succeed, using the mechanisms of national and international governmental bodies to enact policies of energy starvation, and other draconian measures and mischief which largely lead to the extinction of economic activity and its accompanying intellectual innovation in high IQ populations. With an accelerated dieoff of high IQ groups will come an accompanying rapid genocide of lower IQ groups. Natural losses due to starvation, disease, warfare, and dysfunctional culture -- which have been held off by the paternalistic interference of outside groups -- will resume with a vengeance.

Assume the population of the planet shrinks to roughly 100 million persons, as the left-Luddites of the dieoff.orgy wish. How will that population be distributed? The answer to the question is complicated by the presence of large, growing third world populations residing within the boundaries of the first world. A large global dieoff would certainly trigger massive ethnic bloodshed within ethnically mixed populations which had failed to assimilate. Such localised but widespread civic disorder would disrupt food supplies and normal services, leading to yet more death and loss of human capital.

Here is a rough guestimate of population distribution post-dieoff, if the lefty-Luddites succeed:
Europe: 15 million survivours
East and South Asia: 50 million survivours
MENA: 5 million survivours
North America: 20 million survivours
South America: 5 million survivours
SubSaharan Africa: 1 million survivours
Oceania and islands: 4 million survivours

Clearly advanced technology will take a huge hit from such a dieoff.orgy, as most scientists, technicians, engineers, and technologists will have died along with the masses of other victims. Industrial infrastructure would be virtually non-existent. Any militaries which have planned ahead to provide alternative fuels and power generation schemes will naturally be in a better position to establish local and regional order of sorts.
Give the vestigial governments 50 to 100 years after the dieoff, to establish basic civil order and infrastructure in parts of Asia, Europe, North America, and Oceania. Once it is safe again to live, learn, trade, and innovate, how long would it take for human neo-civilisation to re-populate, re-build, and establish a pathway to the solar system and beyond?

In the absence of a functional artificial uterus, women of neo-civilisation will need to have many more children than civilised women would consider having today. It is likely that much of advanced technology -- including biotechnology -- will be saved and revived during the recovery from the lefty-Luddite dieoff. Among the saved biotech knowledge will probably be the genetic knowledge for controlling the age of menarche -- the onset of ovulation -- in girls.

The girl in the photo -- Lina Medina -- is over 7 months pregnant, at the age of 5 1/2 years old. She gave birth to a healthy boy by Caesarean Section in 1933, well before the age of modern genetic therapies and IVF fertilisation.

In 1669 Elizabeth Greenhill gave birth to her last (39th) child at the age of 54. The boy grew up to be a London surgeon and author, Thomas Greenhill. Clearly this was before the age of IVF treatments.

So girls and women are historically capable of childbirth from the ages of 5 to 55, without advanced technology. But with the use of advanced biotechnology, women have given birth as late as age 70. And with an advanced knowledge of how early menarche can be triggered, girls as young as 6 could certainly carry and deliver children -- as demonstrated by Lina Medina and other cases.

So assume an age window for pregnancy between the ages of 10 and 60, to be conservative. That is a 50 year window, but women are not cattle, so although they will probably be treated somewhat like brood mares under such extraordinary circumstances, their health and mental / emotional well-being would certainly be watched over, at least inside the nations of neo-civilisation.

Assume one child born every other year, with 5 one-year periods for intensive rehabilitation of lean body mass -- including body calcium. That allows time for each healthy woman to produce 20 children over her reproductive lifetime, by conservative estimate.

Given what we know about pregnancy's potentially rejuvenating affect on the bodies of middle-aged women, one would expect the healthy lifespans of such prolific mothers to extend into the late 80s and 90s. In other words, they would live to see even their youngest children reach adulthood.

So, over a period of 100 years of intensive re-population, a population of 10 million breeding pairs could easily bring the human population back into the billions. The same reasoning would apply to the settlement of new planets or solar systems.

It is unlikely that such a policy would survive for long, however, since among these prolific mothers would undoubtedly be some very intelligent and inventive technologists, capable of inventing, testing, and perfecting a functional artificial womb. Necessity is the mother of invention.

So we see that the popular chimera of the dieoff.orgiasts -- which they cling to under the name of "sustainability" -- is itself unsustainable in the face of a determined nucleus of intelligent, forward minded humans. No one wants to exercise this extreme re-population option -- unless a faster-than-light drive is invented -- for many reasons. But the option is there, and it will grow easier to achieve with every passing year -- if it ever becomes necessary.

The left-Luddite world is a world totally without balance or rationality. It cannot stand for contradictory viewpoints to be voiced, or for skeptical researches to be carried out. Its predictions of doom have been failing in abysmal fashion for several decades now -- without any sign that the delusional doomists have learned anything from their faulty assumptions and reasoning.

In a sense, the predicted dooms were never expected to come about. They were only memetic bludgeons to sway public opinion. Once the right people achieved political power, doom-from-incompetence was certain to follow. We are seeing the beginnings of this destructive incompetence in much of the western world.

Human ingenuity is certainly in short supply -- and the supply grows shorter the longer the Luddites are in control of most of the media, academia, politics, and general intelligentsia. But ingenuity and invention can flare up in places least expected, and they certainly will do if necessary.

Think about it. Unless you want your daughters and grand-daughters to be doomed to a life of perpetual procreation.


Bookmark and Share


Blogger Max said...

I happen to share the opinion that human population need not be very large. 100 millions is probably a good upper bound . Albeit I think much smaller population could do fine as well.

I think HBD conservatives are hypocrites on this issue. You constantly say how world is getting swarmed with 3d world population, yet refuse to accept the logical extension of this - which is necessity of population control and eugenics

You criticizes China for its one child policy and promote large families, you hate the environmentalists and refuse to even think that using more and more resources for nothing but serve the insatiable consumerism of masses and end up as garbage and pollution is not a great policy.

What world needs is more high IQ ,healthy individuals. You can achieve that by having more of everyone, but this is very inefficient imho as the talent of those few is diluted and mostly used to serve the everyday needs of useless majority.

Technological and scientific progress can be sustained and even much accelerate if we had small population of 150+ IQ individuals than then current quagmire.

Die off can happen in many ways , but many scenarios which would origin from serious global resource shortages could be very destructive. The environmentalists would not be the one to blame for them. The pro corporatist conservatives pushing for ever increasing consumerism trends are the culprits

Tuesday, 23 November, 2010  
Blogger al fin said...

Unfortunately, the faux environmentalist lefty-luddites would indeed be largely responsible for a destructive resource scarcity, should it occur in the next 20 to 30 years.

Policies of energy starvation such as have been pursued by much of Europe and the last two years of Obama - Pelosi reduce the energy lifeline for modern societies to a very slender and fragile thread. The architects of such policies are guided by the Luddite leftist faux environmentalists -- and they are very much to blame should the lifeline become stretched too thin as a result.

Your odds of survival in case of a die-off are extremely low, Max. The same is true for all who call themselves environmentalists, but who pursue an anti-natalist program.

Or do you think it is their intent to sacrifice themselves for the sake of those who actually do wish to live and prosper in an expanding universe?

Tuesday, 23 November, 2010  
Blogger Tom Craver said...

Why in the world would 100M survivors think they need to repopulate the world?

50M of them would happily go back to a less complicated way of life - nomadic or hunter-gatherer or feudal.

The other 50M would quickly recover a technological level that - combined with their relative wealth of natural resources - would let them live very nicely and with plenty of surplus to apply to the arts and sciences.

Wednesday, 24 November, 2010  
Blogger al fin said...

Tom and Max:

Like many people, you seem to assume that the 100 million humans remaining after the dieoff will be like you. More likely, they would have an average IQ of 80 at most, and technology would be lost for centuries or longer, if not permanently.

There is a dangerous undercurrent of fantasy thinking mixed with the dieoff dream -- for the technologists who are attracted to the idea. It is as if these dreamers are unaware of how their quasi-idyllic existence is underwritten by the activities of legions of others around the world.

When molecular nanotech assemblers have become reality, and when humans populate thousands of other worlds -- that is the time to plan for an Earth with only 100 million people.

This existence is not a computer simulation -- contrary to what hordes of solipsists appear to believe. It is based upon evolved networks of incredible intricacy. It is both fragile and robust, in varying degrees at different times, in the manner of chaotic systems.

Don't delude yourselves that a post-dieoff situation would be the slightest bit as you envision.

Thursday, 25 November, 2010  

Post a Comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts