There are many Post-Apocalyptic scenarios where humans return to a more medieval form of society.
But what would happen if some sort of Apocalypse hit medieval Europe around 1400. Something that kills off 99.99% of the people on the Afro-Eurasian landmass.
What would European society return to?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>What would European society return to?
Extinction. You literally would not have enough people left to maintain population growth though common hazards of the era (wildlife, disease), so people would die out in couple generations.
Some centuries later South American cultures develop sufficiently advanced sea-faring and claim the new lands for their bloodthirsty gods, wondering briefly where the strange ruins come from before razing what remains of them and erecting their own temples in their place.
>99.9%
The hell kind of apocalypse is this?
And the other guy is right, the population is not high enough for that.
What about say 99%
That would mean there is still a family sized unit left in a typical village of 500 people.
They would turns into room for other Eurasian civilizations to expand into.
>of the people on the Afro-Eurasian landmass.
See However, an apocalyptic event DID hit Europe around that time. The black plague. And guess what? We survived!
How would the modern world react to 40-50% of the population being wiped out?
I'd be fucking stoked. I hate you guys.
It would be all over the news for about three months and then the world would carry on as usual. Property prices might go down a bit, but I'm not holding my breath.
The native americans are bought enough time to catch up technologically and colonize europe.
Poorly. Every social, economic and political system we have in motion just last half of the participants. Things would fall apart for years and we would never shut up about the Calamity That Was once we did recover.
>Every social, economic and political system we have in motion just last half of the participants
But the same amount of wealth! Everybody would be twice as rich out of the sudden. EVERYBODY.
>out of the sudden
Opinion discarded, illiterate.
Badly. How would you react to the remaining police doing house-to-house searches to find the bodies and remove them before the people remaining get sick?
Half the farmers are dead, better hope the remainder can pick up the slack.
You get a fat inheritance from aunt whatever, but most of it is taken as 'apocalypse tax'.
Libertardians take to the streets in up-armoured pickup trucks and start shooting people for their groceries because 'MUH FREEDUMS'. It's the apocalypse they've been dreaming of.
The political system has to adjust to being half the size, but having only half the tax money to spend while still trying to make out they needed the full amount.
After the initial mess is cleaned up, which could take years, you'd be down 60% in total due to it. Societies would become more socialist in a hurry as governments push through laws to encourage repopulation.
On the upside, world hunger is now fixed.
>Half the farmers are dead, better hope the remainder can pick up the slack.
That only makes sense if said apocalyptic event is "half the people just keel over and fucken die". If it's a more "normal" apocalyptic event like turbodisease or war, those who live away from population centers are more likely to survive in greater proportion than those in the population centers.
The main problem is that a significant proportion of modern farmers in the developed world are heavily reliant on the modern farming industry and as a result incapable of subsistence farming. Converting their extant land into something useful would take more time than they have.
>That only makes sense if said apocalyptic event is "half the people just keel over and fucken die"
I was given no example to work from, so I assumed it worked like Life After People. Suddenly, 50% of humanity drops dead.
Supply chain collapse would be the biggest risk. The supply of medical supplies, food, computer hardware, etc would all get disrupted. Modern cities are heavily reliant on constant supply. Even farms are reliant on international supply chains to function.
There's a chance that really excellent leaders and a cooperative populace could seize control and draft a command economy to keep the world from descending into utter chaos, but if not, we could have a cascading disaster that ends with an even bigger die-off. If we lose the ability to do high tech resource extraction, we might never recover.
Japan would be fine I imagine.
WRT to the OP post--I imagine people would be set back to an almost stone age subsistence, but they might bounce back surprisingly fast. Most regions were fairly resource independent.
IIRC world hunger has nothing to do with having too many people. Thee are companies throwing out food because they have too much of it that doesn't get sold.
That might be true in the most literal sense, but how do you transport surplus food to places with a deficit? Who pays for gathering it from the product from stores and farms, delivering it to a port, loading it on a ship, getting it to where it's needed, and distributing it fairly without it getting sucked up and resold by corrupt local governments and gangs?
Even if you could manage all that, is it a good idea to adopt the world's hungry as permanent dependants?
If you only do this at the local scale, how do you make a living as a grocer or restauranteur if people can get stuff for free just by waiting til 8pm on Wednesday night?
Sorry to rant, it's just something that always comes up as if feeding the world is simple, and the only reason people are hungry is because of the moral failings of the developed world (ie, places where people worked for centuries to create abundance and rule of law).
It depends on who's affected. If it was "every libtard falls down dead" it would be a strict improvement and there would be no disruption to the supply of anything important, we'd just run out of gender studies papers and Twitter retards.
@54473760
Back to your containment board.
Even in the third world enough food is being produced. There's a bunch of reasons why people go hungry but not enough food is not a main factor