Thread: What if: Less than 0.000001% of the world's population could give birth?

Was thinking for abit and chanced upon this idea, what if one day there was a burst of radiation that mass sterilized almost the entire human population with only 10,000 to 6,000 people worldwide with the ability to give birth(assuming half of them are males and the other half female).

How would one react to this situation if say you were one of those who had been sterilized? You have no defects or any possible fatal symptoms(since in this ideal situation we still have 5.999990000 billion healthy but infertile people).

Or how would you react if you one of the fertile male or female left in your entire country with same about 20 others who are fertile amongst the mass of a few million infertile people.

How would the human population view birth and how would these fertile people be treated since they are the last hope of humanities existence?

Which would you want to be and how would the this event affect any political, economical, social, religious or any other subjects agenda?

Finally last question, do you think at this stage humanity is doomed?

extinction

can a species will itself into extinction?

Originally Posted by sculptor

extinction

can a species will itself into extinction?

Probably not when it feels that family is a stage in society with it being integrated in many cultures. On the other hand some extremely developed countries start to forgot their culture ,and in my case, my country is experiencing an extremely low birth rate despite it being one of the most developed nations in the world. However governments also take the step to ensure that we won't attempt to kill ourselves unnecessarily unless justified.

Originally Posted by jacate

How would one react to this situation if say you were one of those who had been sterilized?

I would be over-joyed.

Originally Posted by jacate

Or how would you react if you one of the fertile male or female left in your entire country with same about 20 others who are fertile amongst the mass of a few million infertile people.

I would run away.
I would expect nothing good to come from people desperate to be parents.
A cornered rat is vicious.

Originally Posted by jacate

How would the human population view birth and how would these fertile people be treated since they are the last hope of humanities existence?

I would expect them to be treated like cattle.

Charming prospect.

Expected to breed to supply children for others? A life time of servitude. I'd rather be one of the sterile and learn to paint.

Originally Posted by jacate

Was thinking for abit and chanced upon this idea, what if one day there was a burst of radiation that mass sterilized almost the entire human population with only 10,000 to 6,000 people worldwide with the ability to give birth(assuming half of them are males and the other half female).

Earth's population would go way down. (BTW you really only need a few males; a little sperm goes a long way.)

How would one react to this situation if say you were one of those who had been sterilized? You have no defects or any possible fatal symptoms(since in this ideal situation we still have 5.999990000 billion healthy but infertile people).

Unhappy, but I already had one kid, so I couldn't complain too much.

Or how would you react if you one of the fertile male or female left in your entire country with same about 20 others who are fertile amongst the mass of a few million infertile people.

You'd write a Penthouse Forum story about it.

How would the human population view birth and how would these fertile people be treated since they are the last hope of humanities existence?

Probably some would be revered and some would be murdered out of jealousy/anger/political angst, given our track record with such things.

Finally last question, do you think at this stage humanity is doomed?

No.

Originally Posted by jacate

Finally last question, do you think at this stage humanity is doomed?

This rather depends. If the offspring of the remaining fertile individuals are all normally fertile, then I imagine there would be the most appalling social conditions that others have alluded to, a short term crash in population, the almost total destruction of technological society, and then a gradual growth of population and eventual development of technology again (over many generations). That would might depend on people moving together to a small number of villages that could be self-sufficient and sustainable.

If the offspring have the same 0.000001% fertility, then the population would be gone in one or two generations.

How would one react to this situation if say you were one of those who had been sterilized?

I'd never "pull out" ever ever again.

The few breeders are carrying some of my genes, my only chance at genetic survival, right? Then I'd dote on them like they were my own children. How diluted a child is, is normally only somewhat relevant; in this extreme case it's extremely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Pong

The few breeders are carrying some of my genes, my only chance at genetic survival, right? Then I'd dote on them like they were my own children. How diluted a child is, is normally only somewhat relevant; in this extreme case it's extremely irrelevant.

Would it be extremely irrelevant if one of them was your actual child and almost everyone in your country protects him/her like a sacred object? Worst still what if they take them away and hide them from the outside world and make them objects to just ensure our survival, treating them less than human. Although it would bringing this case to a further extreme, i would like for creative cases so that it can bring some interesting insight. If you can provide moral dilemma it would be more interesting to be honest too.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by jacate

Was thinking for abit and chanced upon this idea, what if one day there was a burst of radiation that mass sterilized almost the entire human population with only 10,000 to 6,000 people worldwide with the ability to give birth(assuming half of them are males and the other half female).

Earth's population would go way down. (BTW you really only need a few males; a little sperm goes a long way.)

How would one react to this situation if say you were one of those who had been sterilized? You have no defects or any possible fatal symptoms(since in this ideal situation we still have 5.999990000 billion healthy but infertile people).

Unhappy, but I already had one kid, so I couldn't complain too much.

Or how would you react if you one of the fertile male or female left in your entire country with same about 20 others who are fertile amongst the mass of a few million infertile people.

You'd write a Penthouse Forum story about it.

How would the human population view birth and how would these fertile people be treated since they are the last hope of humanities existence?

Probably some would be revered and some would be murdered out of jealousy/anger/political angst, given our track record with such things.

Finally last question, do you think at this stage humanity is doomed?

No.

What is a penthouse forum story? Also would the fertile who are probably going to be murdered, be recognized as people or as objects?

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by jacate

How would one react to this situation if say you were one of those who had been sterilized?

I would be over-joyed.

Originally Posted by jacate

Or how would you react if you one of the fertile male or female left in your entire country with same about 20 others who are fertile amongst the mass of a few million infertile people.

I would run away.
I would expect nothing good to come from people desperate to be parents.
A cornered rat is vicious.

Originally Posted by jacate

How would the human population view birth and how would these fertile people be treated since they are the last hope of humanities existence?

I would expect them to be treated like cattle.

Why would you be overjoyed? Also is it people desperate to be parents or the country desperate for you to start pro-creating?

Originally Posted by adelady

Charming prospect.

Expected to breed to supply children for others? A life time of servitude. I'd rather be one of the sterile and learn to paint.

Sounds extremely horrific, though do you think they would do it? It would be quite a horrible site if say in a country that the remaining fertile males and females are just at the age of 10 to 17, they would be working to give birth... their lives must be extremely sad. Would they be helplessly chained and forced to breed or coaxed into doing so for the greater good? I guess there would less pressure to living life since there is no "cost" to family, you wonder how this would impact the sterile people?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by jacate

Finally last question, do you think at this stage humanity is doomed?

This rather depends. If the offspring of the remaining fertile individuals are all normally fertile, then I imagine there would be the most appalling social conditions that others have alluded to, a short term crash in population, the almost total destruction of technological society, and then a gradual growth of population and eventual development of technology again (over many generations). That would might depend on people moving together to a small number of villages that could be self-sufficient and sustainable.

If the offspring have the same 0.000001% fertility, then the population would be gone in one or two generations.

All the off springs would be normally fertility in this case. Well the technological society is still "standing" but the vast majority of them can't give birth anymore that is about it. Even if the technological society crashed there is still a few billion people alive and only just 10,000 of them world wide that can give birth, so why would they move to form small villages? I would also wonder would those people even have any more desire to live once most of them can't procreate? To be honest culturally this would create quite a scene that is.

Originally Posted by jacate

All the off springs would be normally fertility in this case. Well the technological society is still "standing" but the vast majority of them can't give birth anymore that is about it. Even if the technological society crashed there is still a few billion people alive and only just 10,000 of them world wide that can give birth, so why would they move to form small villages? I would also wonder would those people even have any more desire to live once most of them can't procreate? To be honest culturally this would create quite a scene that is.

I wrote those clauses in an order for a reason. After one generation, the population would be down to tens, maybe hundreds of thousands (depending how much social disruption and forced breeding there had been in the intervening years(*)). I don't know if these numbers could survive if evenly spread around the world. If they could it would only be on a subsistence farming level for some generations.

They certainly couldn't sustain modern technology, except on a small local scale. If they moved together to form larger groups (like proto-cities) then they could sustain a better standard of living.

(*) It makes me feel uncomfortable to even think about calculating what an upper limit on the population could be.

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by Pong

The few breeders are carrying some of my genes, my only chance at genetic survival, right? Then I'd dote on them like they were my own children. How diluted a child is, is normally only somewhat relevant; in this extreme case it's extremely irrelevant.

Would it be extremely irrelevant if one of them was your actual child and almost everyone in your country protects him/her like a sacred object? Worst still what if they take them away and hide them from the outside world and make them objects to just ensure our survival, treating them less than human. Although it would bringing this case to a further extreme, i would like for creative cases so that it can bring some interesting insight. If you can provide moral dilemma it would be more interesting to be honest too.

I felt it worked pretty well as a thought experiment (i.e. to reveal things as they really are).

Okay so your tougher version has the breeders put into coma and harvested without mercy, until they die. And my own son has the unfortunate honour. Nasty. Am I evading to say he's old enough (12) to decide his fate? I feel it might be tolerable if he chose to do this (kinda like a son who goes to war), and if I could adopt one of the grandchildren.

Originally Posted by Pong

Okay so your tougher version has the breeders put into coma and harvested without mercy, until they die.

The women would be put into concentration camp style baby farms. The men would be required/encouraged to donate, possibly by offering them massive financial and other incentives. Their participation would not be so important.

I don't think it would be that horrific for the chosen (fertile) people... get pregnant wait 9 months... (male and female) in this 9 month you can do almost everything you like only not rissic the birth yes there would be people around you to help you when needed... further its gonna be like camping swim eat make art music all you wish...

Yeah, let's be realistic. But this is supposed to be wildly hypothetical. Jacate's suggesting a moral dilemma. So, let's just say the fate of breeders is nasty, like you can't bear to look at it.

Originally Posted by Pong

Jacate's suggesting a moral dilemma. So, let's just say the fate of breeders is nasty, like you can't bear to look at it.

There is no dilemma. We just don't look at it. You know, the same way we generally don't look at those dying for want of water, basic sanitation, or adequate food, in many parts of the world. The same way the Germans didn't look at what was happening to the Jews in Hitler's Germany. The same way we didn't look at domestic violence until very recently. Humans have a great talent for ignoring what they find unpleasant.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Pong

Jacate's suggesting a moral dilemma. So, let's just say the fate of breeders is nasty, like you can't bear to look at it.

There is no dilemma. We just don't look at it. You know, the same way we generally don't look at those dying for want of water, basic sanitation, or adequate food, in many parts of the world. The same way the Germans didn't look at what was happening to the Jews in Hitler's Germany. The same way we didn't look at domestic violence until very recently. Humans have a great talent for ignoring what they find unpleasant.

its not only ignoring but most of time not their business...

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Pong

Jacate's suggesting a moral dilemma. So, let's just say the fate of breeders is nasty, like you can't bear to look at it.

There is no dilemma. We just don't look at it. You know, the same way we generally don't look at those dying for want of water, basic sanitation, or adequate food, in many parts of the world. The same way the Germans didn't look at what was happening to the Jews in Hitler's Germany. The same way we didn't look at domestic violence until very recently. Humans have a great talent for ignoring what they find unpleasant.

I guess the perspective by Pong is abit off, the dilemma would be caring whether it is your own child who is being used as an object that is subjected to have only one purpose of continuing human existence by the name of greater good or to allow that child be a normal human being and regard their feelings, which would you choose? Another question would be, can such a dilemma exist within the given thought experiment too?

Originally Posted by blackscorp

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Pong

Jacate's suggesting a moral dilemma. So, let's just say the fate of breeders is nasty, like you can't bear to look at it.

There is no dilemma. We just don't look at it. You know, the same way we generally don't look at those dying for want of water, basic sanitation, or adequate food, in many parts of the world. The same way the Germans didn't look at what was happening to the Jews in Hitler's Germany. The same way we didn't look at domestic violence until very recently. Humans have a great talent for ignoring what they find unpleasant.

its not only ignoring but most of time not their business...

A good example would be starving kids in Africa, when you are wasting food or probably just wasting money on food and you have comments by your friends or those you know saying "Think about those kids in Africa starving". Sure it isn't our business at times, but the fact people remind us that it should and must be serves to say that we have forgotten on how to be civilized caring and giving individuals. It is kind of sad that people still say that starving kids in Africa should be their problem when they usually can't solve their own problem and as John said "ignoring what they find unpleasant".

Originally Posted by jacate

I guess the perspective by Pong is abit off, the dilemma would be caring whether it is your own child who is being used as an object that is subjected to have only one purpose of continuing human existence by the name of greater good or to allow that child be a normal human being and regard their feelings, which would you choose? Another question would be, can such a dilemma exist within the given thought experiment too?

I don't see a dilemma. The likely outcome and abuse is wrong, whoever it happens to.

A good example would be starving kids in Africa, when you are wasting food or probably just wasting money on food and you have comments by your friends or those you know saying "Think about those kids in Africa starving".

I have always that is a particularly stupid comment. What am I supposed to do? Put my scraps in an envelope and post them to them?

There are good reasons not to waste food (why throw money away, for example) but I fail to see how it affects children in Africa.

There are good, practical ways to try and solve the problems of hunger in the world (encouraging a functioning democracy and education system, for example). Making choices in what you buy can help. What you throw away, not so much.

hunger is an excellent control on population growth

Originally Posted by sculptor

hunger is an excellent control on population growth

I don't think it is either a practical or a moral solution. Famine and poverty do nothing to prevent population growth.

Improved democracy, health, wealth and education do.

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Pong

Jacate's suggesting a moral dilemma. So, let's just say the fate of breeders is nasty, like you can't bear to look at it.

There is no dilemma. We just don't look at it. You know, the same way we generally don't look at those dying for want of water, basic sanitation, or adequate food, in many parts of the world. The same way the Germans didn't look at what was happening to the Jews in Hitler's Germany. The same way we didn't look at domestic violence until very recently. Humans have a great talent for ignoring what they find unpleasant.

I guess the perspective by Pong is abit off, the dilemma would be caring whether it is your own child who is being used as an object that is subjected to have only one purpose of continuing human existence by the name of greater good or to allow that child be a normal human being and regard their feelings, which would you choose? Another question would be, can such a dilemma exist within the given thought experiment too?

Originally Posted by blackscorp

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Pong

Jacate's suggesting a moral dilemma. So, let's just say the fate of breeders is nasty, like you can't bear to look at it.

There is no dilemma. We just don't look at it. You know, the same way we generally don't look at those dying for want of water, basic sanitation, or adequate food, in many parts of the world. The same way the Germans didn't look at what was happening to the Jews in Hitler's Germany. The same way we didn't look at domestic violence until very recently. Humans have a great talent for ignoring what they find unpleasant.

its not only ignoring but most of time not their business...

A good example would be starving kids in Africa, when you are wasting food or probably just wasting money on food and you have comments by your friends or those you know saying "Think about those kids in Africa starving". Sure it isn't our business at times, but the fact people remind us that it should and must be serves to say that we have forgotten on how to be civilized caring and giving individuals. It is kind of sad that people still say that starving kids in Africa should be their problem when they usually can't solve their own problem and as John said "ignoring what they find unpleasant".

well lets forget for a while about world problems like hunger and wars... its really not my business to teach how someone should take care of his kids... everyone does it in its own way... if we going to get involved on every case (business we don't like or it doesn't fit our mentalty) than there is no life at al... that being said the second thing is we go make war on some lands like Somalia or whatever... and then we cry about how poor those people are... what I mean is we know well whats going on but its just not our business to deal with it...

When human population reaches the maximum carrying capacity of the earth, hunger will stop population growth.

When the ogallala aquifer has given it's last-----------maybe we will stop food exports?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by jacate

I guess the perspective by Pong is abit off, the dilemma would be caring whether it is your own child who is being used as an object that is subjected to have only one purpose of continuing human existence by the name of greater good or to allow that child be a normal human being and regard their feelings, which would you choose? Another question would be, can such a dilemma exist within the given thought experiment too?

I don't see a dilemma. The likely outcome and abuse is wrong, whoever it happens to.

Well isn't that the dilemma? Abuse is wrong as you said which poses on side of the story, and sadly the likely outcome for the greater good which is a second side of the story, so with that whose right is it to decide whether they become abused slaves for humanities future or whether they are treated as normal human beings?

It is like saying that there is a person on that train track knocked out with a head injury and an oncoming train is approaching. You are at the train station and you see this, you can't reach the person in time but you have the option to divert the train by switching the tracks, however the second tracks led to a recently damaged track due to a recent derailed train which would cause the train going there now to derail as well if you chose to pull the lever. So which would you save? A train with maybe 50 to 100 lives or that one person who was unlucky enough to be knocked out and left unconscious on the tracks?

A good example would be starving kids in Africa, when you are wasting food or probably just wasting money on food and you have comments by your friends or those you know saying "Think about those kids in Africa starving".

I have always that is a particularly stupid comment. What am I supposed to do? Put my scraps in an envelope and post them to them?

There are good reasons not to waste food (why throw money away, for example) but I fail to see how it affects children in Africa.

There are good, practical ways to try and solve the problems of hunger in the world (encouraging a functioning democracy and education system, for example). Making choices in what you buy can help. What you throw away, not so much.

I agree, which is why i used as an example to illustrate the point that some of us try to always make it a point that the situation should be our business when it is out of our control. Don't you hate it when those people try to act politically correct as though they are some noble hero that has a good heart. I have to say i hate it sometimes when they ask me this question.

Originally Posted by sculptor

When human population reaches the maximum carrying capacity of the earth, hunger will stop population growth.

When the ogallala aquifer has given it's last-----------maybe we will stop food exports?

Active research into increasing amounts of food such as growing the patty in the lab as well as payment by governments on farming land to prevent dumping of excess produce to other countries pretty much shows that we probably are very far away from our production possibility curve to fully maximize the usage of our resources. Also given how the countries are quite interdependent on one another due to comparative advantage, a stoppage in imports or exports would have extreme reprecussions on the global economy.

Originally Posted by jacate

Well isn't that the dilemma? Abuse is wrong as you said which poses on side of the story, and sadly the likely outcome for the greater good which is a second side of the story, so with that whose right is it to decide whether they become abused slaves for humanities future or whether they are treated as normal human beings?

Hmmm... I see what you mean. I'm not sure I would describe it as a "dilemma". I think there is a rational and fair way of managing the situation which will achieve the long term goal (which, I assume, is the survival of the human race).

Then there is the likely outcome in practice, which will be brutal, oppressive, violent, etc. And will achieve the same long term goal.

Unfortunately, it wouldn't be about who has the "right" to decide. It would be about power, violence, weapons, oppression, ...

We'd have to put our remaining resources into medical technology to either resolve the problem or find temporary work around to buy time, such as cloning, artificial wombs etc.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

We'd have to put our remaining resources into medical technology to either resolve the problem or find temporary work around to buy time, such as cloning, artificial wombs etc.

Well i think artificial wombs are almost out of the picture, unless you know we talk about invitro fertilization where all females undergo some mandatory in vitro procedure after this event where the eggs and sperms of the remaining 10,000 are split into the most effective way and given to almost all females capable(as in of age to given birth based on law) and willing to give birth which is as horrific too since you know that the child before you isn't yours but regards you are their parents. Although i would say this is quite a possible outcome, it is quite scary too.

Nevermind, ignore what i just said, it was actually out of the point of what you said XD

Originally Posted by sculptor

When human population reaches the maximum carrying capacity of the earth, hunger will stop population growth.

When the ogallala aquifer has given it's last-----------maybe we will stop food exports?

We will likely give up fracking, swimming pools, water parks, golf courses and the other really wasteful uses of water before giving up on food production.

Originally Posted by billvon

We will likely give up fracking, swimming pools, water parks, golf courses and the other really wasteful uses of water before giving up on food production.

The historical record shows that human societies often don't make rational choices.

There have been alot of SciFi movies about this kind of particular event.

I can recall several Star Trek episodes from various ST series on it.

The first thing ABOVE ALL, would be to figure out, who is and who is not, fertile.

Seeing the percentage given by the OP,... only 6k to 10k people left fertile to produce children,... The challenge first GLOBALLY, would be to find them, ASAP!

You would have to do a World Wide monitoring project in order to find these people in the first place. This will need to include every male and female on the planet. This mammoth undertaking itself will take many years.

But you do not need 6k-10k people to populate a planet. You would actually only need 150(?) if I recall correctly, to have a sustainable Genepool. Any more would be a bonus.

I would put all these people in one place,... yes even by force... and make sure that the new sustainable human genepool is well observed and taken care off.
You do not need to do this for too long,... provided the children born from this new genepool are breeders themselves. After 2 generations these kids would provide a large enough populus for the new earth.

At that time though millions and millions of people would have died and the world populus would be in decline.

My main concern is to protect these people. It is why I put them all in one place too (perhaps several well protected locations). You can not risk nutcakes, religious or otherwise, with fairytale Armagedon indoctrination in their heads, to kill these people.

Also... being a Darwinist and Atheist... I would also consider this a good opertunity to restructure culture and get rid of religions. But seeing as the people who need to safeguard such a project, being infertile themselves, may still have old feelings about their old -now doomed- culture,... this may be a real problem.

What do you keep and what do you thrown away, culturally?

In 100 years,... most of the old population will be gone.

So decide quickly. Where is the moral dilemma? Your morals feelings NOW, do not matter in 100 years time, you will be dead and billions of your fellow humans too, who shared your moral dilemma's and culture.
You let your personal moral dilemma, stand in the way of humanities future?

You can still put the breeders together and not force them to produce a new populus.

Put them together and let them find their own mates. If you put them together (give them no choice but to live together)... they will eventually fall in love and make babies.

But you still have to be quick and make a decision.... In 100 years all will be gone,... but do note you only have a window of 40 years, if you want to do it unforced,... because that is when women start to be not able to make new babies. Provided technique does not change.

Put all the breeders together, is the simplest option.