If 3/4ths of the population died off, what do you think would be the best thing to do with the surviving population?

Here are some of my beefs about the book so far.

First of all, everyone is paranoid about disease—it wouldn’t make sense to cram all of the population into cities. There would be a higher chance of spreading disease if the population were dense. Better to keep people in lower populated areas.

Second, aren’t the coastal areas harder to maintain than inland? The East coast has hurricanes and the west coast has fires and earthquakes? I really don’t know about this one, but I’d prefer my remaining population to stay inland, myself.

Third, in the book, there are severe food shortages because poor infrastructure and almost no farming going on. There are also massive power outages. To me, it would seem more logical to have people in more rural populations and go to a more agrarian society. They could grow their own food and wouldn’t need much of an infrastructure. Instead of supplying electricity and water to every individual house, you could set up stations in areas where people could go watch news, bathe and get medical care.
—-

Anyway TLDR, I think enforcing a rural agricultural society would be more sustainable than forcing everyone to live in large cities along the coast.

Small, self-sufficient communities would be the way to go.

“Do with”? I think they should be allowed to make their own choices.

The U.S. population is currently about 308 million. One-fourth of that is about 77 million. That was our actual population in about 1900. Seems to me that we survived.

The 1918 flu pandemic took at least ⅓ of the world population, and it didn’t make much of an impact on the quality of life. I suppose ¾ of the population would, but not as much as you seem to think.

You know, after the Black Plague in Europe, quality of life significantly improved. Demand for all jobs increased dramatically, better sanitation was implemented, and the food supply was suddenly more adequate.

A: avoid them.

- or -

The Omega Man (1971) – vs. – The Road (2009) – vs. – Panic in Year Zero! (1962)

I choose Omega Man!

How about asking for international help? Get over your false national pride already.

I think the first thing to happen if three quarters of the world’s population, not just the US, was to be wiped out is that the earth itself would breathe a huge sigh of relief. The planet is vastly over populated, and this along with longer life spans is adding up. The check will become due some day and we’re all in for a hellish shock.

For your question though, I’m with @ragingloli what’s the problem with asking others for help? and @ipso yaaaay I LOVE Omega man. What a classy little movie, very of its time (some of the clothes and language used is squirm inducing but still, classy). Love it love it love it :-)
hugs xx

@bunnygrl, it’s likely that if most of the US population was killed off by some kind of plague Europe, most of Africa, India, and any other region that wouldn’t immediately exterminate or imprison anyone with any sign of illness (i.e., China) would have the same problem.

Spend government money to give people work if they don’t have. When the economic boom arrives, they will produce children.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard I was thinking though that with communication being the way it now is, news of something that big would start spreading almost instantly and countries would just close their borders to avoid contagion? You’re right about the uk though we have the worst border controls ever, which is why eventually our tiny little island will sink under the weight of the sheer number of people on it.

You made a wonderful point though about the plague in europe, people then thought it was the end of life as they knew it, that the entire population would be wiped out, but just as fast as it started it stopped. As you said, the benefits that came from it are ones we now take for granted (at least in the developed world), clean water, better waste disposal, less crowded living conditions.
hugs xx

I am not from the US,but I think its best if uninfected people gathered up and share their skills and everyone where gas masks and full body suits so there is less risk ,and doctors check if the person is infected before letting them join the uninfected people since they need to remove their gas masks when eating,lets just hope the plants that the people grow and eat is not infected!!

@bunnygrl, thank you kindly (hugs back).

Remember bird and swine flu?

It spread everywhere. Modern technology is a double-edged sword. Sure, we’ve got speedy and efficient communication technology now that would let us warn each other of viruses, but we also have speedy and efficient air and sea travel that would help spread the virus before adequate defenses could be set up.

Just remember that the only safe place on Earth when the superbug hits, is Madagascar.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard I genuinely hadn’t considered that. So many people travel now, for work or holidays, all year round that it would be a nightmare trying to control population movement on that scale. That is actually a very frightening thought. GA and very good point <hugs>

@ragingloli fair enough but what about those clever wee penguins :-)
hugs xx

@bunnygrl
When I tried to wipe out all humans on earth, infecting Madagascar was always the hardest part, because it had only harbour, and it was only sporadically frequented by ships.
As soon as they closed it, there was no way to infect the island.

@ragingloli, …

80% of the population of Australia lives within 200k of a coast. That is because there is more potable water, land more fertile and climate more temperate (despite cyclones) and food from the sea also

Other than that, I tend to agree with your ideas..

After a while, the population would return, and in the meantime they would work real hard on figuring out how to kill the virus. I was pleasantly surprised to explore this question and find that only one Flutherite thought it would be a good thing if 75% of the population disappeared. I figured half the comments would in way or another say good riddance since hatred for humanity and the US being a fairly common Fluther theme. I am definitely encouraged.

Small communities and farms. You will still need food. Can’t see how having people all live in a city will help with producing food. However fishing would be great without so many people. Our oceans and our wild life will replenish and there will be more to eat.
We would have to go back to wind mills and just live like the amish do. If they can do it so can the rest of us.
Somehow they manage.

As some here have suggested, you won’t be able to ask other nations for help as they will be having their own set of problems from the virus and if anything you may be defending what you have as many nations do not have the resources to be self sustaining like the USA has. Anyway, there would be still be 7,744,955 people left to make a go of it and plenty to have a semblance of normal life as we all know it. Burying all the dead would be the biggest issue and martial law would be enforced but other than that, life would go on and you would have a lot of homes to pick from if you felt the need to move up in the world.

When the super-mega-volcano erupts at Yosemite, we’re doomed anyway!

DOOOOOOMED! At least according to the Nat Geo channel.

I think that the thing to do would be to have small communities within 100 miles from the coasts. That’s how European expansion started here, anyway. We’d just start all over again. The only thing that would worry me is if we didn’t have enough people who knew about agriculture to make sure that the fruit, veg and gain supply was adequate. And why not use the Midwest? That’s where the best farmland is, still.

Mate.

Install a powerful civil-service force (aka “Cops”), restore the gov’t ASAP, etc etc.

Hold on, why not just evacuate the whole country and leave a few ppl to clean the US (like, firebombing? Or is that too impractical??)

I dunno, Keo. As books go, I’ve read some stinkers. Post-apocalyptic themes seem to appear in a few of them. Good ones would include Stephen King’s The Stand, and Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend. Bad ones – well, I tend not to recall the bad ones so much.

But let’s look at your scenario. If you wiped out ¾ of the population of the U.S., you would still be left with 75 million people. A quick look at Wikipedia shows that this was approximately the population of the U.S. in 1900. At that time, the entire country as we know it was settled and had a functioning government and a working infrastructure. We were fully industrialized, and the cities had already become dominant. Most of the cities and towns that exist now existed then, save for a lot of suburbs that didn’t really get started until after WWII.

I would see no reason to resettle everyone along the coasts or to otherwise concentrate them, although we’re talking about the actions of a rational government here. To sensibly rebuild our society, the remaining population would stay put, local authorities would oversee the reclamation of property and infrastructure that would no longer be needed to support the smaller communities that would result, and the quality of life would ultimately improve.

But that’s just the way I’d do it.

Escape.

Thanks for all of the opinions here. It irritates me when I read a science fiction novel and the science or sociology part doesn’t make any sense. I may continue the book just to see if they have some sort of explanation that makes sense.

The country is being run by a television news talk show host (How the heck would THAT happen?!?!) and there’s martial law—so perhaps the kids will discover some sort of evil logic to what’s going on.

There are many many good post apocolyptic books out there—and quite a few written in the YA genre. This doesn’t seem to be one of them. It’s fairly popular, so I’m reading it for work. I try to suspend my disbelief, but there comes a point where the BS is too high and I can’t continue.

Well, at the very least, many of your answers have ignited my imagination more than the book has. So if the book led me to ask the question, then perhaps it was worth it.

@ragingloli—were you playing Pandemic? It sounds like it. I’ve wanted to play that game for years!

I agree the plot sounds implausible. I would think the government and people would pull together rather than split apart under such a threat. THe heartland would be vital to grow food for those left.

If it affected the whole world, and not just the USA, I would do my best to convince my fellow man that 1.5 billion people is a much more sustainable population for the pnanet than 6 billion +, and that while we mourned the loss of every friend and family member, we might look at the reduction in population as a blessing and not a curse. We should not try to repopulate up to previous levels, but rather learn to live more sustainably with tho population that is left.

@keobooks
Indeed I was.

The best thing to do with them? Leave them alone.

Life will go on, I’d just leave them be. Course, it probably wouldn’t be my choice.