If all humans older than X years old disappeared, how low could X be to still let humanity survive?

[Maf 32,312]

Just a little pointless but interesting discussion I wanted to have after hearing the same thing being discussed in a Youtube video.

If you don't get the question (I had to compress it a bit), let me explain:

Imagine one day all humans of some certain age and older disappeared (for example, everyone above 10 years old). There's no disaster, no damage to our world and infrastructure - just these humans suddenly disappearing, leaving the young population behind. What do you think is the lowest age that remaining population could be in order to survive on their own, educate themselves, grow up, and continue our civilisation?

If you think about it, some crazy low age like 3 is too low, since a bunch of toddlers all over the world will just get confused and succumb once they run out of readily available food and/or water.

On the other hand, a lot of children in their late teens are already fully capable of supporting themselves and others, so that wouldn't even be worth discussing.

But what about 14 years old? 11? 9? 6?

I reckon a "borderline" age limit would be 8 years old. Of course, the vast majority of children at that age, especially in more developed communities, are unlikely to survive for long. However, in less developed countries where it's normal for children to start helping their parents with work in rural areas, some children will have just enough practical skills and knowledge to enable them to take over their parents' duties and set up a simple rudimentary means of survival based on agriculture and scavenging.

Perhaps even children in more developed countries will be fine, since while they may not have the practical skills, they will have access to a much greater amount of initial resources and infrastructure, which will be able to sustain them for the initial critical period during which they need to become self-sustaining.

After that it's just a question of growing up and repopulating, while at the same time re-learning all which humanity lost.

I'm probably way overthinking this, but it's an interesting topic

[Pythor 1,354]

Nowadays probably like 13... 

 

But back 200+ years ago id say more like 10.

[GeneralVeers 697]

This an interesting "off-topic." 

Lemme ponder this and get back to you. Perhaps I might even have a decent argument.

[C.O.N.Q.U.E.R.O.R 3,845]

Nowadays probably like 13... 

 

But back 200+ years ago id say more like 10.

I'm no history buff but wasn't education less of a priority back then? They might be able to survive but it would take longer to get back to our current state

[Maf 32,312]

I'm no history buff but wasn't education less of a priority back then? They might be able to survive but it would take longer to get back to our current state

But "our current state" didn't exist back then, so that doesn't make sense.

[C.O.N.Q.U.E.R.O.R 3,845]

But "our current state" didn't exist back then, so that doesn't make sense.

Well, the people from about 200 years ago would take longer than 200 years to get to what we have now. I think... haha

[Pythor 1,354]

I'm no history buff but wasn't education less of a priority back then? They might be able to survive but it would take longer to get back to our current state

Yeah, they wouldn't be more advanced in lifestyle, but they would have more tools to survive. 

[Pyre 3,485]

Pure survival, maybe 9. Actually keeping the world functioning and able to quickly recover, probably 16.

[u812ic 1,629]

Would a 9 year old be able to kill, slaughter and cook a cow, horse, pig? I'd say probably a 10 year old may go on a hunt with his father and other tribesmen and maybe even make his first kill. But do they slaughter? 

 

The civilized poor countries may know how to gather and maybe hunt a little. 

 

10 year old children in richer more prosperous countries may not be able to do that because they were never taught. 

 

Wait...Wait a minute!! Is there still the internet for learning? Phones and cell phones for distance communications? If so, then the children may be able to figure out a line of communications to fill in some of the gaps. 

 

Survival is theoretically possible at age 10, providing there are enough children who are well read and have an outstanding command of their language. 

 

Propagation of the species is another story. Just because a girl is having her monthly cycle, doesn't mean she is ready to bare children. Her organs and body are too immature. The risk of fetus and mother dying is a very, very high risk with chances of survival extremely low. A woman's body isn't developed enough to bare children until very late teens and even then there is still a high risk. 

 

How about health care? Surgery? Can a 10 year old understand enough to do an appendectomy (remove the appendix) for instance. If an appendix becomes inflamed, it will burst and is certain death. Will a 10 year old be able to learn how the do a Cesarean section if a young girl gets pregnant. Ok..enough along those lines. This is a very mature subject for the younger kids reading this. 

 

They will have to make up their own Government, their own laws and Leaders. At least at first, they may form Tribes and each Tribe will have their own form of government and laws. Will they fight for their turf? Absolutely. Young kids join gangs now and have to prove their "manhood" by killing innocent people (drive-by shootings). Right there, the population decreases. 

 

So, you can have gatherers, huntsmen, cooks and even those with leadership abilities and technicians. Now, the question is: How do you get them all in one spot? How do you get them all on the same page? It's a whole new society developed by children who barely have a concept of life, teaching much younger children. 

 

I'd say, 10 year old children may have a slim chance of survival. Older than that, chances of survival goes up. 

 

What's the youngest age with a better chance of survival? I'd say no younger than 12 years old. 

 

For those of you who have very young siblings or cousins...Look at them and their behavior, knowledge, level of concentration, persistence and willingness to learn many things they are not accustomed to. What would their chances of survival be if everyone above their age had died? Be honest. Don't just say, "My brother is too stupid." Is he? Really? Just because you may think he acts stupid doesn't mean he is. 

 

Well, Folks, that's my take on it. I'm glad I won't be around to see it. 

Edited August 22, 2019 by u812ic

[Tofu 6,773]

Im gonna say 13 too

[Maf 32,312]

Wait...Wait a minute!! Is there still the internet for learning? Phones and cell phones for distance communications? If so, then the children may be able to figure out a line of communications to fill in some of the gaps. 

Good question. There is (or was) a pretty good series on the History channel called "Life After People" that hypothesised this exact scenario, except in their version 100% of human beings vanished and they explored how the world would change in the coming hours, days, weeks, years. They explained how long it would take for our infrastructure to shut down when all maintenance stops, and I remember them mentioning that some nuclear power plants are able to operate for decades without any human supervision. So as long as there's electricity and some servers remain online, I think there will be internet for quite a while to some extent.

 

Propagation of the species is another story. Just because a girl is having her monthly cycle, doesn't mean she is ready to bare children. Her organs and body are too immature. The risk of fetus and mother dying is a very, very high risk with chances of survival extremely low. A woman's body isn't developed enough to bare children until very late teens and even then there is still a high risk. 

I mean, this is hardly a concern since they'd be too busy trying to survive for the first few years anyway. And they won't be stuck as 10-year-olds forever — the normal maturity and aging process continues.

 

How about health care? Surgery?

It would be just like ancient/medieval times — healthcare is very limited and the way people survive is by having lots of children to overcome higher mortality rates.

 

So, you can have gatherers, huntsmen, cooks and even those with leadership abilities and technicians. Now, the question is: How do you get them all in one spot? 

This would be easy in urban centres. Children would most likely find each other while scavenging, and communities would be set up in places where children often gather — playgrounds/parks, shopping malls, and most importantly - schools.

 

I think a bigger issue that may affect survival is the psychological effect of this whole situation. If you are 10 years old and you're stuck all alone in the normal world, you will probably be quick to figure out a way to survive in the near future (i.e. for the first few weeks, which are most crucial) until you reunite with your parents or other adults. But if you realise that you are now the oldest person on the planet who now, for the rest of their life, has full responsibility for their own survival and survival of their species, the feeling might get a little bit overwhelming and lower your chances of being reasonable and efficient.

 

Pure survival, maybe 9. Actually keeping the world functioning and able to quickly recover, probably 16.

I didn't even consider the idea of keeping the world functioning. Children under 15 comprise 26% of the world's population (which is actually WAY more than I expected), but still - having 3/4 of the population instantly vanish would be problematic even if the remainder was adults. I highly doubt there would be enough manpower to maintain our society with 1/4 of the current population. And if the population is all underage, then it's not even a question, since children would take decades to self-teach themselves the science skills necessary to maintain our technologies.

 

---

P.S. Added a poll.

[Legacy 754]

I choose 5 and younger, I have faith on them

[lukey0 27,543]

I'm imagining this going down with similar events/actions which happened in the book 'Lord of the Flies'. So if you've read the book you know what I would have said. :LOL:

[Legacy 754]

Don't underestimate 5 years old army, they have instinct of survive like any other human

[Maf 32,312]

Don't underestimate 5 years old army, they have instinct of survive like any other human

Oh please - have you seen toddlers? You have to watch them 100% of the time because they just seem to constantly and actively be looking for ways to injure themselves.

 

I prefer the 9 year old army  :ph34r:

[Royalty 23]

Pure survival, maybe 9. Actually keeping the world functioning and able to quickly recover, probably 16.

But if you really think about it, they might be able to survive, but "quickly recovering" would be nearly impossible. For one, everyone would be looting stores, stealing, and murdering at random. Because of the nonexistence of government, everything would be complete pandemonium and civil war, with the strongest group of gangsters (which is what everyone would be) "ruling" everyone until, of coarse, they were overthrown. All in all, things would pretty much go back to the dark ages (except for the fact the we would have guns, which is even worse). 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Royalty

[Maf 32,312]

For one, everyone would be looting stores, stealing, and murdering at random. 

We're talking about kids here. Sure, a few (definitely not everyone) may have tendencies for violence, but I don't think they would be looting, murdering and starting civil wars.

[Royalty 23]

We're talking about kids here. Sure, a few (definitely not everyone) may have tendencies for violence, but I don't think they would be looting, murdering and starting civil wars.

I meant if they were 16, and 10 year olds grow up yk... And there is already a lot of violence in this world already. Do you think that lack of police, government, and parental guidance would help? People are not naturally "good people". In fact, they are very much the opposite.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Royalty

[Maf 32,312]

I meant if they were 16, and 10 year olds grow up yk... And there is already a lot of violence in this world already. Do you think that lack of police, government, and parental guidance would help? People are not naturally "good people". In fact, they are very much the opposite.

Yeah, perhaps you're right.

[Pyre 3,485]

Depending on the age you might expect something like Lord of the Flies.

[Viking4s 10,791]

Survival will depend on how friendly the environment and how much technology was available around when it happened.

 

Tribe in the forest have learnt survival, they know were to find potable water and take fruit from the trees. In current cities, without adult you won't have electricity nor potable water, and have no idea on how to lit a fire. Most likely kids leaving in city will die quickly with no resources available.

[Maf 32,312]

Most likely kids leaving in city will die quickly with no resources available.

What about the massive reserves of non-perishable food and drink in stores? As well as lighters, matches, and all kinds of survival equipment you could find in stores.

[Maf 32,312]

If you think about it, even if the world was left with just toddlers (under 5), humanity could potentially survive with care from other species. There's been multiple stories of feral children, who somehow ended up lost/abandoned in the woods and got picked up by wild animals (like wolves) and brought up as their own, acting like the animals that adopted the child.

 

Of course in that scenario we abandon all hope of preserving human hulture and tradition, so it becomes arguable whether "humanity" has survived, since the remaining human population will be nothing more than an endangered species of animal, as opposed to the idea of the human race as we percieve it now.

[Viking4s 10,791]

What about the massive reserves of non-perishable food and drink in stores? As well as lighters, matches, and all kinds of survival equipment you could find in stores.

If you can access this food supplies, yes your chance of survival would increase. Clean water will be the most important factor here, if they know how to make clean water this is really good.

The non perishable food is a short term solution, you would need to start to look at a long term food supply. 

Next step is how to reproduce and deliver babies.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Viking4s

[Pythor 1,354]

Depending on the age you might expect something like Lord of the Flies.

Exactly. With no common bond between the survivors, everyone would act selfishly and only for their own best interests. No working civilization could come about with the age being below 13 or 14. Even most 14-16 year olds are immature enough to care for others and work together to create a surviving community. It takes teamwork and a common goal to induce civilized living.