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

[spiderman1000 737]

bro the population of india alone is 1,387,297,452 people.

[sensei_tanker 3,098]

I chose 10-11. Because at that age, humanity should only be able to last at most 5 years with inept leadership. However, in those years, the kids themselves would have matured, very likely into fine young adults who can keep the human race going.

[Maf 32,300]

7 hours ago, sensei_tanker said:

I chose 10-11. Because at that age, humanity should only be able to last at most 5 years with inept leadership. However, in those years, the kids themselves would have matured, very likely into fine young adults who can keep the human race going.

Yeah, exactly. With the supplies available at hand, children would be able to survive on their own just by scavenging. Once they get older, they'll be able to establish more sustainable sources of food, water and supplies. Eventually might be able to rebuild civilisation.

[Thomas11239 366]

Well we barely survive now, so I'd say definitely higher than 17. Thinking about powerplants and everything, 12 year olds would stand no chance.

[Benefactor 6,888]

On 8/21/2019 at 5:50 PM, Maf said:

Spoiler

 

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

 

 

Did you just watch Logan's Run that time?

[Maf 32,300]

4 hours ago, Benefactor said:

Did you just watch Logan's Run that time?

Actually, it just came up in conversation in one sort of podcast-letsplay youtube video. Their discussion was very brief, but I liked the topic.

[Bydo 20,119]

now hear me out on this .

most teenagers have a habit of taking there pay checks and spending it on anything they want , if living at home..

the ones who are rentals then yes they would be first spending on rent and bills .

but do you put money away for emergency situations such as what were going threw now ? or wanting to buy a new car or even a trip for somewhere special ? also anyone under the age of 35 do you have life insurance / retirement savings / or have property of your own ?

 

 

[spiderman1000 737]

I just hope the kids wont end up like this.

what do you think on this, except this time on real life instead of a camp.

Edited May 15, 2020 by spiderman1000

[Viking4s 10,791]

Bring back the old world!

[Maf 32,300]

9 hours ago, Bydo said:

now hear me out on this .

most teenagers have a habit of taking there pay checks and spending it on anything they want , if living at home..

the ones who are rentals then yes they would be first spending on rent and bills .

but do you put money away for emergency situations such as what were going threw now ? or wanting to buy a new car or even a trip for somewhere special ? also anyone under the age of 35 do you have life insurance / retirement savings / or have property of your own ?

 

 

I'm not sure how this relates to the topic. With around 80% of the population disappearing instantly, concepts like banks, retirement and savings will instantly become obsolete. Once the remaining population gets over the initial shock, trading will most likely be done via bartering, rather than using typical currency.

[Bydo 20,119]

4 hours ago, Maf said:

I'm not sure how this relates to the topic. With around 80% of the population disappearing instantly, concepts like banks, retirement and savings will instantly become obsolete. Once the remaining population gets over the initial shock, trading will most likely be done via bartering, rather than using typical currency.

see I don't see it going that far in the past. in some case's people all ready do bartering for items , i'm doing it in scouting now for badges or with my local  community groups. for banks to close the Governments have way  too much invested in them for this to happen. if anything we might end up with food  cards for those on low income . allowing them to purchase food for free.. ( in some areas this is  going on now ) .

also in our part of the world were not in the shoes like others , the only areas were being hit hard  is the seniors , which some have medical issues from other things . for wiping out huge amount of people I'm not sure on it. I live in Canada and our governments have helped us in wages and strict guidelines

[Maf 32,300]

3 hours ago, Bydo said:

see I don't see it going that far in the past. in some case's people all ready do bartering for items , i'm doing it in scouting now for badges or with my local  community groups. for banks to close the Governments have way  too much invested in them for this to happen. if anything we might end up with food  cards for those on low income . allowing them to purchase food for free.. ( in some areas this is  going on now ) .

also in our part of the world were not in the shoes like others , the only areas were being hit hard  is the seniors , which some have medical issues from other things . for wiping out huge amount of people I'm not sure on it. I live in Canada and our governments have helped us in wages and strict guidelines

I feel like you completely missed the point of this topic :Р 
This has nothing to do with COVID-19 - I posted this topic WAY before that was a thing. This is just discussing a hypothetical (and completely unrealistic) scenario where every single person above a certain age suddenly disappears in one moment. Let's say that age is 12. So imagine a world populated entirely by a few hundred million children (infants, babies, toddlers), the oldest of whom are 12 years old.

They have very little idea about how society works. They don't know how to run the economy, how to maintain infrastructure, how to go through the necessary emergency procedures in order to secure their future. The grim reality is that the vast majority of babies and toddler would die of hunger within days, simply because readily available food has run out, and they lack the skills to obtain more.

But slightly older children will be able to scavenge food in supermarkets, provide themselves with basic necessities, and survive at least for a few years, during which they can organise communities and acquire the knowledge needed to create a more sustainable form of survival. It would most likely be extremely basic - farming crops and maintaining shelter from available materials, but it will be enough.

Then, after a number of years, they can slowly reacquire the lost knowledge by self-learning through libraries and trial-and-error methods, eventually slowly repopulating the earth and rebuilding civilisation.

So the ultimate question I'm asking is - how young can the children be in order to be able to do all of the above?

[Bydo 20,119]

ok if you look at it your way then..

there are some 12 year old girls who do baby sit or take care of younger siblings , so in away those would be the ones taking care of them and other girls would be helpers to say the group. for the men you would either have them , like you say foraging for food , wail others would be workers or farming taking care of live stock. it would depend mostly on how the parents raised there child before it happened to really know if they would be able to create a new world. in a way you can say we would end up going back to say the 1800's when there was no machinery to package food or cars . we would mainly be living off the land just like the Amish .

[r_trooll15 827]

I would say 14 because around 12, children would enter puberty and at that point, would start to become self sufficient. The age of puberty would rise with decreasing food supplies, but it is not of much matter, because at that point, the oldest would be close to their thirties. The problem is that cities would probably become hazardous, and humanity would be set back to the neolithic age, but would be able to catch up much more rapidly. One would wonder what caused the older population to die in such a strange manner. There would be tribes of friends, now depending on each other. They would be forced to mature. The younger ones would probably die, and the human population would be reduced to 9/10 - to 14 year olds that are mature enough to sustain themselves. There would be a struggle, but if played right, humanity can still survive. The culture would mostly die, but still survive through media like oral stories and books.

This being said, 14-16 years old as a cutoff would be much better. At that age, a much bigger percent of the population would be able to survive, and people could establish temporary governments and coordinate much more effectively. This gives humanity a much better chance at survival. It is possible for the age 12-14, but much more likely for 14-16.

[F41TH 483]

This topic is beautiful. Thank you @Maf. I will make sure to leave my views and arguments.

[Sacrifice 2,278]

Imho, 15 years old. At this age, one is exposed to mental health conditions severely, understands life completely, has fallen in love and probably heartbroken at least once and has learned enough to know what role he or she would have to play. 

Certain departments like judiciary, parliament and government offices would be challening, but if you look close, most crimes are caused by adults and look whose not here  

Food would be a problem, but a farmer's son knows everything in most cases (especially at this age). Factories are bound to collapse, resources would be limited due to their inhibition . But due to a sudden cut in population, enough resources would remain for the ones already present. 

At this age, teenagers know their responsiblities and would definitely take care of their younger siblings. Not only that, but greed is a non-existent thing. Selfishness is something that comes with adult hood, a 15 year old is determined, optimistic as well as caring (in most cases). It would not be a problem. 

Alternatives for food as well as conservation of books and self study would need to be taken care of. A fraction of teenagers due to their interests in studies would take the matter in their own hands and start learning. 

Many, many medical cases would left untreated for 15 years old but for sure that would be a minute population (say 1%). That could be taken care of. 

Progressing a few years, Medicine, Engineering and Architecture would prevail as a fraction of teenagers would be learned enough. 

Poverty would diminish, illnesses would be controlled, crime rates would fall and intelligence would increase. Abundant resources would be utilised properly and a new era will begin - of modern technology as there would be less people to tell you 'its worthless, you can' t do it' and lesser people to 'set trends' and enforce you to it.

Oh yeah, early age marriages would prevail, ain't nobody stopping or judging anybody. 

[Virtue 207]

On 6/21/2020 at 5:14 AM, Sacrifice said:

but greed is a non-existent thing. Selfishness is something that comes with adult hood, a 15 year old is determined, optimistic as well as caring (in most cases). It would not be a problem. 

I would say it leaves with adulthood. Have you never been around little kids? They are greedy and very selfish. They mostly just focus on what they want and not others