RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Morrow Project/ Project Phoenix Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-31-2018, 06:15 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,607
Default Population increase and decrease

Here's a question...

In TM 1-1 the population die off is listed as 95% following the nuclear strikes. Ok, seems a reasonable percentage with the strikes and the resulting disruption that a TEOTWAWKI scenario.

So the question is, has anybody sat down and figured out a reasonable birthrate for the aftermath? Some of the online sources have a percentage as high as 50% for a sustainable birthrate, which seems to be very unlikely. I've tried plugging various historical birthrates and can't find one that seems logical based on a total disruption of society.

So any help is greatly appreciated!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-31-2018, 07:42 PM
RandyT0001's Avatar
RandyT0001 RandyT0001 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 239
Default

From historical trends as determined from world population numbers. Using world population numbers eliminates immigration as a factor in the growth of an area or a country. Only births minus deaths (from all causes - war, disease, etc.) determines the growth rate.

It is estimated that the total polulation of the world reached one billion in 1800. By 1927 the world reached two billion. This was a time where there was some pre-industrial farming, the establishment of industrialized processing of food, and the beginnings of industrailized farming with the steam tractor on the Great Plains of the US. I determined that this growth rate was about 0.55% for the time period.

From 1927 to 1987, a time of great advances in farming, industrial processes, medicine, refrigeration and freezing of foods on a industrial scale and appliances for the consumer, the population increased from two billion to five billion. This required a growth rate of 1.52% to achieve.

The growth rate of 0.9% is approximately the same rate of growth of the world population from 1800 to 1987.

Low growth = 0.3% (Three tenths of one percent)
Slow growth = 0.6%
Modest growth = 0.9%
Late 19th to early 20th = 1.2%
Mid 20th to late 20th = 1.5%

IMO, the high rate for mid to late 20th is primarily due to more clean food and water plus more and better drugs. Without modern medicine, no entity should achieve 1.5% growth rate.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-01-2018, 02:07 PM
cosmicfish cosmicfish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 422
Default

I started a thread a few years ago that asked the same question, and somewhere I have an EXCEL file that showed my estimates of population for each year broken down by urban, suburban, and rural. I was trying to work out migration rates between the three types of area when I stopped.

You're going to see a population decline that will last decades, as people who survived the initial attacks die to starvation and medical problems stemming from the lack of medications and care. Initial populations will largely flee to rural areas where there was less damage and more remaining resources, but will gradually return to towns or create new ones for enhanced security against the strengthening post-apocalyptic violence.

Growth rates will probably not get above 1% in any given year, given all the problems.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-11-2018, 02:24 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,607
Default

Sorry I'm late with this, but thanks for the info!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Yesterday, 09:11 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,607
Default

As part of my research into a larger Free State, ran some interesting numbers…

The states that make up the larger Free State are listed below, followed by three sets of numbers; the population as of the 2000 Census/remaining population following the 95% die off/ the new population with a 0.8% growth rate and 150 years of growth.

Alabama: 4,447,100//222,355//489,181

Georgia: 8,186,453//409,323//900,511

Kentucky:4,041,769//202,089//444,596

Maryland: 5,296,486//264,824//582,613

New York: 18,976,457//948,823//2,087,410

North Carolina: 8,049,313//402.466//885,425

Pennsylvania: 12,281,054//614,053//1,350,917

South Carolina: 4,012,012//200,601//441,322

Tennessee: 5,689,283//284,464//625,821

Vermont: 608,827//30,441//66,970

West Virginia: 1,808,344//90,417//198,917

The "new" population totals include only projected birth rates, and do not account for the influx of slaves.

Based on this, IMHO, I truly don't see Kentucky as the center of the Free State, more likely Pennsylvania/New York would be the new center, with larger populations, access to minerals, recovered technology and the extensive university system in those two states.

Thoughts?
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Yesterday, 07:33 PM
Matt W Matt W is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 291
Default

A couple of points

New York (and the North East in general) are more urbanized than Kentucky and Tennessee. I can see their death rate being HIGHER than 95%.

Recovery in the "canon" KFS may be better than you are assuming. They have had a fairly stable political and economic system for over a century and their medical/education system is good enough to train Emdees. I suspect that the population would be nearer 2 million than the approximately 1 million that you show for Kentucky/Tennessee
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Yesterday, 08:08 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,607
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt W View Post
A couple of points

New York (and the North East in general) are more urbanized than Kentucky and Tennessee. I can see their death rate being HIGHER than 95%.

Recovery in the "canon" KFS may be better than you are assuming. They have had a fairly stable political and economic system for over a century and their medical/education system is good enough to train Emdees. I suspect that the population would be nearer 2 million than the approximately 1 million that you show for Kentucky/Tennessee
Good points

I went with the 95% die off as per canon. But I do agree that areas such as New York, Maryland and Pennsylvania would probably suffer much higher numbers, but as of yet, I cannot determine just how high to go, would a couple of more percentage points work? But examining the mineral resources, salvage (especially high tech) as well as the agricultural potential of the rural areas, are all factors that should be considered in going with a higher population base.

As for Kentucky/Tennessee, both states have large rural areas, but a significant amount of their populations are located in their metro areas. I'm comfortable with a 0.8% birthrate, plus note that, as of yet, I've not included any indentured servants of any slave population in the Free State population. How large a percentage this should be, who knows?
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Today, 06:32 AM
Desert Mariner Desert Mariner is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
Good points

I went with the 95% die off as per canon. But I do agree that areas such as New York, Maryland and Pennsylvania would probably suffer much higher numbers, but as of yet, I cannot determine just how high to go, would a couple of more percentage points work?
My thought on this is to subtract the population of the major metro areas from the state total and then start your die-off/growth computations.

Based on the top 100 populace cities in the 2000 census this would reduce the base populations as follows:

State / Original Base / New Base
NY / 18,976,457 / 10,259,672
PA / 12,281,054 / 10,428,941
KY / 4,041,769 / 3,525,026
VA / 7,078,515 / 6,021,881

What formula do you use for growth, I haven't been able to duplicate your numbers? I have an Excel sheet (more than willing to post this if I can arrive at a growth calculation that everyone agrees upon) that allows for input of Die-off, Growth Rate and Time and then computes all of the states but I'm not hitting your figures with either population growth formula I'm familiar with:

Projected Pop = Pt
Beginning Pop = P0
Growth Rate = R
Time = T
e = 2.71828 (base of natural logarithms)

Formula 1 -- Pt = P0 * (1*R)to power of T
Formula 2 -- Pt = P0* (e)to power of (R*T)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (2 members and 1 guests)
Desert Mariner, dragoon500ly
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.