Population of the US in TMP

[cosmicfish]

I am trying to figure out the population of the US at various times in the Project's existence. I have put together an initial projection, and wanted to run it by and let people shoot holes in it:

Starting assumptions:
Initial Population: 350,000,000 day 0
Urban: 35%, with 15% survival rate day 1
Suburban: 45%, with 60% survival rate day 1
Rural: 20%, with 95% survival rate day 1

The initial population was meant to be roughly current, and the distributions and survival rates were intended to be close to reality while still producing the roughly 50% immediate survival rate I've seen predicted for full-scale nuclear war.

Population growth:
War+1 day to War+3 years: -5%/year
War+3 to War+10 years: -3%/year
War+10 to War+20 years: -2%/year
War+20 to War+30 years: -1%/year
War+30 to War+40 years: 0%/year
War+40 to War+80 years: +0.5%/year
War+80 to War+120 years: +1.0%/year
War+120 to War+150 years: +1.5%/year

This was intended to reflect (in the first 40 years) depressed birth rates and higher mortality rates from environment, lack of medical care, reduced food supplies. After 40 years, population starts to rebound, inching up towards 1-2% rate the world has seen in the last 50 years.

Population over time:
War+1 day: 179,375,000 (51.3% of Day 0)
War+3 years: 153,791,641 (43.9% of Day 0)
War+5 years: 144,702,555 (41.3% of Day 0)
War+40 years: 91,822,174 (26.2% of Day 0)
War+150 years: 260,871,276 (74.5% of Day 0)

This simply the combination of the above assumptions for a few key dates: immediately post-war, the time span for the planned activation of the Project, the population low point, and the actual awakening of the PC's.

I don't like these results. Morrow is supposed to be post-apocalyptic, but that is entirely too many people for the Project to deal with. At the +150 years point, a 50,000-man Project has more than 5,000 civilians to deal with, per team member.

So what do y'all think? Too many people? Bad assumptions? Have at it.

[Craig67]

Your starting population seems high. A quick google search says for 2015 US population in 320 million. For a 1989 war date that number is 246 million.

I also think that the population will decline much faster in the first five years after the war. People are going to need at least that long to relearn essential survival skills (Farming, etc.) by trial and error. Many will never climb that steep learning curve.

[mmartin798]

I agree that the first 40 years decline may be off. We have climatic events that will affect the population from the decades of reduced temperatures. If we assume the Little Ice Age (LIA) is approximately the severity of temperature decline, then we have some numbers to look at. Global populations numbers from the Population Reference Bureau for 1600, the approximate start of the LIA, is 660 million. The number for 1650, the approximate end of the LIA, is 500 million. The decline was from crop failures, famine, disease and the extra warfare for resources. This puts the 50 year decline at 24%. Your decline for 40 years is 48%. If we assume the temperature drop from the smoke is more severe over the central US, as models do seem to show, then your numbers seem good.

But there is a problem with such a comparison. In the 1600s, the majority of the population was engaged in the growing of food. In the late 20th and early 21st century, that task is now taken on by specialist we call farmers that move their products vast distances to feed people. Plus the seeds largely are F1 hybrid for many crops, which do not produce good yields when you try to reseed them, further reducing crop yields.

With most of the arable land too cool for a proper growing season, seeds that produce a less viable and less predictable product, a specialist class that can only overcome part of the problems growing crops and you probably have an extremely high rate of starvation and increased violence to horde or acquire preserved stocks, somehow I feel that the population decline over the first 40 years should be closer to 60% with a most of that happening in the first 15 year.

[Matt W]

IMHO the idea of the Project being of any use in the "5-years-after" period is one of those things that shouldn't be examined too closely. On the other hand, about 90% of the population would die in the first 5 years, so it MIGHT be possible for the Project to help some small areas.

But if we use the rulebook for inspiration, here's a vague guesstimate for the 150+ era: About 20 or 30 million in North America.


I interpret The TM1-1 descriptions as implying certain minimum sizes. For instance, both the Frozen Chosen and Inquisitors descriptions state that they are fairly widespread. They also have Tech Levels of C (1920's tech) and D (1880's tech) respectively. I work on the assumption that these tech levels require - not simply allow - a fairly substantial population.

All of the 'census' figures are of people who theoretically owe some allegiance to those Encounter Groups. For example, I'm not suggesting that the 'Warriors of Krell' are an army of half-a-million; I am saying that Krell could have that many people under his authority (possibly including several towns, one of the 'New Presidencies' - perhaps even a University) .

Which leads to my next point. It's not going to be a neat map. I think it likely that post-war North America would have overlapping/competing Authorities and demands for allegiance (real-world examples: Lebanon or Somalia or Sierra Leone). For example, The Frozen Chosen might have churches within the boundaries of the New Confederacy and their congregations might prefer to see themselves as Frozen Chosen rather than Neo-Confederates. However, the New Confederacy's tax collectors would have a different opinion. Likewise, some Bikers could conceivably see themselves as new 'Knights of the Confederacy' using their skills and vehicles to further the cause of White Supremacy.

Ballooners: 200K - Even if they don't have 'airborne cities', I'm assuming that there are 'cities' to support/manufacture the balloons

Bikers: 100K - very wide-ranging and with good technology

Breeders: 1 Million - If nothing else, the Breeders should be good at population increase. They also have a very good tech level

Farmers: 5 million - the 'default' category for population outside the empires and city-states. This covers everyone not classifiable as one of the other Encounter Groups

Frozen Chosen: 2 million - they cover a wide (and often fertile) area with a decent tech level

Gypsy Truckers: 300K - see notes on Bikers. Assume that there are about 2000 trucker clans - each of about 150 people

Inquisitors: 1 million - VERY big geographic range and they need population to support churches and training in their 'art form'

Maxwell's Militia: 0.5 million - Feudal, but high-tech. They should have good health system and incentives to increase population

New Confederacy: 1 million (includes slaves)

New American Indians 500K

Oilers: 100K

Rich 5/KFS: 2 million people in Kentucky, most of Tennessee and part of Alabama ("Bullets & Bluegrass" doesn't specify population, but does give numbers for a very big military)

Razers: 10K

Shipmen: 50K (including shore-based support)

Slavers: 20K

Texans: 3 million (as per "Lone Star State")

Townspeople (independent towns and city states): 1 million

Warriors of Krell: 500K (high tech level and they need a high population to extort resources from)

Wanderers: 100K

[cosmicfish]

Your starting population seems high. A quick google search says for 2015 US population in 320 million. For a 1989 war date that number is 246 million.
Agreed, I set it to something more realistic back when I first made this model, left it, and then adjusted the population without thinking about it. For now, I'm going to go with 325 million as my base - I want the war to be in the players' future, as well as the characters'.

I also think that the population will decline much faster in the first five years after the war. People are going to need at least that long to relearn essential survival skills (Farming, etc.) by trial and error. Many will never climb that steep learning curve.
But how much faster will it decline? I am trying to be quantitative here.

[cosmicfish]

I feel that the population decline over the first 40 years should be closer to 60% with a most of that happening in the first 15 year.
I'm going to swing past what you suggested, to see what it looks like. If I make the following changes to my initial set up:

Initial Population: 325,000,000 day 0

Population growth:
War+1 day to War+3 years: -15%/year
War+3 to War+5 years: -8%/year
War+5 to War+10 years: -4%/year

Then I get:

Population over time:
War+1 day: 166,562,500 (51.3% of Day 0)
War+3 years: 102,290,195 (31.5% of Day 0)
War+5 years: 86,578,421 (26.6% of Day 0)
War+40 years: 52,164,918 (16.1% of Day 0)
War+150 years: 148,203,077 (45.6% of Day 0)

That represents a 68.7% decrease from day 1 to year 40, with more than half of it just in the first 3 years... and this still seems like too high a population for the Project to manage, at any point in the process.

[cosmicfish]

IMHO the idea of the Project being of any use in the "5-years-after" period is one of those things that shouldn't be examined too closely.
I am trying to create a Project that makes sense, a Project that (in my mind) would have actually have been put together by the kinds of people supposedly on the CoT. And that requires designing it for the time period in which they expected it to operate! That in turn requires understanding what the world would be like 5 years after the war.

On the other hand, about 90% of the population would die in the first 5 years, so it MIGHT be possible for the Project to help some small areas.
90% fatalities is exceptionally harsh for even full-scale nuclear war, but let's run with it. If I keep the same modifications from the previous posts but dial down the initial survival rates to:

Urban: 35%, with 5% survival rate day 1
Suburban: 45%, with 15% survival rate day 1
Rural: 20%, with 50% survival rate day 1

Then the population becomes:

Population over time:
War+1 day: 60,125,000 (18.5% of Day 0)
War+3 years: 36,924,266 (11.4% of Day 0)
War+5 years: 31,252,698 (9.6% of Day 0)
War+40 years: 18,830,263 (5.8% of Day 0)
War+150 years: 53,497,696 (16.5 of Day 0)

That is assuming that survival rates were far worse than estimated by the sources I found, and it is still pretty high for the desolate world described in 3ed.

But if we use the rulebook for inspiration, here's a vague guesstimate for the 150+ era: About 20 or 30 million in North America.
I am still easily twice that. If 90% of the population died in the first 5 years then 20-30 million would require that the following 145 years saw a net population loss, and I don't see how to justify that unless there were other large-scale population decreasing events in the meantime.

[mmartin798]

If 90% of the population died in the first 5 years then 20-30 million would require that the following 145 years saw a net population loss, and I don't see how to justify that unless there were other large-scale population decreasing events in the meantime.

Let's assume the 90% death rate in the first 5 years. We have the central part of the US at temperatures 15-20°C colder in the summer months for the next couple of decades. Coastal regions should see the temperature decline a little less. Seeds recovered from standing crops would be F2 and need to be selectively bred to get better crops for a number of years. Food riots are likely with more people moving out of the central plains to the southern and coastal states, increasing pressure for food. Pockets of farmers and survivalists with heritage seeds would pop up in the central US, but they would quickly become targets for refugees bringing more violence to the central plains.

With the killing during food riots and the killing continuing for a protracted period coupled with bitter cold winters for a few decades and wave of migrant refugees looking for food will keep people in harms way for years. Not sure how you could model this behavior or if it would enough to drive the population low enough for your needs.

[cosmicfish]

I understand all that, the question just becomes "what population growth rates are then reasonable?" What population growth would realistically happen over that 150 years?

For comparison, US population growth since 1800 has varied from 0.7% (the 1940's) to 3.3% (the 1810's), with notable dips in decades containing the major wars and a general trend of -1% per century. So the 1800's all had 2-3% annual population growth, and I was basing the 40-150 year population growth on gradually approaching half that level to account for the lingering environmental hazards, amplified social hazards, and the reduction in life-extending technologies and knowledge.

Another comparison might be the United Kingdom, which, due to it's geographical and resource limitations, saw a 0.5% annual growth rate for most of the last century. But I think that is more a product of saturation than anything else.

So:

1) Do the last set of numbers look reasonable AND in tune with the Morrow setting?
2) If not, what numbers should be adjusted?

[RandyT0001]

You really cannot use US population increases to determine its growth rate, too many immigrants skewing the rate. You have to use world population growth rates which eliminates the immigration variable. 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. This covers the time period associated with tech levels F and E in 4th edition.

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. This covers the time period associated with tech level D, C, and B in 4th edition.

The growth rate of 0.9% is approximately the same rate of growth of the world population from 1800 to 1987. About half of this rate 0.45% (actually it is 0.4621%) doubles the starting population in 150 years. According to 4th edition there are 20 million people living in North America 150years after the war. About 13.5 million live in the area once claimed by the US based on 2015 populations percentages of the US, Mexico, and Canada. In general the growth would be, on average, uniform across North America IMO.

At the end of the war only about 2.3-2.5% of the population survived. The first 50 years the growth might have been 0.2%, the second 50 years the rate was 0.4% and the last 50 years the rate has jumped to 0.8%. Of course, this is adjusted to local communities tech levels and such.

[mmartin798]

To answer the question about what a reasonable number is, you do have to make a model of the conditions that are there. Basically a broad story about what was going on. Then find reference data to give you a baseline and then put corresponding data into your model. This document has some data that might help:

http://www.un.org/popin/popis/journals/poptoday/today0295.html

Some highlights that may be of interests is the effect of the black plague on global population. From 8000 BCE, the dawn of agriculture, to 1 CE, the global population went from about 5 million to 300 million in those 8000 years, or 0.05% annually. From 1 CE to 1650 CE, the population grew to about 500 million, much of the low rate caused by the black plague, which was not limited to the 14th century, but is thought to have started in Western Europe around 540 CE and spread. The growth rate from 1 CE to 1650 CE is lower than the prior 8000 years.

These eras are significant since they are periods where agriculture is starting to come into use and where there was a highly fatal disease. Both of these are conditions that are happening after the war. The growth numbers after the war might not be quite as low due to education and limited residual tech, but that advantage would drop quickly as machinery breaks and knowledge gets lost.

I don't have specific numbers for you, but this should help you get on the path.

[Craig67]

But how much faster will it decline? I am trying to be quantitative here.[/QUOTE]

I'm thinking 99% of the urban population will die off in the first 2 years. Violence and the lack of farming knowledge and seeds will doom them. Suburban populations will be almost as bad. Too few people have the skills or resources to cope.
Rural populations will do better as long as they are not over run by sick, starving, desperate refugees from the cities and suburbs. I'd say as much as 40% will live past 2 years, if they are far enough away from the major population centres.

[ArmySGT.]

But how much faster will it decline? I am trying to be quantitative here.

I'm thinking 99% of the urban population will die off in the first 2 years. Violence and the lack of farming knowledge and seeds will doom them. Suburban populations will be almost as bad. Too few people have the skills or resources to cope.
Rural populations will do better as long as they are not over run by sick, starving, desperate refugees from the cities and suburbs. I'd say as much as 40% will live past 2 years, if they are far enough away from the major population centres.

If their within one tank of gas radius of a major urban center that isn't downwind of the fallout........they were over run.

[mmartin798]

If their within one tank of gas radius of a major urban center that isn't downwind of the fallout........they were over run.

Pretty big area. Assuming a tank of gas takes you 300 miles, the red circles are half a tank and the yellow circles are a full tank away from some major US cities.

[ArmySGT.]

Fallout patterns (SW to NE typically) will dictate movement, as does the availability of roads, bridges, tunnels, and mountain passes.

[mikeo80]

Fallout patterns (SW to NE typically) will dictate movement, as does the availability of roads, bridges, tunnels, and mountain passes.

Something else to consider. IF there is any kind of run up to the war, you will see MASSIVE movement out of cities. (I.E. T2K, MP ver. 4)

I live in Fayetteville, NC. ANY kind of alert will engender panic. There are VERY few routes out of Fayetteville. A major accident, road rage, or congestion will slow movement to a crawl at best.

This is why my wife and I have bought property ten miles outside of Fayetteville. Far enough out to miss the panic exodus, far enough out that those who DO get out will not find me right away.

My $0.02

Mike

[ArmySGT.]

Oh..... Man do I know it........... I live in Denver....... if it was 1989.

Denver Capitol Building

U.S. Mint Denver

U.S. Federal Center Lakewood

Buckley AFB

Lowry AFB

Rock Flats National Arsenal.

Colorado would look like a donut with a hole where Denver used to be.


It is pretty easy to go north south anywhere..... but, East to West travel through the Rockies is restricted to very few routes.

[ArmySGT.]

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/Locations/Puget%20Sound%20area.png

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/Locations/Impact%20Pacific%20NW%20plus%20British%20Columbia. png

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/Locations/Impact%20Pacific%20NW.png