|
|
|
|
|
#1
10-31-2018, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. 
|
|
#2
10-31-2018, 07:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#3
11-01-2018, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#4
11-11-2018, 02:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#5
11-16-2018, 09:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#6
11-16-2018, 07:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#7
11-18-2018, 11:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
