What if Earth's population was only 100?

by FlyingHighNow 69 Replies latest jw friends

  • FlyingHighNow
    FlyingHighNow

    My question is really this: if you have only 100 people, do you not have to take good care of everyone of the 100? Do you not need to keep the 100 strong and healthy as possible? In a group this size, if one person is unhappy/not thriving, it will affect everyone so it makes sense to keep everyone happy and thriving. If this is an island nation, everyone needs to be especially strong emotionally and physically in case of attack from outside peoples. At which point do individuals or families begin to be devalued like individuals, families and entire populations have today?

    It's akin to would you pay $2.50 for a 2 liter of Pepsi at the 7-11, instead of waiting for Wal-mart and paying $1.50? No? You don't have time to run into Wal-mart. You just lost one dollar. But you'd drive across the city to save $40 on a refrigerator. A dollar is a dollar and it is just as valuable whether you save one individual dollar here and there to add up to be $40, or you drive across town and save $40. A dollar = a dollar. A human life is a human life. Whether you have one human life or you have forty separate human lives grouped together in one group, a life is a life.

  • Berengaria
    Berengaria
    I'm with Beks, its time to reproduce,
    Well that's sweet Jeff but I just thought about something else. What was the average age of the populace? That takes another few out of the repopulation project. I'm still capable, but at my age we're probably talking mongoloids.
  • JeffT
    JeffT

    Beks, good point. My age and the vasectomy put me out of the running too. I guess we'll have to let the teenagers take care of it. With my luck, they'll leave the kids at my house.

    FHN, primative societies, which is what we are talking about here, are generally good at taking care of members as long as they are useful. When you stop being useful you can expect to be left on a glacier or something. This doesn't mean physcially, the old shaman that can tell the tribe where to hunt is a very valuable member.

  • Berengaria
    Berengaria

    Oh well if you want to add operations to prevent, count me out again. So I guess that means we ain't good for much, huh?

    Shaman and Shamaness.

  • Lore
    Lore
    Very possible. The one college degree could be a medical doctorate degree and they could exchange eggs, brussel sprouts and home made boots for the care. No citizen would be denied care because with 100 people, you don't need to lose anyone.

    Darn, our one doctor is an orthopedic surgeon and you have a tumor in your left lung. . . now what?

    Or alternatively: Oh darn, our one doctor is a heart surgeon and you just got a spiral fracture to the leg. . . now what?

    What about the anesthesiologist, the nurses, the team who fixes the MRI machine when it breaks, the assisting surgeon, the other several dozen people who make modern medicine work.

    Everyone could have equal medical care, but it would be equally crappy medical care. Who's gonna pay the boots, brussel sprouts and eggs to provide medical care for the one 90 year old guy who cannot contribute anymore to your small society? Lots of people would probably volunteer, but what if he's kind of a jerk?

    Also, being a doctor is hard work, why can't he just STOP being a doctor and grow his own darn brussel sprouts? Are you going to FORCE him to be a doctor simply because he knows how? Even if he could do better for himself by dropping that proffession when it becomes unprofitable?

    With 1 doctor, there is no such thing as a 'second opinion', there is also no such thing as: the price is too high. If he wants to charge 3 pairs of boots, or 100 pairs of boots, it's not like you can say: "No I'll have someone else remove my appendix."

    do you not have to take good care of everyone of the 100? Do you not need to keep the 100 strong and healthy as possible?

    Not really. Some of them are probably completely useless, and in fact, a burden on the rest of you.

    And it depends on what your goal is. Do you want to repopulate the earth? Well then you better stop worrying about the old people and start having lots of babies.

    My personal goal would be pretty much the same as it is now. Namely: For me to have the best quality of life I can. That definately does not include raising a bunch of children in a post-apocolyptic world.
    I personally wouldn't give a crap about saving the species or anything like that, and if I had good reason to believe that I could have a better life out by myself, I wouldn't think twice about leaving the whole group and living elsewhere.

    With 100 different people from 100 different backgrounds, odds are pretty slim you're gonna have many people who are willing to strive towards the same goal you are trying to reach.

  • Lore
    Lore

    What if I chose to go live by myself away from the group? Would your leaders allow me to leave? Or would they insist that with the low population they can't afford to lose anyone, so I'm forced to stay?

    What if I did very well for myself, would you send people out to take from my plenty? Would you view my success as a threat to your society, fearing that others might follow my example?

    Or would you be better off without me since I'm a non-reproducing antisocial geek with no practical skills in a world with no computers? Come to think of it, If I got sick, would it even be in your best interest to provide me with medical care?

  • Berengaria
    Berengaria

    The thing is, it's highly likely that you would stay. And there would be excessive procreation. And there would be cooperation. The survival of the species is built in to the genes. History shows all of this. Why do starving women in whateverhellholeyouwanttomention always have dozens of children? Because the survival rate is low, and it is instinct to produce viable offspring.

    No, I see our little colony of 100 thriving and flourishing within a few generations. Then overpopulation and ..............oh that's us now.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    Universal means they all have access to this doctor's care: no one is denied.

    What if he wants to take a long vacation or Saturday off for a round of golf?

  • FlyingHighNow
    FlyingHighNow

    I have this feeling that the 100 people would probably make sure the doc gets some R & R and he'll probably train a nurse or some assistant to help while he is off on the other side of the island.

    Don't you guys remember Gilligan's Island? They looked out for and helped each other.

    And about the crappy health care comment: what good does state of the art, cutting edge health care do if people can't afford it? It's worse than crappy health care.

    Whether you have 1 life, 100 lives or several billion, all are valuable. Unless someone is a danger to society, but even that person doesn't deserve to suffer inhumane treatment.

  • elderelite
    elderelite

    If there were only 100 people in the world...

    Id have 99 problems but a b***h wouldnt be one :-D

    Yes ive had some vodka. But that was funny as hell!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit