![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithThese notes relate to the series The Daughters of the Apocalypse and its introductory poem "Laundry, Liturgy, and Women's Work."
WARNING: This whole section of notes is graphic and horrifying due to weapons of mass destruction and extreme population loss. Please consider your tastes and headspace before deciding whether this is something you want to read.
The Grunge (GR#63) and Other Apocalyptic Pressures
The apocalypse began with natural disasters, hordes of refugees, and then wars over what was left. These are known as global catastropic risks or existential risks, which could greatly curtail or even wipe out civilization or humanity itself. There are also S-risks that concern astronomical suffering. That buildup ended with chemical warfare which wiped out most of the adults 15 years ago, since "the Grunge" (officially named GR#63) was designed to attack healthy bodies in their prime -- people who were or could be soldiers. The poem "Laundry, Liturgy, and Women's Work" starts in 15 A.E. (After the End).
Chemical weapons work in various ways. Among the possible methods of delivery, the Grunge relies primarily on inhalation and dermal contact. Poisons can be classified based on which body part(s) they attack -- most often nerves, blood, or muscles. The Grunge primarily attacks muscles, but it can have other effects, especially at high doses in victims close to ground zero. Dosage of chemical weapons typically relies on toxin density, duration of exposure, and respiration rate. Because the Grunge relies on muscle density and sex hormones, those factors influence how fast athletic adults tend to die from it, but people with little of those (e.g. children) may walk through the stuff and take only nonlethal damage. This created one of the signature injuries of the Grunge: PTSD from watching friends or family die in agony while the survivor looked on, unable to help them.
This chemical weapon was designed to cripple military capacity. It focused primarily on combat-capable targets or those who could easily become threats. So that's who it was tested on: young fit men, mostly white and heterosexual. As in drug development, that means it doesn't always work the same on groups that weren't tested, like women and people of color. For once, that's a survival advantage instead of a disadvantage: the most powerful group took the hardest hit by far, leaving the least powerful groups in the majority. While aimed at humans, the Grunge could also affect larger mammals; it had only incidental impact on non-mammalian wildlife, just because chemical weapons tend to be generally bad for living organisms. Of those, urban birds were the hardest hit due to the sensitivity of avian respiration.
The Grunge targeted two biological features, muscle mass and sex hormones. These two features attracted more of the poison into the body and activated its primary attacks. The symptoms match those typical of chemical weapons. Lethal effects included coughing blood, shortness of breath, and respiratory failure as the muscles and tissues of the lungs failed; cyanosis, exhaustion, and cardiac arrest as the heart failed; increasing muscle cramps and seizures as the main muscle masses began to malfunction, but this more often ended with filter organ failure as rhabdomyolysis on top of the chemical weapon itself overwhelmed the kidneys and liver with toxins. These effects appeared in order of exposure: highest dose killed within a few minutes through the lungs, followed by the heart in less than an hour, whereas some moderate doses caused lingering death through muscle collapse taking days. Lower doses often caused skin problems and other tissue damage, which sometimes led to death from secondary infections, but these were among the more survivable effects. Continued exposure over time, even at lower doses, allowed the toxins to build up in the muscles where they could poison the body; this typically manifested with symptoms of rhabdomyolysis: muscle pains, weakness, vomiting, confusion, dark urine, and/or irregular heartbeat. So people continued to die even months after the initial deployment. Long-term impacts on survivors of chemical weapons are widely varied, but can shorten life and lower survival potential. The details of this regarding the Grunge are unknown as yet because it hasn't been around long enough and no rigorous studies are possible in the Aftermath, but observations indicate similar patterns in the range typical of chemical weapons.
During the End, little could be done for victims of the Grunge, which is often an issue with chemical weapon attacks. Most successful treatment requires advanced medical care. Those showing respiratory or cardiac symptoms were simply doomed; even a single victim in a working hospital wouldn't have had a good chance of survival, and en masse there was no way to treat any of them. Those not killed immediately often tried to wash off any residue, which minimized further exposure. Some people who only had minor muscle or skin problems did survive the effects.
Another factor is the lifespan of a chemical weapon. The Grunge was primarily distributed by bombing and spraying over cities, possibly indicating two or more different forms of the weapon. This left large areas contaminated. Also, any bombing attack leaves behind some small percentage of unexploded ordnance -- more if this is planned as a post-battle terrorism tactic. Chemical weapons are typically designed to last 20 years in storage, which means the unexploded samples will be dangerous at least that long, possibly more. Lifespan after deployment depends on many factors including the chemical structure and format of the weapon itself along with environmental factors (e.g. sun, wind, water) in the field. Volatile compounds disperse and/or break down very fast, within minutes or hours; whereas more stable ones may last for days or weeks, occasionally longer under certain conditions. Very persistent chemicals can last for months or years, some of them being highly resistant to factors like sunlight which degrade other materials.
The Grunge was most lethal immediately after deployment, but the residue can remain hazardous much longer. Two main things are known about it:
1) Exposure to sunlight and fresh air seems to break down the active ingredients. What's left may still have minor toxicity, but no longer behaves like the Grunge. Photocatalytic oxidation breaks down many things, including some chemical weapons.
2) The cities remain dangerous, especially to the prime targets. This is likely a combination of toxic materials clinging to protected spaces, and unexploded ordnance occasionally going off. The stuff got on everything, rendering urban goods risky to loot or use. Going into a city is an ugly game of Russian roulette.
As a result, the cities are almost completely abandoned. The few scavengers who dare take the risk are almost all children or seniors. There's a huge tension between the desperate need of equipment and the terror of its lingering contamination. Scavengers and traders have taken to using the term "sun-cured" for goods that have been left outdoors in sunlight, usually with a timespan attached (e.g. "three days" or "two weeks") and with the longer curing times having a higher price. Since there's no way to know if things were really cured by the person who said they were, goods passing through reputable traders tend to get re-cured every time they change hands, and many people do the same with newly acquired items for their own use. Not everything can be treated this way and still survive; even for things that survive the treatment, it often degrages quality and lifespan. This contributes to the increasing difficulty in obtaining usable equipment in the Aftermath. But nobody with any sense wants to risk the Grunge, so most people continue to take precautions.
So the Grunge killed almost all adult men and most adult women. Some elders survived, mostly postmenopausal women and a few old men. Most children survived. So did some teens, more younger than older. Some survivors, especially teens, had lingering disabilities. The most common fell into several clusters: withered or amputated limbs from muscle and other tissue loss, skin scars from close contact burns and/or tissue loss, and lung damage from inhalation. Afterwards, lingering impacts ran up the rate of miscarriage and stillbirth, chiefly due to failures in muscle or lung development. The leading survivable birth defects are limb abnormalities and facial clefts. This is typical of reproductive problems caused by chemical weapons or other environmental toxins.
A milder but still statistically significant effect is that the Grunge hit Caucasian people harder than other races, for the simple reason that it was designed and tested against that target, making it slightly less effective against others. Different weapons were deployed in other places around the world by various parties, typically targeted to those areas. Add in the fact that some ethnic populations, such as Indian reservations, clustered away from the cities. As a result, the surviving population of former North America is much more racially diverse than Before.
Similarly, people with sex/gender variations had a considerably higher rate of survival due to differing from the target sample. They remain a larger proportion of the population after the End. Rates remain elevated among births in the Aftermath, likely due to a combination of factors including baseline numbers, aftereffects of the Grunge, and overall pollution of the environment with hormone-mimicking substances. Estimates before the End range from less than 1% to about 3% of the Before population, trending upward. They probably make up 2-5% of the After population, with some variations based on age and location.
After the weapon's deployment, few adults and not many older teens remained to pick up the pieces. Many children died because they couldn't take care of themselves and there weren't enough older caregivers available. Some elders died due to the harsh conditions and scarce resources. Almost everyone dependent on drugs or medical equipment died, most of them quickly, although a few survivors may eke out an existence if their supplies are relatively stable or can be cobbled up from After technology. Most teens survived because they had enough skills and little competition. The fact that some older survivors didn't take on any child survivors put even more weight on those who did. The most common social units were bands of teens, a teen and younger siblings, a grandparent and grandchildren, and either a teen or an elder picking up as many younger survivors as they could support. Less common, sometimes elders gathered in "schools." The worst impact happened in urban and suburban areas, with small towns and rural areas remaining more intact both physically and socially.
Because so many adults died, as has happened before in war and genocide, the subsequent society grew largely out of teen and child cultures, and its language evolved rapidly. Some place names carried over, but many of those lost syllables and/or changed spelling. Some words have shifted meaning, a little or a lot. Much of the English language simplified into After English ("Afta"), and in some areas took on large portions from Spanish or from indigenous languages. Only the few surviving elders carried over the full knowledge of Before English ("Fora"). Those who were teens when the Grunge hit tend to be mostly literate, but many of the child survivors have only partial literacy. Few of those born after the Grunge have learned to read, for lack of resources, although those raised by elders have more of a chance. The younger someone is, the less likely they are to be literate.
The Math (such as it is)
I spent over an hour systematically killing off most of the people in North America. The rest of the world is in similar shape, perhaps somewhat varied in causes and population impacts. Below is my attempt at estimating likely reductions in population based on the Grunge and subsequent hardships. The particulars of this setting have created a very different postapocalyptic world than is usually described. I have done my best with math; there may be errors, which may or may not be possible to pin down and fix, but I think I have a pretty reasonable projection of the surviving population. Numbers are broken down by age and by urban/rural distribution, as these are key factors in survivability within this scenario.
Children (lowest impact from Grunge)
Ages 0-4 = 19,576,683 (2,740,736 rural and 16,835,947 urban)
.................. 27% of original population
.................. 1% loss, 99% survival (urban Grunge)
.................. 168,360 urban loss to Grunge and 16,667,587 survival
.................. 25% urban loss to neglect and 75% survival
.................. 4,166,897 urban loss to neglect and 12,500,690 survival
Ages 5-11 = 28,446,096 (3,982,453 rural and 24,463,643 urban)
.................. 39% of original population
.................. 5% loss, 95% survival (urban Grunge)
.................. 1,223,182 urban loss to Grunge and 23,240,461 survival
.................. 5% urban loss to neglect and 95% survival
.................. 1,162,023 urban loss to neglect and 22,078,438 survival
Subtotal = 48,022,779 (6,723,189 rural and 41,299,590 urban)
.................. 1,391,542 urban loss to Grunge and 39,908,048 survival
.................. 1% loss, 99% survival (rural Grunge)
.................. 67,232 rural loss to Grunge and 6,655,957 survival
.................. 5,328,920 urban loss to neglect and 34,579,128 survival
.................. 10% of urban child loss in first year, 90% survival
.................. 3,457,913 urban child loss in first year, 31,121,215 survival
.................. 5% loss of rural children in first year, 95% survival
.................. 332,798 rural child loss in first year and 6,323,159 survival
.................. 37,444,374 children at the end of the first year
Teens (moderate impact from Grunge)
Ages 12-14 = 12,548,067 (1,756,729 rural and 10,791,338 urban)
..................... 17% of original population
..................... 60% loss, 40% survival (urban Grunge)
..................... 6,474,803 urban loss to Grunge and 4,316,535 survival
Ages 15-17 = 12,468,304 (1,745,563 rural and 10,722,741 urban)
..................... 17% of original population
..................... 80% loss, 20% survival (urban Grunge)
..................... 8,578,193 urban loss to Grunge and 2,144,548 survival
Subtotal = 25,016,371 (3,502,292 rural and 21,514,079 urban)
..................... 15,052,996 urban loss to Grunge and 6,461,083 survival
..................... 5% loss, 95% survival (rural Grunge)
..................... 323,054 rural loss to Grunge and 3,179,238 survival
..................... 25% loss of urban teens in first year, 75% survival
..................... 1,615,271 urban teen loss in first year and 4,845,812 survival
..................... 10% loss of rural teens in first year, 90% survival
..................... 317,924 rural teen loss in first year and 2,861,314 survival
..................... 7,707,126 teens at the end of the first year
Total <18 = 73,039,150 (10,225,481 rural and 62,813,669 urban)
................. 16,444,538 urban loss to Grunge and 46,369,131 survival
................. 5,073,184 urban youth loss in first year, 35,967,027 survival
................. 390,286 rural loss to Grunge and 9,835,195 survival
................. 650,722 rural youth loss in first year and 9,184,473 survival
................. 45,151,500 youth at the end of the first year
Adults (highest impact from Grunge)
Ages 18-24 = 30,219,206 (4,230,689 rural and 25,988,517 urban)
...................... 12% of original population
...................... 99% loss, 1% survival (urban Grunge)
...................... 25,728,632 urban loss to Grunge and 259,885 survival
...................... 25% loss, 75% survival (rural Grunge)
...................... 1,057,672 rural loss to Grunge and 3,173,017 survival
Ages 25-64 = 170,922,904 (23,929,207 rural and 146,993,697 urban)
...................... 67% of original population
...................... 95% loss, 5% survival (urban Grunge)
...................... 139,644,013 urban loss to Grunge and 7,349,684 survival
...................... 15% loss, 85% survival (rural Grunge)
...................... 3,589,381 rural loss to Grunge and 29,339,826 survival
Ages 65+ = 54,058,263 (7,568,157 rural and 46,490,106 urban)
...................... 21% of original population
...................... 75% loss, 25% survival (urban Grunge)
...................... 34,867,579 urban loss to Grunge and 11,622,527 survival
...................... 10% loss, 90% survival (rural Grunge)
...................... 756,816 rural loss to Grunge and 6,841,341 survival
Total 18+ = 255,200,373 (35,728,052 rural and 219,472,321 urban)
100%
.................. 200,240,224 urban loss to Grunge and 19,232,096 survival
.................. 50% loss of urban adults in first year, 50% survival
.................. 9,616,048 urban adult loss in first year, 9,616,048 survival
.................. 5,403,869 rural loss to Grunge and 39,354,184 survival
.................. 20% loss of rural adults in first year, 80% survival
.................. 7,870,837 rural adult loss in first year, 31,483,347 survival
.................. 41,099,395 adults at the end of the first year
Grand total = 328,239,523 (45,953,533 rural and 282,285,990 urban)
..................... 216,684,762 urban loss to Grunge and survival 65,601,227
..................... 5,794,155 rural loss to Grunge and 49,189,379 survival
..................... 222,478,917 total loss to Grunge and 114,790,606 survival
..................... 5,328,920 urban loss to neglect and 34,579,128 survival (children)
..................... 109,461,686 survival after neglect
..................... 5,073,184 urban youth loss in first year, 35,967,027 survival
..................... 9,616,048 urban adult loss in first year, 9,616,048 survival
..................... 45,583,075 urban survivors at the end of the first year
..................... 94,772,454 after first year urban losses
..................... 650,722 rural youth loss in first year and 9,184,473 survival
..................... 7,870,837 rural adult loss in first year, 31,483,347 survival
..................... 8,521,559 rural losses in first year, 40,667,820 survival
..................... 86,250,895 after first year rural losses
The rural population (14%) of America suffered little or no impact from the Grunge, although they did lose people to other issues. They started with 13,798,286 people. Rural deaths from the Grunge were much lighter than urban deaths, primarily caused by people traveling into cities or receiving contaminated goods. 1% of rural children died of the Grunge, and 5% of hardships in the first year. 5% of rural teens died of the Grunge, and 10% of hardships in the first year. Rural adults 18-24 lost 25% to the Grunge, 25-64 lost 15%, and 65+ lost 10%. The most susceptible ages were also the most likely to travel and handle goods. Another 20% of rural adults died of hardships in the first year. Because rural communities lost fewer people, and were much closer to being self-sufficient, they survived the aftermath better than people fleeing from the cities. Of roughly 170 communes predating the End, 153 of them (90%) have lasted to 15 A.E. Of the 326 Indian reservations and similar entities from Before, 310 of them (95%) have survived to 15 A.E. Some even had no casualties due to their isolation and self-sufficiency. At the end of the first year, the rural population was 40,667,820.
The urban population (72%) suffered losses from the Grunge based on age, and then lost more people due to subsequent issues. They started with 84,769,901 people. The Grunge killed 1% of urban children ages 0-4 and 5% ages 5-11, 60% of urban teens ages 12-14 and 80% ages 15-17, 99% of urban adults ages 18-24, 95% ages 25-64, and 75% ages 65+. Another 25% of urban children 0-4 and 5% 4-11 died of neglect fairly soon after the Grunge, for lack of adult caregivers; most of those were unweaned infants. 50% of urban adults died in the first year, variously due to lack of survival skills, giving more resources to children, violence, injury, and illness. 25% of urban teens died of similar hardships. 10% of urban children died, somewhat buffered by the efforts of older people to take care of them. Because people in the cities had fewer resources and less knowledge, and they had to leave their homes, they suffered much worse losses than rural people. At the end of the first year, the formerly urban population was 45,583,075.
By the end of the first year, the total surviving population was 86,250,895. Of those, 40,667,820 were rural and 45,583,075 were formerly urban. 37,444,374 were children, 7,707,126 were teens, and 41,099,395 were adults.
Continuing Losses
(These numbers are rough estimates as they don't account for births yet.)
The losses continued beyond the first year After, especially since the surviving birth rate almost bottomed out in the early years. While there are no solid numbers for causes of death beyond "apocalyptic hardships," about 25% (21,562,724) of the survivors who were alive at the beginning of 1 A.E. (86,250,895) died in the next 4 years, leaving 64,688,171 survivors at the beginning of 5 A.E. Of remaining survivors (64,688,171), 25% of them (16,172,043) died in the next 10 years, leaving 48,516,128 survivors at the beginning of 15 A.E.
By the end of the first year, the total surviving population was 86,250,895. Of those, 40,667,820 were rural and 45,583,075 were formerly urban. 37,444,374 were children, 7,707,126 were teens, and 41,099,395 were adults.
25% of 86,250,895 = 21562723.75
21,562,724 deaths during 1-4 A.E.
64,688,171 survivors at the beginning of 5 A.E.
25% of 64,688,171 = 16172042.75
16,172,043 deaths during 5-14 A.E.
48,516,128 survivors at the beginning of 15 A.E.
From a starting population of 328,239,523 people they lost 241,988,628 (74%) in the first year After, leaving 86,250,895 survivors (26%). By 5 A.E. there were 64,688,171 (20% of the original population) survivors and by 15 A.E. there were 48,516,128 (15% of the original population) survivors. Losses at this time had mounted to 279,723,395 (85% of the original population) total.
86250895 is 26.276815848285278% of 328239523
86,250,895 is 26% of 328,239,523
328239523 - 86250895 = 241,988,628
241,988,628 is 74% 241,988,628
25% of 86,250,895 = 21562723.75
21,562,724 deaths during 1-4 A.E.
64,688,171 survivors at the beginning of 5 A.E.
25% of 64,688,171 = 16172042.75
16,172,043 deaths during 5-14 A.E.
48,516,128 survivors at the beginning of 15 A.E.
64688171 is 19.707611810050064% of 328239523
64,688,171 is 20% of 328,239,523
48516128 is 14.780708781373656% of 328239523
48,516,128 is 15% of 328,239,523
241,988,628 losses in the first year After
21,562,724 losses in A.E. 1-4
16,172,043 losses in A.E. 5-14
279,723,395 losses total
These later losses spread out differently than the early losses. At the End, losses were defined primarily by who was or was not in an area hit by the Grunge (urban vs. rural), and by age (adults and older teens hit hardest, children having better chances of survival). By 1 A.E. the patterns were shifting:
1) The sharp differences between rural and formerly urban were starting to smooth out, although a substantial number of continuing losses were from people with sublethal exposure to the Grunge that left them with lingering damage as chemical weapons often do. Losses among adults and older teens remained somewhat higher than losses among children, but less dramatically than in the first year After.
2) There were bigger differences between individuals and communities based on their resources, skills, and knowledge. Some had few or no losses, others were greatly reduced or even wiped out. A lot of places were abandoned because there weren't enough people to hold them, or nobody wanted to live there without Before supports, while a few places took in refugees from elsewhere.
Births After the End
Births in 0 A.E.
During the first year after the End, most people focused on survival, so there were few births and even fewer babies that lived. The birth rate was about 1/10 of the 1 A.E. rate, making it 1 per 1000. There were 35,967 surviving births in 0 A.E. consisting of 3,525 boys to 31,723 girls and 719 sex/gender variant.
Population in 1 A.E.
41,099,395 adult survivors (1 in 20 men/women, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 41,099,395 = 821,988 sex/gender variant
..... 40,277,407 men and women left
..... 2,013,870 men to 38,263,537 women
45,151,500 youth survivors (1 in 10 boys/girls, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 45,151,500 = 903,030 sex/gender variant
..... 44,248,470 boys and girls left
..... 4,424,847 boys to 39,823,623 girls
37,444,374 children
..... 2% of 37,444,374 = 748,887 sex/gender variant
..... 36,695,487 boys and girls left
..... 3,669,549 boys to 33,025,938 girls
7,707,126 teens
..... 2% of 7,707,126 = 154,143 sex/gender variant
..... 7,552,983 boys and girls left
..... 755,298 boys to 6,797,685 girls
There were 35,967 surviving births in 0 A.E. consisting of 3,525 boys to 31,723 girls and 719 sex/gender variant.
Ages 0-4 = 12,500,690 (1 in 10 boys/girls, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 12,500,690 = 250,014 sex/gender variant
..... 12,250,676 boys and girls left
..... 1,225,068 boys to 11,025,608 girls
Ages 5-11 = 22,078,438 (1 in 10 boys/girls, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 22,078,438 = 441,568 sex/gender variant
..... 21,636,870 boys and girls left
..... 2,163,687 boys and 19,473,183 girls
Ages 12-14 = 4,316,535 (1 in 10 boys/girls, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 4,316,535 = 86,331 sex/gender variant
..... 4,230,204 boys and girls left
..... 423,020 boys and 3,807,184 girls
Ages 15-17 = 2,144,548 (1 in 10 boys/girls, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 2,144,548 = 42,891 sex/gender variant
..... 2,101,657 boys and girls left
..... 210,166 boys and 1,891,491 girls
Ages 18-24 = 3,173,017 (1 in 20 men/women, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 3,173,017 = 63,460 sex/gender variant
..... 3,109,557 men and women left
..... 155,478 men and 2,954,079 women
Ages 25-64 = 29,339,826 (1 in 20 men/women, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 29,339,826 = 586,797 sex/gender variant
..... 28,753,029 men and women left
..... 1,437,651 men and 27,315,378 women
Ages 65+ = 6,841,341 (1 in 20 men/women, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 6,841,341 = 136,826 sex/gender variant
..... 6,704,515 men and women left
..... 335,226 men and 6,369,289 women
Births in 1 A.E.
Ages 12-14, 15-17, 18-24, and 25-64 have fertile adults. Younger and older ages have negligible fertility. Surviving birth rate in 1 A.E. ~ 10 per 1,000 (very low). Ratio of surviving infants was 1 in 10 boys/girls and 1 in 50 sex/gender variant. There were 359,670 surviving births in 1 A.E. consisting of 35,248 boys to 317,229 girls and 7,193 sex/gender variant
Births in 1 A.E.
Ages 12-14 = 3,807,184 girls
..... 3,807,184 ÷ 1,000 = 3,807
..... 3,807 x 10 = 38,070 surviving births
..... 761 sex/gender variant
..... 37,309 boys and girls left
..... 3,731 boys to 33,578 girls
Ages 15-17 = 1,891,491 girls
..... 1,891,491 ÷ 1,000 = 1,891
..... 1,891 x 10 = 18,910 surviving births
..... 378 sex/gender variant
..... 18,532 boys and girls left
..... 1,853 boys to 16,679 girls
Ages 18-24 = 2,954,079 women
..... 2,954,079 ÷ 1,000 = 2,954
..... 2,954 x 10 = 29,540 surviving births
..... 591 sex/gender variant
..... 28,949 boys and girls left
..... 2,895 boys and 26,054 girls
Ages 25-64 = 27,315,378 women
..... 27,315,378 ÷ 1,000 = 27,315
..... 27,315 x 10 = 273,150 surviving births
..... 5,463 sex/gender variant
..... 267,687 boys and girls left
..... 26,769 boys to 240,918
359,670 surviving births in 1 A.E.
..... 7,193 sex/gender variant
..... 352,477 boys and girls left
..... 35,248 boys to 317,229 girls
There were 35,967 surviving births in 0 A.E. consisting of 3,525 boys to 31,723 girls and 719 sex/gender variant.
Population Impacts
The apocalypse has caused a population bottleneck for humans in former North America. Scientists debate the "minimum viable population" for species, and the estimates for humans are especially diverse: from around 98 to 500, to 5,000 for a buffer against disaster, and 10,000-40,000 for optimum colonization. It would take at least 10,000 to restart a Victorian level of civilization, and probably around 100 million to 1 billion to sustain a modern level. However, the population of 86,250,895 as of 1 A.E. was far above even the most conservative estimate for MVP. That said, the population has been widely scattered in small groups, which makes survival for any one group much more precarious. Many are below even the most optimistic MVP of 98, and almost all are below the more realistic 500. Some After societies are bigger, but those people aren't all living together in the same place, although they may be available to each other for reproductive purposes. Travel and exchange of mates will be absolutely essential for long-term survival. The smaller the group, the more it will rely on those interactions.
By the year 1 A.E. the proportion of male to female among teen and younger survivors (45,151,500) was about 1 in 10, or 4,515,150 boys to 40,636,350 girls. The proportion in adult survivors (41,099,395) was about 1 in 20, or 2,054,970 men and 39,044,425 women. The surviving birth rate was about 10 per 1,000 (very low). By 15 A.E. the proportion of male to female infants one year after birth is up around 1 in 5, and improvement has slowed to a crawl, likely due to the fragility of the Y chromosome. That means any male death has a disproportionate impact, and the ratio can easily drop back down to 1 in 10. The balance is slow to recover, and it may never get back to the 49 in 51 ratio of men to women that it used to be. The surviving birth rate is up to 20 per 1,000 (still low) and continuing to creep upward. As the death rate is higher After than Before, while the birth rate is lower, the population is probably still dwindling slowly. It should stabilize in the next several years, and then begin to climb as people stake out more of a civilization in the Aftermath. Society is still scrambling to catch up with what all of that may mean for interpersonal relationships and social responsibilities.
Factors that tend to lower the surviving birth rate:
* The Grunge and other environmental contaminants undermine fertility and viability.
* Depression, PTSD, and other mental issues often suppress libido and also the energy needed to raise infants effectively.
* Teen mothers and mature mothers have a lower chance of successful reproduction. Peak success is 20s-30s.
* There just aren't many males to go around, and not everyone wants to share. They also suffer from lower fertility at extremes of the age spectrum, and lower survivability in general. That Y-chromosome fragility is a serious problem.
* Low and poor food supply undermines fertility and survival.
* Lack of medical care risks death of mother and/or child from complications of pregnancy and childbirth.
Factors that tend to raise the surviving birth rate:
* Almost dying makes most humans want to fuck.
* Lots of survival sex happens during and after an apocalypse.
* A significant amount of rape also occurs, but a lot less than the apocalyptic average due to a severe shortage of testosterone.
* Little birth control remains. What's left (expired synthetic condoms or pills, animal gut condoms, herbal preparations, rhythm method, early withdrawal, etc.) are unreliable with the exceptions of abstinence and nonprocreative sexual acts (oral sex, anal sex, etc.).
* Many people actively seek to boost the diminished population.
* Pregnant women and infants (especially the rare males) tend to be particularly coddled, protected, and given the best remaining supplies available.
About 2-5% of the population is sex/gender variant. They may have male, female, mixed, or neuter physical traits and any combination of gender identity and social role. However, they are less often fertile and reproductive compared to the conventional male-female population. Their most common contributions to repopulation are helping with childcare and adopting orphan or abandoned children. Society is still trying to figure out how to fit this into a rapidly shifting sex/gender dynamic.
These factors have combined to wipe out a lot of the Before culture, with the After culture developing into something quite different. It also diverges from most postapocalyptic settings dominated by hypermuscular, hypersexual heroic men with a few women on the side. Those types almost all died out in the Grunge. Instead this setting is dominated by women, mostly young, of diverse races; plus a few men and other genders.
WARNING: This whole section of notes is graphic and horrifying due to weapons of mass destruction and extreme population loss. Please consider your tastes and headspace before deciding whether this is something you want to read.
The Grunge (GR#63) and Other Apocalyptic Pressures
The apocalypse began with natural disasters, hordes of refugees, and then wars over what was left. These are known as global catastropic risks or existential risks, which could greatly curtail or even wipe out civilization or humanity itself. There are also S-risks that concern astronomical suffering. That buildup ended with chemical warfare which wiped out most of the adults 15 years ago, since "the Grunge" (officially named GR#63) was designed to attack healthy bodies in their prime -- people who were or could be soldiers. The poem "Laundry, Liturgy, and Women's Work" starts in 15 A.E. (After the End).
Chemical weapons work in various ways. Among the possible methods of delivery, the Grunge relies primarily on inhalation and dermal contact. Poisons can be classified based on which body part(s) they attack -- most often nerves, blood, or muscles. The Grunge primarily attacks muscles, but it can have other effects, especially at high doses in victims close to ground zero. Dosage of chemical weapons typically relies on toxin density, duration of exposure, and respiration rate. Because the Grunge relies on muscle density and sex hormones, those factors influence how fast athletic adults tend to die from it, but people with little of those (e.g. children) may walk through the stuff and take only nonlethal damage. This created one of the signature injuries of the Grunge: PTSD from watching friends or family die in agony while the survivor looked on, unable to help them.
This chemical weapon was designed to cripple military capacity. It focused primarily on combat-capable targets or those who could easily become threats. So that's who it was tested on: young fit men, mostly white and heterosexual. As in drug development, that means it doesn't always work the same on groups that weren't tested, like women and people of color. For once, that's a survival advantage instead of a disadvantage: the most powerful group took the hardest hit by far, leaving the least powerful groups in the majority. While aimed at humans, the Grunge could also affect larger mammals; it had only incidental impact on non-mammalian wildlife, just because chemical weapons tend to be generally bad for living organisms. Of those, urban birds were the hardest hit due to the sensitivity of avian respiration.
The Grunge targeted two biological features, muscle mass and sex hormones. These two features attracted more of the poison into the body and activated its primary attacks. The symptoms match those typical of chemical weapons. Lethal effects included coughing blood, shortness of breath, and respiratory failure as the muscles and tissues of the lungs failed; cyanosis, exhaustion, and cardiac arrest as the heart failed; increasing muscle cramps and seizures as the main muscle masses began to malfunction, but this more often ended with filter organ failure as rhabdomyolysis on top of the chemical weapon itself overwhelmed the kidneys and liver with toxins. These effects appeared in order of exposure: highest dose killed within a few minutes through the lungs, followed by the heart in less than an hour, whereas some moderate doses caused lingering death through muscle collapse taking days. Lower doses often caused skin problems and other tissue damage, which sometimes led to death from secondary infections, but these were among the more survivable effects. Continued exposure over time, even at lower doses, allowed the toxins to build up in the muscles where they could poison the body; this typically manifested with symptoms of rhabdomyolysis: muscle pains, weakness, vomiting, confusion, dark urine, and/or irregular heartbeat. So people continued to die even months after the initial deployment. Long-term impacts on survivors of chemical weapons are widely varied, but can shorten life and lower survival potential. The details of this regarding the Grunge are unknown as yet because it hasn't been around long enough and no rigorous studies are possible in the Aftermath, but observations indicate similar patterns in the range typical of chemical weapons.
During the End, little could be done for victims of the Grunge, which is often an issue with chemical weapon attacks. Most successful treatment requires advanced medical care. Those showing respiratory or cardiac symptoms were simply doomed; even a single victim in a working hospital wouldn't have had a good chance of survival, and en masse there was no way to treat any of them. Those not killed immediately often tried to wash off any residue, which minimized further exposure. Some people who only had minor muscle or skin problems did survive the effects.
Another factor is the lifespan of a chemical weapon. The Grunge was primarily distributed by bombing and spraying over cities, possibly indicating two or more different forms of the weapon. This left large areas contaminated. Also, any bombing attack leaves behind some small percentage of unexploded ordnance -- more if this is planned as a post-battle terrorism tactic. Chemical weapons are typically designed to last 20 years in storage, which means the unexploded samples will be dangerous at least that long, possibly more. Lifespan after deployment depends on many factors including the chemical structure and format of the weapon itself along with environmental factors (e.g. sun, wind, water) in the field. Volatile compounds disperse and/or break down very fast, within minutes or hours; whereas more stable ones may last for days or weeks, occasionally longer under certain conditions. Very persistent chemicals can last for months or years, some of them being highly resistant to factors like sunlight which degrade other materials.
The Grunge was most lethal immediately after deployment, but the residue can remain hazardous much longer. Two main things are known about it:
1) Exposure to sunlight and fresh air seems to break down the active ingredients. What's left may still have minor toxicity, but no longer behaves like the Grunge. Photocatalytic oxidation breaks down many things, including some chemical weapons.
2) The cities remain dangerous, especially to the prime targets. This is likely a combination of toxic materials clinging to protected spaces, and unexploded ordnance occasionally going off. The stuff got on everything, rendering urban goods risky to loot or use. Going into a city is an ugly game of Russian roulette.
As a result, the cities are almost completely abandoned. The few scavengers who dare take the risk are almost all children or seniors. There's a huge tension between the desperate need of equipment and the terror of its lingering contamination. Scavengers and traders have taken to using the term "sun-cured" for goods that have been left outdoors in sunlight, usually with a timespan attached (e.g. "three days" or "two weeks") and with the longer curing times having a higher price. Since there's no way to know if things were really cured by the person who said they were, goods passing through reputable traders tend to get re-cured every time they change hands, and many people do the same with newly acquired items for their own use. Not everything can be treated this way and still survive; even for things that survive the treatment, it often degrages quality and lifespan. This contributes to the increasing difficulty in obtaining usable equipment in the Aftermath. But nobody with any sense wants to risk the Grunge, so most people continue to take precautions.
So the Grunge killed almost all adult men and most adult women. Some elders survived, mostly postmenopausal women and a few old men. Most children survived. So did some teens, more younger than older. Some survivors, especially teens, had lingering disabilities. The most common fell into several clusters: withered or amputated limbs from muscle and other tissue loss, skin scars from close contact burns and/or tissue loss, and lung damage from inhalation. Afterwards, lingering impacts ran up the rate of miscarriage and stillbirth, chiefly due to failures in muscle or lung development. The leading survivable birth defects are limb abnormalities and facial clefts. This is typical of reproductive problems caused by chemical weapons or other environmental toxins.
A milder but still statistically significant effect is that the Grunge hit Caucasian people harder than other races, for the simple reason that it was designed and tested against that target, making it slightly less effective against others. Different weapons were deployed in other places around the world by various parties, typically targeted to those areas. Add in the fact that some ethnic populations, such as Indian reservations, clustered away from the cities. As a result, the surviving population of former North America is much more racially diverse than Before.
Similarly, people with sex/gender variations had a considerably higher rate of survival due to differing from the target sample. They remain a larger proportion of the population after the End. Rates remain elevated among births in the Aftermath, likely due to a combination of factors including baseline numbers, aftereffects of the Grunge, and overall pollution of the environment with hormone-mimicking substances. Estimates before the End range from less than 1% to about 3% of the Before population, trending upward. They probably make up 2-5% of the After population, with some variations based on age and location.
After the weapon's deployment, few adults and not many older teens remained to pick up the pieces. Many children died because they couldn't take care of themselves and there weren't enough older caregivers available. Some elders died due to the harsh conditions and scarce resources. Almost everyone dependent on drugs or medical equipment died, most of them quickly, although a few survivors may eke out an existence if their supplies are relatively stable or can be cobbled up from After technology. Most teens survived because they had enough skills and little competition. The fact that some older survivors didn't take on any child survivors put even more weight on those who did. The most common social units were bands of teens, a teen and younger siblings, a grandparent and grandchildren, and either a teen or an elder picking up as many younger survivors as they could support. Less common, sometimes elders gathered in "schools." The worst impact happened in urban and suburban areas, with small towns and rural areas remaining more intact both physically and socially.
Because so many adults died, as has happened before in war and genocide, the subsequent society grew largely out of teen and child cultures, and its language evolved rapidly. Some place names carried over, but many of those lost syllables and/or changed spelling. Some words have shifted meaning, a little or a lot. Much of the English language simplified into After English ("Afta"), and in some areas took on large portions from Spanish or from indigenous languages. Only the few surviving elders carried over the full knowledge of Before English ("Fora"). Those who were teens when the Grunge hit tend to be mostly literate, but many of the child survivors have only partial literacy. Few of those born after the Grunge have learned to read, for lack of resources, although those raised by elders have more of a chance. The younger someone is, the less likely they are to be literate.
The Math (such as it is)
I spent over an hour systematically killing off most of the people in North America. The rest of the world is in similar shape, perhaps somewhat varied in causes and population impacts. Below is my attempt at estimating likely reductions in population based on the Grunge and subsequent hardships. The particulars of this setting have created a very different postapocalyptic world than is usually described. I have done my best with math; there may be errors, which may or may not be possible to pin down and fix, but I think I have a pretty reasonable projection of the surviving population. Numbers are broken down by age and by urban/rural distribution, as these are key factors in survivability within this scenario.
Children (lowest impact from Grunge)
Ages 0-4 = 19,576,683 (2,740,736 rural and 16,835,947 urban)
.................. 27% of original population
.................. 1% loss, 99% survival (urban Grunge)
.................. 168,360 urban loss to Grunge and 16,667,587 survival
.................. 25% urban loss to neglect and 75% survival
.................. 4,166,897 urban loss to neglect and 12,500,690 survival
Ages 5-11 = 28,446,096 (3,982,453 rural and 24,463,643 urban)
.................. 39% of original population
.................. 5% loss, 95% survival (urban Grunge)
.................. 1,223,182 urban loss to Grunge and 23,240,461 survival
.................. 5% urban loss to neglect and 95% survival
.................. 1,162,023 urban loss to neglect and 22,078,438 survival
Subtotal = 48,022,779 (6,723,189 rural and 41,299,590 urban)
.................. 1,391,542 urban loss to Grunge and 39,908,048 survival
.................. 1% loss, 99% survival (rural Grunge)
.................. 67,232 rural loss to Grunge and 6,655,957 survival
.................. 5,328,920 urban loss to neglect and 34,579,128 survival
.................. 10% of urban child loss in first year, 90% survival
.................. 3,457,913 urban child loss in first year, 31,121,215 survival
.................. 5% loss of rural children in first year, 95% survival
.................. 332,798 rural child loss in first year and 6,323,159 survival
.................. 37,444,374 children at the end of the first year
Teens (moderate impact from Grunge)
Ages 12-14 = 12,548,067 (1,756,729 rural and 10,791,338 urban)
..................... 17% of original population
..................... 60% loss, 40% survival (urban Grunge)
..................... 6,474,803 urban loss to Grunge and 4,316,535 survival
Ages 15-17 = 12,468,304 (1,745,563 rural and 10,722,741 urban)
..................... 17% of original population
..................... 80% loss, 20% survival (urban Grunge)
..................... 8,578,193 urban loss to Grunge and 2,144,548 survival
Subtotal = 25,016,371 (3,502,292 rural and 21,514,079 urban)
..................... 15,052,996 urban loss to Grunge and 6,461,083 survival
..................... 5% loss, 95% survival (rural Grunge)
..................... 323,054 rural loss to Grunge and 3,179,238 survival
..................... 25% loss of urban teens in first year, 75% survival
..................... 1,615,271 urban teen loss in first year and 4,845,812 survival
..................... 10% loss of rural teens in first year, 90% survival
..................... 317,924 rural teen loss in first year and 2,861,314 survival
..................... 7,707,126 teens at the end of the first year
Total <18 = 73,039,150 (10,225,481 rural and 62,813,669 urban)
................. 16,444,538 urban loss to Grunge and 46,369,131 survival
................. 5,073,184 urban youth loss in first year, 35,967,027 survival
................. 390,286 rural loss to Grunge and 9,835,195 survival
................. 650,722 rural youth loss in first year and 9,184,473 survival
................. 45,151,500 youth at the end of the first year
Adults (highest impact from Grunge)
Ages 18-24 = 30,219,206 (4,230,689 rural and 25,988,517 urban)
...................... 12% of original population
...................... 99% loss, 1% survival (urban Grunge)
...................... 25,728,632 urban loss to Grunge and 259,885 survival
...................... 25% loss, 75% survival (rural Grunge)
...................... 1,057,672 rural loss to Grunge and 3,173,017 survival
Ages 25-64 = 170,922,904 (23,929,207 rural and 146,993,697 urban)
...................... 67% of original population
...................... 95% loss, 5% survival (urban Grunge)
...................... 139,644,013 urban loss to Grunge and 7,349,684 survival
...................... 15% loss, 85% survival (rural Grunge)
...................... 3,589,381 rural loss to Grunge and 29,339,826 survival
Ages 65+ = 54,058,263 (7,568,157 rural and 46,490,106 urban)
...................... 21% of original population
...................... 75% loss, 25% survival (urban Grunge)
...................... 34,867,579 urban loss to Grunge and 11,622,527 survival
...................... 10% loss, 90% survival (rural Grunge)
...................... 756,816 rural loss to Grunge and 6,841,341 survival
Total 18+ = 255,200,373 (35,728,052 rural and 219,472,321 urban)
100%
.................. 200,240,224 urban loss to Grunge and 19,232,096 survival
.................. 50% loss of urban adults in first year, 50% survival
.................. 9,616,048 urban adult loss in first year, 9,616,048 survival
.................. 5,403,869 rural loss to Grunge and 39,354,184 survival
.................. 20% loss of rural adults in first year, 80% survival
.................. 7,870,837 rural adult loss in first year, 31,483,347 survival
.................. 41,099,395 adults at the end of the first year
Grand total = 328,239,523 (45,953,533 rural and 282,285,990 urban)
..................... 216,684,762 urban loss to Grunge and survival 65,601,227
..................... 5,794,155 rural loss to Grunge and 49,189,379 survival
..................... 222,478,917 total loss to Grunge and 114,790,606 survival
..................... 5,328,920 urban loss to neglect and 34,579,128 survival (children)
..................... 109,461,686 survival after neglect
..................... 5,073,184 urban youth loss in first year, 35,967,027 survival
..................... 9,616,048 urban adult loss in first year, 9,616,048 survival
..................... 45,583,075 urban survivors at the end of the first year
..................... 94,772,454 after first year urban losses
..................... 650,722 rural youth loss in first year and 9,184,473 survival
..................... 7,870,837 rural adult loss in first year, 31,483,347 survival
..................... 8,521,559 rural losses in first year, 40,667,820 survival
..................... 86,250,895 after first year rural losses
The rural population (14%) of America suffered little or no impact from the Grunge, although they did lose people to other issues. They started with 13,798,286 people. Rural deaths from the Grunge were much lighter than urban deaths, primarily caused by people traveling into cities or receiving contaminated goods. 1% of rural children died of the Grunge, and 5% of hardships in the first year. 5% of rural teens died of the Grunge, and 10% of hardships in the first year. Rural adults 18-24 lost 25% to the Grunge, 25-64 lost 15%, and 65+ lost 10%. The most susceptible ages were also the most likely to travel and handle goods. Another 20% of rural adults died of hardships in the first year. Because rural communities lost fewer people, and were much closer to being self-sufficient, they survived the aftermath better than people fleeing from the cities. Of roughly 170 communes predating the End, 153 of them (90%) have lasted to 15 A.E. Of the 326 Indian reservations and similar entities from Before, 310 of them (95%) have survived to 15 A.E. Some even had no casualties due to their isolation and self-sufficiency. At the end of the first year, the rural population was 40,667,820.
The urban population (72%) suffered losses from the Grunge based on age, and then lost more people due to subsequent issues. They started with 84,769,901 people. The Grunge killed 1% of urban children ages 0-4 and 5% ages 5-11, 60% of urban teens ages 12-14 and 80% ages 15-17, 99% of urban adults ages 18-24, 95% ages 25-64, and 75% ages 65+. Another 25% of urban children 0-4 and 5% 4-11 died of neglect fairly soon after the Grunge, for lack of adult caregivers; most of those were unweaned infants. 50% of urban adults died in the first year, variously due to lack of survival skills, giving more resources to children, violence, injury, and illness. 25% of urban teens died of similar hardships. 10% of urban children died, somewhat buffered by the efforts of older people to take care of them. Because people in the cities had fewer resources and less knowledge, and they had to leave their homes, they suffered much worse losses than rural people. At the end of the first year, the formerly urban population was 45,583,075.
By the end of the first year, the total surviving population was 86,250,895. Of those, 40,667,820 were rural and 45,583,075 were formerly urban. 37,444,374 were children, 7,707,126 were teens, and 41,099,395 were adults.
Continuing Losses
(These numbers are rough estimates as they don't account for births yet.)
The losses continued beyond the first year After, especially since the surviving birth rate almost bottomed out in the early years. While there are no solid numbers for causes of death beyond "apocalyptic hardships," about 25% (21,562,724) of the survivors who were alive at the beginning of 1 A.E. (86,250,895) died in the next 4 years, leaving 64,688,171 survivors at the beginning of 5 A.E. Of remaining survivors (64,688,171), 25% of them (16,172,043) died in the next 10 years, leaving 48,516,128 survivors at the beginning of 15 A.E.
By the end of the first year, the total surviving population was 86,250,895. Of those, 40,667,820 were rural and 45,583,075 were formerly urban. 37,444,374 were children, 7,707,126 were teens, and 41,099,395 were adults.
25% of 86,250,895 = 21562723.75
21,562,724 deaths during 1-4 A.E.
64,688,171 survivors at the beginning of 5 A.E.
25% of 64,688,171 = 16172042.75
16,172,043 deaths during 5-14 A.E.
48,516,128 survivors at the beginning of 15 A.E.
From a starting population of 328,239,523 people they lost 241,988,628 (74%) in the first year After, leaving 86,250,895 survivors (26%). By 5 A.E. there were 64,688,171 (20% of the original population) survivors and by 15 A.E. there were 48,516,128 (15% of the original population) survivors. Losses at this time had mounted to 279,723,395 (85% of the original population) total.
86250895 is 26.276815848285278% of 328239523
86,250,895 is 26% of 328,239,523
328239523 - 86250895 = 241,988,628
241,988,628 is 74% 241,988,628
25% of 86,250,895 = 21562723.75
21,562,724 deaths during 1-4 A.E.
64,688,171 survivors at the beginning of 5 A.E.
25% of 64,688,171 = 16172042.75
16,172,043 deaths during 5-14 A.E.
48,516,128 survivors at the beginning of 15 A.E.
64688171 is 19.707611810050064% of 328239523
64,688,171 is 20% of 328,239,523
48516128 is 14.780708781373656% of 328239523
48,516,128 is 15% of 328,239,523
241,988,628 losses in the first year After
21,562,724 losses in A.E. 1-4
16,172,043 losses in A.E. 5-14
279,723,395 losses total
These later losses spread out differently than the early losses. At the End, losses were defined primarily by who was or was not in an area hit by the Grunge (urban vs. rural), and by age (adults and older teens hit hardest, children having better chances of survival). By 1 A.E. the patterns were shifting:
1) The sharp differences between rural and formerly urban were starting to smooth out, although a substantial number of continuing losses were from people with sublethal exposure to the Grunge that left them with lingering damage as chemical weapons often do. Losses among adults and older teens remained somewhat higher than losses among children, but less dramatically than in the first year After.
2) There were bigger differences between individuals and communities based on their resources, skills, and knowledge. Some had few or no losses, others were greatly reduced or even wiped out. A lot of places were abandoned because there weren't enough people to hold them, or nobody wanted to live there without Before supports, while a few places took in refugees from elsewhere.
Births After the End
Births in 0 A.E.
During the first year after the End, most people focused on survival, so there were few births and even fewer babies that lived. The birth rate was about 1/10 of the 1 A.E. rate, making it 1 per 1000. There were 35,967 surviving births in 0 A.E. consisting of 3,525 boys to 31,723 girls and 719 sex/gender variant.
Population in 1 A.E.
41,099,395 adult survivors (1 in 20 men/women, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 41,099,395 = 821,988 sex/gender variant
..... 40,277,407 men and women left
..... 2,013,870 men to 38,263,537 women
45,151,500 youth survivors (1 in 10 boys/girls, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 45,151,500 = 903,030 sex/gender variant
..... 44,248,470 boys and girls left
..... 4,424,847 boys to 39,823,623 girls
37,444,374 children
..... 2% of 37,444,374 = 748,887 sex/gender variant
..... 36,695,487 boys and girls left
..... 3,669,549 boys to 33,025,938 girls
7,707,126 teens
..... 2% of 7,707,126 = 154,143 sex/gender variant
..... 7,552,983 boys and girls left
..... 755,298 boys to 6,797,685 girls
There were 35,967 surviving births in 0 A.E. consisting of 3,525 boys to 31,723 girls and 719 sex/gender variant.
Ages 0-4 = 12,500,690 (1 in 10 boys/girls, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 12,500,690 = 250,014 sex/gender variant
..... 12,250,676 boys and girls left
..... 1,225,068 boys to 11,025,608 girls
Ages 5-11 = 22,078,438 (1 in 10 boys/girls, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 22,078,438 = 441,568 sex/gender variant
..... 21,636,870 boys and girls left
..... 2,163,687 boys and 19,473,183 girls
Ages 12-14 = 4,316,535 (1 in 10 boys/girls, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 4,316,535 = 86,331 sex/gender variant
..... 4,230,204 boys and girls left
..... 423,020 boys and 3,807,184 girls
Ages 15-17 = 2,144,548 (1 in 10 boys/girls, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 2,144,548 = 42,891 sex/gender variant
..... 2,101,657 boys and girls left
..... 210,166 boys and 1,891,491 girls
Ages 18-24 = 3,173,017 (1 in 20 men/women, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 3,173,017 = 63,460 sex/gender variant
..... 3,109,557 men and women left
..... 155,478 men and 2,954,079 women
Ages 25-64 = 29,339,826 (1 in 20 men/women, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 29,339,826 = 586,797 sex/gender variant
..... 28,753,029 men and women left
..... 1,437,651 men and 27,315,378 women
Ages 65+ = 6,841,341 (1 in 20 men/women, 1 in 50 sex/gender variant)
..... 2% of 6,841,341 = 136,826 sex/gender variant
..... 6,704,515 men and women left
..... 335,226 men and 6,369,289 women
Births in 1 A.E.
Ages 12-14, 15-17, 18-24, and 25-64 have fertile adults. Younger and older ages have negligible fertility. Surviving birth rate in 1 A.E. ~ 10 per 1,000 (very low). Ratio of surviving infants was 1 in 10 boys/girls and 1 in 50 sex/gender variant. There were 359,670 surviving births in 1 A.E. consisting of 35,248 boys to 317,229 girls and 7,193 sex/gender variant
Births in 1 A.E.
Ages 12-14 = 3,807,184 girls
..... 3,807,184 ÷ 1,000 = 3,807
..... 3,807 x 10 = 38,070 surviving births
..... 761 sex/gender variant
..... 37,309 boys and girls left
..... 3,731 boys to 33,578 girls
Ages 15-17 = 1,891,491 girls
..... 1,891,491 ÷ 1,000 = 1,891
..... 1,891 x 10 = 18,910 surviving births
..... 378 sex/gender variant
..... 18,532 boys and girls left
..... 1,853 boys to 16,679 girls
Ages 18-24 = 2,954,079 women
..... 2,954,079 ÷ 1,000 = 2,954
..... 2,954 x 10 = 29,540 surviving births
..... 591 sex/gender variant
..... 28,949 boys and girls left
..... 2,895 boys and 26,054 girls
Ages 25-64 = 27,315,378 women
..... 27,315,378 ÷ 1,000 = 27,315
..... 27,315 x 10 = 273,150 surviving births
..... 5,463 sex/gender variant
..... 267,687 boys and girls left
..... 26,769 boys to 240,918
359,670 surviving births in 1 A.E.
..... 7,193 sex/gender variant
..... 352,477 boys and girls left
..... 35,248 boys to 317,229 girls
There were 35,967 surviving births in 0 A.E. consisting of 3,525 boys to 31,723 girls and 719 sex/gender variant.
Population Impacts
The apocalypse has caused a population bottleneck for humans in former North America. Scientists debate the "minimum viable population" for species, and the estimates for humans are especially diverse: from around 98 to 500, to 5,000 for a buffer against disaster, and 10,000-40,000 for optimum colonization. It would take at least 10,000 to restart a Victorian level of civilization, and probably around 100 million to 1 billion to sustain a modern level. However, the population of 86,250,895 as of 1 A.E. was far above even the most conservative estimate for MVP. That said, the population has been widely scattered in small groups, which makes survival for any one group much more precarious. Many are below even the most optimistic MVP of 98, and almost all are below the more realistic 500. Some After societies are bigger, but those people aren't all living together in the same place, although they may be available to each other for reproductive purposes. Travel and exchange of mates will be absolutely essential for long-term survival. The smaller the group, the more it will rely on those interactions.
By the year 1 A.E. the proportion of male to female among teen and younger survivors (45,151,500) was about 1 in 10, or 4,515,150 boys to 40,636,350 girls. The proportion in adult survivors (41,099,395) was about 1 in 20, or 2,054,970 men and 39,044,425 women. The surviving birth rate was about 10 per 1,000 (very low). By 15 A.E. the proportion of male to female infants one year after birth is up around 1 in 5, and improvement has slowed to a crawl, likely due to the fragility of the Y chromosome. That means any male death has a disproportionate impact, and the ratio can easily drop back down to 1 in 10. The balance is slow to recover, and it may never get back to the 49 in 51 ratio of men to women that it used to be. The surviving birth rate is up to 20 per 1,000 (still low) and continuing to creep upward. As the death rate is higher After than Before, while the birth rate is lower, the population is probably still dwindling slowly. It should stabilize in the next several years, and then begin to climb as people stake out more of a civilization in the Aftermath. Society is still scrambling to catch up with what all of that may mean for interpersonal relationships and social responsibilities.
Factors that tend to lower the surviving birth rate:
* The Grunge and other environmental contaminants undermine fertility and viability.
* Depression, PTSD, and other mental issues often suppress libido and also the energy needed to raise infants effectively.
* Teen mothers and mature mothers have a lower chance of successful reproduction. Peak success is 20s-30s.
* There just aren't many males to go around, and not everyone wants to share. They also suffer from lower fertility at extremes of the age spectrum, and lower survivability in general. That Y-chromosome fragility is a serious problem.
* Low and poor food supply undermines fertility and survival.
* Lack of medical care risks death of mother and/or child from complications of pregnancy and childbirth.
Factors that tend to raise the surviving birth rate:
* Almost dying makes most humans want to fuck.
* Lots of survival sex happens during and after an apocalypse.
* A significant amount of rape also occurs, but a lot less than the apocalyptic average due to a severe shortage of testosterone.
* Little birth control remains. What's left (expired synthetic condoms or pills, animal gut condoms, herbal preparations, rhythm method, early withdrawal, etc.) are unreliable with the exceptions of abstinence and nonprocreative sexual acts (oral sex, anal sex, etc.).
* Many people actively seek to boost the diminished population.
* Pregnant women and infants (especially the rare males) tend to be particularly coddled, protected, and given the best remaining supplies available.
About 2-5% of the population is sex/gender variant. They may have male, female, mixed, or neuter physical traits and any combination of gender identity and social role. However, they are less often fertile and reproductive compared to the conventional male-female population. Their most common contributions to repopulation are helping with childcare and adopting orphan or abandoned children. Society is still trying to figure out how to fit this into a rapidly shifting sex/gender dynamic.
These factors have combined to wipe out a lot of the Before culture, with the After culture developing into something quite different. It also diverges from most postapocalyptic settings dominated by hypermuscular, hypersexual heroic men with a few women on the side. Those types almost all died out in the Grunge. Instead this setting is dominated by women, mostly young, of diverse races; plus a few men and other genders.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-02-09 04:57 am (UTC)As for the math, I think the general trends posited sound reasonable, whatever the fiddly equations say. And the patterns seem to reasonably correlate.
Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-09 05:50 am (UTC)It would depend on which entity(s) targeted which group(s) in each area. This likely varies somewhat, but the end result is probably a very small population in each area. A lot of those populations probably do feature the underdogs more than the overlords, but not necessarily all will do that -- sometimes people just want to wipe out the folks they hate, rather than the ones who are most threatening.
>> (Of course this is complicated by the fact that race is a social construct that cannot be definitively mapped in the genome...and that racial constructs vary extremely widely across cultures.) <<
There actually are some features that map pretty closely to population groups. Thing is, they aren't the features that people typically notice, but obscure things like ear wax texture and tooth funneling. These markers can be used for things like determining whether the remains in the mass grave constitute a probable act of genocide against a given ethnic group or something else.
That said, I've spent days building the former North America setting. Let's play with that for a while to feel out the world, before setting me up to do a bunch more sociology and math somewhere else.
>> As for the math, I think the general trends posited sound reasonable, whatever the fiddly equations say. And the patterns seem to reasonably correlate. <<
Yay!
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-09 06:19 am (UTC)Don't worry, it's just my tendency to go poking at an interesting idea to see what will happen.
Good for annoying teachers, confusing most other people, and occasionally coming up with some really good new ideas!
(And most post apocalyptic stuff only has hazy rumors, if anything, about what is 'out there, in the great beyond,' which would be Truth in Television if all our post-1800s tech got knocked out anyway.)
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-09 01:18 pm (UTC)China, India, Indonesia, and the rest of the "Pacific Theater" have far higher population density than North America, but were they bombed in the same way as North America, and if so with the Grunge or with a different set of biochemical compounds?
Also, nuclear reaction powerplants- there are 2 in driving distance just in my area, they're common in North America did they all melt down because of lack of proper upkeep? if so we are also needing to look at the effects of a concurrent mass nuclear fallout on top of the Grunge....which also messes with genetic information, chromosomal mutation, pregnancy viability and long term health...
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-09 07:47 pm (UTC)I could see 'fallout zones' reforesting, a la the Black Forest of Germany or the wolf-infested woods of European fairytales.
Incidentally, apocalypse (particularly pandemics, as they severely cut population and disrupt agrarian civilizations) tend to result in reforesting which can cause temperature drops in global climate. (See reforesting of Europe after the Black Death, and cimate change after the cocoliztli epidemic in Mesoameica in 1545.)
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-11 08:31 am (UTC)I could see 'fallout zones' reforesting, a la the Black Forest of Germany or the wolf-infested woods of European fairytales. <<
Everything is rewilding. With a much smaller number of humans, trees regrow and wildlife flourishes. They'll take some local damage from fires, chemical spills, etc. but overall the world is much better without humans and it recovers astoundingly fast. Nobody expected the wildlife boom in Chernobyl -- even I didn't, this level of resilience is atypical but delightful.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-11 08:28 am (UTC)Yeah, if they used the same kind goal of wiping out combat-capable adults. I'm not sure whether everyone went with similar goals, there may be some variation.
>>China, India, Indonesia, and the rest of the "Pacific Theater" have far higher population density than North America, but were they bombed in the same way as North America, and if so with the Grunge or with a different set of biochemical compounds?<<
There would have to be some differences, partly because of different genetics, but also because the different countries were mostly independent. A block of allies might have used the same arsenal, but not everyone.
Come to think of it, the easiest way to hit India wouldn't be through the air, but the water supply. O_O
>>Also, nuclear reaction powerplants- there are 2 in driving distance just in my area, they're common in North America did they all melt down because of lack of proper upkeep? if so we are also needing to look at the effects of a concurrent mass nuclear fallout on top of the Grunge....which also messes with genetic information, chromosomal mutation, pregnancy viability and long term health... <<
I don't think so. I'm not seeing signs of widespread nuclear contamination. Remember that the Grunge was the last blow of the apocalypse, not the first. The world got hammered by natural disasters, refugees, and wars for a while before people really went apeshit and bombed each other to gravel.
I already know that some zookeepers transferred animals to rural sanctuaries or quietly released them. They wouldn't have been the only people to realize that things were getting really bad. In that situation, it would make sense to make a controlled shutdown of nuclear plants so that, in case of catastrophe, they wouldn't melt down.
Hopefully some of the other critical facilities also got shut down. There are a lot of things besides nuclear plants -- chemical factories, for instance -- that can't be abandoned safely. Some things would cook off and catch fire. How bad that situation got would depend on how many people correctly anticipated that they might be unable to continue support and thus chose to shut down, vs. how many tried to stick it out.
There are some great references where people looked at civilization and how things would break down if humans "suddenly disappeared." They left out the predictable problems caused by mountains of corpses, and focused on things like houses, roads, dams, etc. It is interesting to compare some differences in their predictions of when and how things will fail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath:_Population_Zero
http://www.documentarymania.com/player.php?title=Aftermath%20Population%20Zero
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_After_People
https://lifeafterpeople.fandom.com/wiki/Timeline
I get the impression that some of this occurred, but not as much as in scenarios where all humans disappeared instantly. The fires in particular would happen in many cities, but not everywhere and not all at once. I expect some chemical plants cooked off, but others would either have shut down earlier -- from foresight or lack of supplies, etc. -- and the remaining ones probably had more failsafes built in to allow shutdowns without human help. It was just too likely that war or disaster would leave people unable to manage a shutdown, and they could foresee the problems of uncontrolled system failure.
A combination of this contributes to cities being unsafe for a long time, and to the general hardships on survival. Ironically, the less industrial a city, the lower the chance of it burning to the ground from technology run amok.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-11 03:50 pm (UTC)1) Look along any mountains/mountain ranges; unless they figured out how to weaponize acid rain the mountain springs should be safeish. (Also anyone using rain barrels, but that might not be common in that part of the world...)
2) Some people might have higher resistance, but that would lead into point #3. Also higher resistance is not immunity...
3) No- one will want to be anywhere near, downstream, or downwind of any sort of population center for a year to a couple years at least, because mass deaths that cannot be cleaned up are bad for community health (and that's before we get into any emotional or spiritual effects).
>>There would have to be some differences, partly because of different genetics, but also because the different countries were mostly independent.<<
I'd wonder who went after the US in this setting. (Given what happened some group stealing and deploying a US made weapon seems likely.)
I'd have expected a long-time enemy to use something...a bit more embarrassing. And then pull an I will Taunt You. ("Look, you finally get your action hero zombie flick!")
>>They left out the predictable problems caused by mountains of corpses,...
Look up death wagons during plague ("Bring out your dead!") and the numbering system used at Andersonville to mark graves (they know who almost everyone is.)
I wonder if there is an easy way to mark a corpse/large grave re:identity and CoD. (Driveres liscence? A spray-painted stone slab tossed in before the dirt?)
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-25 05:06 am (UTC)True.
>> the mountain springs should be safeish. <<
Unless someone poisons the aquifers like what's happening here by sheer negligence.
>> (Also anyone using rain barrels, but that might not be common in that part of the world...) <<
Actually India goes for stepwells. Imagine a rainbarrel the size of a castle tower, sunk the ground, with a staircase around the rim. It fills during the monsoon season and there's usually enough to get through the dry season ... though by the end, it's a long-ass hike down to the water level.
>> 2) Some people might have higher resistance, but that would lead into point #3. Also higher resistance is not immunity... <<
That's true in general -- nothing kills everything.
>> 3) No- one will want to be anywhere near, downstream, or downwind of any sort of population center for a year to a couple years at least, because mass deaths that cannot be cleaned up are bad for community health <<
That's why:
* All the cities that got bombed have been abandoned, with nothing closer than communes just beyond the former fringes.
* The rat population boomed, and they've gotten bigger. I'm not sure if it's a mutagenic effect from all the chemicals or just a massive food supply with little competition and rodent generations of 2-3 months. :/
>> (and that's before we get into any emotional or spiritual effects). <<
It shows in the language:
Angeleno -- a person who died (or was lost and presumed dead) in the End or shortly afterwards. It has effectively become a synonym for "angel" as in a departed soul. It came from the term "Angeleno" for a native or inhabitant of Los Angeles, a heavily bombed area with almost no survivors.
Frisco -- short for San Fransisco. As it was among the most heavily bombed areas, few of its residents survived, and it is still unsafe to go there. It has effectively become a synonym for "hell."
Hell A -- the ruins of Los Angeles, from "hell" and the former city's initials "L.A."
>> I'd wonder who went after the US in this setting. <<
It may well have been a group of nations. World wars tend to wind up with coalitions and subgroups. I get the impression that many countries were squabbling over territory and resources in the face of natural disasters and refugee torrents.
>> (Given what happened some group stealing and deploying a US made weapon seems likely.) <<
I agree, that's unlikely.
>> I'd have expected a long-time enemy to use something...a bit more embarrassing. And then pull an I will Taunt You. ("Look, you finally get your action hero zombie flick!") <<
I doubt people had that much humor left by them. The situation was pretty grim for a while before the bombs started falling.
>> I wonder if there is an easy way to mark a corpse/large grave re:identity and CoD. (Driveres liscence? A spray-painted stone slab tossed in before the dirt?) <<
The military used dogtags for that reason. Driver's license or other plastic ID is a good bet because it will degrade slowly. If you have time to make a written record, wrap the logbook in layers of plastic and drop it in.
But almost none of the angelenos were buried. It was too dangerous; everyone was running for their lives. There was nobody left alive in the city centers. Probably the only ones who got buried were those who left with or found a group of survivors, but succumbed to their injuries days or weeks later.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-10 03:21 am (UTC)I understand the temptation.
>> Good for annoying teachers, confusing most other people, and occasionally coming up with some really good new ideas! <<
LOL yes.
>> (And most post apocalyptic stuff only has hazy rumors, if anything, about what is 'out there, in the great beyond,' which would be Truth in Television if all our post-1800s tech got knocked out anyway.) <<
Well, that varies a lot. Maps, which America has in abundance, remain very useful items for a long time. Aspects include:
* Major features change very slowly. The shapes of continents, locations of major lakes, etc. will stay the same. So will locations of former cities.
* Modern paved roads will last up to around 25 years with low or no maintenance before they start getting worse than many vehicles can handle. Their maximum lifespan is around 40-50 years before they really need replacing, even with maintenance.
Currently, people are doing their best to maintain roads in active use, which is a tiny portion of the former network. Unused roads will degrade. But there's a huge difference in speed based on environment. A jungle can swallow a road completely in just a few years. A forest probably takes at least 10-20 of no traffic before the road gets hard to find. In much of the temperate area, the fragments will probably remain findable -- and followable -- for much longer than they remain driveable. But out west, where it's hot and dry, with little or no assault from snow and salt, the roads could last a lot longer, especially in terms of being able to find and follow them.
This matters immensely, because once the road goes, it becomes a great deal harder to locate places that used to be along it. Also, it is a giant pain in the ass to hike through the wilderness with a dirt drill, trying to find the fucking road that went somewhere now vital to reach. And that's what it takes in a lot of places by the time you're 50-100 years after the crash.
* What can change very fast is the social arrangements. Just 15 A.E. the whole political structure of North America is completely different. Some remnant borders still influence the shape of the new territories, but others are creating their own borders. There's a very dramatic Navajo-Pueblo squabble heating up in the southwest (which is not new, but was cold for centuries).
* Another thing that can change fast, but usually takes a few years to build up, is failure-based alterations of the landscape. Humans have installed a great deal of infrastructure to move or maintain things, especially water. Levies will be among the first things to go, because they're just not that strong and they take a lot of pressure from storms. Hell, by 15 A.E. the Mississippi could well have shook off its harness and hauled ass downhill from New Orleans -- that would likely happen with the first really big storm, and 15 years is a pretty long stretch to go without one.
A lot of places that rely on drainage systems will start clogging and refilling with water, anywhere from a few years to a few decades depending on how much maintenance the stuff requires and how recently it was upgraded.
Dams will break, and those make huge changes. You never want to be downstream of a dam after an apocalypse. Sooner or later they all break, and the floods can be devastating. Though honestly, if you don't need them for electricity at your level of tech and you do need food, you're better off breaking most of them. The few surviving salmon and other anadramous fish will quickly recolonize a freed river.
* What you don't know, and what is critical to find out after an apocalypse, is what resources are in reach and what your neighbors are doing. You really need to know what survived and what didn't. If someone has a tampon production or battery factory, you need to know that. If a former lake is now a free-flowing river, you need to know that. If a former hobby reserve is now 25 acres of oakmast raining acorns that attract vast herds of deer, you need to know that. So scouts and explorers are critical personnel.
* Also within 10-25 years of the apocalypse, you need to set up a new mating system, and this is much easier the earlier you do it than it will be later when people's ideas are entrenched again. You have to keep genes moving among small communities or you hit problems pretty quick. So you want to set up a spring or fall (or both) gather when people from several nearby communities mingle, allowing trade and the exchange of young singles. In order to do this, you need to know where the current settlements are, then figure out a good meeting place, which may be central or may rotate among the settlements.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-10 05:42 am (UTC)Patterns I see:
- In every community, some people are strictly local, some travel a bit, a few travel very far.
- The easier and safer travel is, the more people will do it. The more surplus stuff people have, the easier and safer travel will be.
- After an Event, or if there are few resources, most people will be local and use low-tech (feet, horses, maybe bikes). The community may pool resources, or have a local entrepreneur who has fancier stuff (the one motorized vehicle that gets used as everything from bus to ambulance to livestock-hauler...all at once.)
- Nature reclaims stuff faster than you'd think. (The primordial forest of fairy tales...grew after the Black Death hit Europe and reduced the need for farms...and the amount of people to keep the land clear.)
>>This matters immensely, because once the road goes, it becomes a great deal harder to locate places that used to be along it. <<
I went to college in a rural area, where if you missed the 'town's (crossroads wit 4 buildings) you could drive for a half hour before realizing you'd missed your turn.
I suspect that unless one is looking for something attatched to the road(s), it might eventually be easier to wayfinding the old-fashioned way: trigonometry, stars, and landmarks.
>>What you don't know, and what is critical to find out after an apocalypse, is what resources are in reach and what your neighbors are doing.<<
In reach for most stuff might be, what, a day's walk/ride. You'd likely want to know about the nearest big market (however it's been set up), and how people are getting around.
The tricky thing would be milita bands - if any of those are around, you'll want to know as far in advance as possible, and you'll want to know if they are agressive. (This would also depend on what tech they have vs what you have.)
Fortunately, most folk are fairly calm and predictable when settled into a familiar routine, and fringed by trusted relationships.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-11 08:04 pm (UTC)Often true. It varies by technology and society, though. In some cultures, there's almost no travel; in some, a lot; a few are nomadic. After an apocalypse, travel becomes difficult and dangerous. People will hunker if they can, or move around if it's the only option. In this case, a lot of people settle in whatever survivable place they can find, and those communities are mostly connected by nomadic traders, rather than muneys traveling.
>> - The easier and safer travel is, the more people will do it. The more surplus stuff people have, the easier and safer travel will be. <<
True.
>> - After an Event, or if there are few resources, most people will be local and use low-tech (feet, horses, maybe bikes). <<
Bicycles would be most popular in the years just after the End, when surfaces were still in decent repair. The more time passes, the less useful they'll get except for local use, and most communes aren't big enough to be worth bothering. Eventually, though bikes may make a comeback if people establish a good trail system; some bikes work fine on dirt paths.
>> The community may pool resources, or have a local entrepreneur who has fancier stuff (the one motorized vehicle that gets used as everything from bus to ambulance to livestock-hauler...all at once.) <<
Likely so.
>> - Nature reclaims stuff faster than you'd think. (The primordial forest of fairy tales...grew after the Black Death hit Europe and reduced the need for farms...and the amount of people to keep the land clear.) <<
No, I'm quite familiar with how fast it works, and especially, the variations. The high wet, like the Hoh Rainforest -- which I've actually seen in person -- will start swallowing things in just a year or two. Large parts of the southwest desert, which I've also seen though we didn't visit any ghost towns, will have recognizable remnants for centuries.
If you look in my Animals post, you'll see references to regrowth: by the time beavers come out of their reserves several years After, there are saplings everywhere. By 15 A.E. most of the east and midwest would be under 10-foot thickets of ... hmm, mostly maples and mulberries, or willows and cottonwoods where it's wet.
Another example: Houses would only remain habitable for a few years if not maintained. By 15 A.E. most of the abandoned ones would be in bad shape and much of their contents no longer useful. City buildings made of concrete, steel, glass, etc. would hold containment longer if not taken down by explosions or fire -- but in this setting, that's a hazard of its own.
>> I went to college in a rural area, where if you missed the 'town's (crossroads wit 4 buildings) you could drive for a half hour before realizing you'd missed your turn. <<
Yep. And out west, it's worse; the least populated areas have towns hours apart by car. Close to the coasts, there are cities, but in the Aftermath those are deserted, so with a few exceptions it amounts to the same thing: populations scattered widely.
>> I suspect that unless one is looking for something attatched to the road(s), it might eventually be easier to wayfinding the old-fashioned way: trigonometry, stars, and landmarks.<<
Two factors complicating this:
1) Early navigational methods have low precision. So the smaller something is, the harder it is to find by those means, and all the settlements are small now. Finding the ruins of a big city? No problem. Finding a commune that now covers 10 acres? Much harder.
2) It depends on what you're using for landmarks. Mountains are stable but imprecise. Rivers, lakes, waterways other than an ocean -- those can change based on shifts in technology. Cities, buildings, statues, trees -- these smaller-scale landmarks are even more prone to change.
>> In reach for most stuff might be, what, a day's walk/ride. You'd likely want to know about the nearest big market (however it's been set up), and how people are getting around. <<
Agreed. In the first years After, most people would have no surplus to trade. The traders would be folks scavenging for supplies, or dealing with scavengers. Markets would emerge only later -- probably several years at least -- as communes established themselves enough to have time and energy to reach out and connect with neighbors. The most knitted I've seen so far are the Pueblo communities, who absolutely depend on each other for survival against the Navajo. They probably established markets quickly among clusters of nearby settlements.
>> The tricky thing would be milita bands - if any of those are around, you'll want to know as far in advance as possible, <<
There are some, although not as many as typical of most post-apocalyptic settings, due to the Grunge killing almost everyone combat-capable.
>> and you'll want to know if they are agressive. <<
Some are, but this is much less common. They literally don't have the manpower. Like everything else here, the women greatly outnumber the men. So while there are some all-male or partly male armeys, there are more all-female ones. On average, women are less aggressive than men. In fact, the surviving men are less aggressive than average compared to Before men. By targeting sex hormones, the Grunge wiped out almost all the high-testosterone types. Afterwards, the only survivors of that type are those who were very young at the End or were in very isolated places. So there are far fewer of them. That means a key biological drive toward aggression is mostly missing.
Consequently, you see people banding together for support and sometimes raiding for supplies, but not the usual rape gangs and despots of most post-apocalyptic settings. I've only seen one ruthlessly expansionist society, the Navajo; and while I know there are violent armeys, I haven't actually spotted one yet.
>> (This would also depend on what tech they have vs what you have.) <<
Armeys consistently have more arsenal than muneys, and they are more focused on military skills, although a commune settled by survivalists would be more like a stationary military camp. Where muneys mostly attempt farming, armeys rely heavily on hunting and somewhat on gathering or trading. But an interesting twist of this locale, almost certainly because of its lower testosterone overall, is that by 15 A.E. a substantial number of those groups have paired off. As we saw in Little Sisters, there are now armeys connected to communes, which is typically a good deal for both groups.
>> Fortunately, most folk are fairly calm and predictable when settled into a familiar routine, and fringed by trusted relationships. <<
True. That would be undermined by all the trauma, but supported by the driving need to band together for survival -- a volatile and unpleasant mix. The lower testosterone overall will help keep serious fights to a minimum.
*ponder* And I think I just figured out how the Navajo got so powerful, so fast. It's not just that they started with a big reservation and cohesive culture isolated enough to take little damage. It's that they were already matriarchal. Unlike most cultures, they didn't have to convert. They had women leaders who could look at the clusterfuck modern society had left, and very quickly decide to put things back like they should be from the old days. They had every advantage to hit the ground running while everyone else was still picking themselves up, and that's exactly what happened.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-12 06:01 am (UTC)I think the first bicycles were used on unpaved roads, and I remember something about the military experimenting with bikes for troop transport in the 1870s [but I'm not sure if the source was reliable].
>>Yep. And out west, it's worse; the least populated areas have towns hours apart by car. <<
Add in several extra hours then; Afta cars and horses will be slower than Before vehicles.
>>Finding a commune that now covers 10 acres?<<
If the commune /wants/ to be found, there are ways to work around that, especially in areas with high visibility for several miles.
Smoke signals and drums have been used for long-distance communication, as have lights. A community could also set up some sort of moving sculpture with reflective baubles, or a very tall flagpole.
>>Consequently, you see people banding together for support and sometimes raiding for supplies, but not the usual rape gangs and despots of most post-apocalyptic settings. I've only seen one ruthlessly expansionist society, the Navajo; and while I know there are violent armeys, I haven't actually spotted one yet.<<
So more like bonobos than regular chimpanzees.
I wonder if the more aggressive armeys might have formed from milita-like groups active during the bombings - friendly neighborhood gangs, drug cartels, etc. Actual militaries wouldn't have inducted teenagers...I hope.
And I'm guessing that Maggot's original group was mostly younger survivors, and mostly all boys, who somehow imprinted on Before sexism. (Maybe the core group were siblings who had bad role models or something?)
Also, I don't think they're vicious - he seemed more arrogant, upset and confused than intentionally mean, or I-saw-I-hurt-you-and-I-don't-care mean.
>>As we saw in Little Sisters, there are now armeys connected to communes, which is typically a good deal for both groups.<<
Like the Hold-Craft-Wyer system on Pern, or the Sharamudoi in Earth's Children.
A big-game-hunter specialized armey could be interesting, especially given some of the discussion about rewilding elsewhere. (Hmmm...nomadic hunters on reindeer in Canada?)
>>It's that they were already matriarchal.<<
I'd check for that pattern elsewhere too. Most of America tends toward patriarchy, but there are at least a few subcultures that are either ruthlessly gender-equal, or tend towards matriarchy out of necessity (i.e. no/few men around). Some social setups (families in clan networks) might also have situational authourity that easily defaults to women.
And if you can hit the ground running, you can direct the emotional reactions in a more constructive manner and get more done.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-12 09:40 am (UTC)That makes sense. In any case, really smooth roads are a modern thing. Around here, many towns still have some brick streets.
>>Add in several extra hours then; Afta cars and horses will be slower than Before vehicles.<<
Or days, depending on locale.
>> If the commune /wants/ to be found, there are ways to work around that, especially in areas with high visibility for several miles. <<
That's true. It would be easy in relatively flat territory, but harder in hills or forests.
>> Smoke signals and drums have been used for long-distance communication, as have lights.<<
That's true.
>> A community could also set up some sort of moving sculpture with reflective baubles, or a very tall flagpole. <<
I love this idea! :D It's perfect for this setting. You wouldn't want to announce your presence if marauding bands were a common threat, but this is one post-apocalyptic setting where they aren't. The marauders I've seen are road raiders. They rarely attack a commune because they'd be outnumbered, even if armeys tend to have better arsenal than muneys -- and the muneys would have homefield advantage. Here, it's an advantage if traders can find your commune.
I'm thinking a good choice of material would be chrome, which is plentiful, shiny, and lasts for years. People could make something like a whirligig or a reflective sculpture whose shape could be recognized from a long distance, like a totem pole. One option would be to place that atop a grain elevator or other existing structure. Another would be to erect a pole -- there should be plenty of flagpoles, street lights, etc. to scavenge.
>> So more like bonobos than regular chimpanzees. <<
Yep.
>> I wonder if the more aggressive armeys might have formed from milita-like groups active during the bombings - friendly neighborhood gangs, drug cartels, etc. <<
Plenty of people would have started banding together as the world fell apart. It happens in all kinds of bad situations. Some of the groups are awful, but others are protective -- the Mafia started out as resistance groups fighting invaders.
>> Actual militaries wouldn't have inducted teenagers...I hope.<<
Child soldiers are common in civilizations that are falling apart, especially if it's gone on long enough to use up the adults. Teens are the slaves of choice in Africa today. By the end of WWII Germany was down to tweens.
Another source is army brats. Bases in America have housing for soldiers' families. When the Grunge hit, the adults would die off, leaving teens and children, maybe a few elders. The vast majority of people on base are combat-capable adults, the prime targets. So in the Aftermath, those youth survivors would be band together and probably maintain what they could of military culture. Some of them might also know where to find caches of supplies outside the bombed area, giving them access to better arsenal than average.
>> And I'm guessing that Maggot's original group was mostly younger survivors, and mostly all boys, who somehow imprinted on Before sexism. (Maybe the core group were siblings who had bad role models or something?) <<
I think they were military brats, a band formed out of a base. Maggot seems to have been the youngest surviving member.
>> Also, I don't think they're vicious <<
They're not vicious. They waited as long as they could for him to recover before the food was running out and they had to leave. They also paid handsomely for the caravan to keep him. A vicious group, seen in many post-apocalyptic settings, would abandon or even kill a weakened member.
>> he seemed more arrogant, upset and confused than intentionally mean, or I-saw-I-hurt-you-and-I-don't-care mean. <<
Yeah. He's miserable, he's stuck in a very different culture that doesn't fit, and he's wrecked over his family abandoning him. He's probably also terrified that the caravan will dump him; he doesn't know them well enough yet to trust that they won't, and he knows that he's not all that useful to them. So that makes Maggot pretty obnoxious.
>> Like the Hold-Craft-Wyer system on Pern, or the Sharamudoi in Earth's Children. <<
Yes, especially the Sharamudoi. I don't know if people will pick up the idea of cross-mates, but it would be a good idea. What they seem to be doing is splitting the hunter/farmer personalities into separate but interdependent groups. If they can create a symbiotic system instead of the constant battles that plagued history, it would be a huge improvement. The muneys do farming, food preservation, construction and maintenance of housing. The armeys do hunting, scouting, and defend against threats animal or human. It's a great relationship.
>> A big-game-hunter specialized armey could be interesting, especially given some of the discussion about rewilding elsewhere. <<
It seems likely. Many of the horse tribes went out fairly soon after the End and procured horses, some for local use, but others were like, "Fuck this whiteman shit, let's go back to the old ways." There's a whole Ghost Dance revival on the plains.
>> (Hmmm...nomadic hunters on reindeer in Canada?) <<
Well, reindeer are small, so like ostriches they would be limited to small riders. Youth herders might manage it. In any case, I know the caribou are among the fastest wildlife to replenish. They're prolific and had a good starting supply. The worst pressures on them were habitat loss and roads cutting their migration routes -- things that would fade very quickly after the End.
Given several small mounts (ostriches, llamas, caribou) suited to extreme environments, it's possible to establish a multiphase career path even at a low tech level. Used to see it in mining communities where children could fit where adults couldn't. Here, some groups would develop a tradition where tweens and teens would do scavenging, scouting, or mounted hunting before they outgrew the mounts, then switch to a different job as adults. It would shift perceptions of age: young children with few responsibilities, older children (taking on the role formerly held by adolescents), tweens to midteens as riders (acting as junior adults), childraising adults, and elders.
>> I'd check for that pattern elsewhere too. Most of America tends toward patriarchy, but there are at least a few subcultures that are either ruthlessly gender-equal, or tend towards matriarchy out of necessity (i.e. no/few men around). <<
That's true. A lot of native tribes were either matriarchal or equal, stances strongly supported by current context. Patriarchal ones will have a hard time holding onto that.
>> Some social setups (families in clan networks) might also have situational authourity that easily defaults to women. <<
True. The Aftermath in general is strongly inclined toward situational authority, because most groups rely on diverse skills. The usual way for someone to earn their way into a group is by offering a skill the group doesn't have. Among the highest demand are medics and mechanics, along with older people who can share knowledge that is now scarce. So Clearwater has an elder as the overall leader, but Wheeler drives the first truck on the road, Catcher handles medical matters, and so on.
>> And if you can hit the ground running, you can direct the emotional reactions in a more constructive manner and get more done. <<
Absolutely true. The main factor causing PTSD isn't the severity of trauma itself, but rather the feeling of helplessness. If you are prepared for emergencies, if you have emotional regulation and grief skills, then you can usually cope. Even if the situation overwhelms your capacity and you can't stop bad things from happening, just trying reduces the chance of crippling mental injury. In the Aftermath, that makes a big difference in who survives or not, and how functional they are afterwards.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-12 03:53 pm (UTC)Smooth roads were actually originally put in for bikes, not cars.
>>It would be easy in relatively flat territory, but harder in hills or forests.<<
It would be easy in relatively flat territory, but harder in hills or forests.<<
Drums/bells at regular intervals?
>>
Child soldiers are common in civilizations that are falling apart, especially if it's gone on long enough to use up the adults. <<
There'd also be a difference between a military group adopting orphans who would otherwise die and recruiting teens as new soldiers.
>>So in the Aftermath, those youth survivors would be band together and probably maintain what they could of military culture.<<
Especially if the older ones had wanted to enlist at eighteen.
>>They're not vicious. They waited as long as they could for him to recover before the food was running out and they had to leave. They also paid handsomely for the caravan to keep him. A vicious group, seen in many post-apocalyptic settings, would abandon or even kill a weakened member.<<
I'm not saying vicious-across-the-board, more... do they hurt folk and like it/not care? And do they hurt outsiders and like it/not care? Most groups will be supportive to and protective of their own folk, but less so to outsiders.
Sports teams, armies, gangs, and Immortan Joe's warboys can all be very affectionate and supportive of each other, while still being terrifyingly dangerous to outsiders.
There's a difference between "I haaate doing laundry," and "Doing laundry is dehumanizing, let me reassert myself with violence."
>>Well, reindeer are small, so like ostriches they would be limited to small riders.<<
They can carry adults, but maybe not gigantic adults. I wonder if one could also use sleds or wagons, or a mixed group of caribou and dogs as pack animals.
https://gearjunkie.com/reindeer-riders-tsaatan-mongolia
>>That's true. A lot of native tribes were either matriarchal or equal, stances strongly supported by current context. Patriarchal ones will have a hard time holding onto that.<<
Quakers are historically egalitarian, and tend towards older folks. I could see a small-town Meeting forming a social unit...and then picking up as many orphans as possible on top of whatever kids they already had. (Other churches might have formed a money base too.)
Also look at poor neighborhoods or ethnic minorities where menfolk are frequently elsewhere, other for work or in jail [which is stupid of society but does affect the social fabric if it goes on long enough].
I think some alternative lifestyles seem to be either essentially matriarchal, or gender-irrelevent with a focus on nurturing skills.
One could also look at organizations run for and by women. Grandmothers who get together every week to quilt, activists, escorts at abortion clinics...
>>Even if the situation overwhelms your capacity and you can't stop bad things from happening, just trying reduces the chance of crippling mental injury. In the Aftermath, that makes a big difference in who survives or not, and how functional they are afterwards.<<
Add in emotional suppourt and having realistic expectations. ("I can't fix everything but I can make this better.")
(no subject)
Date: 2021-03-07 08:38 pm (UTC)Since the existing food infrastructure would be pretty badly damaged if not destroyed outright, starvation would be a secondary death cause even in closer-to-self-sufficient rural communities, where even if they know how to grow food or hunt, they still rely on things from the local AG Depot.
For instance a man my family knew; while he'd moan all day long about "kids these days" thinking Milk came from the Store, thought my Great Grandpa Malcolm was nuts for what-all he folded into the dirt (wood ash, ground eggshell, and comfrey salad to name a few) when obviously soil amendments come in a bag from the Depot. It should be noted Malcolm was half-raised by his Native pseudo-kin, our family having moved to Oklahoma with the removals, to follow kin-by-marriage, and that guy (name forgotten on purpose) was a newcomer who'd had his farm there maybe a decade before the Dust Bowl finally proved Malcolm's point about babying the dirt every chance you get.
Thoughts
Date: 2021-03-07 09:48 pm (UTC)That depends on the context.
1) How functional is the tribe? A highly successful one relying on casino funds may respond more like a white community. The most damaged ones have little ability to pass on information. In the middle are the ones most likely to have an edge in this scenario.
2) How good is the land? And how similar is it to their traditional territory? Only a few tribes managed to retain any of their original holdings. Take someone like the Blackfeet or the Navajo, they're not only fine, they immediately bounced back once the white pressure was off and began expanding their territory. But most tribes were forcibly removed from their homes and put on the worst land the invaders could find. Those folks are in trouble ... if they stay. A number of tribes, or parts of tribes, responded very quickly by going horsecatching and then hoofing it for their traditional territory, because fuck that reservation shit. During the first year After, while the white people were swarming around like confused ants, a lot of natives were homing like pigeons.
Given that, the handful of people avidly into traditional foodways would indeed have an advantage, anywhere they could recognize the plants.
*ponder* I ought to look up how long it took the Salishkin to start dynamiting the smaller dams that would be easy to destroy, so they could have freerunning salmon again.
>> Since the existing food infrastructure would be pretty badly damaged if not destroyed outright, starvation would be a secondary death cause even in closer-to-self-sufficient rural communities, where even if they know how to grow food or hunt, they still rely on things from the local AG Depot. <<
The closer they are to self-sufficient, the less damage they'll take and the higher their chance for survival, because they'll have fewer things to make up on their own that they don't already have or know.
I started out doing the numbers for the Grunge and the first year After, because those were the most straightforward. I went ahead and calculated the losses for 1-4 A.E. and 5-14 A.E. so those are in this page of notes now.
>> For instance a man my family knew; while he'd moan all day long about "kids these days" thinking Milk came from the Store,<<
LOL no. Town kids aren't any dumber now than they were the year after humans invented towns. They're just dumb in different ways. My grandma said that town kids thought brown cows gave chocolate milk and you milked a cow by pumping her tail. The moment people stop having a cow, they forget how a cow works.
>> thought my Great Grandpa Malcolm was nuts for what-all he folded into the dirt (wood ash, ground eggshell, and comfrey salad to name a few) when obviously soil amendments come in a bag from the Depot. It should be noted Malcolm was half-raised by his Native pseudo-kin, <<
When I was growing up, we buried fish scraps in the garden, and my mother bought fish emulsion too -- courtesy of a Cherokee ancestor's wisdom passed down through family traditions. All these years later, I am still finding things that make me go, "Oh hey, that's where that came from!" when looking at Cherokee or other native customs.
Disagreeing...
Date: 2021-07-09 08:10 pm (UTC)1. See bombs.
2. Pick favorite scientist who knows--roughly, if need be--how to turn plants into medicine.
3. Haul ass, swiping the plant seeds from wherever needed to keep the scientist going.
4. Find base. Set up scientist. Start trade with locals, using local plants and animals to get some food going while the scientist does their thing.
5. After a rough period of no pills, hopefully carefully managed, get pills again. To be honest this probably won't be longer than a few weeks if the scientist knows what they're doing--not dangerous for most people, just really uncomfortable.
And ta-da, you have medicine. It may be the parts of the world you're dealing with haven't swiped a scientist or two, but given what you've shown, it makes a lot more sense that they survived the Grunge, since they'd bail into rural areas with the people they're making medicine for.
(And honestly, even without that, some categories of medicine--like psych meds--aren't for lethal illnesses. You spend more time actively fixing up your brain without them, but it won't kill you to be minus your medications, just make you really hate whoever blew up the f*cking factories.)
Re: Disagreeing...
Date: 2021-07-30 10:51 pm (UTC)That depends on what medication(s) is required, what it is made from, how complicated it is to manufacture, and whether there is a natural substitute (e.g. willowbark for aspirin). It also matters whether the user will die, be crippled, or merely be uncomfortable without it; and how long they have to procure a new supply before that happens. You also have to know not only what your medication is but what it's made from, and possibly also some idea of how it's made if can't source a pharmacist-scientist. Consider also that some people depend on multiple medications, not just one. Some of them are not going to make it.
>> Why? Because me, and a lot of other mentally ill people, already have a post-apocalyptic survival plan that goes like this:<<
Planning ahead is an excellent idea.
>>2. Pick favorite scientist who knows--roughly, if need be--how to turn plants into medicine.<<
That will work for plant-based medicines, and also animal-based ones like insulin. For the chemical-based ones, you need a source of refined chemicals and a lab capable of advanced processes. A lot of that won't be available.
Another problem is that few places train to produce "scientists" anymore. Most specialize; many hyperspecialize. You need at least a chemist, because a physicist won't help much; and an industrial chemist will be little use either.
Also, consider the demographics. The Grunge preferentially kills straight, white, male adults: almost the entirety of the scientific community. (This may be less of an issue in other apocalypses. Or not, if people decide that's who is to blame and the mobs kill them.)
>> it makes a lot more sense that they survived the Grunge, since they'd bail into rural areas with the people they're making medicine for. <<
Most chemists live either in a city (e.g. college town) or right outside it (where the factories are). Few if any of the former will survive. Some of the latter might. Botanists, biologists, geologists, etc. on field trips are among the more likely surviving scientists. I've spotted multiple groups, like the girl scouts and the Fairchildren, who survived because they were in the wild when the bombs fell; it's likely that some science teams would do likewise. But that's usually not chemists.
>> (And honestly, even without that, some categories of medicine--like psych meds--aren't for lethal illnesses. You spend more time actively fixing up your brain without them, but it won't kill you to be minus your medications, just make you really hate whoever blew up the f*cking factories.) <<
That's true, but pills aren't the only life-sustaining technology. Anyone who needs breathing assistance has an extremely short fuse and low life expectancy. They routinely die in heat waves, smog waves, and power outages now let alone after the End. Think about pacemakers, seizure suppression implants, and so on -- those have limited batteries and functional parts that assume replacement is an option. Everyone who's had a transplant of any kind is a walking dead man. And so on.
Re: Disagreeing...
Date: 2021-08-01 03:25 am (UTC)