What would happen if?...

[Loney 22]

It's 2012 on a planet exactly same as Earth, with some exceptions...

-Human population: 11.6 billion

-Fossil fuel supply: Estimated to last less than five years if fuel consumption doesn't decrease (and it won't), almost completely depleted. You get the idea of how much greenhouse gas was emitted.

-Clean water supply: Less than 50% of it remain due to a combination of extensive pollution, over-usage and rapidly changing climate.

-Alternative energy technology: While everything is in the 21st century, this field is still in the 1980's. Aka, still in infancy.

-Forests: 99% cleared, all of the rainforests have been cleared.

-Coral reefs and kelp forests: Extinct

-Oceans: All commercially harvested wild fish species are threatened or endangered due to a combination of massive overfishing and water pollution.

-Diseases: Many of the curable fungus/bacterial diseases are now incurable as most of them became super bugs, resistant to almost all antibiotics.

-Political situation: Like late 19th century Europe, aka, extreme nationalism throughout the world. Now throw in arrogant, incompetent, power-hungry leaders that rule major countries.

-Weapons technology: It's in the 2030's, aka, very advanced. Oh, and don't forget about massive stockpiles of WMDs.

I've been researching and trying to predict what would specifically happen to each major country (for example, what would happen in China or UK?), if all of the above occurred. I know for sure that WWIII would start while all of the countries experience severe political instability.

  Edited November 23, 2011 by Loney  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

In this scenario, you are running out of breathable air. Most of the oxygen sources have been destroyed. The Brazilian rain forest alone supplies 20% of the oxygen and the oceans supply most of the rest with the exception of the boreal forests in Canada. You have created an ELE scenario, and everyone will just suffocate including megalomaniac leaders. This is the way the world ends: not with a bang but a whimper.

[Cobraroll 138]

Unless there are greenhouses absolutely everywhere, massive food shortages. This would mean that only the richest few per mille can expect food on the table on any given day. I'm kind of questioning how the population could reach 11.6 billion under those conditions, but let's not dwell with that.

No forests or rain forest would mean that the Sahara is stretching from Milan to Cape Town (yes, that's Milan, Italy), from Dakar, Senegal to Punjab, Pakistan. That's pretty much all of Africa, the Arab Peninsula, and even parts of Iran. The population would be concentrated in major cities along the coast, as even the largest rivers would contain too little water to support human population. For now.

Most of the population would live in Northern Europe, Siberia or Canada. Billions would also live in cities along the Amazon river. Antarctica, independent or not, would also house a sizable population.

If a war was to break out, it would be fought over the major ice mines in Greenland and Antarctica. Expect tension between Scandinavia, with a population of hundreds of millions, and America, over who would keep Greenland. Residents of Iceland, around which the waters could still contain some fish, live in constant fear of American or Russian attacks on the Vatnajökull or the large air force base housing an Arctic branch of the European/Scandinavian military. Greenland would possibly be divided between Europe and America.

Russia would be a superpower, no doubt. The marshes of Siberia, the vast temperate areas of the Arctic, and the huge land area could support agriculture and water enough to feed the enormous population. I guess the same would go for Canada, while China and India would be a hellhole for everybody but the richest. After the glaciers melts, the rain in Himalaya would be very sought-after.

Just forget Australia. All desert, no water, no life. Large herbivores are gone because of the lack of plants, carnivores are gone because of the lack of prey. The largest surviving species would be lizards or snakes, living off insects who prey on ants eating fungi they grow underground. Had there still been people there, solar power could have provided ample power for desalination, but the technology, as you say, isn't there. No coral reefs also means no fish. In sum, it adds up to no food. In other words, no people. The last Australians would have died lonely as nobody would trade them any food. Perhaps a colony would have survived in Tasmania, though.

In short, you're describing a situation that would barely keep itself up, a society on the brink of collapse. Even with nobody going to war, and natural disasters taking a long break, I'd expect the population to half itself at least twice in a single year. Those 50 % without clean water would quickly die, not factoring in the transmittable diseases. Also, as Nonny said, lack of oxygen would be a problem. Pollution in the cities would kill the starved, the elderly and the young children. Then when fossil fuels run out, even the war machine would stop.

However, once some 95 % of the population are gone (say, in about five to ten years), the hardy survivors would benefit from the desperate last-ditch solutions initiated by the dying peoples. Greenland would be a quite nice place to be for the time being, and there would be "islands of life" in other places as well (Antarctica, northern Norway, Himalaya, Alaska, etc), where survivors could found a sustainable society. Though, it would take thousands of years for Earth to revert back to normal. The mild winters would make it easier for the survivors to survive, though.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ some very good points. The scenario is totally unsustainable. It would be true that the surviving homo sapiens would have become stronger. In fact they would likely become a different species, because only the strongest would survive and these would likely have the necessary mutations to resist the virulent pathogens we have created these days. If man did not survive, then nature would simply fill the vacuum left when various species died out. You might not like what you get next.

[Meg 368]

In those conditions, some sort of disease would kill off a large percentage of the population. Those that are left would have some natural immunity. Then you can write your own version of Stephen King's "The Stand".

[emperordaniel 1,281]

Most likely, as the above said, most of the population, poor or rich, would die off before they can start a war The remaining ones would be too far apart to declare war (or would not have any weapons left to begin with)

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Your scenario is impossible. The answer is "mu." The only way a population could reach over 10 billion would be through building vertical farms, which are green technology that did not exist in the 1980s.

Here is a more regional scenario that would start WWIII (because the population would already have been decimated decades before your 2012 through a combination of disease, starvation, and war):

The year is 2020. All easily accessible petroleum has been used up and 1/2 of all easily accessible coal has as well. All old growth forests have been chopped down while all tree based products are made from commercial tree farms and plantations. Most wildlife are extinct and coral reefs bleached. All fish fit for consumption is grown in farms (most likely high rise aquaponics). Most ice caps have already melted so sea levels have risen over 50 meters. Nationalism is very high. The US merged with Canada when most of southern US had become inhospitable and hostile from gangs and drugs.

  Edited November 25, 2011 by OcramSeattle  

[Alejandro24 575]

The conditions doesn't need a war to exterminate mostly part of the population. The last condition says: Many of the curable fungus/bacterial diseases are now incurable as most of them became super bugs, resistant to almost all antibiotics. That's enough for a pandemic disease and kill mostly part of the population. Taking that there are no forests, where will come the oxygen and how will continue the cycle of the water? Another reason for a massive extermination. Briefly this conditions are not good for a story.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Once the petroleum reserves are down to the levels you say the air will be much more clean due to lack of the billions of vehicles that were spewing exhaust in the air.The damage is already done though,that 11B will be 5B or less in a few years under your conditions.

then it will start to recover as vast areas are left practically empty of people.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Vast areas would also be left underwater because most ice caps would have melted.

[Loney 22]

Redid the conditions:

-Human population: 9.6 billion

-Fossil fuel supply: Estimated to last less than 20 years if fuel consumption doesn't decrease (and it won't), almost completely depleted. You get the idea of how much greenhouse gas was emitted. Distribution of fuel have been disrupted, especially when countries that still have some fuel reserves are hoarding them.

-Clean water supply: Less than 50% of it remain due to a combination of extensive pollution, over-usage and rapidly changing climate.

-Alternative energy technology: While everything is in the 21st century, this field is still in the 1980's. Aka, still in infancy.

-Forests: Almost all tropical and deciduous forests were cleared within a decade, primarily for more farmland. Coniferous forests took less hit, although some of it have been cleared

-Coral reefs and kelp forests: Mostly extinct, except for a few handful of them that simply, won't, die.

-Oceans: All commercially harvested wild fish species are threatened or endangered due to a combination of massive overfishing and water pollution.

-Diseases: Many of the curable fungus/bacterial diseases are now incurable as most of them became super bugs, resistant to almost all antibiotics.

-Political situation: Like late 19th century Europe, aka, extreme nationalism throughout the world. Now throw in arrogant, incompetent, power-hungry leaders that rule major countries.

-Weapons technology: It's in the 2030's, aka, very advanced. Oh, and don't forget about massive stockpiles of WMDs.

  Edited November 24, 2011 by Loney  

[Easy Bakes 253]

Are we allowed to change horses mid stream?

[emperordaniel 1,281]

Much of the world (including many major cities) will be underwater by this time, as most of the Antarctican and Arctic ice will have melted. Thus, there will be millions of displaced people, and whole continents might be split up by the rising sea (ex: much of Europe cut off from the rest of Eurasia by a vast, shallow sea)

[Cobraroll 138]

Antarctica won't melt away any time soon. Too big, too cold. Greenland, on the other hand...

Also, these conditions seem to be a little better. Still quite dangerous. This is more an extinction event waiting to happen, rather than happening at the moment.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

There would probably be different nations because of redistribution of resources and rising sea levels. At least half of the ice caps and glaciers would be melted if forests have been chopped down and petroleum has run out. So the water levels would be comparable to those of Anno 2070. Different political borders would further cultivate nationalism and xenophobia.

[emperordaniel 1,281]

There might be a war over the vast resources under the Arctic Ocean, as the waters will be almost completely clear by then, with only an occasional iceberg perhaps; and as this would be one of the last places on Earth where oil is still in good supply, the war will probably be quite fierce, although quite short as well.

Worst-case scenario for the outcome of that war: The Arctic coastline is rendered uninhabitable for decades, possibly centuries, from widespread use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and neither side (or, as the possibility of a multiple-side war is high, sides) wins.