How much of the world could die without civilization ending?

[Rafael]

So,I was bored at work the other day when someone asked how much, as a percentage, of the world we thought could spontaneously die without humanity basically being rolled into the stone age. The percentage would be evenly spread out throughout the world(as opposed to, say if you said 10% China taking the whole hit). Thought it made for an interesting topic so I thought I'd try it out here.

[Rem-13]

I suppose that would depend on what you consider civilization, and the nature of their deaths. The only way I see civilization (as I consider it) being completely stamped out is if you had something along the lines of what happened in A Canticle for Leibowitz, where there was a devastating nuclear war and then a resultant 'anti-intellectual' fervor that actively sought to erase what was left of the past, and I don't see that being realistically (lalz) comprehensive enough. Even if 90% of the world died of a sudden illness there'd be enough infrastructure left so that after the initial deaths that the generations afterward could rebuild (if they survived at all).

Civilization is deeply embedded in our culture, we'd institute it at a local level; tribal and then upwards as population recouped.

[Rafael]

I'm more thinking of what it would take for civilization and technology to pretty much stop advancing for the most part. There'd be a point where people aren't producing and culturefying and instead scavenging on the old system. I'm pretty sure the percentage is significant, in the ballpark of 50% imo.Anything less and a lot of the hits would probably even be good for humanity as a whole.

[Orsalis]

I think if people just spontaneously died, with no real threat to respond to, say like, a plague or zombies or some shit, I'd say that only about 20-30% of the population would have to remain to keep a complete social structure as it is now. I mean, if you dipped lower, there would still be some ATTEMPT at it, but I doubt we'd have enough manpower or universal skills to be able to run everything.

Might actually be nice if 80% of people just went away >_>

[Alexander Trafford]

Outside of advancing technologically, how much is civilization actually advancing right now? Socially I don't think humans have advanced in ages, except as a reaction to laws and culture, but I don't think those areas have really advanced, only changed as societal structure has changed, mainly from dictatorships to democracies since the enlightenment. So, I mean, until a new groundbreaking political/societal philosophy causes an incredible shift in thought (for instance, the idea that the people should have the power, or whatever spurred this idea democracy and democratic republics and republics and whatnot) then nothing will change how we view each other socially or whatever, and civilization, for the most part, will not advance.

So, the biggest variable for me would be technological advancement, which has been the only actual cause of civilizational advancement, in my opinion, in a long time. The bomb changed everything, then the internet changed everything, and now everything is becoming an offshoot of the direct, immediate gratification that the internet allowed. What would it take to stop that advancement? A massive, global tragedy that finally shed light on the idea that technology is a very, very dangerous double edged sword. As we advance, we also advance the capabilities of everyone to kill anyone, and as that technology becomes more available, it becomes increasingly dangerous. So sometime, maybe not to far off, something terrible is going to happen. Perhaps terrorists will ascertain nuclear weapons from a country, perhaps Pakistan, when that government collapses and warlords seize control (ala Somalia and, recently, Uzbekistan, though that may have been fixed) and then they will do something terrible with those weapons, and, as a reaction, governments will hold all technology deemed dangerous incredibly close to their chests, which will slow the advancement of technology for the masses. Either that or such an attack will trigger a mass anti-technology sentiment among the public, which won't happen because we are spoiled, selfish creatures, and then I'm not sure what will happen.

Something terrible would need to happen.