If two-thirds of our population gets eliminated due to a major catastrophe who would be the survivors?

Question

Sorry but it's not a trick question...

Answer 1

It would depend on the nature of the catastrophe.

Answer 2

The fat people, who can survive a food shortage.

The clever people, who can figure out ways to survive, and get organised.

The physically fit and young.

The men.

Those not tied by rules (able to commit criminal acts to survive).

Whenever there's any kind of disaster the majority of the survivors are fit young men, who overcome social programming and ruthlessly tread all over everyone else to get out or get what they need. Nasty, but true. The majority of the casualties are children, the elderly and infirm, then the women, and finally young men.

Most of the surviors would be in the rural areas though, as city dwellers wouldn't be able to grow food in the event of a global disaster.

Answer 3

I believe if that happens , the remaining one-third will suffer more than the eliminated two-thirds. The whole world will wear a sad look , there will be a huge vacuum , wealth or military might will not be of any use. I shudder at such an eventuality if at all this world has to pass through this.

Answer 4

The remaining one third. Ah ha, a trick question.

Answer 5

The cockroaches WIN!!!

Answer 6

Those who are smart enough to adapt, like homo sapiens did/do

Answer 7

Those who planned ahead for all conditions

Answer 8

Depends on the nature of the catastrophe... e.g highly contagious plague.. on the whole it would be random who dies.. the same if a comet hit the earth.. however with something like global warming which happens gradually and will probably eventually have this effect... the affluent will survive (due to having higher technology and resources to adapt to the changing environment e.g desalination, technologies for growing crops in harsh environments with GMO's etc..) and the rest of the world will become a progressively harsh and inhospitable place to live (concurrent with wider gaps between rich and poor in affluent societies.. the creation of a new underclass).. it's all very sad.

Answer 9

I think those who live in the upland area...

Answer 10

If not a trick question, lol, I'd personally say the rich people who will have access to all supplies & stuff.

If it is a trick question like Derail says, then I'll go with him..1/3rd will be left :p

Answer 11

It would depend on the nature of the catastrophe, and where that disaster is centrally located...

In most cases, people who live in rural, mountain areas, who are already pretty much self-sufficient, would have the best chance of survival!

City-dwellers, who are the most dependent, would probably kill each other over food, and while trying to get out of town, which is why I avoid cities, like the Plague!

Answer 12

It depends on the nature of the catastrophe.

Probably not people in the cities. Infrastructure gets disrupted and the people in the cities starve.

Answer 13

The strong

Answer 14

I guess it depends on how you look at it... by virtue, by survival skill, by predestination, etc...

Predestination aside (as that's a huge topic in itself that would be a really long rant)...  I'd say it comes down to virtue.  Not in the sense or arbitrary morality, but in the sense of compassion.  In a catastrophe, it's generally every man for himself.  However, those who can get past that I think have the best odds.  Those who care for others and have others who care for them enough to put their own well-being aside to help each other are the most virtuous.

So people can freak out and riot and kill or be killed all they want.  But I'd like to think that the survivors would be the ones for whom their own survival isn't the most important thing.

And **** man, I really wanna address it from a broader/predestination perspective, but I feel it would be way too out of place.

Answer 15

People who are strong-willed, have courage, faith, strength (mentally), and sometimes even anger.

Answer 16

Well, we probably wouldn't make up a full 1/3, but anthropologists and archaeologists would have a pretty good chance at a catastophe that knocks us back down to the stone age. :)

Answer 17

I think we have all seen that the survivors of true disasters are typically:

Surgeons, con-men, female felons, overweight lottery winners, handicapped men, Korean couples, pregnant Australians, dentists, and cancer patients.

Those that do not survive as long:

English rockers that close doors behind them, mean policewomen, African drug-runners turned priest, and brother-sister pairs that are sexually confused and frustrated.

Answer 18

ONLY THE STRONGEST, AN CUNNING,

SILVERWOLFWON

AKA

MOM

Answer 19

Much would be pure luck. A catastrophe of that size would result in widespread and long term changes. If climatic (asteroid hit, multiple volcanic eruptions) then it would be centuries before the effects subsided. Long term survival of the population would be low at best.

Were the cause plague or a similar nondestructive means then certain people would have some immunity. Again mostly luck. Medical care would take a quick jump backwards so many of the dangers of pregnancy, childhood diseases etc. would be a hazard.

As eternal said, mostly it would be the isolated self sufficient groups that survives. However, I don't rate the changes of America's "survivalists." More likely candidates are those in developing countries that live by primitive means.

Best guess? Isolated undeveloped groups in Africa, South America, and Asia.

Answer 20

I hate to answer the same old way, but truly IT DEPENDS on the nature of the catastrophe.