How much could a population of 13,000 grow in 50 years? They are just coming out of a 13-year war with many deaths and few births. They have no medicine or technology to extend life, many plentiful and nourishing sources of food, and a hotter-than-average (but livable) environment. The population started with ~6,900 women between 18 and 40 years of age, ~3,100 men between 18 and 40 years of age, ~300 children from 0-10, ~700 from 10-15, ~1000 between 15-18. The rest are over 40 years of age, and on average live up to 80 years. about 70 people a year die from being killed by animals. 10 deaths a year from disease. No other unnatural causes of death.
8
-
9$\begingroup$ Got a spreadsheet program? I think you can do the arithmetic as easily as anybody. $\endgroup$– Boba FitCommented Feb 24, 2023 at 22:47
-
1$\begingroup$ What’s the total fertility rate? $\endgroup$– user71781Commented Feb 24, 2023 at 23:09
-
$\begingroup$ Have you done any preliminary reading on demography? $\endgroup$– user71781Commented Feb 24, 2023 at 23:10
-
$\begingroup$ There are about ~3000 people (based on OP's question) over 40. (Calculator confirmed) $\endgroup$– SilvermidnightCommented Feb 25, 2023 at 2:19
-
$\begingroup$ You might be over-engineering your question. Why not look at a chart of world population over time and pick a region to establish a percentage of growth? As you can see, it took a long time for the percentage to significantly change - but once humanity began globally adopting hygiene, better food, regulated food safety, and of course medicine, that percentage skyrocketed. Like I said, pick a range that looks good for your story and use it. It'll be more realistic than what you're attempting. $\endgroup$– JBHCommented Feb 25, 2023 at 5:33
|
Show 3 more comments
2 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_natural_increase – fastest growing countries add 30-39 people per 1000 people, or about 3.5% per year
1.035^50 = 13.6-fold
They are just coming out of a 13-year war with many deaths and few births
Frame challenge on this. Why were there few births during the war? Wars normally show the opposite effect.
-
1$\begingroup$ The effects of war on birth rates differ strongly, but wars where a big part of the population is affected lead to lower birth rates: ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.35.4.315 $\endgroup$– MatthiasCommented Feb 27, 2023 at 10:25
-
$\begingroup$ Great use of a resource to provide a best-case condition. And +1 to @Matthias for revealing another good resource for the OP. The affect on birthrates could be simplified as, were the soldiers sent overseas (war isn't in the country in question) or are the soldiers fighting inside their own territories (war is inside the country in question). WWII in the U.S. led to a huge increase in children because, simplified, war didn't actually affect the health of the children (sufficient food, no threat). Compare that to African tribal wars where the birth rate is lower and mortality rate higher. $\endgroup$– JBHCommented Feb 27, 2023 at 15:18
-
$\begingroup$ Birthrate in Tigray/Ethiopia, DRC, South Sudan is very high. $\endgroup$– wokopaCommented Feb 27, 2023 at 15:39
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
It depends on too many variables. How many children do the women have on average and what is the average age of a woman at her first baby and last baby?
All of the women could have 6 children or more (on average) and there would be time for all of that generation to have 10 children of their own. There would also be time for the grandchildren to have at least some children. And all or at least most of these people could still be alive.
Probably 500,000 or more is theoretically possible... but in practice it would be much less.
-
$\begingroup$ I imagine with no medicine, maternal mortality would be high, eating into those numbers dramatically. $\endgroup$– jdunlopCommented Mar 2, 2023 at 21:38