There are recurring stories about plagues or diseases decimating (I use the word in its modern sense, not the Roman one of one in ten) humanity. There has not yet been a disease that took more than one in three of the population, which is not to say that a more virulent disease could not arise in the future.
However, if we experienced now a plague which took one in three, the problems are that first our medical resources would be overburdened to breaking point, and so would all our infrastructure.
Our civilization is now so complex that it could not survive a plague of this magnitude.
Imagine, no transport, no garbage removal, no police, no ambulance services, doctors only servicing the plague-stricken, no food at the supermarkets, nobody looking after electricity, gas, and water supplies.
The only communities that might survive such a crisis are those that were insulated from the start, for instance rural communities, or those on islands, that supply their own water, power and food. The Taliban might be well-placed in such a scenario.
How would this affect the transgendered? There is a story to be had,
Joanne
Comments
An interesting prospect.
It stands to reason that the transgendered are dispersed among the population. So the question is not on transgendered per se.
In harsh situations humans tend to resort to crude but effective measures to ensure their own survival. I agree that most likely it would be self-sustained communities that will survive. To preserve themselves, they will ban or quarantine any trespassers, and will usually fall under the power of a leadership capable of handling these difficult situations, but likely at the cost of some freedom. Thus, any community is likely to be governed by a charismatic leader and institute a very strict code of conduct.
As transgendered are usually seen as a deviation, and one that makes future propagation less effective, they (and homosexuals for the same reasons) will likely become at best second sort citizens, ushered to work at the least nice jobs. Any deviation will be persecuted, but they will still be kept alive as a cheap work force.
Okay, so I'm not very high on my opinion on humans as a whole. But that does not change the basic facts that emerging leaders will have to unite their followers. It can be through religion, for example. And some communities will try and prey on others. Communities with a gentler approach will have a lesser chance to survive in the ensuing chaos, but... They will have a better chance of a long-term survival.
For some reference there was a TV series 'Jericho' about the US after a massive-scale nuclear terrorist strike, and how the namesake community survives in the void left after the attack.
Faraway
Faraway
Big Closet Top Shelf
Where you can fool around like you want to and most you get is some bemused good ribbing!
The most obvious
impact on the transgendered, would be the lack of access to the hormones they need to maintain health... Specially those that have already had surgery to remove the organs that produce the WRONG set of hormones.
Those who've not transitioned would likely not have the opportunity.
I could see rural populations treating a trans refugee poorly - "You got what was comming to you. If you'd been a normal person, you'd not have this problem."
A worse reaction - that could well happen - is that since any who've been on hormones long enough, and certainly any that have had SRS... They can't breed, so don't waste meds on them. Could easily happen in places. (Not just to Trans people, of course, others, like my Mother-in-law - who had an emergency historectomy - would fall in that category as well. I can see a period where people that SURVIVED were very INSULAR and horded things for their local use - and excluded those that didn't directly contribute.
Of course, there would be other issues - totaly unrelated to transgendered. Some of them are addressed in S.M. Stirling's recent series of novels.
Annette
Lesser Plagues
IMHO a plague killing one in three humans is quite unlikely.
What about a fast spreading/acting plague that killed 3% and left 20% bedridden for 3 or more weeks, given the best medical care? I doubt that western societies could survive that without martial law and the draft for everyone over 16. Nearly all businesses would shut down. The government would have to provide replacements for farmers, farm workers and take over food processing, shipping and most other essentials. Much of the employment for pay would end, creating a huge depression, however most people would be occupied taking care of the sick, dealing with the dead, distributing food and whatever fuel was available or trying to provide public services disrupted by key individuals out sick or dead.
The government or whoever was in power might take many months to stop hoarding and profiteering and to get companies back together just to provide fuel (and fertilizers?) to farmers and essential industries like pharmaceuticals and other support to hospitals. In the US, millions could starve or be hurt or killed in rioting.
Maybe I'm wrong in my guesses. Maybe it would take death rates of 6 or 8%, but it seems like a plague way less than 1/3 dead would still be catastrophic.
Hugs and Bright Blessings,
Renee
Hugs and Bright Blessings,
Renee
I believe I read a story by
I believe I read a story by Tom Clancy (Executive Orders, a Jack Ryan novel) that dealt with a fast spreading/acting plague. Terrorists attacked the US with an airborne strain of Ebola. The gov't reacted by shutting down the transportation system to all but essential supplies and imposing quarantines enforced by the military.
Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue
Thanks for reminding me...
That it's time to get my propane supply refilled!
Honestly, I keep my house prepared for a breakdown in "social services". I can ride out a week of no electricity, water, and sewage with no problem. I can survive a month with a little more difficulty, but I might be hard pressed to go for a year, as my "essential supplies" would be used up and I'd have to resort to the "furs and feathers" lifestyle my ancestors used.
Would I survive a decimating plague? Probably, but the big question is "would I want to?"
Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue
not sure about anyone else,
but there are some great resources out there on the subject. This one is on the H5N1 svcare of 2007, http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/laurie_garrett_on_lessons_... . Also, there is this one on stopping pandemics: http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_brilliant_wants_to_stop_pande....
As to the impact on the LGBT community, I could foresee rationing of healthcare to those of "interest" to the powers that be, mainly those of childbearing age that could possibly be used as "breeders" in the case of rebuilding society, leading to the loss of rights of women in the name of "protection," and the treatment of females as chattel again For an interesting take on this, I found Frank Herbert's The White Plague quite fascinating, although there are numerous books out therein the same vein. Looking closer at BC, read any and all of the Caregiver Universe stories (EE Nalley is the author I most asdsociate with this universe, although there are many others whose names I cannot recall at the moment), they give a bleak outlook on the future of women iin society at large in one possible future.
Diana
ps I find TED to be a fascinating place to learn many things from, and to help stimulate and broaden my thinking
sources?
Where did you get the figures used in the blog post?
There are a number of epidemic diseases that have shown mortality rates significantly higher; the classic case being the fourteenth century plague in europe. Of course, it depends upon how you count the numbers: there are records of whole villages wiped out (no survivors), and the general consensus is that bubonic plague has mortality as high as 80% ("mortality" here meaning that if you get it, those are your chances of dying of it), with pneumonic plague a death sentence (a short one; 24 hours, usually). There were areas in which infection was near 100%; with complete infection, and 80% mortality, you've got ... 80% loss. Now ... the next village over may have been untouched. So the question is where the statistics came from.
There are other cases as well; there's a controversial hypothesis put forward that 90% of the population of north america died of diseases introduced by the earliest european settlers (before the later settlers even arrived, so that they simply considered the regions they settled in underpopulated by reason of the low technological sophistication of the (remnant) population). There's some evidence, too, that the "common cold" was first introduced into pre-classical greece, and may have destroyed whole cities (upwards of 60% die-off).
Not a challenge, just an interest; history of medicine/disease was never more than a hobby of mine (related to social history), so perhaps you've got better sources?
For the black death (which is more than a single disease, of course), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography#1350-1500 lists several whole regions suffering depopulation from 40-70%; this detailed summary of the plague: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death#Consequences also suggests numbers higher than a third.
Part of the reason that I ask is because there are historical incidents in which the population was reduced by 90% (and that's human history; the extinction event for the dinosaurs may have been even more dramatic).
It's true that you don't have to posit depopulation in those ranges for an interesting story (well, you don't need any illness for an interesting story, but taking the tack propounded by the blog, there seems to be a "reasonable" limit of 30%, which may not be necessarily reasonable). Oh, and if you'd like an investigation by means of fiction, check out Steven Brust's Cowboy Feng's Space Bar and Grille. There is extravagant mortality, there, but it's ... well, deliberate. Connected with it is a disease, which is communicable and has a nearly 100% mortality rate; Brust's main intent seemed to be to investigate the range of responses to such a thing (what do you do if you know someone has hag's disease? risk getting it yourself while making their death easier? devote yourself to discovering a cure? kill the danger?).
Interesting post. Would it be fair to ask, regardless of cause, what might happen to the transgendered (or even the non-straight) in the face of a population catastrophe for *any* cause?
Amy!
>> one in three
Not terribly likely, at least not rapidly. Extreme virulence is a disaster for the disease organism, because the hosts become ill and die too quickly, and too alarmingly, to allow reliable transmission.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Decimation
actually, the modern one is the same as the Roman one... something that leaves only 1 in 10.
Decimation
That's true, it is a meaning of the word, then and now.
But the original meaning in Latin was supposedly a description of what was done to a military unit that had disgraced itself or a rebellious population; 1 person in 10 was randomly taken out and killed. The beatings will continue until morale improves school of management.
Later, decimate came to have both of its modern meanings, to reduce to 1/10th in size and just to kill a large proportion of a unit or population, inexactly.
I'm not sure if it is known whether the punishment version of decimation was actually ever carried out. Seems stupid to me. Maybe it always meant what it means now.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
>> Decimation...
Instances of decimation are rare, but attested to by fairly credible sources. It's not all that unusual in military units. Until fairly recently (and still, as far as I know), officers carried sidearms so as to be able to shoot soldiers deserting or showing cowardice under fire.
The instance of Roman decimation we know of usually involved units which ran away from the enemy, or faltered in an attack, and was considered a merciful act, as the unit commanders were within their rights to order all the deserters killed, but allowed the individual groups of ten soldiers to draw lots to see who would be slaughtered by the rest.
These days, decimation is so far removed from its origins that it's very loosely used to describe any large number of casualties, whether through deliberate murder or the result of disease or natural disaster.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Erin Has It Right
Decimation was the killing of one in every ten as an object lesson for rebellion. You did not want to destroy the productive capacity of a subject population, just their will to resist. The modern meaning is the death of a large proportion of a population.
A sickness killing one in three? I did not mean to deny that there are illnesses that are fatal. Ebola being one. But first you have to catch it. And, yes, there were surely places with nearly (or absolutely) 100% casualties during plague times. The young and the very old would succumb to starvation and neglect even if they avoided the actual sickness. Things like physical isolation would give completely different results.
Statistics are rubbery things and we could argue back and forth for years, but everything I have read says that the OVERALL dieback from a pandemic is of the order of 30%. If you wish to dispute that I will not argue with you.
It certainly does not affect the argument that a plague could so debilitate our society as to cause a complete breakdown of civilization. In fact, something far less could do so (as somebody pointed out).
What I was trying to tease out was whether anybody could see a specific impact on the TG community.
If the answer is persecution and exile from the community then there's not much point in pursuing this line. If someone can think of a happier outcome then be my guest,
Joanne