If everyone in the world disappeared except 35 random people, how long would it take for one of them to realize they're not alone?

169

20

Everyone suddenly disappears from earth except 35 people randomly scattered wherever they were before everyone disappeared. How long would it take on average for 2 or more people to meet? What other factors would indicate to a person that they're not the only person who didn't disappear?

LDR

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 1 319

2

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– L.Dutch - Reinstate Monica – 2018-08-22T18:37:51.243

15I don't have the maths for this, but could the ideal gas law could be used to answer this question ? 35 molecules of gas, in a container that represents the land area of earth ? – Criggie – 2018-08-22T19:37:28.047

8A few key questions:

  1. Do the people know that there are 34 others on the earth? 2. Do they all have the goal of finding another person? If so, what is their motivation? 3. Are all the people involved guaranteed to be rational adults, or is it possible that they may be children, or mentally disabled?
  2. < – Mathaddict – 2018-08-22T22:41:41.030

39

There is a xkcd What If? on this : Lost Immortals. Unfortunately, only available in the book. But it asks "If two immortal people were placed on opposite sides of an uninhabited Earthlike planet, how long would it take them to find each other?" The easiest solution proposed that doesn't involve leaving a trail of markers (but does rely on both people being on the same continent and using the same strategy) is to walk the coast line until you encounter each other. If you make a full circle without seeing someone, flip a coin to decide whether to change direction.

– Anthony – 2018-08-22T22:42:11.003

I give up. Where's the motivation to try hard enough to find somebody to get a reasonable search radius. – Joshua – 2018-08-23T01:31:03.907

Possible duplicate: https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/3752/44800

– Legisey – 2018-08-23T14:00:09.390

1Is the internet still a thing that exists? Could one of them not look for online activity and find another person that way? – Pleiades – 2018-08-23T16:25:27.620

4@Legisey That question has 75,000 survivors, this question has 35. That's a very important difference. With 75,000 survivors, people would find each other rather quickly. – gerrit – 2018-08-23T17:08:23.253

7@Criggie - That assumes that they're just wandering around aimlessly rather than a) Heading for major landmarks and cities and b) Using radio signals to spread the word of their location to others who might be listening – Richard – 2018-08-23T21:12:45.227

1Just curious, why 35 people? – codah – 2018-08-24T06:24:40.893

1@Anthony That "using the same strategy" part is quite problematic. – Mast – 2018-08-24T10:03:51.337

They all probably start their own version of The Guilty Remnants, so even if by some chance they meet someone else, insanity and/or death results. – Carl Witthoft – 2018-08-24T11:54:15.220

Do they have to actually meet each other or is simply satisfying the condition that one of them is aware that other people exist sufficient? If the latter, the fastest way is probably for one of them to fire up a jet airplane. The guy in the jet isn't necessarily going to see the person on the ground if they don't have a fire built or a light turned on, but the person on the ground will likely hear and/or see the jet or its contrail. – reirab – 2018-08-24T16:05:43.750

Do you want the people to find each other? – JPhi1618 – 2018-08-24T19:35:00.953

2It depends on what nuclear reactors do when left unattended. – Sentinel – 2018-08-25T07:23:46.647

@Sentinel - One assumes they'd melt down and spread radiation, but that would only contaminate a tiny proportion of the Earth's surface and add a microscopic amount of radiation to the atmosphere – Richard – 2018-08-25T11:19:41.327

1This depends on methods of communication. If internet still would be accessible for at least a few days it would take a few days to get aware of each other. And more to meet each other, depends on method of travel. – rus9384 – 2018-08-25T20:19:05.147

This reminds me of a thought experiment Paul Watzlawick came up with in one of his books: Two secret agents are in the same city and want to meet. But they have no communication channel to arrange a place and a time. So it comes down to the market place at midnight or noon. – h0b0 – 2018-08-27T12:22:04.143

Wow. The accepted answer is exhaustive on distribution and chances to meet by walking all over the place, but doesn't take technology into consideration at all (the "making the world smaller" phrase comes to mind) and gives you bleak chances. I upvoted @Securiger 's answer. – Nahshon paz – 2018-08-28T07:57:30.667

I think the main misconception on all the answers so far is that all of these people actually intend to find the others. Since I don't know if there are any survivors and how many of them there are, I must prepare for the worst and assume mad-max style lawless gangs roaming around. The best strategy to do that would be to find a good stash(es?) of resources that will stay usable for the longest possible time, and then do my best to keep them and myself hidden. Chances of accidentally finding anyone quickly approach 0. Also, see the end of the https://what-if.xkcd.com/72/

– j_kubik – 2018-08-28T21:11:09.463

Even if all of them find eachother, they would probably need some serious polygamy to have a chance of being a genetically viable population. – Mark – 2018-08-29T13:33:11.453

It depends on how much those people want to meet each over. Some people might be pretty fine alone. It also depends on the level of intellect of those remaining. The age - some of them could be vulnerable. Most probably, out of 35, only a few will remain alive and will want to meet and will know how to do that. – ACV – 2018-08-31T13:21:58.930

Note that approximately 9 of them are younger than 15, and have no means of travel other than their legs. – PotatoLatte – 2018-09-22T02:47:42.650

Answers

202

Assuming that it's purely random, let's consider where these people would probably be. Taking the percentage of the population each country represents, we get:

  • China: 18.2% = 6.37 people
  • India: 17.5% = 6.125 people
  • America: 4.29% = 1.5 people
  • Indonesia: 3.43% = 1.2 people
  • Pakistan: 2.78% = 0.93 people

...etc. The percentage keeps going down. This means that roughly 6 people will be in China and India, each, and then the next 7 countries or so will probably have 1 survivor each (maybe 2 for America). The other 15-16 survivors would probably be found somewhere in the next 25-30 countries (as the probability of having any survivors approaches 50% or less).

So really, our most likely candidates for people meeting each other are China, India, and Europe (9.83% of the population as a whole for probably 3, maybe 4 survivors).

For India, 72.2% of the population lives in 641,000 rural villages, and this population is pretty evenly distributed, meaning 4-5 of our 6 survivors are probably located on a unique patch of 650-820 thousand square kilometers (3.2 million square kilometers divided by 4-5 people). This means they could walk for 800 kilometers in any direction, and never see each other.

The only real chance that they'd ever find each other would be if they all decided to go to the same major city. But which one to choose? There are 53 cities in India with over 1 million people, and at least 8 with more than 5 million. Would someone in the populous region of Bihar go the 1300 km to Mumbai, the biggest city, or the 800 km to the capital of New Delhi? If you go to the wrong city, will you travel another several hundred km to a different city and hope your luck gets better? Most people are more likely to go to ground, either before any travel, or after failing to find someone after travelling once.

And even if two people, by chance, happen to go to the same city, it would be rather unlikely that they'd run into each other. Let's take Mumbai, for example. It has an area of 603 square km, which increases to almost 4400 square km including the metropolitan area. This means that two people would have to run into each other in an area that is roughly 25-70 km across and deep.

Chinese survivors have the advantage in that their population is concentrated in cities, but with a maximum metropolitan area holding only about 3% of the population, the survivors are still likely to be scattered all across China, or at least the eastern half, which still has an area of about 4 million square kilometers (greater than that of the entirety of India). The issues with choosing a city are also present for survivors looking to migrate, as Shanghai, Nanjing, Beijing, Hong Kong, Guongzhou, etc. are all major cities.

For Europe, this only gets worse. The area expands to 10 million square kilometers, and unlike India or China, which have their own capitals that could act as a rallying point, each country in Europe (which would probably have at most one survivor) would probably attract survivors to their own capitals. A single German survivor, for example, would likely head to Berlin rather than Paris.

So in summary: most survivors would probably be scattered over an incredibly vast area (hundreds of thousands to millions of square kilometers for a single person); if they decided to go to a big city to intentionally look for other survivors, there's a good chance they'd go to different cities than each other; and even if two survivors both decided to go to the same city, finding another person in even the same city is rather unlikely.

Drazex

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 1 583

1

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– L.Dutch - Reinstate Monica – 2018-08-23T05:26:50.410

1Great answer Drazex. I guess a follow up question (for another post) would be: 'which cities would be best to go to for a) communication and b) survivability. – Pureferret – 2018-08-23T09:20:41.110

69Interestingly, as a European, I'd probably head south in such a situation. With no other survivor in sight, I would be very wary of electricity/fuel running out, and aim for a warm winter: South of Portugal/Spain/Italy would be easier to survive than freezing Berlin. – Matthieu M. – 2018-08-23T09:31:10.480

@MatthieuM. That's a good point. That would narrow the field somewhat, though you'd still have much of the Mediterranean coast for people to choose. Barcelona, Rome, Venice, Madrid, Nice, etc. – Drazex – 2018-08-23T09:58:56.233

25In short, leaving technology aside, they would probably all be dead before that happens. – chaosflaws – 2018-08-23T11:18:55.337

30Several of the 35 would likely be in transport during the disappearance (a passenger in a car, train, aircraft etc.) and so would almost certainly die within a few minutes. Then take away the elderly, children, disabled and pregnant people and you might end up with less than half of the initial 35 people to even make a start. – Cloud – 2018-08-23T11:35:26.003

2Not to mention predators (tigers are a danger in India), infections without medicine, and fires caused by car crashes. – Drazex – 2018-08-23T11:40:08.280

23And while you didn't attempt to offer and explicit calculation of probability, it's probably worth considering that in this scenario, once any of these people manage to find a decent stockpile of resources, they are then highly disincentivized to travel from then on. As your take assumes they are even actively looking, but there's a good chance they'd all very quickly come to the conclusion that they are alone, and give up looking. – Shufflepants – 2018-08-23T14:36:07.393

1Aye, that's why I mentioned people probably "going to ground" (i.e. not traveling and stockpiling resources). – Drazex – 2018-08-23T15:23:03.900

25Random distribution doesn't imply uniform distribution: I think you're ignoring the birthday paradox. Quite apart from that fact that it's highly unlikely such a destructive event would be truly random in the first place. You would end up with clusters of survivors. – Michael Kay – 2018-08-23T16:10:42.197

2@MichaelKay I don't think Drazex is ignoring the Birthday problem, considering that (s)he was the first person to submit a Birthday answer (I was the second). But certainly I agree that a uniform distribution is not a good model for this sort of problem, at least not with such a small number of survivors. – Charles – 2018-08-23T20:00:40.220

1@cloud Let's not forget the people who have to take medication, the ones that need it to survive probably die within a year and the ones that "just" need it to keep something under control are similarly disincentivized from travelling since it will probably cause them more pain. – IllusiveBrian – 2018-08-23T20:34:14.153

This kind of analysis is the right idea, but it's mega-cities rather than counties that you should be examining. After the initial fires and other infrastructures failure settle out, it becomes reasonably possible for one survivor living off the remains of civilization to notice the presence of another so long as at least one of them is getting about a bit. And with more than half the world's people living in urban environment there are non-trivial (but not better than even) odds a some large city hosting two survivors. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten – 2018-08-24T03:21:30.140

@dmckee Any given megacity has a less than 1% chance of having a survivor. Only 1 in 200 million people would survive, which means even the biggest metro areas (40 million people) would have about a 0.5% chance of having a single person. – Drazex – 2018-08-24T06:04:22.693

9Don’t walk around randomly, if you want to meet other survivors. Go to remarkable places or buildings (Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty, Tiananmen Square, …) and leave a message, preferably hard-to-overlook graffiti). Include when you will be there the next time. Then, hope that the others are as smart as you… – Holger – 2018-08-24T07:17:51.627

I thought The Last Man on Earth did this pretty well in that once he decided to settle down he left signs (spray painted on billboards, for example) all over the country saying, "Alive in Tucson." – sirjonsnow – 2018-08-24T12:50:44.320

4@sirjonsnow The Last Man on Earth had far more survivors than this scenario. Given the numbers, there's a good chance that there would be one person is all of America. It would be more likely that the person would set up signs, and no one would ever come. – Drazex – 2018-08-24T13:10:40.447

3@Drazex - yes, but the person doesn't know that. If you want to increase your odds of finding someone that's one of the better ways, IMO. – sirjonsnow – 2018-08-24T17:52:35.963

1@sirjonsnow I'm not saying that people wouldn't do it, I'm saying that it wouldn't help. You could visit every landmark on the Eastern Seaboard, which wouldn't help if no one else were anywhere there. (And crossing between the populous East and populous West in America is a bad idea on account of the massive desert). (And all the time you spend travelling is time you're not spending preparing for summer or winter, depending on which is more dangerous in your area.) – Drazex – 2018-08-25T04:35:18.940

It should be a good idea to use an ideal gas collision function in 2D, over a spherical area... – None – 2018-08-25T23:58:42.200

@santimirandarp I kind of like that idea, but unfortunately it doesn't really make for a good predictor. First, ideal gases assume that there's no areas that will directly draw particles together (like big cities, roads, and monuments), it assumes that people are constantly moving (which would decrease long-term survival), and discounts people leaving each other messages. – Drazex – 2018-08-26T06:07:26.710

I think we're underestimating human ingenuity if most of the survivors are highly motivated to find other survivors and, of course, what technology is still available or possible to reconstruct. The sparsity across the globe, eloquently described in the answer, would make it difficult, but not in my guess, impossible. – Jack R. Woods – 2018-08-26T17:03:45.783

And these small chances are hoping the others survive and want to be found. If You don't know what happened and who/how many survived, maybe you want to be cautious - you want to find the others, but maybe you don't want them to find you before you know if they are a group of killers... – Falco – 2018-08-27T08:48:51.633

Within Europe Brussels would be the obvious choice when looking for a common meeting place. – h0b0 – 2018-08-27T12:28:44.787

It would also be interesting to consider the probability of the ages of the survivors. Approximately 26% of the world are under 15 (not necessarily a barrier for continuing survival, but the odds decrease as the age decreases) and 8% over 65 (so probability of survivability also decreases). Assuming those statistics (see demographics of the world on wikipedia), you end up with only about 23 people between 15 and 65. – devyndraen – 2018-08-27T20:07:51.093

188

It's HF radio, or nothing

The odds of anyone meeting again are almost exactly equal to the odds of at least two being either radio hams, or able to learn the skills from books.

The population density of 35 people worldwide is so extremely low that the odds of finding someone without the benefit of global communications is practically zero.

Strategies like finding a printing press and posting thousands of fliers in different cities are a bold try, but they are hopeless: they fail to grasp the massive scale of the task. You could distribute 100,000 fliers in each of a hundred cities: and your odds of finding someone are still very, very long.

So it's global comms, or nothing.

Internet comms could work, but you have a matter of at most a few days to sort yourself out before the system fails. Act quick: find someone, somewhere, amidst all the autogenerated cacophony and BS, in the next three days. Time's up.

HF radio, on the other hand, is highly resilient, extraordinarily efficient global communication system. It can remain operational until you run out of spare parts -- the power requirements for QRP operations can be met by solar, batteries, or even pedal generators. There are standard hailing frequencies, standard protocols. Including standard protocols for global catastrophes. You might not make contact the first time you try, but if you keep trying, it approaches certainty.

Yes, HF radio is a skill. But you have the rest of your life to learn it, or die alone.

Securiger

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 2 977

9Totally agree with this. I'd say it is pretty common sense to learn HF radio, and with 35 people, at least several will realize its importance. I think there is at least one other approach though, probably to use in addition to radio... Learn to fly a plane and start dragging advertising banners over all the population centers you can get to. Anyone looking for other survivors will almost certainly be heading towards the big population centers. – BlackThorn – 2018-08-22T17:09:17.290

16HF radio gives 2-way communication; but one-way communication can be done through many methods. As an example, cross the country lengthwise with a fuel truck and bulldozer and fuel pumping gear, clearing a highway: takes (say) 10 years, but (A) you just made a lot of noise (which could be heard over a long distance), and (B) you left a really obvious trail. Leave HF radio instructions along the path of destruction. Now anyone crossing the country/continent gets a 1-way message from you. – Yakk – 2018-08-22T17:13:55.163

2@Yakk The trail would need to be obviously post-disaster to be useful. – gerrit – 2018-08-22T17:28:15.237

29@BlackThorn Learning to fly a plane without an instructor is difficult and dangerous. We want our survivors to survive. – gerrit – 2018-08-22T17:29:06.293

3@gerrit The highways would be covered in crashed cars (from people disappearing); the cleared highway would have cars shoved aside by a bulldozer (ideally along a major interstate or equivalent). That'll be pretty obvious I'd think. (You'd have to place signs at overpasses where someone could cross the highway and not notice your handiwork) – Yakk – 2018-08-22T17:30:12.660

1@Yakk We have not been told the cause of the disappearance. Suppose that within a 48 hour period, people all die in their sleep? The roads would be pretty empty in that case. And the survivors are the ones who didn't sleep at all in that 48-hour period :-) (that plot line wouldn't work for a number of reasons, but it would empty the roads) – gerrit – 2018-08-22T17:37:14.037

@gerrit I took "sudden" to mean "sudden", with no warning. If there is a warning of any sort (death in sleep, sickness, etc) then the game changes in a huge way. If there is no warning, then even in the middle of the night the roads will be full of crashed cars; regardless, scraping a line would work even on empty highways (and a major highway with a line scraped into it is interesting enough to cause people to follow) – Yakk – 2018-08-22T17:39:23.900

2@Yakk - there may only be one other person left in the USA, I'm not sure that scraping a road across the entire USA is going to make much difference in making your existence known. If you scrape your road even 100 miles north or south of the other person, it's likely that he'll never find it, or by the time he does, your road may be so old that he won't know if it's pre- or post-apocolypse. The sound is only going to be audible for a few miles, so that's not much help either. Also, if it takes 10 years, you'll find it hard to find usable fuel since both gasoline and diesel degrade over time. – Johnny – 2018-08-22T21:14:42.797

7It's worth noting, though, that you'd need to even know where an HF radio is and/or be able to recognize it when you see it. Plus you'd need to power it (does it have a battery? Has the battery corroded before you get to it?). I doubt most people would have any idea what they'd be looking for. Most would probably try to go to a TV station or something, and try to use the equipment that requires a power grid and an active network. – Drazex – 2018-08-23T03:25:13.900

I think HF radio is a great solution for the survivors, but I can't agree that printing flyers wouldn't work. You're a little pessimistic on that one. – workerjoe – 2018-08-23T03:35:38.777

3If the internet is still running and google is still indexing it, what's the chance that a message posted on the web by one survivor would be found by another survivor searching for such a message? Alternatively, what if they both subscribed to StackOverflow? – Michael Kay – 2018-08-23T16:17:18.840

40Maybe the people find each other because #StillAlive becomes the only trending hashtag on Twitter? ;) – reirab – 2018-08-24T01:23:53.843

7@reirab I believe bots would heavily out-post survivors, unfortunately. Unless someone with the right knowledge survives and harnesses bots to broadcast his #StillAlive message – Dent7777 – 2018-08-24T14:19:28.530

Yeah AI bots would vastly out-number survivors. Unless they have some emergency protocol programmed in to figure stuff out when posting behaviours by others radically change (suddenly lots of accounts stop being active and posting). Probably one bot or two in an organization or another looking out for that too. But they are maybe just programmed to alert some command who won't be there to hear the warning. – mathreadler – 2018-08-24T20:45:26.837

4@BlackThorn Not planes. Drones. Much, much safer for the "pilot." – jpmc26 – 2018-08-24T23:13:08.480

If you count "everyone died before finding anyone else" as an infinite span, then the answer is kind of trivially "infinitely long on average". There's a non-zero chance that they'll all be on distinct, isolated islands and cannot devise a strategy guaranteed to find someone before dying. Since there's only finitely many people to choose from, of necessity the average is infinite. So just as your answer says: no one finds anyone without extreme luck (your neighbor survived, too!) or using a specific set of skills and technologies. – zibadawa timmy – 2018-08-25T16:45:41.223

Out of 35 people chosen at random, only 2 have a college degree -- and probably not scientists. I doubt that 2 would know what HF radio is (or what amateur radio is, what frequencies to try), know how to find and operate one, and successfully do so. – ChrisW – 2018-08-25T23:07:55.760

3@ChrisW I don't think many hams learn how to use the radio in a college class. Nor does a typical college curriculum teach food preservation, electrical wiring, carpentry, or most of the other skills your survivors will need. Blue-collar working folks are probably better able to figure this out than the two baristas. – workerjoe – 2018-08-26T04:54:27.190

1Amateur Radio is a particularly hardy hobby. There is am immense paper library of how-to information, and there is almost a compulsion among hams to document how to work with really old equipment. When I started out, the first thing I learned about were spark-gap transmitters -- and why they were illegal. With very simple gear, scroungable from the existing ham radio stations and flagged by their towers and wire antennas, someone with only a vague idea of radio could find a station and operate it. Many stations even have built-in emergency power. HF radio is the way. – cmm – 2018-08-27T21:21:34.820

Well, any band/frequency in particualr, to chose? I'm pretty sure I could find an HF tranceiver easily, ditto antenna, batteries, generator etc. and fire it up. OK, now what do I tune it to? I guess maybe 15 metre band? Now what? Pick a frequency at random?? – Martin James – 2018-08-28T17:13:49.883

I now actually WANT that big, old spark-gap transmitter with its very high power and enormous bandwidth:) – Martin James – 2018-08-28T17:15:52.453

Side note: #stillalive and "It's HF radio or nothing" are amazing subtitles. Or band names. – Dan Esparza – 2018-08-29T11:48:48.613

54

This is an interesting question.

Obviously, just walking about and hoping to meet someone is fruitless, the chances are just ridiculous. What you would want to do is communicate. Now we know how many people survived and what the likely distribution is, but they do not.

From the perspective of a survivor, everyone around is suddenly dead or disappeared. Unless you are criminally stupid, your first thought will be about survival. Short-term that is not a problem, go into an empty shop and take what you want. Mid-term you are down to canned food. Long-term, you are going to have a serious problem.

So you want to get to a city edge and set yourself up there - with both farmland and supply depots (aka supermarkets and other shops) within reach. That also means that - at least at first - the city center is just a quick drive away, provided that whatever catastrophe took everyone else left the roads useable. Since you don't know if there are other survivors and how many, you would pick a landmark site, something others would think about as well, and post a written notice there. This is easy, low-cost and thus something that makes sense to do "just in case", even if it is fruitless you didn't invest much.

You would also post on FB, Twitter or whatever websites your frequent, just out of habit "hey guys, what is going on?" and for the same reason - it is easy.

Most of the answers so far assume too much knowledge and thus targeted activity on the side of the survivors.

The Internet would probably be down by the time you start any targeted activities, as pointed out in other answers.

Your billboard notice is a gamble, but you don't know the odds. It is, however, the most likely thing to work, as it is intuitive and doesn't require to people to be in the same place at the same time. Especially if people go roaming, there is actually a reasonable chance that they would meet. Let me explain:

Once you got the survival thing down, you are left in a world with plenty of cars and practically unlimited fuel - for a time. Current fuel goes bad in about a year, and the cooling etc. required to keep it longer will fail together with the electricity. Once you realize that a) there are very few other survivors, if any and b) survival alone is much more difficult than in a group, the logical next step is a game of "what would the others do?"

And I believe it is trivially obvious that everyone would head to the nearest largest city. The capital. Leave a message there, in a central place. In Europe, you would take a car and drive to Paris, post your notice at the Eiffel Tower. Then drive to Berlin, post at the Brandenburger Tor, and so on. Invite others to leave their messages so you know someone else is alive and then POST YOUR ROUTE. Make it a circle through the 5-6 major cities in the area and drive it two or three times. You can easily cover the distances (again assuming roads are free) in 1-2 days. You can do this early when supplies are not yet an issue.

If after 3 or so rounds you see no notices and nobody waiting for you at the next stop, assume the entire area is empty and go elsewhere. If you start out in the Americas, good luck. If you start out on an island, go farming and enjoy the rest of your life.

Tom

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 6 722

18If the internet is still working, so will twitter bots, so seeing "hey, someone is still posting on twitter, there is life!" will not work. – gerrit – 2018-08-22T10:35:08.647

16

+1 for the "communication" option - but you don't seem to have taken into account Radio. Most cities have a Radio station that can broadcast on standard frequencies (AM or FM), but you also often have Amateur Radio gear in city halls or council buildings (for example, in England, most Council buildings will have a room with emergency gear for Raynet use) - and, with the right setup you can get a signal to pretty much the other side of the world. Of course, this assumes any of the other 34 bother tuning in...

– Chronocidal – 2018-08-22T11:03:39.777

5Yes, I am ignoring radio. It requires that the recipient is listening to the right station at the right time in the right area. Unlikely. – Tom – 2018-08-22T11:25:09.817

3Not to mention the vast majority of people probably wouldn't know where to go, or how to use the equipment, and without the power grid, you'd need to use some kind of portable generator that would likely burn through increasingly valuable fuel supplies. – Drazex – 2018-08-22T11:27:01.637

11@Tom: I disagree. It is a long way from certain, but the odds are far better than any other method proposed. Basically the question comes down to "do at at least 2 of the survivors understand radio communication?" If they do, then eventually finding each other approaches certainty: there are only a limited number of "hailing frequencies", and many systems have the ability to "beacon" continuously. For example, a standard hailing frequency, broadcasts once per minute "Listen here at 0:00 GMT to contact another survivor. Current time is 03:24 GMT." – Securiger – 2018-08-22T12:31:11.400

1

@Drazex: You're right, most people won't have any idea. But it isn't necessary that they be experts: they just need to have an idea what they need to find out. They have plenty of time to do that. Also, you don't need a portable generator: HF radio transmission can be extremely efficient, because it can use a mode in which the entire world acts as trapped waveguide. Yes, the more transmitter power you have, the easier it is to achieve intercontinental comms; but with care and skill, it has been achieved with a few watts. For example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QRP_operation

– Securiger – 2018-08-22T12:38:14.940

If most people wouldn't have any idea, then we can't assume our survivors would even know where to look. I'm probably more technologically inclined than most, but I would have no idea about being able to use comm gear without a generator, and certainly wouldn't have any amount of "skill". And that assumes someone's using the correct gear for the job, rather than trying to find where the TV cameras connect to in their television studio (if they can even find it). – Drazex – 2018-08-22T12:57:25.093

1I like how there's all this criticism of the "radio" idea, but "use Facebook until the internet shuts down" goes more or less without comment. – Steve-O – 2018-08-22T13:25:32.777

2@Steve-O - remember that the survivors DO NOT KNOW how many other survivors there are. Going on your usual social media and post "anyone there?" is a low-cost option that people will do almost without thinking. You probably have your smart phone with you, no special skills required, it costs almost nothing in time and effort - why would you NOT do that? Finding and operating a radio, on the other hand, is a challenge to most people. – Tom – 2018-08-22T13:36:09.420

@Securiger - according to Wikipedia, there are about 3 mio. ham radio operators in the world, or 0.043% of the population. I think we can discard the probability of two ham radio operators being among the 35 survivors. – Tom – 2018-08-22T13:39:05.610

@Tom Granted posting on social media is easier (assuming the internet does still work), but that doesn't mean using a radio is hard. Your argument is that easy methods should be preferred over difficult ones. Well, if you're planning to go out and physically search for people and spray paint messages on billboards after the internet idea fails, you may as well stop by the local KXYZ Radio station, too. "Hey, if anyone can hear me, try to meet up at <WHEREVER YOU'RE GOING NEXT>" Then keep moving. It takes 5 minutes, it can't hurt, and it might just pay off. – Steve-O – 2018-08-22T13:55:32.597

@Steve-O - yes, you are right, if you pass by a local radio station, and stuff is still working, it doesn't hurt to send out a "hey there". But I choose the billboards not for simplicity, but because they enable time-independent (you don't have to be listening at the time I send the message) and bi-directional (you can scrawl your answer underneath) communication. – Tom – 2018-08-22T14:27:49.363

1I like Tom’s idea, but what are the odds of survivors being on the same continent, being able to drive a car and being able to write and understand a common language? – Michael – 2018-08-22T18:01:02.410

@Michael - another answer made some statistics, the chances are relatively good that there are a few other survivors on the same continent. A quick estimate would be that at least half the population can drive a car. And I dare to say that every continent has at least one language that at least half the population speaks. So... chance is actually not bad. – Tom – 2018-08-22T20:34:54.683

Posting on Facebook means it might be seen by the survivor who serendipitously happens to be one of your one thousand followers (10K if you are a celebrity; 150 if you are me). If he/she bothers to look. 10K of seven billion is not very good odds. – WGroleau – 2018-08-23T03:40:10.993

1

The classic study of focal points asked, if you had to meet someone in New York tomorrow but didn't know where or when, where would you go? Most people answered noon, Grand Central Station, at the information booth. If I were one of the 35, after leaving posters in the major cities nearest me, that's exactly where I'd go.

– workerjoe – 2018-08-23T03:42:16.873

2"Fuel goes bad after a year" - how come my lawnmower still runs on petrol I bought 5 years ago (siphoned out of the fuel tank of a vehicle I haven't used for a looong time..) Same for the diesel car - started up after 5 years of not moving and drove it across town to its new place of rest (where it'll spend another 5 yeasr before I get round to fixing it.. – Caius Jard – 2018-08-23T09:03:03.610

just something quick research turned up. Fuel used to have a rather long life, but newer fuels don't, it said there. Maybe your lawnmower is less picky than a modern car engine? – Tom – 2018-08-23T11:58:06.003

@Michael Probably higher than you think. Polyglots are remarkably common in some places in the world, and there are a rather large number of mutually intelligible languages among the most widely used languages in the world. – Austin Hemmelgarn – 2018-08-25T14:26:11.717

To add to that: Pretty much everyone in Europe speaks at least one other European language. People who speak two or three other languages are not uncommon. – Tom – 2018-08-25T16:50:25.443

They don't need to be speaking the same language. You have two tasks: make your message stand out as clearly written by a fellow survivor, and communicate a rendezvous point. Once you've done the first, it doesn't matter what language the second is in; someone can find the appropriate translation dictionary. And writing down the date and time that everyone disappeared should accomplish the first, for anyone who understands Roman script. – Acccumulation – 2018-08-27T15:34:35.703

49

I figured, since a lot of people are bringing up the Birthday Problem, I'd add a separate answer just for discussing it. Simply put for those not familiar with it, the idea is that based on probability the actual number of individuals needed within a sample before overlapping becomes nearly certain is far less than the actual number of possibilities.

The original problem discusses how many people you need in a group before you are almost certain to have two people with the same birthday. Obviously 366 people means that it's 100% certain (discounting leap years), but 70 people gives a 99.9% certainty of at least two people having the same birthday, and even just 23 people gives roughly a 50% chance.

So let's apply this to the current problem. The first question, though, is how we should divide the world to check it. The most logical way to do this is via population samples, since geographical area obviously won't have equal weight due to variable population density. Let's use 40 million, as that's around the size of most of the largest metropolitan areas of the world (Tokyo, NYC, etc.). Given 7.6 billion people, this would give us 190.

Using a calculator, this would give us a surprisingly high 96% probability of at least two of our 35 people sharing the same population segment. Now, this may seem impressive, but one must consider that 40 million people is the population of many Indian states, or any 2-30 American states (with a few exceptions such as New York or California). "There might be two people who are both in California" isn't too helpful, "There might be two people somewhere in the American Midwest (sans Illinois/Michigan)" is less helpful, and "There might be two people in all of Canada" is even less so.

So let's reduce our search to within a unit of 10 million people. That's about the same as Tokyo proper or all of the country of Greece. Now it's a little more specific. Reducing our population by a factor of 4 increases our number of sections by the same. So now we have 760 possibilities. This brings our odds to about 55%. Still larger than might be expected, but it's now a coin flip as to whether anyone is in the same city proper, or section of a populous state.

Now, that's not to say that it's a coin flip whether someone is in the same population sample as any other given person. If you were a survivor, it would not be a coin flip that a second person in 10 million also survived in your area, but rather a coin flip that there is a second person anywhere. There's a 16% chance that a second person is in the same 40 million original population section as you (1-(189/190)^34), and 4% chance that there's another person in your own sample of 10 million.

Now, though, let's consider this by area. For example, if by "randomly scattered" the OP means "picked up and dropped in random locations". (The Birthday Problem requires equal probability, so this approach isn't really applicable to realistic distributions.) Given roads and long views in rural areas, let's consider the world to be one fifth as large as it is. This helps reduce the effect of deserts, mountains, and other boundaries, as well as the effects of people travelling on roads. (Let's call this our "scaling factor")

So we have a land area of around 150 million square kilometers, reduced to 30 million square kilometers from our scaling factor. Let's say that you can find someone within 30 kilometers, about the size of a large city, when they fire a gun, honk a car horn, etc. This gives us an area of 900 square kilometers to locate someone within. Let's call it 1000 to make things nice and even.

30 million over 1000 gives us 30,000 land units. The odds of two people both "spawning" in any single land unit of 1000 square kilometers would be about 2%. This is actually surprisingly high, but still means that it is unlikely that anyone would start within 30 kilometers of each other. Though the odds of two people "spawning" within 100 kilometers of each other (about 10 times more area) is actually only about 18%, which is amusingly high. Though again, this is anyone, period, not the odds of a you having a partner in your 100x100 km area (which would be around 1%).

Drazex

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 1 583

Well, interesting but let me challenge your answer a bit. If you split the population by areas of the same population will be in a single city in one are and in a vast area in other.What composes of a singly city can become Shara, Siberia or tundra in Canada. Now you suggest that being in the same population cluster makes yourself physically close - well not necessarily and the probability that the cluster in which there is more than one person is a dense one is again just few percent. Regardless of that it's a nice answer ;-) – Ister – 2018-08-22T10:22:15.663

I didn't say that it would make people physically close. Actually, I said just the opposite. I pointed out specifically that 2 people both ending up in Canada would likely be hopelessly far apart. That's the reason why, in the second example, I reduced it to 10 million to at least somewhat reduce the problem. – Drazex – 2018-08-22T11:10:04.183

Yeah, just it doesn't reduce the problem a bit ;-) Looking at the second part of your answer, there is just 2% chance that there are two people who are no more than 30 km apart. They may or may not seek each other and they may or may not seek in the same direction/manner. So I would say it's much more up to the strategy taken during the search than the position of specific people. We can safely assume that only if the search strategy taken by let's say 10 people will allow them to have at least overlapping 20 visited places then they are likely to meet or at least find out about each other – Ister – 2018-08-22T13:11:00.960

"... randomly scattered wherever they were before everyone disappeared." The analysis in your first answer is more apropos than randomly placing people around the entire world's land masses. – Tracy Cramer – 2018-08-22T21:20:07.843

@Ister You do realize that I'm saying that it would not be likely for them to find each other, right? I decided to crunch the numbers because other people kept bringing up the Birthday Problem. There is no "problem", because you're agreeing with me. – Drazex – 2018-08-23T03:17:30.787

@TracyCramer Exactly, that's why the first analysis is presented first. A geographical analysis requires an even distribution of people (which isn't the case), so it really can't be accurately applied without an even-probability assumption, which I did by re-interpreting the OP's question a little. The first analysis is the far more applicable, though. – Drazex – 2018-08-23T03:20:50.667

Actually, 40 million is a good "unit size". For example, it is in the ballpark of many European countries. There are only 35 countries in the world larger than 40 million, but almost 200 that are smaller. Most of these smaller countries have a capital that is also the largest and most important city in the country. Survivors would obviously go there soon. – Tom – 2018-08-23T03:58:08.557

@Tom I think you've got that backwards. If we use a sample of 40 million people, that means that for those 200 countries that are smaller, we would be lumping those countries together in order to create one block of 40 million people. As you said, those smaller countries would probably have their people go to their own capital or largest city, meaning that if you have one in one country, and one in the other, that would only decrease the odds of them finding each other. – Drazex – 2018-08-23T04:14:42.017

1@Drazex yep, understand that :-) But all the consequences of your calculation might not be clear to someone who is not that familiar with math (especially probabilistic). One might think - oh, there are cities that are 10 mln large and there is 55% chance there will be two people in that city(*). Wow, they will find each other. (*)Only they may be in a different 10-mln cluster that spans thousands of kilometers. You may consider making that more clear ;-) – Ister – 2018-08-23T07:23:47.537

Let's say that you can find someone within 30 kilometers, about the size of a large city, when they fire a gun, honk a car horn No. You cannot hear a gun or a car honk 30 kilometers away. If your hearing is exceptionally good, maybe you can hear it a few kilometers away. And that is not counting about atenuation of the sounds due to obstacles. – SJuan76 – 2018-08-26T15:54:06.643

To put an example, mínimum altitude of an airplane of a populated area is (by FAA) 1000 feet or just over 300m, which is enough for noise levels to be considered adequate, and we are talking about very big and noisy engines. And sound follows the square law, at 600 meters you would hear the square root of that energy.... Check your distance to your nearest airport and check if you can hear any planes; you probably won't be able unless you are in the landing or departure paths. – SJuan76 – 2018-08-26T15:56:13.510

49

(This answer supposes that electricity and the internet survives for a day or two)

Either a couple of days, or many months, if ever.

CALLING OUT TO ALL SURVIVORS


Hello!


Everybody in the world has disappeared. Considering that you are reading this, electricity, the internet, a search engine, and Stack Exchange must still be working, and you had the state of mind to search for "why has everybody in the world disappeared". Congratulations, there is hope to reach other survivors. The fact that you can read this means that The Event must have happened very recently. Once it's down, everything will be so much harder.

Please search and post on Twitter using the hashtags:

#anybodyoutthere
#有别的人吗
#क्यावहाँबाहरकोईहै
#alguienporahí
#هلمناحدفيالخارج
#ilyaquelquun

(Please edit my question before The Event happens to correct the hashtags, in particular for Chinese, Hindi, and Arabic, and replace them with a more colloquial phrase)

And describe where you are. Please confirm that you have read this message. Translate your message and the hashtag with Google Translate in the most common languages. Continuously check Twitter to see if anybody follows suit.

Learn how to produce electricity with solar panels, and how to operate radio, if you don't already know how to. Initially you may be able to use the internet for this, but seen you'll have to raid a library for this. See Securigers answer for more on radio.

If you manage to reach people this way, discuss together what to do.

If you don't, it's time to start travelling. Try to drive a car, even if you don't know how to. I don't know if the roads are accessible, but there should be plenty of cars with fuel available. If you can't refuel, switch cars whenever you run out of fuel.

If you are in Eurasia or Africa, please all head to the Eiffel Tower, Paris, France Baiyun Mountain, Guangzhou, China. Probably half of survivors live within this circle and Guangzhou is right in the middle of it. From Western Europe you should be able to drive there in around 3 weeks.

half the worlds' people

If you are in North or Central America (anywhere north of the Darien Gap), please all head to Boulder, Colorado, United States.

If you are in South America, please all head to Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

If you are anywhere else, I hope you'll be able to navigate a boat to any of those continents.

During your travels, please pass by as many major urban landmarks as you can, and leave many traces. This is not the time for practising wilderness ethics!

I hope there are fellow survivors. If there are, they may also find this message. I hope you will reach each other.

If you find each other before the internet goes, you might know about each others survival in days. Otherwise, it may be many months, or you might never realise.

Good luck. I don't envy you.

gerrit

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 2 621

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– L.Dutch - Reinstate Monica – 2018-08-23T18:27:25.230

This is assuming the distribution of who magically get to stay is uniform. I don't see any reason why it should be. – mathreadler – 2018-08-23T19:56:08.000

@mathreadler There is no such assumption in my answer. What makes you think there is? – gerrit – 2018-08-23T20:20:49.777

"Probably half of survivors live within this circle and Guangzhou is right in the middle of it.". You are assuming total randomness is per person and not for example per area of the globe or whatever other distribution it may be. – mathreadler – 2018-08-24T00:54:09.133

@mathreadler The question says "randomly scattered". Unless otherwise stated, a uniform distribution is the most generic and therefore the default assumption. – gerrit – 2018-08-24T08:55:27.863

@gerrit Yep but it's not stated over what. It could be for example be uniform over earth land area. – mathreadler – 2018-08-24T10:11:20.533

Given that the 35 are unprepared for this event, would they find this message among the millions of "Lock her up" and "Chiudiamo i porti" tweets sent out by freewheeling bots? – Solar Bear – 2018-08-24T15:52:05.843

@SolarBear With sufficiently unique search terms, and assuming the bots don't use the hashtags mentioned above, or tweet about the end of the world, maybe. – gerrit – 2018-08-24T16:20:31.440

Powerplants will automatically shut down if there is no one running them, and datacenters require very heavy and constant maintenance. Even if all 35 people work in large datacenters on core network infrastructure, the entire internet would go down in the blink of an eye. – forest – 2018-08-29T17:14:27.913

@forest You might want to post that as an answer to this question. Many answers there estimate hours to days, but you seem to suggest it's seconds or at best minutes, which would indeed make my answer (which assumes hours–days) useless.

– gerrit – 2018-08-29T17:16:12.610

@gerrit I don't have enough information to answer that question well. However, if major IXPs (internet exchanges between major autonomous services) have systems that automatically shut down if unattended for security reasons as some high-security facilities do, the uptime will be measured even lower, perhaps even in miliseconds. Otherwise it would probably be measured in hours, although the first bits of the internet will start crumbling within a minute or two. I would hazard a guess and say that total autonomous routing failure would occur in hours. – forest – 2018-08-29T17:32:25.060

@forest I mean, what would be the expected time for an arbitrary non-technical person to use a desktop or mobile device to access Google Search and Stack Exchange? What you're describing sounds like a dead man's switch for network systems, which sound interesting, in particular in the context that the internet was designed to survive a nuclear war if I'm not mistaken. Intriguing.

– gerrit – 2018-08-29T17:40:06.330

@gerrit I have no idea for Google. I would imagine there are lots of local servers that cache sufficient search engine data to let results return simply because the routes from any one ISP to any Google servers is fairly small, but I have no idea what happens when a local Google server's weird proprietary database system determines that its long-distance neighbors are unreachable. For Stack Exchange, it probably depends on how close they are to the servers (which are in the US, I think). The farther they are, the higher the chance the routes to it are dead. – forest – 2018-08-29T17:43:14.420

The blackout would manifest itself as various subnets becoming unable to communicate with certain other subnets. Over time, the number of subnets that can communicate will drop to zero, but the internet is considered broken as soon as any one address cannot find another. Autonomous routing is a very complex subject. It would probably take someone more familiar with the topic than me to answer correctly (I only have experience with small-scale networks where I don't even have to think about BGP announcements or anything on a similar scale). – forest – 2018-08-29T17:44:55.373

17

With only 35 people left, nobody is left to monitor the electricity powerplants and perform the recurrent operations (like refueling or manual checks) that are part of any plant, so most plants will automatically shutdown within hours, and with them all modern communication means. So here is an answer that assumes there is no phone/Internet/etc.

A common survival technique is to find a river and go downstream, until you find either someone or the ocean:

If you can't make out any signs of civilization, look out for rivers or streams. Head for those streams and follow them downwards. It is highly likely that you will find civilization downstream.

Among 35 people, many (A) will come up with that idea after a few hours or after a few years, and at least try once after finding nobody in their nearby cities and in their country's capital city. I am not saying everybody would immediately do it, but many would certainly try it. Even with GPS not working, following rivers is relatively easy. Most inhabited regions have roads along rivers.

There are many rivers that throw their waters directly into the ocean, but the great thing is that some rivers have huge drainage basins:

enter image description here

There is a reasonable probability (B) that two people are in the same drainage basin, for instance in the Ganges (India/Bangladesh). If these two people go downstream and leave messages once in a while, they have a non-negligible chance (C) of walking through a place where the other has or will walk.

Most the people will intentionally or not leave hints after their passage, for instance if I went along this river I would try to write a message on that tree or on the white wall of the riverside building in the background:

enter image description here

Via these messages the two people have a small probability (D) of eventually finding each other.

My estimate:

  • A: 50%
  • B: 30%, math pending
  • C: 30%, rather low because: 1) Rivers have two sides 2) Some rivers have complex estuaries 3) Detours for food/etc
  • D: 20%

Result: 1% chance. Which is not that bad.

Note:

  • How will people be able to walk long distances? No planes nor trains, of course, but we have to remember that these people have the remainder of their lonely lives in front them, so they have time plenty of time to find a house left open (people have disappeared, including those who were at home, and a large fraction of them probably did not lock all doors), and borrow the car keys hung on the keys rack behind the door, check how much gas is in the car, and find another car this way when fuel is low. Nearly each petrol station has fully-fueled vehicles with its keys on the floor near the cash register. The smart ones will find a good bicycle and put it in the car, or even figure out how to get jerrycans and how to use them. Unfortunately, gasoline goes bad after half a year, so after that people who have not figured out anything smarter will have to rely on bicycles again.

Nicolas Raoul

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 1 363

4Not bad, but I'd look for more sources to aid your numbers. Most of them just kind of come out of thin air. For example: (A) I'd say that far more people would look for landmarks rather than following rivers, especially going to their nearest big city. Rivers don't have a huge impact on most people these days. Additionally, those are the major rivers. What about minor rivers? I live right next to a river. I might follow that down to the ocean, and then wait for anyone of the <1 million people near that river to come. The next river a few kilometers over would have the same problem. – Drazex – 2018-08-22T09:18:17.300

(B) Again, this depends greatly on what the individual person considers a river. Or whether there in fact is any major drainage basin within a thousand kilometers. A huge fraction of the world's population lives on the coast of India, which isn't labeled with any river basin on your map. – Drazex – 2018-08-22T09:20:45.153

(C) This also depends greatly on how close to the river they way, what paths to cross the river they take, what detours they take to raid canned food supplies, etc. – Drazex – 2018-08-22T09:21:49.737

@Drazex: Thanks for the feedback! I lowered the numbers accordingly. – Nicolas Raoul – 2018-08-22T09:27:17.813

3Nice answer, but let me challenge it. This is a survival technique but used to find a civilization. The problem is once you reach it it no longer brings value. If you're in a city an there is no one why other city should give you more opportunities? Then you look for a strategy to pick the best city and you don't need to follow a river anymore to do that. – Ister – 2018-08-22T10:37:18.830

Some radio receivers, even quite powerful ones, do not need mains power to work. If I wanted to see if there were other survivors I would get a decent all band portable radio and listen to it. Given enough time with no luck I would eventually try to figure out how to get a transmitter working, a lot of these should be operable via an emergency generator. Breaking in to a radio station and trying to find their emergency manuals would be my first step but I might have to do some research. Eventually I should be able to transmit long distances and hopefully find someone else with a radio. – Eric Nolan – 2018-08-22T10:38:58.743

@Ister: Interesting, instead of going down to bigger and bigger rivers, people could go to bigger and bigger cities. – Nicolas Raoul – 2018-08-22T10:55:54.497

@EricNolan: You should post an answer about that! :-) – Nicolas Raoul – 2018-08-22T10:56:22.353

@EricNolan I think you rather overestimate your chances of doing so. Without using Google (since it wouldn't be available there), tell us where you would go to get a transmitter. Then tell us how you would get it working. Transmitters are a lot more involved than many people think, and are rarely readily available for "flip a switch and talk into the mic".

– Drazex – 2018-08-22T11:18:35.943

@NicolasRaoul actually my guess is that would be the strategy and if at least two people at the same continent followed this strategy, leaving traces in obvious places it could work. The question how far would that strategy be followed since there are other factors to consider as well. But it could allow eventually for two or even more people meet. On the other hand finding out that there are literally just a few people alive on a continent could be really disheartening. – Ister – 2018-08-22T12:20:49.457

@drazex Radio station. Police station. Military base. Drive around until I see a house or building with a likely looking antenna. Ocean going ships will have them. Airports. Places with transmitters are likely to have manuals for those transmitters. If they don't the places that sell that gear will. There are still libraries and phone books to find out where companies are. There's a big gulf between flip and switch and talk and impossible to get working. – Eric Nolan – 2018-08-22T13:19:01.487

@Drazex Libraries should have plenty of books on amateur radio. – gerrit – 2018-08-22T13:24:03.863

Problem: How do you plan to survive the walk to the ocean? Unless someone starts out in a coastal city I don't think they can expect to make it. – Loren Pechtel – 2018-08-23T01:27:38.497

@gerrit This is true, though I suspect for many people, not having access to any computers or librarians, would probably have difficulty sorting through the average of 84 thousand books in a public library to find what they need, and even then, many books have a habit of not actually telling people where to find things, or how to practically use things (many are more about history or theory).

– Drazex – 2018-08-23T11:07:07.150

1

@Drazex That's what classification is for. Don't kids learn that in school anymore these days? Drop me in a good library and I'll find some relevant books within hours. With those as a starting point, I think I would eventually find the relevant hardware, too.

– gerrit – 2018-08-23T11:19:17.993

A lot of people forget what they learned very quickly. Further, a lot of public libraries (at least in America) use the Library of Congress system instead of the Dewey Decimal system, and that is never taught in schools. And again, what you can actually find in libraries is often more theoretical, and less practical, especially if you have no idea where to get a proper radio in the first place.

– Drazex – 2018-08-23T11:26:41.147

1@Drazex I very strongly suspect that a good library will have books with very practical information on operating radios, a technology that long predates the internet, a 40 year old guidebook is still useful. They might also have archives of amateur radio magazines, might find names of prominent members, I'd break into their homes to search for more clues. It will take perseverance, of course, but I think it's entirely doable. – gerrit – 2018-08-23T11:39:53.990

Note that gasoline goes bad after a few months; so after that point most cars will be useless. The smart post-apocalyptic survivor may want to look for an electric vehicle and a solar-array-based charging system, if possible :) – Jeremy Friesner – 2018-08-26T03:23:01.463

1Gasoline may deteriorate in quality but it definitely doesn't become useless in just "a few months". You'd be able to drive for at least a couple of years. – workerjoe – 2018-08-27T16:14:56.220

Please beware that the point where the river meets the Ocean is usually not a point. For rivers like Amazon or Ganga, it's a mouth or a delta spanning for hundreds of kilometers. – Pere – 2018-08-27T20:53:30.120

@JeremyFriesner Surprisingly, most solar installations (at least the ones of a size that's big enough to charge an EV) depend on the power grid to function. If the power grid is down, they will shut down too. So your only option is to go and find an off-grid power source (those will tend to be far from any major cities), or modify your EV to charge directly from solar (pretty difficult). – JonasCz - Reinstate Monica – 2018-08-28T18:16:18.990

@JonasCz That's true, in that they are designed to disable themselves when the power goes down, to avoid any chance of electrocuting utility workers who aren't expecting to encounter live wires during a power outage. I imagine that safety feature can be bypassed with a bit of hackery, however. Also, I suspect that in the future battery-backup-based systems will also become more common in cities, though, and those are designed to provide power even during an outage (see: https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/learn/powerwall/overview.html )

– Jeremy Friesner – 2018-08-28T18:36:30.310

11

Given the scale of the Earth, and a purely random distribution, the odds are negligible that they would ever meet. Each person would have 4.2 million square kilometers of land to themselves, on average.

pojo-guy

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 9 372

5Uniform population density isn’t a reasonable assumption to make, I don’t think. I agree with your answer: even if you assume the whole world population is only concentrated in cities the chance of two people sharing the same city and then meeting somehow is very small. – Joe Bloggs – 2018-08-22T05:52:14.197

1Agreed, based on population distribution, other than China, India, and maybe America, it's unlikely that anyone would be in the same country, let alone the same city. – Drazex – 2018-08-22T06:11:37.583

@JoeBloggs time for a monte carlo simulation. – pojo-guy – 2018-08-22T16:48:19.227

Well based on this answer, what if we scale the problem down to a small-ish area. What are the odds 35 people would find each other if they were the only ones left on Earth and they were all located in Manhattan? Or if they were all located in Los Angeles county? – Anthony – 2018-08-22T19:40:19.200

@Drazex Agreed. I get a 44% chance that 2 or more people would remain in the US, a 35% chance for Indonesia, 25% for Brazil, 23% for Pakistan, and so on. China and India are ~ 99%. – Charles – 2018-08-23T14:44:23.800

The objection to this answer is that these people can move around and manipulate the world in an effort to make themselves found. It's not as simple a question as you assume. – workerjoe – 2018-08-23T17:21:19.403

Under the circumstances, they would be most concerned with survival. After the first few days, their movements would be dictated by the need for food and water and their ability to obtain those.See @Drazex much better answer for details. – pojo-guy – 2018-08-23T20:52:01.850

9

To realize they are not alone will depend on the people, the technology available to them and the knowledge of the internet or communications. Assuming they are distributed across the world and no one is physically close to each other, they will still be able to contact each other online. Websites or online forums like Reddit, Stack overflow might be easier, since you can directly post and you will be the newest thing, while other social media websites like Instagram or Facebook will be a bit more difficult, as they show things you are interested in or related to and hence you may never meet online. There are also other options like forcing your search to be number 1 on google trends, which wouldn't be too hard or looking to see if there are any new articles or information out after the date (you will have to be careful of bots, but there are plenty and you will probably think they are real people anyway). (Several hours to several days).

Depending on their knowledge, they may also try and find and use/modify communication devices to broadcast to everyone they can. Things like Radio, TV or Satellite can allow them to send out a signal and hopefully someone else is listening in on them. Maybe they are a journalist for a newspaper and publish an online article. There would be lots of options. (Hours, to weeks).

Finally, you might get a couple of wanderers who will travel across the country and continents looking for anyone else. You would leave signs behind to signal that you exist and where you are heading while you travel. (Months, to years).

So down to your question, how long will it take for 2 people to meet? Well it depends on how far away from each other they are. They need to be able to travel to each other so your time frame starts at instantly (the person happens to be in the same room), to several months (Via ship over the open sea, but only if they know how), to several years/never (aka time to learn how to fly/sail and try it out). Of course this all starts from after they discover each other and confirm they are actual people and not hot singles in your area.

So if you wanted an average time, I would say around 5-7 days. If you think about it, over 30% of the worlds population is in china and india and over 50% in asia. There is a very high chance that 2 or more people will be in the same country and once they link up they should be able to get to each other fairly quickly by driving (You can cover several 100Km's a day by driving and there will be no one to enforce speed limits or stop you from stealing a fancy car and fuel).

Shadowzee

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 14 418

7

This would require these things to still be running. A post on straight dope suggests that the power grid would fail within a week. Further, what website do you use? A relatively small fraction of the population uses any single website, and many of the widest used ones (such as Facebook) are network-based. Something like Reddit would be more likely to reach others, certainly, but not guaranteed, especially with language differences.

– Drazex – 2018-08-22T06:06:19.797

1Further, how many people do you know that could use a radio to contact someone else? How many people even know how to get a radio that can broadcast to others? The average person is likely to be entirely separated from communications technology, and given an average of hundreds of kilometers apart (at least), a lot of short-range devices probably couldn't reach. – Drazex – 2018-08-22T06:08:35.113

@Drazex I'm sure each country has their own popular service. I'm not from China or India, so I can't say which services or websites are most popular there, but I'm sure there are similar things. As for other methods to contact each other, that will entirely depend on the knowledge of the people who survived as well as the technology used by the other survivors. – Shadowzee – 2018-08-22T06:15:57.040

There isn't one service for America, so why would there be for other countries? Further, there is no internet without electricity, and there is no electricity without people. Even if you get a generator and run your own computer, the servers that run web pages will go down. Third world countries are likely to have their power cut out even sooner than places like America, where my source suggests it woul like be all but gone within a week. – Drazex – 2018-08-22T07:17:09.823

5While internet is still running, people may go on a mission to visit every popular website which allows comments or contributions from public, and do two things: check for newest postings and live own message. – Alexander – 2018-08-22T07:35:28.383

2Even assuming that most of the few dozen survivors find a way to communicate with one another, most will be in asia, some will not speak a language the others can understand, some will be trapped alone on an entire continent to themselves while others could make a road-trip to meet up. Imagine being the one person stuck in australia and nobody has a boat or the skills to sail it there, let alone fly a plane safely. Even in the best-case that everyone quickly establishes communications with one another and can talk, there are going to be people trapped alone. – Ruadhan – 2018-08-22T08:17:53.413

@Ruadhan sure, most survivors will be effectively isolated. But for the purpose of this question, they will know of each other's existence. – Alexander – 2018-08-22T17:04:04.410

2The top search idea is really interesting. It suggests that Google is inherently designed to react to a natural disaster. If there were a massive flooding, anyone going to Google to seek out information on the flood would see that other people are also searching for information about the flood, since it with be the thing most people are searching for. So if only 30 people are left, searches for "where did everyone go?" and "am I the only one left" would quickly be the top search (assuming Google's algorithm gives significantly more weight to recent searches over volume of searches, etc). – Anthony – 2018-08-22T19:35:09.587

Which wouldn't necessarily be an efficient or reliable way to locate other survivors or communicate directly (or even establish an agreed upon method to communicate, like HF radio), it would verify that there are other survivors. – Anthony – 2018-08-22T19:36:59.383

Also, the language barrier wouldn't be an issue. They will all speak the universal language of love. – Anthony – 2018-08-22T22:46:32.460

7

The Earth has a surface area of 196.9 million mi² (510.1 million km²) (land mass only). On average, that means each person will have 4.8 million mi² (14.6 million km²), which is equivalent to a square 2203 mi (3818 km) on each side. That's roughly the distance from New York City to Los Angeles.

It is enormously unlikely that anyone will ever meet another soul before they die if they were uniformly distributed.

The best hope for this argument is that people are not uniformly distributed. 55% of people live in urban areas. These urban areas cover 3.5 million square kilometers. This means that 19 of your 35 people will likely be from these urban areas, with only 184,000 square km to each -- a square 429km in length. That's a bit more than the distance from New York City to Washington DC. Now we're getting somewhere. Still a terribly long distance.

However, there's one more trick up our sleeve. This is a birthday problem, because any two of the individuals being close together will do. I'd need more accurate demographics to see how much this affects things, but it makes it more likely that at least one of the pairs is within roughly 20km!

Of course, there is a huge catch here. Those who are in urban environments are far less likely to have the survival skills required to live for a very long time and execute such a search. While those who lived in rural environments will likely live out their lives without too much additional difficulty, urban survival will call for a new set of skills. It is unclear how much this will affect things.

Cort Ammon

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 121 365

Using square kilometers is extremely misleading. A straight line distance would be far more accurate. 400Km is going to cost you either 3-8 hours of driving. Easily achievable in a single day. – Shadowzee – 2018-08-22T05:06:26.783

1At a moderate walking pace of 4 km/h and by walking 8 hours/day, 429 km is easily traversable in 2 weeks. Even a completely unfit person should be able to manage half of that, which means that you'll cover that distance within a month. Of course, that doesn't help if you don't know where to go and the other person either goes to where you're going, or stays put! If everyone is wandering around looking, that alone would be a serious obstacle for anyone to find anyone else. I would guesstimate that most people can spot another person 1 km away in open terrain, but probably not 10-100 km away. – a CVn – 2018-08-22T05:50:35.180

I added some SI units, but I think there is a bigger problem with your answer: it seems to me that you used the wrong surface area figure. Wikipedia puts the total surface area of the Earth at 196 940 000 sq mi, but the land area as 29.2% of that or 57 510 000 sq mi (148 940 000 km²). You probably want to double-check your calculations. 35 people spread over 57.5M mi² would be about 1.64M mi² per person, which is quite far from your figure of 4.8M mi². – a CVn – 2018-08-22T05:56:43.887

Of course, also, if there are more than 19 urban areas of sufficient size, it seems somewhat unlikely that more than one person would be left in each, thus potentially nullifying your argument in your "best hope" paragraph. Taking the 37M inhabitants figure for Tokyo ("largest city on the planet") from the article you linked, if you scale down the world's population from 7,000,000,000 to 35, that's a factor 200M reduction. That would leave approximately 1/5th of a person in Tokyo. The odds that there would be more than one person left even in the biggest city on the planet seem rather slim. – a CVn – 2018-08-22T06:09:12.570

1Yawn at your survival skills caveat. Some Bushmen with mad survival skills might be able to field dress a deer and make fire from their ass or whatever, but that doesn't make them any more skilled at finding one person that's likely 1000km or more away. Humans are clever and social. We are designed to survive novel situations. A "spoiled urbanite" may not be able to track a wildebeest by scent, but no one is so helpless they would starve as soon as the lights went out or would walk off a cliff without GPS. – Anthony – 2018-08-22T19:54:14.140

1@Anthony The point of that caveat was that we can reasonably expect a bushman to live out their life in this case, at their full life expectancy. I think that we have to limit our assumptions of life expectancy for the urbanite, because their environment is radically changed by this shift. This affects how far they can walk. – Cort Ammon – 2018-08-22T22:13:09.493

3I think that there is going to a huge ceiling on anyone's survival if they don't find other people within a certain period of time. Determining what that amount of time is is an interesting question in and of itself. I suppose I see your point that someone in an urban area has to migrate farther to reach an area of sustainable resources (regardless of any presumed skill sets), but I think this would be offset by the vast availability of non sustainable resources within their urban area, eg canned foods that will take a lifetime to go through. – Anthony – 2018-08-22T22:17:50.417

7

A thing that seems not to have been addressed yet is the age and survival chance of the 35 non-vanishing persons. Depending on the mode by which the rest of humanity vanishes, many of the chosen ones might just die in minutes or days

Reasons would include among other things:

  • having been in the car/ship/train/airplane where the driver/captain/pilot vanishes, resulting in an accident
  • being to old or too young to care for oneself like a baby
  • being incarcerated at the moment or being otherwise stuck
  • going insane and commiting suicide shortly after the event

The already small chance of ever finding someone else diminishes further, if you simply die. Even if the other person is "close" (i.e. a few kilometers away).

However, when you know where the other person is, the meeting probably can be done in a few weeks. So the initial communication infrastructure would be most important. If the Internet stays active long enough, people could get in touch quite fast - just post and visit pages on popular sites, where actively viewed content is featured. Again, this depends on the age/culture of the persons in question - a senior in a rural area might not even think of this. Similarly, the already mentioned option of radio communications requires some expertise which could be missing among the surviving portion of the 35..

If they are going to meet, retain more people than 1 per 200 million. (of which probably half would be dead in a week)

Chieron

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 671

5

Was going to do this as a comment, but decided to write it up:

Total landmass on earth: 148.94 million km^2 (148940000km^2) - approximates to a square ~12300km on a side (Might be entering spherical cow territory here, but bear with me)

Randomly distribute 35 people within that square and calculate the minimum distance between any two of them

Repeat*100

Sum up all of our minimum distances and divide by 100 to get the average - ~70km or less! This is due to the what @Cort Ammon mentioned - the birthday problem - as the number of people goes up, the chances of any two of the being close rises exponentially

This of course assumes that people are evenly distributed, which they aren't, It also ignores the shape of continents, oceans, and travel difficulties

My incredibly rough calculations in a python script: NB: please forgive my horrible code, it's just meant to give an idea of my thought process and maybe act as a jumping off point

Factors which will affect the time it takes for two of them to meet:

  • Radio contact - two of them getting a ham radio set
  • One of them being in a position to spread news effectively - i.e. online news, emergency broadcast
  • How long infrastructure stays operational
  • If one has access to information that can track survivors; emergency services, mobile phone network, reddit?
  • How easy it would be for a single person to stand out amongst the noise generated by automatic processes such as bots, queues of updates for websites etc

Chromane

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 4 047

1

Based on a post on straight dope, the answer to your infrastructure question, at least for power generation, is probably "less than a week". Internet and power would probably be down before the dust settled, so anything that relies on news broadcasts or internet would most likely be inconsequential, especially because you'd have to deal with the language barrier in the vast majority of cases.

– Drazex – 2018-08-22T07:33:57.680

Good points! OP stated everyone else "suddenly disappeared", so I"m not sure how that would affect the infrastructure time. Language barrier can be overcome with a certain amount of thinking - display a map with a little flag and they have a general idea of your location – Chromane – 2018-08-22T08:39:23.513

True. The post suggests that some areas might even start failing without oversight within hours, though, with a week being the absolute limit in many cases. I think a lot of people would be too deep in their own networks to realize the problem until the internet suddenly cuts out. This is especially true given it's unlikely that more than a few people would remain who spoke the same language, which can affect which sites you visit as much as your ability to communicate with others once there. – Drazex – 2018-08-22T08:44:10.940

5

Of your 35 survivors, it is likely that 7-8 of them are Muslims. I imagine that at least a few of those might decide that now is a particularly good time to undertake Hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca. Particularly as such a pilgrimages are organised to arrive on the same day, then it is quite likely that they would meet each other there.

Jules

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 401

3A pilgrimage to Mecca, which is in the middle of a huge desert, may be particularly difficult to organise when civilisation is gone. It's one of the most inhospitable places on the planet. – gerrit – 2018-08-24T17:16:11.053

1It wouldn't be that hard. If people is gone but machines and roads remain, it isn't hard to pick a truck (and a boat) and go anywhere. Even if you need to live in the ground (without a truck) it isn't so hard to hunt in semidesertic lands if you are the only hunters. Hunter gatherers have been living quite well in the Kalahary desert until recently. – Pere – 2018-08-27T20:37:22.480

@gerrit - what makes crossing a desert difficult is the fact that doing so takes you a long way away from support, so you have to take everything you're going to need with you. Other than the fact that you can't expect any kind of assistance if something does go wrong, it won't be any harder. Take a reliable vehicle, fill it with supplies, and you should get there. Or go traditional: take a camel train. You could expect one or two camels to not make it, but if you take four you should still have enough supplies to make the journey even if the worst happens. – Jules – 2018-08-29T19:12:19.280

5

Foreword: This may duck the spirit of the question for the literalist interpretation.

Thinking Outside The Box

Alternately, thinking outside the sphere

If I was a '35er, the very first thing I would do is hop on my smartphone and start hailing the ISS in every way I can manage. At their twitter, at their Insta, if I can find a HAM radio I'll darn well hit em there. I'll try the astronauts personal twitter, email, linkedIn, whatever I can possibly find.

I believe this will be a doable effort. Even if there are bots creating bogons, I believe the only person tweeting, emailing, DMing, Hamming, about how they've lost contact with Houston will eventually make contact. The ISS has (very slow) internet access and I believe it is a much better option than HAM for making and maintaining the contact we will need for this next step.

Even if you can't maintain contact over the short longer term, you have made contact with a very important asset. The astronauts on the ISS are the only humans guaranteed to be alive at this juncture. Any attempt to quickly (day of, day after, while internet survives) pick out and contact another survivor seems doomed to fail in my opinion.

The Plan

The Astronauts are an incredible asset in your plan to save the human race (lets face it, without your action, there ain't no chance of more babies). They will allow you to greatly increase your communication output in the crucial period before the global communication network shatters. You email every person in your email contact list. You message everyone you have on facebook or any other social network.

MAJOR KEY ALERT: you try to find the address of your closest HAM radio club or organization. Dig for details of either the first member you can find (time-sensitive internet access) or the closest member to your location (transit time contingent). Download a copy of the two most popular Ham radio operation manuals you can find on E-Book (you can always get one at a library later, believe me you'll have the time for it).

Meanwhile, have the ISS do their part. They will have a more traditional array of communications tools alongside their slow internet. They are all exceptional people and bring a set of skills, knowledge, experience, and raw brainpower that you alone could never match. Follow their instructions if they seem reasonable and try to avoid wasting time communicating about their unavoidable long-term death.

Short Term Contingencies

Now, this first stage of the plan is contingent on a few things, luck first among them. Depending on the circumstances of the disappearance and your own personal situation, a car could crash, take down a line or generator or other sundry key part of the communication network linking you to the ISS. This is too terrible to contemplate so I'll not bother. Answers to this question seem to think otherwise have a set of 2-5 (ok maybe not five) days before the internet is pining for the fjords.

Back to the Plan

The time between when you make contact with your team and when you lose them over the internet is precious beyond simple explanation. I personally cannot imagine what brilliant things you could come up with, under extreme "motivation", with decades of their experience as soldiers, academics, or whatever. 232 extraordinary global citizens have spent time ex-terra at the ISS Hilton, so you could have more or less any combined skill set up there. What I suggest seems reasonable to me under these bounds.

You take control of the ISS personal astronaut social media accounts, the ISS social media accounts, the NASA social media accounts, and/or any other email-linkedin-weichat-VKontakte accounts you can. If anyone has the talent to hack or learn to hack quickly, take control of any and all social media, news, or simply popular webpages you can. Take into hand any further ISS-based communication equipment, and broadcast a looping screed of "Are you out there? We are still alive! us at !". If you can take control of printers, print your the address of your nearest town hall (to be left with a briefing cache) along with the above message.

You have cast the widest net possible in the shortest time possible. Await responses while brainstorming your next step over email with the spacers. Download a translation program and a set of dictionaries to a flash drive and use google translate while you still can.

If you get any responses, generically tell them to acquire a ham radio and a generator before proceeding. See if you can get them hooked up with the ISS if you can, to facilitate communication. If you can figure out a potential halfway-point for future meeting, hash that out.

My guess is that you don't see any response (you can cast a big net but earth is large as hell with balkanized communication for the most part), but you've given it your best. Either way, form a plan for continued (personal and species-level) survival. At some point you'll have to switch to a Ham Radio for (much reduced) ISS communication (which will end one day) and a library for research and planning purposes.

Going Forward

  1. Survive! If your person doesn't survive, nothing else matters (to you).
  2. Help others survive! Even if you can't reach them, assist them in any way you can. Keep in HM radio contact as often as possible, and pool your (foodgathering, medical, transportation) information, and socialize. It would be very easy to get discouraged or suffer from mental health issues in this scenario.
  3. Form a community of survivors. Travel to a centralized site with access to food, resources, and information. Choose a language (please god no English or Chinese), form a society, have kids. Choose a leader and stick to it because god knows you can't afford a civil war.
  4. Make your community safe. You'll have a Mayflower's worth of people, with no guarantee of carpenters nor doctors. Based on this chart and your ability to contact, preserve, and gather your fellow humans, you will have a very limited workforce with limited skills. Choose a safe (good weather and limited natural disasters) location and exploit existing structures and resources, like farms, orchards, quarries, etc.
  5. Preserve Knowledge and Progress. Form a religion to preserve knowledge, human rights, and provide for the people. To what extent you can, mold your society around reclaiming the mantle of humanity, reclaiming progress, and preserving the environment. This is your chance to change the course of human history. Even if in the future, regionalism and person ambition breaks your community into different groups, you can hope your church will tie them together culturally and diplomatically. I'm aiming for a mix between the state-within-all-states Early-Middle-Ages Catholic Church and Star Trek's Federation.

Acknowledgements

What I detailed above is by no means the most likely scenario. It is simply one scenario, and one far more positive than most of the answers so far in my opinion.

Dent7777

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 2 767

3I like how your literal interpretation of "people on Earth have disappeared" to not include people in LEO. – gerrit – 2018-08-24T17:15:29.950

1The ISS always has one Soyuz docked to it, so the crew can leave in an emergency. You might even be able to convince them to land near you. – Ryan_L – 2018-08-28T19:55:52.320

4

The headline and the detailed question are not equivalent.

If everyone in the world disappeared except 35 random people, how long would it take for one of them to realize they're not alone?

is not the same as

Everyone suddenly disappears from earth except 35 people randomly scattered wherever they were before everyone disappeared. How long would it take on average for 2 or more people to meet?

It depends on what you mean by the word "realize." That's not the same as "prove." How long did it take the human species to "realize" that there were not alone (or better, in a vast if not infinite universe or multiverse, extraordinarily unlikely to be alone) as a self-conscious species, even though none had ever been encountered?

So what is required is for one of the thirty five to "realize" that if s/he survived then there are two possibilities. Either out of 7.4 billion people s/he is the only one, or there are others. If one person survived then that is proof that it was possible to survive. Given that the thirty five were taken at random, it is reasonable to assume that there were no special circumstances relating to the survival of that individual, indicating that there were 7.4 billion chances for at least one other to survive. As with the case of intelligent life on planets other than the earth, the huge number of other possibilities for life, i.e. survival, would lead me (if I was lucky or unlucky enough to be one of the survivors) to almost immediately "realize" that there were overwhelmingly likely to be others, even though it might be very unlikely that I would ever meet one. What is the chance that of thirty five random individuals one would think the same way as me - pretty good, I'd say.

RevLS

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 49

1It is tautological that there were "special circumstances relating to the survival of that individual"; after all, millions of people around them just disappeared and they didn't. While most people would consider it a possibility that the probability of survival is between 3e-10 and 3e-4, I can't see anyone considering it a certainty. – Sneftel – 2018-08-22T09:23:19.713

4

Welcome to Stack Exchange. While the wording of the question title may say "realise", it is clear from the main body that the OP is asking how long it would take for two of the 35 people to meet. As a result, your post fails to answer the question since you are just addressing the technicalities of the question's wording. Please take the tour and visit the help centre for more information about this site.

– Aric – 2018-08-22T09:33:36.800

1I think you're also making errors of probability here, RevLS. There's very little we can induce from a sample of one. We have have no evidence that we can extrapolate from to guess the likelihood that living creatures exist on other planets, and your survivor has no evidence to extrapolate from to guess the likelihood that other people survived. If the survivor knows how or why he was spared (just like if we knew how life came to exist on Earth), then he could form some theory about whether it was likely to happen to others. – workerjoe – 2018-08-23T17:28:04.390

2

In order to realize you are not the only one, you have to meet another. That in itself is a major challenge even if you use one of the more sensible strategies suggested in other answers. The success of the strategy also depends on someone else using a strategy compatible with the one you chose.

So, what is the probability that two or more of 35 people who see no evidence that anyone else exists will think that there might be someone else? Then, what are the chances that those two or more but less than 35 will think that it is worthwhile to try to find each other, and then that the ones that think so will design methods that have a chance of working?

On the other hand, if two of them happen to be fans or followers of a popular page/account on a social media site, and keep looking at it in spite of it having no activity after they notice that apparently they are alone, one of them might post “WTF happened?” and the other see it. Once they realize there is one other, they may be motivated to collaborate on a search for others.

Finally, are those 35 truly random? Or is there something they have in common that exempted them from the disappearance? If so, is that something that will increase the probability of some of them knowing or suspecting there are others?

WGroleau

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 817

3In order to realize you are not the only one, you have to meet another — not necessarily. One might leave an obvious trace, and the other might find it, even years later. – gerrit – 2018-08-23T09:26:25.973

2

Get something like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_emergency_notification_device

and hope that someone manages to hack into the data center and receive your message. Combine with other methods such as HF radio.

darsie

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 125

3How about fireworks? It might not be a bad idea for a survivor to set off a few bottle rockets every clear night he's near a major city center. – workerjoe – 2018-08-23T18:14:23.997

2

This is another Birthday Problem answer. It seems likely that two people could find each other (if that was their goal) if they were in the same city, as cities have centralized layouts and are small compared to countries. So one way of addressing this question is to ask: how likely is it that two people would remain in a single city?

I chose simulation, finding a list of about 50,000 cities and their populations. The total population was about 2.2 billion out of an assumed population (US census bureau) of 7,494,217,000; I assumed that anyone not falling in one of those cities would have 0 chance of finding any others. In 7 out of 100 simulation there was at least one city with two or more people remaining, suggesting that the probability is between 5.5% to 8.5% with ~95% confidence.

Charles

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 381

You can directly calculate the odds based on the Birthday problem. Using a calculator for simplicity, using 35 people in 50,000 cities gives only a 1.18% chance have two being in the same city. You yourself pointed out that only 29.7% of people are included. That means we're actually only looking at about 10 people. This gives only a 0.08% (8/10,000) chance of anyone being in the same city as anyone else.

– Drazex – 2018-08-23T03:51:43.607

@Drazex That's not a reasonable calculation, since some cities have tens of millions of people and other cities have fewer than a thousand. You must take the sizes into account, which is why I used simulation rather than an exact calculation. – Charles – 2018-08-23T12:02:13.557

Fair enough, but without more information about your simulation, it's impossible to tell what assumptions you're making to get that number. I made the assumption of equal probability because that's what it sounded like you were doing. – Drazex – 2018-08-23T12:22:34.050

@Drazex The intent is to use the actual populations of the largest cities on Earth today. Of course there are different definitions of what the city is (city proper, urban area, etc.), different census results in different years, and various other reasons to get different numbers, but in practice I just went with whatever numbers I found. I encourage you to find your own list and run your own simulation as a double-check -- if your numbers differ substantially from mine, either more than 8.5% or less than 5.5%, let me know. – Charles – 2018-08-23T14:24:27.520

@Drazex I ended up using this list: https://www.kaggle.com/max-mind/world-cities-database (just the cities with listed populations)

– Charles – 2018-08-23T14:27:11.093

1

It depends on whether Facebook is still working. Of the 35 survivors, about 10 of them are on FB. The first thing they will do after the event is go online to find out what happened. Assuming that FB has a facility to allow active users to find each other, and that the algorithms scale downward to 10 users, they will start interacting in about 10 minutes.

Of course this is problematic. None of the 35 are keeping the power grid up, or the networks up, or the servers running. So this all has to be done by bots using AI. Provided the bots survived the event.

Walter Mitty

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 895

I thought of this, but spambots will make this very hard. And what facility to find each other would Facebook have? I don't think there is any. – gerrit – 2018-08-22T11:23:50.267

Well, disappearing of people doesn't mean their account disappear from social network as well. So I'm afraid it will not get you anywhere. What could work though is creating for a group like "Everyone disappeared, what now" and then search for similar groups in a hope that there was someone who had similar idea. The drawback is that relying on computers gives just few days to contact as stated by others. Then the entire power network goes down. – Ister – 2018-08-22T12:24:05.250

Facebook has facilties to suggest new friends to you. Those algorithms are well suited to a user community o a billion. Adapting to a user community of 10 might be a real challenge. But maybe not. – Walter Mitty – 2018-08-22T13:11:07.267

4If any of the 35 is a Facebook sysop, they might have ways to find out any others left alive. If not, good luck. – gerrit – 2018-08-22T13:15:01.027

1Livestream yourself publicly on facebook, maybe? – bendl – 2018-08-22T16:56:33.560

I haven't done the numbers but a couple of survivors could be stackexchange users. Posting a question in like this one (in travel or lifehacks) may be helpful to find the other surviving user. – Pere – 2018-08-27T20:50:04.037

1

Since all kinds of modern transportation and communication and food production will break down without people operating and the world is as large as it is, they would most probably die before they found anyone.

mathreadler

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 308

Maybe you would. Some of us would be just fine without cell phones and TV. – workerjoe – 2018-08-23T17:31:13.290

@Joe It's not just cell phones and TV. Where are you gonna get your food from after power plants break down because of lack of maintenance? No electric power, no refrigeration. Most food would go bad really quickly. How would you know where to go to find another living soul? Within one city you could walk. But even going to another city would be a gamble. What if your car breaks down? Are you fit and have the survival skills to walk to whatever place may have food? – mathreadler – 2018-08-23T19:42:12.847

6That's just silly. Dry and canned food in the supermarkets could supply a single person for a decade before they all go bad, more than enough time for even a city slicker to figure out how to grow a garden. Ordinary cars less than 10 years old will certainly be reliable enough for a year or two, and anyway, long-distance transportation isn't a necessity for life any more than long-distance communication is. Since food, water, shelter, and transportation are going to be ridiculously easy in this scenario, your post seems to suggest one would die from lack of TV and internet. – workerjoe – 2018-08-24T19:11:51.247

@Joe You would probably need to break into the shops. How big stores do they have of canned food? I don't have any numbers on that. But I doubt they would buy very much more than they expect to sell in a relatively short timespan. They want to make profit after all. What would you do for heating? When electricity goes down which would happen in a few days or weeks most houses will get as cold as the outside weather quite quickly. What will you do for clean water? The sanitary systems and water cleaning facilities are likely to break down quite quickly without maintenance. How you gonna poop? – mathreadler – 2018-08-24T19:37:40.377

4I can't imagine where you must live, to ask such questions. The answers to your questions are (1) very, very much, certainly tens of thousands of cans between the three or four major grocery stores in my small city, millions of cans in any major city (2) wood (3) river or spring (4) in the woods, until I can build an outhouse – workerjoe – 2018-08-24T19:53:17.207

Do you have the wood and the tools to cut wood in a city? Does the river have clean water? Quite many rivers are polluted these days. What do you do when you get sick? – mathreadler – 2018-08-24T20:14:28.440

2I don't live in Manhattan, but even there it shouldn't be overly difficult. One or two big hardwoods should serve to heat a single-family home through the winter (if I can find one with a wood furnace, which might be hard in that city). With water you either boil it or filter it until you can find a spring or rig up a well with a manual pump. I can't imagine getting "sick" would be more unpleasant than it normally is. Sure, you might die of appendicitis or something else unforeseen, but it's not like an ordinary 40-year-old is getting hit with "fatal without surgery" illnesses every year. – workerjoe – 2018-08-24T20:24:02.503

Yes it is probably difficult to find a place to live which you can heat with wood in most modern cities. How do you cook without electricity or gas? Remember sanitation will be much worse after just a short while. With worse sanitation is larger risk to get sick. What if you need to see a doctor but there isn't one? The reasons why 40- or 50-year-olds usually don't die of silly diseases after like 1900 is very much thanks to increased sanitation due to cleaning of water and trash-dumping services and to some extent antibiotics. All those modern standards will be gone in a matter of weeks. – mathreadler – 2018-08-24T20:33:08.070

4For cooking, I think we could find a BBQ grill even in a city, and I doubt the sewage or trash produced by one person is going to make a significant impact anywhere. We're talking about a scenario in which there are only 35 people in the world, remember? – workerjoe – 2018-08-24T20:43:04.867

Yes you can find a BBQ but what will you run it on? Electricity is out. And where will you find any fresh meat to grill without working refrigeration? Even if there is lots of meat in the shops it will go bad in matter of days or weeks. You will need to find a way to wash clothes or maybe you would just make burglar runs at local cloth stores when they get dirty. You have sewage and trash lying around not being collected in most apartments in the city. All the food in their fridges and freezers will slowly start to rot. What about when everyones pets will start dying? Bad sanitary conditions. – mathreadler – 2018-08-24T20:54:06.037

2

@mathreadler: You run it on propane. Where I live (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada), many homes have propane BBQs with a small portable tank (google images gas bbq with propane tank -> https://rpgaspiping.com/blog/homeowner-tips/what-is-the-best-bbq-fuel-for-you/), and can be lit with a match or with a piezo-electric starter button. (i.e. they don't need to plug into the wall to start). You might have to move to a new grill every week or so as you empty the tanks, but there are a lot, giving you plenty of time to find a larger supply of fuel, or a wood stove or fireplace.

– Peter Cordes – 2018-08-25T17:06:35.507

4With an axe and/or saw and wooden houses all over the place, you have a massive supply of dry wood to burn. Also, a commercial kitchen in a restaurant might have a large supply of propane on site. – Peter Cordes – 2018-08-25T17:06:41.383

2These are inconveniences, not lethal problems, so I'd manage just fine I think. And by the way, I suggested Manhattan as the worst-case scenario in the entire developed world. If I had a hard time finding the tools and food I needed there, I'd just head out of town to someplace with a Walmart and a decent hardware store. – workerjoe – 2018-08-25T17:07:41.673

4@mathreadler you don't seem to have any idea how most people in the first world used to live, only 50 years ago. And some of the 35 survivors will probably either remember first hand experience of that, or at least have heard stories from their parents and grandparents. – alephzero – 2018-08-25T17:09:19.410

@alephzero : That is not the question. The question is how would a random person today adapt to the new (ehm, old?) circumstances? I think most kids of today would do really terrible if they ended up in such circumstances. Would not live long. Maybe you both know lots of such things, but I am quite sure most people of today would not have many ideas what to do. And that's what the question is about. How would 35 random people do, not how some effing canadian ranger or american vet "prepper" would do. – mathreadler – 2018-08-25T18:05:50.587

@PeterCordes Hah that explains stuff. – mathreadler – 2018-08-25T18:12:39.823

3I'm a "Canadian ranger" for knowing of the existence of gas BBQs? I was a boy scout, and do know how to build + light a camp fire with wood, paper, and matches, but I didn't think that was a super-rare skill that people would die before figuring out. I think if you were actually confronted with that survival situation, it would focus your mind and make you take stock of what was around you. Actually breaking in to houses in your area and seeing what's in them would put the solution in front of your eyes, which is easier than thinking of it without going there. – Peter Cordes – 2018-08-25T18:18:52.253

Yes that's what I meant. You are statistically speaking so much more prepared for this than any of those 35 random people. And you can send them back home, already. They won't be getting any swimmers anyway. – mathreadler – 2018-08-25T18:21:26.040

3@mathreadler What is it that you think will actually kill these people? You seem determined that an average person would drop dead within the first few weeks. I can't imagine any able-bodied adult between 15 and 65 wouldn't be able to figure out the basics of food, water, and shelter, even in a 3rd world country, even in winter, no "boy scout" skills necessary. I believe you have a very distorted picture of who the "average" person is: sheltered, urban, prone to despair? – workerjoe – 2018-08-25T19:01:54.540

@Joe okay, that is fair I guess. I have made some attempts to explain, but I don't have energy to spare for it any more so I will just leave it be and spend my energy on more meaningful things. If there is something I have learned is that if someone don't want to listen, then it is 99% of the time completely meaningless to keep going. – mathreadler – 2018-08-25T19:07:49.463

1

With radios yes, without technology .... no

Does it have to be 35 people? Why not 356, 1 for everyday of the year. Then you can at least have a few people setting up radios in different citys they visit and maybe leaving repeating messages. And eventually, after maybe a 3-5 years maybe even a decade if 200 or more are still alive, someone would find someone.

35 Is just way to low, unless you're planning on inventing ways for them to have electricity and communication methods for at least a week but even then a month would do much better, but that would be impossible as much power grids would fail in 12 to 48 hours for major areas maybe in a week depending on if it is solar or renewable, or nuclear. But even then, would things like the internet and google or facebook or other online things still work correctly. Would international phonecalls work? What citys and systems would stay online long enough to help.

Again, maybe even increase the number to 3,560, 10 people for each day of the year, although 356 would sound more world ending or godly fashioned, 3 thousand or 10 thousand would be more doomsday or planned by a person instead of a god.

Even 100 or 1000, and have 1 to 10 people of each year and age, although the kids or elderly would lower the population without help.

Honestly, it would just really help if you explained why 35 is a part of your story and what kind of story your trying to tell with this. Like what is your world, and what time or year is it is also very helpful.

If the power grid failing sounds far fetched, then read this other thread. https://www.quora.com/If-everyone-in-the-world-died-at-once-how-long-would-electricity-and-the-Internet-continue-to-function

WolvesEyes

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 821

Why does everyone say power grid will fail in a few days? Is it really that fragile? I thought that the 1965 New England disaster had prompted huge improvements in reliability. – WGroleau – 2018-08-23T22:08:55.990

I did the math in my answer, and it turns out that with 365 people there's a 99% or higher chance two are in the same city. – djechlin – 2018-08-30T18:13:43.880

0

Where do you find a decent Starfish Prime when you need one.

I could see the results of this one for 1 week plus from 4000 miles away.

How to find, access and 'utilise' such a device is left as an exercise for the student.

enter image description here

From here - many more on web.

Russell McMahon

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 956

0

Here is a full simulation for whether two people out of N survivors given a list of the largest cities and a population of 7 billion people will find each other. The simplifying assumption is that two people will find each other if they are in the same city. In any case, here is the code for a Monte Carlo simulation:

def main():

  population_file = sys.argv[1]
  people = sys.argv[2]

  global_population = 7 * 1000 * 1000 * 1000
  data = open(population_file, 'r').readlines()
  successes = 0

  data = [int(s) for s in data]
  # the rest of the world
  blackhole = global_population - sum(data)

  aug = data + [blackhole]
  aug = [ (1.0 * a) / global_population for a in aug]
  cumu = [sum(aug[0:idx]) for idx in range(len(aug))]
  top = cumu[len(cumu) - 1]

  people = 2000

  def draw():
    r = random.uniform(0, 1)
    if r > top:
      return -1
    # Replace with binary search if many cities
    return next(i for i in range(len(cumu)) if cumu[i+1] > r)

  trials = 10000
  for t in range(trials):
    locations = [draw() for _ in range(people)]
    locations = [loc for loc in locations if loc > 0]
    successes += len(set(locations)) < len(locations)


  print '%d people, %.2f%% chance' % (people, (100.0 * successes) / trials)

main()

Here are some results:

python monte.py summe 35
35 people, 4.61% chance
...
100 people, 30.82% chance
120 people, 42.06% chance
140 people, 52.86% chance
200 people, 76.73% chance
365 people, 99.02% chance
500 people, 99.94% chance
1000 people, 100.00% chance

As you can see the breakeven for two people being in the same city limited to the 1000 most populous cities, which is about 12% of the global population, is around 140 people. Even with 35 people, there is a respectable chance of about 5% two people will be in the same city.

If you repeat my experiment with more cities the chance will go up slightly, because I assume two people who are not in the top 1000 cities will not meet. You may want to extend the experiment to 2000 or 10000 cities. But this is a lower bound then.

My answer takes into account the birthday paradox which a lot of the othe answers do not. For instance, the accepted answer makes the simplifying assumption that you should only consider the top 3 most populous countries, which is exactly the simplifying assumption you do not want to take. The birthday paradox is the mathematical result that 23 people probably share the same birthday out of 365 days. But you do not only limit your search to the 31 day months: of course the two people may share a birthday in February, April, June, September or November. And any 2 people of the 23 may collide, so intuitively it's less of a 23/365 chance and more of a 23*23 = 529/365 chance (there may be multiple collisions and this intuition does happen to overestimate).

Therefore, this proves, mathematically, that: There is at least a 4.6% chance that 2 of the 35 people will live in the same geographically defined city. With 140 people, there is at least a 50% chance. With 500 people, it is a near certainty.

I would bet more that two urbanites have a better chance of covering Shanghai or Chicago than two rural people have a chance of covering Oklahoma or the Yukon.

djechlin

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 686

1But the majority of people do not live in the world's largest 850 cities. – forest – 2018-08-29T17:38:25.450

@forest I ran a full simulation for you, here are the results. Taking into account past the 1000 cities only makes the occurrence more likely. – djechlin – 2018-08-30T18:05:15.943

Oh interesting. Thanks for the analysis! – forest – 2018-08-31T21:34:45.950

0

You're the "last person on Earth", pick a communication method

which may be as simple as physically talking with someone.

  1. It has a noise-to-signal ratio for people to detect if you're alive, talking and flying a plane are near 100% (weather and person's hearing permitting add those in if you can :3). Radio transmission probably less (There could be raw signal issues.) Call this $Signal\Delta$
  2. It also has an observable area for the communication method (can only shout so far). Call this $CommArea$
  3. Assume either you or someone else was constantly moving so that the entirety of Earth was covered... You would need to move because other person is not guaranteed to be moving (if other person's existence of movement is random you're further reducing chances by 50% if you're not moving, if they're doing same strategy as you then reducing proportional to communication area). Thinking Cap time: If you consider same-speed movement between a pair of people, parallel movement results in maintaining separation. Non-parallel motion results in separation or closing. If you consider only your angle relative to their parallel motion you can see that the range of angles you can take that close the distance is determined by a) your movement speed relative to the distance and b) the angle that the lines between their previous position and next position make with you (if you're right behind this line of travel no angles result in closing, only the parallel maintains distance). We can probably neglect speed entirely because sensing distance is much larger than movement speed. And if we consider a random walk then Closing is random but reduces to a neat percentage. Because every motion situation has an exact opposite combination that can occur. And the other person can't know your motion without knowing you're alive, then:

    $Closing\% \approx .50$

(Also consider the case of everyone chasing each other in a single line across the globe. They'd never catch each other. While random deviations can lead to a new situation)

Only problem is a random walk has a Gaussian probability of distance from start:

$\mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma^2) $

$\mu = Mean = 0, \sigma = spread = travel speed*time*other$ ...idk remember the other part that allows you to calculate sigma over time...However I do know the following:

Out of all the areas we can possibly travel:

  • 68.27% of them are within 1 $\sigma$ of the start.
  • 95.45% of them are within 2 $\sigma$
  • 99.73% of them are within 3 $\sigma$

    Conversely one can say there is a lower chance of ending up outside of 2 $\sigma$ from the start. There's only a 4.55% chance of this happening. As well as the fact that if we can possibly travel $D$ distance in the time already passed then 3$\sigma$<$D$

    1. Population density effects starting positions which effects chance of finding each other because of the Gaussian distribution of your position relative to your start. So what are the odds of two people starting close to each other? Well all people within a circle around you of radius $R$ contribute to the people that would be considered at least as close as $R$. So the population in that circle compared to the whole world's is the $Density\%$ and is the odds that someone starts within $R$ from you.

These probabilities are then affected by the same statistics behind the insight in the Birthday Paradox. It's not "What is the probability that someone has my B-Day?" it's "What are the odds that nobody has any other person's B-Day?" You have one instance of the probability happening for each person.

So what are the odds all these factors line up?:

Well it's a rough estimate because some communications are global in nature and don't change location necessarily just because you move (internet is one for example). However we can get a pretty good estimate.

Person1:

Individual Probability of Communication First Pass after time t:

$P_I(t,n) = Signal\Delta_n*Closing\%_n*\mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma_n^2)*Density\%_n$

$\sigma_n \approx R_n(t)/3$

$Density\%_n = PeopleWithinDist_n(R_n(t))/EarthPopulation$

Max. Communication distance over time (radius of CommArea+Distance):

$R_n(t) = \sqrt{CommArea_n/\pi}+Speed_n*t$

Birthday Paradox Effect (Total Probability):

$CommDistArea_n = R_n(t)*\sqrt{CommArea_n/\pi}$

Odds of being outside of all $CommDistArea_n$ OR being inside but missing the communication:

$CommArea\%_n = CommDistArea_n / EarthArea$

$P_T()= 1 - (1-CommArea\%_1*P_I(t,1))*(1-CommArea\%_2*P_I(t,2))\ldots*(1-CommArea\%_{35}*P_I(t,35))$

EX: Airplane travel with clear visual of 35 people taken from high population density landmass throughout expansion (ie population density remains at a consistently high level as one walks in a single direction.)

Assuming: 80km is visual distance, 885 km/h is airplane speed, 25,709 km² is population density.

$EarthArea =$ 510.1 million km² (Although there's only about 40 million higher density we're using entire surface)

$EarthPopulation =$ 7.5 billion

We're gonna get a quick and dirty number of about .00000171393 after one hour minimum. (Ie odds of a single person being next to another person is 1 in a million after first hour). A key observation is our potential area traveled increases with the square of the potential distance. So after about a day our area encompasses a large portion of Earth's Area and most definitely drags our number up to .02

2% success rate is actually all we need. Birthday Paradox effect takes care of the rest. Resulting in 51% chance of someone "meeting" another individual within 180km. Which for a 885km/h plane is no time at all. If you want 98% success rate....Then actually doubling the time from 2% is actually enough.

TL;DR predicated mostly on all candidates being dropped in the centers of high population areas... There's a significantly high chance of finding another candidate before death.

What other factors would indicate to a person that they're not the only person who didn't disappear? Fresh destruction could be an indicator of life. Much like tracking in the wild. Finding a new nuclear crater would tell you something happened. If it was improbable to accidentally happen, then you could guess at someone else being alive.

Black

Posted 2018-08-22T03:53:13.777

Reputation: 3 098

Some logic with dirty napkin math. Probably could be improved greatly, I'm sure I missed more than what I know I missed. Use grains of salt... – Black – 2018-08-29T14:34:05.073