|
It's not specifically the number of humans but rather the ecological footprint that's more of a problem - it's currently estimated that we need 5 x earths to support the current population, so either we get 5 times more efficient and cap population where it is, or reduce world population to around 2 billion with some modest efficiency gains (that seem achievable with current and imminent technology).
Bubonic plague was the worst pandemic in recorded history, and with no medical knowledge to help them, it killed 20-30% of the world population (estimates vary significantly), not 60-80% that would be required alone.
The next worst, the 1918 'flu, "only" killed 1-3% of the world population (again, estimates vary).
A new pathogen may be a large killer, but (IMVHO) I think famine, drought and resultant human conflict will account for more of us if we continue unchanged.
Nature will undoubtedly force change upon us if we don't do it ourselves, but the cost nature imposes will be a high one.
|