-5

This question already has an answer here:

They changed Thanos' motivation for killing half the universe's population in the movies. In the comics, he did it to impress Mistress Death. In the movie, his reasoning was to reduce overpopulation in a universe of finite resources. While halving the population keeps the number in line with the comics, it makes no sense.

Take Earth as an example. Earth has a population of 7.4 billion people. Reducing the population in half brings us to 3.7 billion people. This was the population in 1970. He set us back 50 years. And in reality, it will not take 50 years to recover, as science has progressed since 1970. This means people live longer, healthier lives. People can have children later in their lives. Diseases will have little to no affect as they did 50 years ago. Childbirth is safer etc. This being the case, Thanos would have to halve the population at least once every 50 years.

I doubt it, but is there any other explanation? Perhaps in a tie-in comic?

marked as duplicate by Dave Johnson, FuzzyBoots, tilley31, Edlothiad, amflare Sep 21 '18 at 20:05

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 5
    Another explanation for what? Of course the halving the population solution doesn't hold up. He's an insane villain. – phantom42 Sep 21 '18 at 19:43
  • 8
    He's not known as "The Mad Titan" because of his irascible temper. – Valorum Sep 21 '18 at 19:44
  • 1
    One assumes that the smart races will realise that their worlds are now better (with twice the natural resources per person) and work to moderate their populations – Valorum Sep 21 '18 at 19:45
  • Unless the birth rate increases (which is plausible but not necessarily true) then 50 years from now we might or might not have more population than we did before the Event, but will certainly have less population than we would have had in the absence of the Event. – Harry Johnston Sep 21 '18 at 20:32
  • is there anything that states each planet gets halved or is it truly just half the universe? Statistically speaking, Earth may have been left untouched and an entire planet w/ the same population totally wiped and the net effect would be the same. In other words - don't overthink this ;) – NKCampbell Sep 21 '18 at 21:14
4

This was more of a statement than a question, but you're not the only person to point out the holes in his plan.

It's made worse by the fact that Marvel have confirmed that Thanos destroyed half of ALL life in the universe, not only sentient creatures. Trees, cows, wheat plants, everything. So he deleted half the people, but also half of the food sources, so nothing's changed, save that there's more space for the people to starve in.

In an interview with Birth Movies Death, Marvel Studios CEO Kevin Feige confirmed that it wasn't just people that died with that finger snapping. When asked about plants and animals, Feige confirmed that half of the plants and animals of the world are now gone, too. He said, "Yes! Yes. All life."

  • 1
    Well, this assumes that having twice the natural resources (minerals, oil, rare elements, etc) wouldn't be of benefit. The trees and crops would be replaceable within a generation or two – Valorum Sep 21 '18 at 20:12
  • 2
    I'd also quite like to have my neighbour's house for storage or a spare house in the city. That would cut down my commute and make me a lot happier. – Valorum Sep 21 '18 at 20:13

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.