Without all the semantic and precise definition issues, I am assuming that @ragingloli means to ask what the death percentage would be without causes being from aging-related concerns.
”Of the roughly 150,000 people who die each day across the globe, about two-thirds die from age-related causes.”
From this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageing#:~:text=Ageing%20is%20among%20the%20greatest%20known%20risk%20factors%20for%20most%20human%20diseases.%20Of%20the%20roughly%20150%2C000%20people%20who%20die%20each%20day%20across%20the%20globe%2C%20about%20two-thirds—100%2C000%20per%20day—die%20from%20age-related%20causes.%20In%20industrialized%20nations%2C%20the%20proportion%20is%20higher%2C%20reaching%2090%25.
This leads me to think that perhaps only one-third of the population would die from other causes, except the rate would likely be much higher, as the battle for resources would be much fiercer. Birth rates would be pretty low, too, so violent death rates might be even higher, as each community would fight even harder to preserve resources and viable survivability of their young.
There would likely be global conflicts of such magnitude, over and over again, that would cause the population to be reduced dramatically, and start over each time.
Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle cover this type of scenario quite well in The Mote In God’s Eye.