Athilian |

Large group, or Small group?

Athilian
Athilian
Large group, or Small group?
Dec 9 2007, 4:23 PM EST | Post edited: Dec 9 2007, 4:23 PM EST
How many people would you have in your group, and why?

Note:
Large groups: more people to feed
Small groups: less people to help defend
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
Mr_Krinkle
Mr_Krinkle
1. RE: Large group, or Small group?
Dec 9 2007, 7:46 PM EST | Post edited: Dec 9 2007, 7:46 PM EST
Of course I'm going to have to say that a small group would be much more advantageous. I'd say that 25-50 people would be plenty for holding out in a secluded school. With a smaller group you wouldn't have to feed nearly as many people, there would be less injuries to tend to, and more supplies to go around--food and water would last much much longer. With a large group there would always be someone that needs help due to injuries and such, food, water, and materials wouldn't last nearly as long, and you can't forget that some people would surely go crazy and probably try to kill everyone.
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
Athilian
Athilian
2. RE: Large group, or Small group?
Dec 9 2007, 7:50 PM EST | Post edited: Dec 9 2007, 7:50 PM EST
This is true, but if you had say 100-1000 people, you could repopulate faster, and spread out more easily. I see where you are comming from with your statement, but with only 50 people, you couldnt spread as fast, and take the world back.
4  out of 4 found this valuable. Do you?    
Mr_Krinkle
Mr_Krinkle
3. RE: Large group, or Small group?
Dec 9 2007, 7:53 PM EST | Post edited: Dec 9 2007, 7:53 PM EST
It definitely depends on how widespread the infection is. If you're taking the entire world back it's not going to matter if you have 50 or 1,000 people. It's the world. It's big.
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
Athilian
Athilian
4. RE: Large group, or Small group?
Dec 9 2007, 7:57 PM EST | Post edited: Dec 9 2007, 7:57 PM EST
Yeah 6 Billion people big, so the more you have, the better chance of a long-term survival. Yeah you could do it with 50 people, but it would definatly take longer to do, for sure. Where would you go with those 50 people?
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
Mr_Krinkle
Mr_Krinkle
5. RE: Large group, or Small group?
Dec 9 2007, 7:59 PM EST | Post edited: Dec 9 2007, 7:59 PM EST
Well, I guess it all depends. A smaller group would definitely be better for the survival of an individual or a group of friends, but the large group would be better for the comeback of humanity. And I guess with a larger group you could save absolutely everyone that you could find; it would definitely benefit those that are pinned down or don't know what to do.
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
Athilian
Athilian
6. Large group, or Small group?
Dec 9 2007, 8:01 PM EST | Post edited: Dec 9 2007, 8:01 PM EST
It looks like the question still remains unanswered. Large group, or small group?
Do you find this valuable?    
vanrulzz
vanrulzz
7. RE: Large group, or Small group?
Dec 9 2007, 9:06 PM EST | Post edited: Dec 9 2007, 9:06 PM EST
I think large. More people to feed, sure, but the world isnt going to run out of food for 100-500people, and as you said we repopulate faster.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?