Sign in or 
Location: PedroAsani's Survival Plan
Discussion: More than likely not
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 4 posts
xxImxjustxmexx |
More than likely not
Sep 10 2011, 4:50 PM EDT
It's not that its too expensive to carry out (that can always be fixed with getting off one's lazy bum and working) its the fact that it takes up a great deal amount of space, is quite obvious to raiders, will take many man hours to construct, the amount of people needed to run a base this large will almost be as many as it can support and the well tested trouble of over population (after all what do you do? kill the kid, mom, some random person; neither seem exactly 'fair' as the mom possibly couldn't help it, what if the kid could help the base later on, and its not their fault nor burden arguments). Though it is a lovely idea, there are many contridictions that could possibly end your life by relying on this plan and those that rely on it too.
Do you find this valuable?
Keyword tags:
Personal Survival Plan
Sketchup
|
x-wolfhunter |
1. RE: More than likely not
Sep 10 2011, 5:04 PM EDT
"It's not that its too expensive to carry out (that can always be fixed with getting off one's lazy bum and working) its the fact that it takes up a great deal amount of space, is quite obvious to raiders, will take many man hours to construct, the amount of people needed to run a base this large will almost be as many as it can support and the well tested trouble of over population (after all what do you do? kill the kid, mom, some random person; neither seem exactly 'fair' as the mom possibly couldn't help it, what if the kid could help the base later on, and its not their fault nor burden arguments). Though it is a lovely idea, there are many contridictions that could possibly end your life by relying on this plan and those that rely on it too."But you're fine, with your 100+ swords/knives and eight shotguns. Do you find this valuable? |
|
xxImxjustxmexx |
2. RE: More than likely not
Sep 10 2011, 8:24 PM EDT
As true as that is, I can't make bullets or shells, knifes break and are C.C., which I prefer to avoid, and I prefer bow and arrow due to rate of fire, silence and the fact I can make an arrow that will shoot. Besides, I don't play well with others, so I wouldn't rely on something as far fetched as this; I'd be fine any way. There are people that don't over-calculate that need things like that stated fairly clear to them. Besides, most people would go crazy without people around (which is as useful as being a zed); I like solitude, it keeps one free of migraines and pains in my ass.
Do you find this valuable?
|
PedroAsani |
3. RE: More than likely not
Sep 11 2011, 12:52 AM EDT
Space concerns: fifty-odd acres isn't really that much. If you look at it as a percentage of a country it's almost nothing.Obvious to Raiders: only in the sense that it looks like it would make a good base for anyone. Light from windows, smoke from fires, noise from everyday life, crops in the ground, all these would be signs for Raiders from any BOL. You can't really hide your presence completely. Man hours to construct: that's why it will be constructed pre-Z. The luxury of time on a project like this is what makes it possible. doing this post-Z simply could not happen. People needed to run it: Actually surprisingly few. Pre-Z it could be run by a single farming family (plenty of which still exist in the Caribbean and South American region) with access to a few modern tools. Post-Z then it will need everyone living there to work it, but that is part of the plan. Overpopulation: A risk of any system. All I can say is that I have built in tolerances for extra headcount, and I do expect births and deaths from those inside. However, over the period of a decade I don't see the numbers fluctuating by more than 25%. 65 people of an average distribution means 13 would be children and 11 would be 65 or over (Western averages, not global). So 43 people of breeding age. 21 couples. One in seven couples has fertility issues, whilst those over 40 would be unlikely to have children without medical assistance. Again, standard distribution would mean that 9 couples have children. Average 2.4 per couple, (21.6) 22 births. But the old people at the beginning have aged 10 years. And without cancer drugs and all the other healthcare wonders, it's almost certain that they won't last a decade. So 11 deaths. Total of 11 extra mouths to feed. Well within the tolerances. Contradictions? Can you expand on this? Do you find this valuable? |
