Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="der_kluge" data-source="post: 2141791" data-attributes="member: 945">Does it have to be accurate?  Can't you just make something up?Are the 100 people of child-bearing age, or do they represent a cross-section of the population?  Are 50 of them female, and 50 male?The other complication is whether or not they can find a potential mate, and then have children.  I suspect in a real population of 100 people, you won't end up with 50 couples. Likely a few will be gay, and a few will just have no interest in procreating, and a few will be unable to conceive, or the couple will be incompatible.  So, to figure this one out, we'd need to know more (a lot more) about the population of 100 people.And is this a group of 100 mormons and/or catholics, or a group of white anglo-saxon protestants? The former being more likely to have a lot more children, and the latter having 1, maybe 2 children.And what are the conditions like?  Is the environment inhospitable and dangerous? Could there be famine, or disease, or monsters which will weaken the population?  In any population, the amount of food and resources available will always have a direct affect on how many children are born and/or survive. If I'm wealthy, I'm going to be more comfortable having more kids, but if I can barely feed myself, then having a child isn't something I'm going to be thinking about too much.So, you mentioned a "rich and fertile" land, so we'll assume that conditions are good, and hospitable. Another is technology. If you just plop people down, they're going to be living in the stone age, regardless of their education level, because tools just aren't going to be readily available. That's going to make farming really difficult, especially if there aren't any domesticated animals to help, or contribute to the food supply.Have I complicated this enough?</blockquote>

Verification