Zombie apocalypse

[forrest.livingston8]

Originally Posted by HotMistress10

My plan was to just sit in the middle of the ocean, fish and bring something to convert the salt water into drinking water.

Solar condensers are a good choice for this, but optimally we'd want a large base station to farm, raise livestock, and better handle during bad weather.

And a large place for storage and traps in case of raiders is always good, too.

Originally Posted by HotMistress10

No need we can just bump uglies wherever, we don't need beds or doors. We could just have sex wherever we wanted, whenever we wanted to.

I'll be making sure I have a door, a bed, locks, and privacy, hahah. I'm sure there would be no lack of people after such things, so no worries there, you'll have plenty of playmates.

[HotMistress10]

Originally Posted by forrest.livingston8

Solar condensers are a good choice for this, but optimally we'd want a large base station to farm, raise livestock, and better handle during bad weather.

And a large place for storage and traps in case of raiders is always good, too.



I'll be making sure I have a door, a bed, locks, and privacy, hahah. I'm sure there would be no lack of people after such things, so no worries there, you'll have plenty of playmates.

1.How would we protect livestock during storms?

2. We wouldn't want too many people because then we have to use more resources. We don't want to run out too quickly.

[forrest.livingston8]

Originally Posted by HotMistress10

1.How would we protect livestock during storms?

2. We wouldn't want too many people because then we have to use more resources. We don't want to run out too quickly.

1. Given that I'm thinking in sizes of ocean liners (I live near a bay that supports a few at any time, and we only need to get them out a few dozen miles) and other very large ships (really, this would be aimed to be a floating island), we'd take them inside during storms.

2. Yup, that is true, but we need enough people that when you're knocked up and cannot move we don't have any undue hardships. Normally the smallest population I'd see workable would be a dozen people, and the largest would be a gross (144) people. After that number, we'd want to splinter societies into two city-states designed to interact but not be directly connected to each other.

[HotMistress10]

Originally Posted by forrest.livingston8

1. Given that I'm thinking in sizes of ocean liners (I live near a bay that supports a few at any time, and we only need to get them out a few dozen miles) and other very large ships (really, this would be aimed to be a floating island), we'd take them inside during storms.

2. Yup, that is true, but we need enough people that when you're knocked up and cannot move we don't have any undue hardships. Normally the smallest population I'd see workable would be a dozen people, and the largest would be a gross (144) people. After that number, we'd want to splinter societies into two city-states designed to interact but not be directly connected to each other.

1.What if there was a hurricane and there was lots of flooding?

2.What would be the ideal girl to guy ratio!

[forrest.livingston8]

Originally Posted by HotMistress10

1.What if there was a hurricane and there was lots of flooding?

2.What would be the ideal girl to guy ratio!

1. In the case of a massive storm, all hatches would be closed so the ship would be watertight. The design I have in mind also uses the other ships as a stabilization solution to allow for a relatively optimal survival chance. The biggest issue would be a "rogue wave" which could possible swamp the entire project if the ships were at the wrong angle to the wave. I wouldn't worry too much about flooding at least for the first dozen years, also assuming we've got emergency generators to power bilge pumps, or at the least manual bilge pumps to deal with excess water retention.

2. For repopulating the Earth? Very roughly 80% female and 20% male. For optimal social structure with an almost entirely monogamous population? 50% male and 50% female. For optimal group survival? The genders are less important compared to skillsets and emotional stability. And, of course, it depends on how many people there are. If it is just a dozen of us, then a balance as most people are not going to be polygamous. But in a large enough group, it'll end up be self correcting. In my own mind, I'd aim for 30% male and 70% female to allow for a good population base to be started while not sacrificing the basic structure of society with too few males.

[HotMistress10]

Would we assign jobs like farmers fishermen, maids, and stuff like that. If so how would they be assigned?

[forrest.livingston8]

Originally Posted by HotMistress10

Would we assign jobs like farmers fishermen, maids, and stuff like that. If so how would they be assigned?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Not to say that Communism is the right choice, but that we wouldn't have time to waste with people that need jobs assigned, until we were stabilized and were forming a brand new society. But at that point, we'd need to design a lasting government (one of the first orders of business for us, after we have a group of more than two people, would be to form an interim government structure) designed to allow us to deal with these issues.

Personally, I'd like to think that we would have people do what they wanted for the most part, but I doubt anyone is really interested in the dirty work that'd need to happen, so we'd need to assign people to dirty work. Or have loads of children to use for such labor.

[HotMistress10]

Originally Posted by forrest.livingston8

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Not to say that Communism is the right choice, but that we wouldn't have time to waste with people that need jobs assigned, until we were stabilized and were forming a brand new society. But at that point, we'd need to design a lasting government (one of the first orders of business for us, after we have a group of more than two people, would be to form an interim government structure) designed to allow us to deal with these issues.

Personally, I'd like to think that we would have people do what they wanted for the most part, but I doubt anyone is really interested in the dirty work that'd need to happen, so we'd need to assign people to dirty work. Or have loads of children to use for such labor.

I think we would need to design a government that didn't rely on money. We could all just work together. I think we could convince people to do the dirty work by telling them it was either do that or leave.

[forrest.livingston8]

Originally Posted by HotMistress10

I think we would need to design a government that didn't rely on money. We could all just work together. I think we could convince people to do the dirty work by telling them it was either do that or leave.

Yup, currency would not be required until we were MUCH later on, or unless people kept retention of the currency solution (which works rather well when you're dealing with thousands of people, but is pointless in the hundreds or tens).

Hahah, so that means you and I wouldn't be doing the dirty work? Nice working together, for sure. No, I'd be thinking that everyone would end up cycling through all jobs, as that way we make sure that everyone has at least some general knowledge of the entire process. Exceptions would be made for specialists, but only partially. Doctors should still clean up after livestock and learn how to work on motors in case it becomes important.

Granted, I think that a more generalistic knowledge based society would be more useful, and it becomes practical given this type of event.

[HotMistress10]

But if we already had a mechanic onboard, why would we not just let him do that? If someone already has a skill should we just let them do that?

[forrest.livingston8]

Originally Posted by HotMistress10

But if we already had a mechanic onboard, why would we not just let him do that? If someone already has a skill should we just let them do that?

Because what happens when the mechanic or doctor dies? The knowledge is lost until another specialist is accessible.

By training most people to be able to do most things, with certain people that have an aptitude for certain things going into advanced training, we remove the major problem of dealing with the loss of critical knowledge from an untimely death.

[HotMistress10]

They could have an apprentice and teach them everything.
How would we get medical supplies?

[forrest.livingston8]

Originally Posted by HotMistress10

They could have an apprentice and teach them everything.
How would we get medical supplies?

The problem with that is that we then need an apprentice/master structure, which in turn builds a dangerous class structure which we really should avoid supporting. Conversely, decentralizing the vast majority of knowledge and the bad work causes people to interact together more fully, have a better idea as to how society is regulated and run, and should increase the happiness of everyone involved.

Medical supplies would be tricky, as we'd surely need to manufacture what we could (bandages, alcohol, etc), but we'd likely need to go on raids for things we don't have the technology to make (glassware would be difficult, but ceramics can replace it in most cases. Painkillers would likely need to be replaced by alcohol. Needles for stitching would be bothersome really quickly).

[HotMistress10]

Originally Posted by forrest.livingston8

The problem with that is that we then need an apprentice/master structure, which in turn builds a dangerous class structure which we really should avoid supporting. Conversely, decentralizing the vast majority of knowledge and the bad work causes people to interact together more fully, have a better idea as to how society is regulated and run, and should increase the happiness of everyone involved.

Medical supplies would be tricky, as we'd surely need to manufacture what we could (bandages, alcohol, etc), but we'd likely need to go on raids for things we don't have the technology to make (glassware would be difficult, but ceramics can replace it in most cases. Painkillers would likely need to be replaced by alcohol. Needles for stitching would be bothersome really quickly).

1.My biggest fear is that some people either aren't interested in certain things or they are not smart enough to understand some things. Not everyone we get is going to be a genius.

2. How about things like vaccinations and antibiotics? We need to defend against infections because they spread easily.

[forrest.livingston8]

Originally Posted by HotMistress10

1.My biggest fear is that some people either aren't interested in certain things or they are not smart enough to understand some things. Not everyone we get is going to be a genius.

2. How about things like vaccinations and antibiotics? We need to defend against infections because they spread easily.

1. That is true, and in that case they'll end up learning that they don't have an aptitude for such things. We'd be aiming to optimize the transfer of knowledge, so people that cannot learn mechanical engineering wouldn't try and learn it longer than it takes to get a very basic understanding/overview of what it is about.

2. Vaccinations are not something we'd be able to easily find, even by raiding. And antibiotics are going to be relatively impossible to find. If we get lucky and get a microbiologist, maybe we can produce out own, but I'd doubt it. Making sure that everyone stays clean, that our foodstuff stays untainted, and generally avoiding being a breeding place for such sickness would be the watchword.