paravani
White Hat
Straining to remember my anthropology classes, I'd say maybe on the order of 30 to 50 as a natural community or "tribe". But certainly you don't coalesce into a city of 20,000 or more. That's done over time as a coalition of already-existing tribes. But the formation of that tribe is, I agree, what we should expect would naturally occur. I don't necessarily agree with more potential for bloodshed; I don't see how that follows. If tribe A has abundant food but lacks water and tribe B has the opposite, it would be to their mutual benefit to cooperate, not to compete.
The problems occur when you have a group that has nothing to offer, yet needs much.
For instance, the aforementioned group of drug addicts who are shaking with need for a fix, who have already robbed all the pharmacies they can find, and now want to invade every home so they can search through the medicine cabinets. They have banded together because they have better success in their raids than working alone...
Now what?
I also don't see any basis for racial competition in this scenario; given that survival is a common need, race would take a back seat. I suspect racism can only take hold in an atmosphere of abundance-- when that common need is less urgent.
My hubby and I have moved to a rural area with abundant water and trees, and about 30-50 households. We live relatively close to a major metro area, but our area is accessible only by way of a bridge that spans a deep chasm.
We do not plan to discriminate against anyone based on race, creed, color, or religion. If they live here, they are probably prepared for all manner of different scenarios -- it's just that sort of neighborhood. The power goes out often for long periods of time, and we don't let it upset us much.
That bridge is mighty comforting, I must say.
-- Paravani
.
.
.
.
.