Ensuring post-apocalyptic survival at TL8?

[Agramer]

Originally Posted by riprock

..... such as Agramer,.....

Cladistics ? :Cambridge dictionary doesnt ahve that word and I dunno what it means.


Though regardless from what I learned by reading your posts and following really interesting links upon links from them I still disagree with you about fundamental questions of this discussion.

You insist that small community can survive on its own and be very productive while keeping its tech base.

I agree with you with whole of above sentence.But I find tech base and TL being 2 very different subjects.In your interpretation, "tech base" is What we need to have operating to thrive as community but it still doesnt describe Full TL.

I asked Nuclear question about N.Korea and Iran...both refused to let observers in at some point,but they still dont have functioning A-bombs.why is that if thats so simple? you cant say its "political" since they are trying to get there and IF they succeed than it would become "The Political".
Though were here talking about technology and not politics,so why dont they have Bombs by now if thats so simple?

You also didnt comment on simple example of Medicine requirements for amount of Doctors/nurses/technicians necessary(which alone breaks your 500 people mark) to just hold things in order during their generation(not even considering lapses in passing knowledge to 2nd generation without structured school system,aka Medical Universities followed by specialisations).

Youre trying to refute that specialisation leads to efficiency while whole History shows us that it is true:

Single Master workers with apprentices were "destroyed as base of production" by Manufacture type of production which in change was surpassed by Factory type of production where in each step single worker was becoming more and more specialised and efficient(In that single aspect of whole process).

Originally Posted by Dunbar Number Wikki

Dunbar's number is a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.[1] Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restricted rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. No precise value has been proposed for Dunbar's number, but a commonly cited approximation is 150.

I really dont see any correspondence with Dunbar number and what youre inserting Dunbar number means for your 500 criteria.

Furthermore ,Dunbar number "is" around 50 people for normal person living in stable environment and it rises in times of need to 150ish,which is "maximum" number of people with whom single person can have stable relationship which is to some degree accepted by Military in size of company(80-150 man depending on Army),since Company commander(Captain) is last in chain of command who is on frontlines directly with his men.Above that officers tend to sit in command posts.

What does it have to do with our subject I really dont know.

Also after all reading Im just under impression that youre refusing to accept anyones other argument for anything and just continue citing some "Academic source" that doesnt prove anything or refutes anything claimed by other participants in this discussion,as that last economic quote wasnt(Actually it did prove that specialisation is more efficient but that wasnt your intention when you quoted it).