Ratio of children to adults

whaturmuva

Let's say you are the leader of a successful group. You have shelter and safety from the undead and have been setup long enough to have started breeding the new generation. Food is plentiful so the amount of children you can take care of is just based on manpower. Is there a certain ratio that you would use or would it be a "breed as you wish" type of environment?

degrassinoel

hah, tricky one!

I watched 'Defiance' http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034303/
the other night, and there was a rule on having children there which i thought was quite harsh but it was accepted. No preganancies.

If someone was pregnant upon arrival they could give birth, but restricting it until safer accomadations, sterile facilities and experianced personel to deal with childbirth were made readilly available would be the most prudent action i could think of.
not so sure about calling it breeding though.. bit informal for such a personal thing

ScumLord

Not allowing any pregnancies would be the downfall of any group, you need children there to replace dead people or everyone gets old and useless and within 20 years everyone in the group is fecked.

Controlling childbirth has always been a big priority in human civilisation our children are our future which is why we have marriage, to ensure the child will have the support structure they need to excel.

The burden of raising children does go beyond the parents. Of all the higher primates and probably the monkeys too, human mothers actually spend the least amount of time with their babies. Women quite readily hand over their children to relatives or even people in no way related to them which barely happens with other primates.

If you have the food and resources you should have as many children as possible, once they're over the age of 5 or 6 they are useful. In the past 12 year olds where old enough to be considered adult, that may be down to reduced life spans however we will all face reduced life spans after the collapse of civilisation so more breeding will be imperative.

Peetrik

ScumLord wrote: »

If you have the food and resources you should have as many children as possible

I was thinking that myself. If you have a remotely stable envoinrment then won't there be a very natural (just judging from baby booms directly after wars) urge to repopulate?

Large familys, judging from our countrys recent history, seem to work fine, even under adverse conditions.

degrassinoel

Childbirth isnt exactly a safe process outside of a hospital with trained staff and a sterile theatre.

This question also brings into play another important question about the nature of the zombie infection. Does it automaticly infect upon a natural death without bites? or does it require a bite to reanimate the dead?

A cot death or some unforseen infant death in that case could also be lethal to the parents and possibly the entire sanctuary.

imo i think we'd need to verify how the infection works upon natural deaths before saying yes to it.

doctor evil

What woman would want to end up pregnant with no doctors/hospitals/drugs available.

ScumLord

degrassinoel wrote: »

Childbirth isnt exactly a safe process outside of a hospital with trained staff and a sterile theatre.

It's not no, that's why you need to have as many children as possible, a sizeable proportion of them will die.

Does it automaticly infect upon a natural death without bites? or does it require a bite to reanimate the dead?

I don't see how it could just start infecting any dead thing. There's no way for a virus to get into and spread around a body if it's not operating.

doctor evil wrote: »

What woman would want to end up pregnant with no doctors/hospitals/drugs available.

The majority more than likely, getting pregnant is a biological urge billions of years old, nothing can stop it happening.

degrassinoel

I was thinking, the immune or uninfected could be passive carriers.
A virus being airborne would infect everything that breathes, that could be another topic in the making there though:)

doctor evil

Can't stop it completely but humans can certainly put if off.

phill106

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see how it could just start infecting any dead thing. There's no way for a virus to get into and spread around a body if it's not operating.

Without giving it away

in walking dead comics people who died, even of natural causes or were shot as a human came back as zombies. It is assumed that it was a contaminant that infected everybody!

Tzar Chasm

.............

degrassinoel

the only thing creepier than a zombie!

Mellor

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not no, that's why you need to have as many children as possible, a sizeable proportion of them will die.

I think you missed the point. Childen dying isn't the issue. Mothers dying.
Having as many kids as possible, in those conditions is a bad idea as the death rate for the mothers would be pretty high.

Say the survival rate for a pregency ws 50%, very soon you'd be left with a asexual population. Encouraging lots of births could actually ruin the population quicker.

Peetrik

Mellor wrote: »

Say the survival rate for a pregency ws 50%

I find it hard to imagine it would be that low. Humans have survived for thousands of years without the benifit of modern day birthing facilities. Sure it would be more difficult and a lot more painful without the drugs but a 50% mortality rate would be too high IMO.

doctor evil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

In 2003, the WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA produced a report with statistics gathered from 2000. The world average per 100,000 was 400, the average for developed regions was 20, and for developing regions 440. Countries with highest maternal mortality were: Sierra Leone (2,000), Afghanistan (1,900), Malawi (1,800), Angola (1,700), Niger (1,600), Tanzania (1,500), Rwanda (1,400), Mali (1,200), Somalia, Zimbabwe, Chad, Central African Republic, Guinea Bissau (1,100 each), Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Burundi, and Mauritania (1,000 each)

Maternal death is a big risk for women in developing countries, also conditions such as fistula etc which is 100% treatable in the first world. With the zombie apocalypse developed countries will turn to ruin very fast. Then there is the added risk of the nature of the zombie infection to mother and child.

ScumLord

Mellor wrote: »

I think you missed the point. Childen dying isn't the issue. Mothers dying.
Having as many kids as possible, in those conditions is a bad idea as the death rate for the mothers would be pretty high.

Say the survival rate for a pregency ws 50%, very soon you'd be left with a asexual population. Encouraging lots of births could actually ruin the population quicker.

I think the Irish have a long history of over breeding even before modern medicine. There is actually a big advantage to having a lot of children in that many hands make light work. It's a breeding strategy employed by poor people everywhere. I thought it was stupidity and horniness that lead to large poor families but if you ask African families why their families are so big they say they have to be to survive.

Mellor

Peetrik wrote: »

I find it hard to imagine it would be that low. Humans have survived for thousands of years without the benifit of modern day birthing facilities. Sure it would be more difficult and a lot more painful without the drugs but a 50% mortality rate would be too high IMO.

I was using 50% as an example.

There is a significant difference betwee post-zombie apocalypse and medievil times. Frist one that comes to mind is that pregnant women are exactly mobile. A nessecery requirement imo.

ScumLord wrote: »

I think the Irish have a long history of over breeding even before modern medicine. There is actually a big advantage to having a lot of children in that many hands make light work. It's a breeding strategy employed by poor people everywhere. I thought it was stupidity and horniness that lead to large poor families but if you ask African families why their families are so big they say they have to be to survive.

When you livign off the land, hunting etc. Neith of which are an issue in terms of the OP.

Its one thing to have the kids out cutting turf, its another to have to be constantly moving with them, to avoid zombies

ScumLord

Mellor wrote: »

When you livign off the land, hunting etc. Neith of which are an issue in terms of the OP.

Its one thing to have the kids out cutting turf, its another to have to be constantly moving with them, to avoid zombies

People do it and it was common in the past. It's not like you'll be able to move great distances in Ireland any way so it's not as much of a burden if you did have to move with a family or group.

degrassinoel

could be rough without a vehicle and safe & warm shelter in the dead of winter, or even summer in this climate, lets be honest we have crappy weather all year round and maybe two weeks of glorious sunshine in july. That said, kids dont tire out as easily as adults either.

ScumLord

degrassinoel wrote: »

could be rough without a vehicle and safe & warm shelter in the dead of winter, or even summer in this climate, lets be honest we have crappy weather all year round and maybe two weeks of glorious sunshine in july. That said, kids dont tire out as easily as adults either.

We have it so easy here in Ireland, even homeless people as bad as their position in our society is, are living like kings when compared to real poor in really poor countries.

We'll just have to get used to rough, people are well able for it we lived rough for hundreds of thousands of years. We evolved in a rough environment and are designed for a life of travelling large distances on little to no food. We're amasingly efficient with energy.