Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Best village size?

  1. #1 Best village size? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3
    I was wondering if there is any evidence for what would be the healthiest village size for raising families. Consider the average family size of approx four members in present industrialized society. The intent would be to encourage development of an extended family unit with which most members would identify. Use any evidence you choose be it historical, projected or theoretical, but state your criteria. Answer should be in the form of the number of families. Feel free to add voice your opinion.

    Thank you,

    Nick


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    "Healthiest" in what terms? Meeting caloric needs? Best nutrition? Best socialization? Best emotional and mental health? Most economical? You say village, yet you talk about the size of a family in an industrialized nation. Where would this village be located in the environment? What types of resources would it have available to it? How much interaction would it have with other social groups/settlements? What time is this all happening at? Prehistoric? Modern? Futuristic?


    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Thanks to paralith for giving you some questions to address. This is a homework question though, no? Can you show us what you have been thinking thus far? We will give you pointers, but we will unfortunately not be doing your homework for you. You will benefit much more if you mostly figure it out for yourself.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Good question. This will be a stimulating thread.

    So in this model all men and women mate for life and have two children, who each go on to do same? And the goal is cohesive extended families?

    I'll offer off the bat that size of village or # of families are hardly relevant. And that contrary to traditional ideals having all children breeders just like their parents is actually detrimental to the self-supporting extended family.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3
    Several replies and not one attempt at an answer.

    1. Yes, I supplied enough information. Notice I said "state your criteria" so several answers would be acceptable. Just pick one scenario and define your variables. I will however define healthiest since you were unable to infer it. Healthiest in that the families feel the most comfortable in that they identify with all village members as extended family.

    2. No this isnt a homework question. It happens to be a question that I've been contimplating for a while and wanted to hear what others thought.

    3. No. I am not trying to raise clones. This is as much a historic question as hypothetical. Over the course of history mankind has banded together in small groups. A modern equivilant might be the suburb development.

    My guess is the number lies between 3 and 10. Many studies show an extended family plays a big role in raising children who appear to be the most successful and happy. Even if you disagree, assume this is true in order to contribute your opinion. Growing up, how many families were you very close to? If you had a VERY big immediate family, this might equate to four extended families since the average family size is four people.

    Thank you
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by nastasin
    Several replies and not one attempt at an answer.

    1. Yes, I supplied enough information. Notice I said "state your criteria" so several answers would be acceptable. Just pick one scenario and define your variables. I will however define healthiest since you were unable to infer it. Healthiest in that the families feel the most comfortable in that they identify with all village members as extended family.

    2. No this isnt a homework question. It happens to be a question that I've been contimplating for a while and wanted to hear what others thought.

    3. No. I am not trying to raise clones. This is as much a historic question as hypothetical. Over the course of history mankind has banded together in small groups. A modern equivilant might be the suburb development.

    My guess is the number lies between 3 and 10. Many studies show an extended family plays a big role in raising children who appear to be the most successful and happy. Even if you disagree, assume this is true in order to contribute your opinion. Growing up, how many families were you very close to? If you had a VERY big immediate family, this might equate to four extended families since the average family size is four people.

    Thank you
    You did say state your criteria, but you failed to define all of the terms you used. Don't blame us for not being able to read your mind.

    Even in this, your definition of healthy is still obscure to me. Based on what you said healthy could be (1) the maximum number of un-related families for whom a given focus family would feel the same level of affection for as they would for related family members, (2) the maximum number of un-related families with which a given family could maintain cooperative relationships with, (3) the optimum number of family members involved in raising a given child in order to maximize that child's economic success, (4) the optimum number of family members involved in raising a given child in order to maximize that child's adult mental stability, repeating (3) and (4) with family members OR unrelated individuals that behave as family members, etc etc.

    My standards are that I am looking for something specific enough that it can be measurable. There's no saying that it can't be multiple specific aspects; "health" is a conglomerate variable - many, many factors affect the overall "health" of a given individual. And the truth is that not all of the factors will have equal impact given every possible environmental condition. Even when you look across modern hunter-gatherer groups, the sizes of families and groups can vary widely from culture to culture. You have to get much more specific to understand what number tends to emerge for what group and why.

    Think about what really concerns you that has lead you to ask this question. How to raise children who are happy? How to raise children that will be productive members of society? How to make the maximum number of people as happy as possible? What is it that really motivated you to post here?
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    There was a survey done, and it is shows that the healthiest happiest places are the wealthiest and the most unhappy least healthy places are the poorest. This is a survey done in America though, and you can't ignore the fact of our cultural ideals and how much wealth has to do with most people's identity. We are a consumer nation, the more you can spend, the happier you are. Personally it's disgusting.

    I really don't think population has much to do with health, it has more to do with density and the relationship of the people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •