Lone wolf question: Always wanted to ask.

[John]

(5 September 2013, 14:28)bigpaul Wrote:

(5 September 2013, 14:19)Skean Dhude Wrote:

(4 September 2013, 17:08)bigpaul Wrote: going Lone Wolf means one would need LESS of everything, less food, less water, less noise, less waste.

Why would they need less of everything? They will still require 1 persons rations, 1 sleeping bag, 1 stove, etc. That means they actually will consume more not less.

I meant in percentage terms, 1 person would require 10% of what a 10 person group would in terms of food and water, would make less noise(maybe no noise at all!) and less waste.

Not at all. One stove will cook for many as well as one lone person. and 10% is same as saying 1% of 100 people. Just numbers.

Point is that this conversation is now dead though I expect you to respond with something. It is entirely up to the individual what they feel and there appears to be no way you will convince me that you are right no more than I will ever convince you that I am right because there is no right or wrong, just what the individual feels.

So end of conversation.

[bigpaul]

(5 September 2013, 14:44)John Wrote: Not at all. One stove will cook for many as well as one lone person. and 10% is same as saying 1% of 100 people. Just numbers.

Point is that this conversation is now dead though I expect you to respond with something. It is entirely up to the individual what they feel and there appears to be no way you will convince me that you are right no more than I will ever convince you that I am right because there is no right or wrong, just what the individual feels.

So end of conversation.

when did I ever mention stoves? I was talking about food, water, noise and waste, stands to reason 1 person will make less of all these than anyone in a larger group.

[BeardyMan]

(5 September 2013, 14:53)bigpaul Wrote:

(5 September 2013, 14:44)John Wrote: Not at all. One stove will cook for many as well as one lone person. and 10% is same as saying 1% of 100 people. Just numbers.

Point is that this conversation is now dead though I expect you to respond with something. It is entirely up to the individual what they feel and there appears to be no way you will convince me that you are right no more than I will ever convince you that I am right because there is no right or wrong, just what the individual feels.

So end of conversation.

when did I ever mention stoves? I was talking about food, water, noise and waste, stands to reason 1 person will make less of all these than anyone in a larger group.

But do 10 people use 10 times the food, water, noise & waste etc?

Economies of scale etc...

[bigpaul]

(5 September 2013, 14:59)BeardyMan Wrote: But do 10 people use 10 times the food, water, noise & waste etc?

Economies of scale etc...

maybe more? depends if there's any "piggies" in the group? if you have 10 times the food the temptation may be to have bigger portions. ditto with water. noise? well 10 people will make more noise than 1 especially if they are moaning about the rations. waste? well obviously 10 people will poo more than 1 person will.

[John]

(5 September 2013, 15:10)bigpaul Wrote:

(5 September 2013, 14:59)BeardyMan Wrote: But do 10 people use 10 times the food, water, noise & waste etc?

Economies of scale etc...

maybe more? depends if there's any "piggies" in the group? if you have 10 times the food the temptation may be to have bigger portions. ditto with water. noise? well 10 people will make more noise than 1 especially if they are moaning about the rations. waste? well obviously 10 people will poo more than 1 person will.

The simple meaning of economies of scale is doing things more efficiently with increasing size of operation.
So may be groups are better for survival than lone wolf.
But do re read previous posts before we start going round in circles.

[BeardyMan]

(5 September 2013, 16:05)John Wrote: So may be groups are better for survival than lone wolf.

More efficient, yes. Better? Who knows. Depends who's in your group

[bigpaul]

(5 September 2013, 16:10)BeardyMan Wrote:

(5 September 2013, 16:05)John Wrote: So may be groups are better for survival than lone wolf.

More efficient, yes. Better? Who knows. Depends who's in your group

more efficient? better? as BM says depends who's in your group, if its like the sheeple I have living near me it'll be NEITHER! I still say that lone wolf's only have to do enough to look after them selves and no more, if I was to end up in a group of surviving sheeple i'd end up doing ALL the work.

---

my group will probably number the huge total of 2-could even be 1-who knows? I don't think problems of (large) scale will be my problem.

[Midnitemo]

My only real worry about going it alone is would my partner cope if i were incapacitated/killed, she has skill's but the onus would be on me for many tasks i'd just be worried she'd have no backup.

[bigpaul]

be the other way for me, my OH is the one with the country skills-herbalist, farmer, gardener, cook!!

[Midnitemo]

(5 September 2013, 16:48)bigpaul Wrote: be the other way for me, my OH is the one with the country skills-herbalist, farmer, gardener, cook!!

sorted then mate...your a lucky guy.