Re: Tit'xka (Pretty Long Post)

At 02:41 PM 1/5/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Sheets, Jeff wrote:
>> I like the term "Root of Life".  Is it called thus because of its control
>> over life or because by the prevention of new life it preserves existing
>> life?
>
>The second - without it, the population would swell rapidly, and then
>crash.
[...]
>It was learned how much was needed to maintain a stable population (in
>fact, it's now possible to calculate the exact amount needed for a
>specific number of births - if 37 people died that year, you'd want the
>exact amount to cause 37 births).  This would've been as great a
>breakthrough for them as agriculture - they were able to have more
>stable societies, and a leisure class which wouldn't be constantly
>interrupted by famines.  Such a society could learn to expand at a
>reasonable rate, and neighboring tribes would've learned about Root of
>Life for them, much as agriculture spread on our Earth.
I find this an unlikely scenario.  I forget what you said their social
structure is, but among humans, the major impetus for large families
was to provide security for the family.  Unless the tribe could guarantee
security for all and permitted births without favoritism, I can't see
individuals forgoing their own right to secure their futures.  Similarly,
I don't see other tribes willingly limiting their own birthrates unless
they were assured that it wasn't a trick and the _other_ tribes are
really breeding like crazy in order to overrun their enemies.

-- Terry

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711

"You think you got guts? Try raising my kids." - H. Simpson