Flint Dille (who worked as a television/movie writer in Los Angeles and befriended Gary Gygax during the latter's time there from 1983-5) and Lorraine Dille Williams (who was brought into TSR management in April 1985 by Gygax, who had asserted control over the company) were both grandchildren of the original publisher of Buck Rogers, who owned the IP and passed it to his descendants. Not sure if there were others at the time who also co-owned it or what the status is currently. Lorraine Williams was interested in promoting Buck Rogers via RPGs, but, even though she acquired TSR in October 1985, it wasn't until 1990 that a Buck Rogers RPG was released (written by none other than Mike Pondsmith) and bombed, followed by a second attempt in 1993 that also bombed. An IP focused around a single character isn't really suitable for tabletop RPGs, anyway, as opposed to single-player CRPGs.
This might be the strongest thesis in the thread.
Same publishing houses, not sure about offices.
I'm necroing this because I appreciate the effortpost
To me that sounded counterintuitive, as the problem isn't how you start with (100 men/10 women vs 100 women/10 men) but how the tribe evolves over time taking into account the chances of death from fighting said wild animals.
And so i decided to try and write a small program simulating that!
The program starts with a small population of 100 people from 20 to 40 ages, equally divided between male and female (i.e there are 50 males and 50 females). Then it "simulates" each day for each one of those people where they can die of old age, die of child mortality (if they are a child), go hunting (if they are of the appropriate sex) and potentially die from that, have sex (if not pregnant) and potentially get pregnant (if female).
The simulation is kinda simplistic of course, with the biggest difference between reality and simulation to be that there are no couples in the simulated society and everyone hunts and fucks all the time: each day everyone has sex with whoever is the first valid partner (above minimum age, opposite sex, not pregnant). However since the concern is survival and growth of the tribe as a whole without caring about individuals much, this provides the most optimal results.
The simulation settings were as such:
I ran the simulation, once using males as hunters and once using females as hunters for 50 years (an entire population replacement) and the results...
- Initial population size of 100 people
- 0.02% chance of death during hunt for women, 0.01% chance of death during hunt for men
- The assumption being here that men being stronger than women leads to half deaths
- Minimum age one can has sex is 15yo
- Minimum age one can hunt is 12yo
- Maximum age is 50yo
- There is a 50% chance of child mortality, but everyone lives to 50yo after reaching 5yo
- There is a 0.2465% chance of pregnancy (per day)
...are basically what i expected. Reason being, a man can have sex with multiple women to make children at the same time (or at least, the next day, as far as the simulation is concerned), but a woman cannot do that, therefore the loss of a man has more of an impact in the population growth - assuming starting from a position where the tribe is already functional - than the loss of a woman (as the other men will "pick up the slack", so to speak) even if women are twice as likely to die than men.
Of course the above is for a tribe that optimizes for sustainability and population growth, all else be damned, if the simulator also took into account couple formation and break up in the case of the death of a member with potential formation of a new couple down the line, depending on the remaining member, then the numbers most likely wouldn't be as different but i'd still expect the loss of a woman to have less impact.
Out of curiosity i also tried to limit the number of pregnancies a woman can have to 5 children:
As expected the population doesn't grow as much and there is more variance in the population numbers over time, but overall the end result is the same. Note that changing the limit affects the variance but the overall look of the graph doesn't change.
Now of course the simulation is really a case of a spherical cow, but i think the ballpark results show that -at least unless i missed something very blatant- having a tribe with female hunters wont cause it to go extinct at all due to the women being exposed to wild life deaths, regardless of what ancient cultures did in our past.
If you want to try out yourself, the Free Pascal code is here.
I'm necroing this because I appreciate the effortpost
To me that sounded counterintuitive, as the problem isn't how you start with (100 men/10 women vs 100 women/10 men) but how the tribe evolves over time taking into account the chances of death from fighting said wild animals.
And so i decided to try and write a small program simulating that!
The program starts with a small population of 100 people from 20 to 40 ages, equally divided between male and female (i.e there are 50 males and 50 females). Then it "simulates" each day for each one of those people where they can die of old age, die of child mortality (if they are a child), go hunting (if they are of the appropriate sex) and potentially die from that, have sex (if not pregnant) and potentially get pregnant (if female).
The simulation is kinda simplistic of course, with the biggest difference between reality and simulation to be that there are no couples in the simulated society and everyone hunts and fucks all the time: each day everyone has sex with whoever is the first valid partner (above minimum age, opposite sex, not pregnant). However since the concern is survival and growth of the tribe as a whole without caring about individuals much, this provides the most optimal results.
The simulation settings were as such:
I ran the simulation, once using males as hunters and once using females as hunters for 50 years (an entire population replacement) and the results...
- Initial population size of 100 people
- 0.02% chance of death during hunt for women, 0.01% chance of death during hunt for men
- The assumption being here that men being stronger than women leads to half deaths
- Minimum age one can has sex is 15yo
- Minimum age one can hunt is 12yo
- Maximum age is 50yo
- There is a 50% chance of child mortality, but everyone lives to 50yo after reaching 5yo
- There is a 0.2465% chance of pregnancy (per day)
...are basically what i expected. Reason being, a man can have sex with multiple women to make children at the same time (or at least, the next day, as far as the simulation is concerned), but a woman cannot do that, therefore the loss of a man has more of an impact in the population growth - assuming starting from a position where the tribe is already functional - than the loss of a woman (as the other men will "pick up the slack", so to speak) even if women are twice as likely to die than men.
Of course the above is for a tribe that optimizes for sustainability and population growth, all else be damned, if the simulator also took into account couple formation and break up in the case of the death of a member with potential formation of a new couple down the line, depending on the remaining member, then the numbers most likely wouldn't be as different but i'd still expect the loss of a woman to have less impact.
Out of curiosity i also tried to limit the number of pregnancies a woman can have to 5 children:
As expected the population doesn't grow as much and there is more variance in the population numbers over time, but overall the end result is the same. Note that changing the limit affects the variance but the overall look of the graph doesn't change.
Now of course the simulation is really a case of a spherical cow, but i think the ballpark results show that -at least unless i missed something very blatant- having a tribe with female hunters wont cause it to go extinct at all due to the women being exposed to wild life deaths, regardless of what ancient cultures did in our past.
If you want to try out yourself, the Free Pascal code is here.
I think you're missing an important aspect. women have to carry a baby for 9 months. and once pregnant a woman is taken out of the pool of available women. not to mention they miscarry (1 woman out of 4 today; probably more before). moreover women had a good chance of dying at chilbirth. say 25% per time.
meaning that losing one woman will be worse for a given society than losing one man. as you said, men can fuck any woman and get many women pregnant at the same time. not to mention they survive childbirth 100% or miscarriage 100%. not women. so if you have a tribe with 10 women and another with 100 women, it's easy to tell which one has a better chance to survive one generation if both tribes have women hunting with the same chance of a bad hunting accident.
I'd be happy for a graph update
If his graphs were true, then tribes with mighty female hunters would have superior numbers and as time passed by they would defeat all patriarchal tribes by their superior numbers.I'm necroing this because I appreciate the effortpost
To me that sounded counterintuitive, as the problem isn't how you start with (100 men/10 women vs 100 women/10 men) but how the tribe evolves over time taking into account the chances of death from fighting said wild animals.
And so i decided to try and write a small program simulating that!
The program starts with a small population of 100 people from 20 to 40 ages, equally divided between male and female (i.e there are 50 males and 50 females). Then it "simulates" each day for each one of those people where they can die of old age, die of child mortality (if they are a child), go hunting (if they are of the appropriate sex) and potentially die from that, have sex (if not pregnant) and potentially get pregnant (if female).
The simulation is kinda simplistic of course, with the biggest difference between reality and simulation to be that there are no couples in the simulated society and everyone hunts and fucks all the time: each day everyone has sex with whoever is the first valid partner (above minimum age, opposite sex, not pregnant). However since the concern is survival and growth of the tribe as a whole without caring about individuals much, this provides the most optimal results.
The simulation settings were as such:
I ran the simulation, once using males as hunters and once using females as hunters for 50 years (an entire population replacement) and the results...
- Initial population size of 100 people
- 0.02% chance of death during hunt for women, 0.01% chance of death during hunt for men
- The assumption being here that men being stronger than women leads to half deaths
- Minimum age one can has sex is 15yo
- Minimum age one can hunt is 12yo
- Maximum age is 50yo
- There is a 50% chance of child mortality, but everyone lives to 50yo after reaching 5yo
- There is a 0.2465% chance of pregnancy (per day)
...are basically what i expected. Reason being, a man can have sex with multiple women to make children at the same time (or at least, the next day, as far as the simulation is concerned), but a woman cannot do that, therefore the loss of a man has more of an impact in the population growth - assuming starting from a position where the tribe is already functional - than the loss of a woman (as the other men will "pick up the slack", so to speak) even if women are twice as likely to die than men.
Of course the above is for a tribe that optimizes for sustainability and population growth, all else be damned, if the simulator also took into account couple formation and break up in the case of the death of a member with potential formation of a new couple down the line, depending on the remaining member, then the numbers most likely wouldn't be as different but i'd still expect the loss of a woman to have less impact.
Out of curiosity i also tried to limit the number of pregnancies a woman can have to 5 children:
As expected the population doesn't grow as much and there is more variance in the population numbers over time, but overall the end result is the same. Note that changing the limit affects the variance but the overall look of the graph doesn't change.
Now of course the simulation is really a case of a spherical cow, but i think the ballpark results show that -at least unless i missed something very blatant- having a tribe with female hunters wont cause it to go extinct at all due to the women being exposed to wild life deaths, regardless of what ancient cultures did in our past.
If you want to try out yourself, the Free Pascal code is here.
I think you're missing an important aspect. women have to carry a baby for 9 months. and once pregnant a woman is taken out of the pool of available women. not to mention they miscarry (1 woman out of 4 today; probably more before). moreover women had a good chance of dying at chilbirth. say 25% per time.
meaning that losing one woman will be worse for a given society than losing one man. as you said, men can fuck any woman and get many women pregnant at the same time. not to mention they survive childbirth 100% or miscarriage 100%. not women. so if you have a tribe with 10 women and another with 100 women, it's easy to tell which one has a better chance to survive one generation if both tribes have women hunting with the same chance of a bad hunting accident.
I'd be happy for a graph update
Yeah Bad Sector has it back-asswards - the abundance of sperm means redundancy means men are relatively more expendable than women, the relative rarity of ova and the troublesome conditions attending childbirth mean females are relatively more precious. This goes so deep that it actually structures the whole of society from the deepest level up - when feminsts piss and moan about muh patriarchy etc., what they're missing is that the patriarchy is a common form for good reasons, this being the deepest, and that this structure results in different rewards and burdens on both sexes.
It's simply absurd to expose women to the same risk as men. Men doing risky stuff that leads to them possibly dying is precisely what men are for, evolutionarily speaking. It's precisely why women have extruded men (so to speak) - to do their dirty work (of course the logic goes right back to mammalian ancestors and beyond).
I do not see your mathematically sound proof of it.
I'd probably put it at problem no. 3 or so, but yeah, pretty much.
This is myopic; sure we'd all like to live in a wonderland where it was possible to discuss our beloved hobby without any reference to "retarded culture war shit" but unfortunately "retarded culture war shit" is part of the reason why our beloved hobby is in such dire straits.
Eventually it will all implode, so there is a sort of light at the end of the tunnel.
Except tits threads. Tits don't require a discussion.
Not only was the interface better, but the Amiga UI was far superior to DOS, with mouse support included. There was no need to edit or type anything in a CONFIG.SYS or AUTOEXEC.BAT. DOS was a significant decline from that. Even 8-bit machines were more convenient than that.
South American tribes during the Conquistador period did so, partially for religious purposes, but also to intimidate enemies. If you read accounts of Cortez's retreat from Tenochtitlan, the Aztecs cooked and ate some conquered Spaniards in front of the building they were holed up in and threw body parts at them, warning they were next.
