"NOT" asking you to define your tribe. Asking in your opinion, what others could likely manage as far as size of tribe they are genuienly willing to be responsible too.
Please don't make this political. Please save the grandiose tribe size, of your country or city, etc.
Maybe speak to your tribe's concept of its responsibility to other members.
Speaking hypothetically (and in the context of a very severe long-term crisis), optimal tribe size would be in the range of 5-15 actually capable adults/adolescents.
Any incapable dependents would be additional to those numbers.
Any less than 5, would find it hard to maintain security 24/7....and even then that means single people standing watch......which would make that more practical if you have good security technology items to make a single person standing watch effective at:
- detecting threats from any direction....and at distance
- staying awake
Any more than 15 (plus dependents) and the group becomes too difficult to manage - even if those people are optimal and respect the chain of command. That many is also a mammoth task to feed.
If you have
any people with normalcy bias, then they had better be good at doing what they are told.
If you have
any people (even among dependents) that are normalcy biased and/or wont do what they are told, then the tribe will self-destruct.
That is one of the reasons why making a tribe work can be more challenging than the crisis itself.
In reality, most people can't and wont put a team like the above together.....so they just have to make do with what they have got or even go it alone.
The small group or single lone wolf can hide.....and move without leaving much of a trail.......and can make quick decisions.....and is the easiest to feed....which are all strengths of that model.
