Location Ideas-

Started by Na'vin Nos'feratxu, December 18, 2010, 08:57:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

'Itan Atxur

Quote from: Nosferatu on May 13, 2011, 08:11:58 AM
Hawaii would be the best choice IMO.

Warm year round, somewhat isolated from a majority of populace (cities, metros, etc) and not to mention due to volcanic soil it renders wonderful fruits.

Sorry ive been gone for a month or two, city life, is no life at all.

Well welcome back :)

I too am starting to lean towards Hawaii. It's far from a perfect location but it doesn't have the diseases many places have.

Check out more from my DeviantArt page HERE

Tsanten Eywa 'eveng

#41
Quote from: 'Itan Atxur on May 13, 2011, 08:15:21 AM
Quote from: Nosferatu on May 13, 2011, 08:11:58 AM
Hawaii would be the best choice IMO.

Warm year round, somewhat isolated from a majority of populace (cities, metros, etc) and not to mention due to volcanic soil it renders wonderful fruits.

Sorry ive been gone for a month or two, city life, is no life at all.

Well welcome back :)



I too am starting to lean towards Hawaii. It's far from a perfect location but it doesn't have the diseases many places have.

Do you know about the wildlife on Hawaii? I am very curious!!

Vakari

o-o Blank post?

On another note, I'll see what I can find about the wildlife for both Hawaii and Argentina.
Join Project Tribal here  (And yes, it will be a real tribe in the real world, NOT a role play tribe!) Feel free to PM me about it!
old gallery link?id=2051[/img]

Tsanten Eywa 'eveng


Na'vin Nos'feratxu

Quote from: Tsanten Eywa 'eveng on May 21, 2011, 07:32:27 PM
I found something more on Hawaii:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_tropical_rainforests

Oh yes indeedy.
Hawaii gets rain, and lots of it. Rain = fresh water, when appropriate precautions are taken with the rainwater.
Its green year round, always warm, always humid and always a jungle.
I dont know about any of you, or what anyone here other than myself has experienced before with Jungle like locations but,
I love it. Most find jungles to be miserable, however I find them to be wonderful, thats why I suggested Hawaii in the first place.

Tons of wildlife, very easy to blend, dense forests and no absence of water, tons of material for bows, arrows etc.

I also forgot to mention that Hawaii being a volcanic terrain it has obsidian rock (volcanic rock) which can be made into very very VERY good knives..

So many pro's and hardly any cons IMO about Hawaii

   
NotW#82

Nìmwey

I do not really count myself as "with" any group at the moment, so I looked through all countries in Central- and South America (except Brazil and French Guyana, and most of the Caribbean islands), plus Spain. It was really mostly for myself, that's why I have Spain in there (because I plan to move there anyway and it might be a good place for a tribe). But I'm curious about Central- and South America, and I thought this might help you out a bit too.

It's info gathered from WHO (World Health Organization) and only a little (population density) from Wikipedia.
(I could barely believe my eyes when I saw the population density in Suriname, Guyana and Bolivia, but look farther down, there's a reason there are so few people living there...)

Population and population density
1. Suriname: 520 000 (3/km2)
2. Guyana: 762 000 (3.5/km2)
3. Bolivia: 9 863 000 (8.9/km2)
4. Paraguay: 6 349 000 (14.2/km2)
5. Argentina: 40 276 000 (14.5/km2)
6. Belize: 307 000 (15/km2)
7. Uruguay: 3 361 000 (19.5/km2)
8. Chile: 16 970 000 (22/km2)
9. Peru: 29 165 000 (23/km2)
10. Venezuela: 28 583 000 (30.2/km2)
11. Colombia: 45 660 000 (40/km2)
12. Nicaragua: 5 743 000 (42/km2)
13. Panama: 3 454 000 (45/km2)
14. Ecuador: 13 625 000 (54/km2)
15. Mexico: 109 610 000 (55.5/km2)
16. Honduras: 7 466 000 (64/km2)
17. Costa Rica: 4 579 000 (86/km2)
18. Spain: 44 904 000 (93/km2)
19. Cuba: 11 204 000 (102/km2)
20. Guatemala: 14 027 000 (129/km2)

Life expectancy (male/female)
1. Spain: 78/85
2. Costa Rica: 77/81
2. Chile: 76/82
3. Cuba: 76/80
4. Panama: 74/79
4. Colombia: 73/80
5. Mexico: 73/78
5. Peru: 74/77
5. Ecuador: 73/78
5. Uruguay: 72/79
5. Argentina: 72/79
6. Paraguay: 72/77
6. Venezuela: 71/78
7. Nicaragua: 71/77
8. Belize: 71/76
9. Suriname: 68/75
10. Honduras: 67/73
11. Guatemala: 66/73
12. Bolivia: 66/70
13. Guyana: 64/70

Probability of dying under five (per 1000 births)
1. Spain: 4
2. Cuba: 6
3. Chile: 9
4. Costa Rica: 11
5. Uruguay: 13
6. Argentina: 15
7. Mexico: 17
8. Venezuela: 18
9. Belize: 18
10. Colombia: 19
11. Peru: 21
12. Panama: 23
13. Paraguay: 23
14. Ecuador: 24
15. Nicaragua: 26
16. Suriname: 26
17. Honduras: 30
18. Guyana: 35
19. Guatemala: 40
20. Bolivia: 51

Probability of dying between 15 and 60, m/f (per 1000)
1. Spain: 94/43
2. Chile: 116/59
3. Costa Rica: 115/69
4. Cuba: 120/78
5. Peru: 123/96
6. Panama: 145/82
7. Uruguay: 156/84
8. Mexico: 157/88
9. Colombia: 166/80
10. Argentina: 160/88
11. Paraguay: 168/98
12. Ecuador: 173/96
13. Venezuela: 196/92
14. Belize: 202/129
15. Nicaragua: 210/122
16. Bolivia: 203/132
17. Suriname: 217/124
18. Honduras: 237/134
19. Guatemala: 280/151
20. Guyana: 286/224

And in "total", I gave the countries "points" for the places they have gotten. Spain for example gets 1 point for life expectancy, but 18 points for population density. The lower the point, the better, that is.

Total
Chile: 15
Spain: 21
Uruguay: 24
Costa Rica: 26
Argentina: 26
Cuba: 28
Peru: 30
Paraguay: 34
Colombia: 34
Mexico: 35
Panama: 35
Belize: 37
Venezuela: 37
Suriname: 43
Ecuador: 45
Nicaragua: 49
Bolivia: 51
Guyana: 53
Honduras: 61
Guatemala: 69

So there is a good reason Blue Moon are looking seriously into Chile. But I wouldn't stare myself blind on the "total-numbers", because there are upsides and downsides to all countries that I haven't taken into account here, this was just an overview of health and population density (and the latter of course, matters a lot when trying to find land).
Chile for example is a lot colder than the other countries, which can be good or bad, it depends on who you are and your wants and goals. The population density can also be misleading in some countries - if for example half the country is desert, you can bet the forested parts are going to have much more people in them.

Anyway, I'm (and like I said, I do not count myself as belonging to any group at the moment) going to look up Uruguay, Costa Rica, Cuba, Paraguay, Peru, Colombia, Panama, Mexico and Belize more. ;)

'Itan Atxur

Damn! VERY impressive research! This will definitely be very helpful.

Check out more from my DeviantArt page HERE

Nìmwey

Okay, I read somewhere around here that we would need approximately 600 acres for ONE person if we are to live completely like hunter-gatherers. (Some permaculture and fish ponds or perhaps even eating some of our own animals, like chickens, would be better though, I think, than taking everything from nature.)

So, I guess the best would be to go for a real big piece of land right away, with thousands of acres. Like this, for example:
http://www.landwatch.com/Sonora-Mexico-Land-for-sale/pid/50002783
http://www.landwatch.com/Huachinera-Sonora-Mexico-Land-for-sale/pid/50002806
16.444 and 21.031 acres, respectively. Expensive, yes, but you get what you pay for. ;)

Now, these plots of land themselves are at the very north top of Mexico (on the border of USA), so I'm not too keen on them, but there would definitely be room for hunting there. Anyway, they are just examples.

Na'vin Nos'feratxu

I live in the USA, and have visited all the southern states.
The place your describing to be a good place for hunting, is impossible.
As most of Northern Mexico and Southern US is Desert land. No forest area AT ALL.
Theres a lot of land, yes....but its not inhabitable.

600 acres per person is a bit much. And by a bit I mean Too much....

One (1) acre comprises 4840 square yards, 43560 square feet or about 4050 square meters.
1 mile = 1760 yards or 5280 feet....
1 sq. mile = 640 acres

So you're saying around 1 square mile per person? I would agree if every person was independently living on 1 square mile of land.
However, we will most likely be living together, and never separating.
It's actually too hard to determine how much land we will need, because we dont really know how many tribal members we will have.
We do need a quota of people, if we have 6 tribe members then we need maybe 2.5 sq. miles of land.
If we do 10 tribe members we will need maybe 4 sq miles of land.
if we do 20 tribe members, we should look for around 18 sq miles of land.

Thoughts? 

   
NotW#82

guest2859

Quote from: Na'vin Nosferatu on June 20, 2011, 10:00:41 PM
I live in the USA, and have visited all the southern states.
The place your describing to be a good place for hunting, is impossible.
As most of Northern Mexico and Southern US is Desert land. No forest area AT ALL.
Theres a lot of land, yes....but its not inhabitable.

600 acres per person is a bit much. And by a bit I mean Too much....

One (1) acre comprises 4840 square yards, 43560 square feet or about 4050 square meters.
1 mile = 1760 yards or 5280 feet....
1 sq. mile = 640 acres

So you're saying around 1 square mile per person? I would agree if every person was independently living on 1 square mile of land.
However, we will most likely be living together, and never separating.
It's actually too hard to determine how much land we will need, because we dont really know how many tribal members we will have.
We do need a quota of people, if we have 6 tribe members then we need maybe 2.5 sq. miles of land.
If we do 10 tribe members we will need maybe 4 sq miles of land.
if we do 20 tribe members, we should look for around 18 sq miles of land.

Thoughts? 

I'm not sure what you mean by the exact southern part of America, but I live in texas, and the mid-range from Wichita Falls down towards San Antonio has some pretty rough forests.

That's a fallback, but the many times I've gone through haven't seen the slightest bit of life. But then again, it's Texas, and am gladly willing to get out of here before the stereotypes attack me.

The numbers on size, seem pretty good to me, considering the area. I think we could go half that for a very animal-populated location, yet think that a more dead-type area as Earth has been becoming for the past few years could double those numbers.


Nìmwey

#50
Oh well, I don't know, I have no idea how big one acre, ten acres, one hundred acres etc. really is (the numbers, like 4046 sq meters x 100 mean nothing to me), I just read it here: http://forum.learnnavi.org/tribe-archive/list-of-possible-locations!-now!/ (Second post from the bottom.)

BTW, I've gathered a lot of info on diseases in the ten countries I said I was going to look into more, and the venomous snakes. Then I tried to look up dangerous spiders, but being as arachnophobic as I am, I was traumatized just by reading about them, so could someone else do that? :(
The only things I gathered about the spiders were this:
Latrodectus antheratus
Paraguay
Latrodectus geometricus
All countries?
Phoenutria fera
Peru
Phoenutria reidyi
Peru
Psalmopoeus sp.
Costa Rica, Peru, Colombia, Panama, Belize

Tonbogiri

The reason, i believe, for the large amounts of land per person rule that we see so much of, is simply the fact that the hunter-gatherer style which we aim for is not a very efficient system. The amount of food per unit land is relatively small (compared to a farm, for example), and we would also have to make sure that we did not accidentally consume too much of said food (otherwise we may not be able to grow it back again).

We should be able to reduce the enormous amount of land necessary by inserting some semi-agricultural means of getting food - I'm sure we could handle a veggie garden or two!
One possibility could be to supply our basic fruit and veg needs with agriculture, while supplying our meat needs with hunting. Rarer fruits and berries would be nice supplements to this!

What do we think?


old gallery link?id=2051[/img]

Na'viru san LearnNaviyä sìk oel olo'txepit nerekx siveiyi talun
    lì'fyari leNa'vi 'Rrtamì, vay set 'almong a fra'u zera'u ta ngrrpong...

Vakari

I completely agree, that sounds like a good course of action!
Join Project Tribal here  (And yes, it will be a real tribe in the real world, NOT a role play tribe!) Feel free to PM me about it!
old gallery link?id=2051[/img]

'Itan Atxur

I definitely think we need to do at LEAST small scale farming. In fact, that may be a "make or break" kinda deal for me.

Check out more from my DeviantArt page HERE

Tsyal Maktoyu



Revolutionist

"You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling." - Inception

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest". - Denis Diderot

Tonbogiri

I have always been unclear. What exactly is permaculture? Is it a farming method, or a lifestyle?


old gallery link?id=2051[/img]

Na'viru san LearnNaviyä sìk oel olo'txepit nerekx siveiyi talun
    lì'fyari leNa'vi 'Rrtamì, vay set 'almong a fra'u zera'u ta ngrrpong...

Key'ìl Nekxetse

Both. It uses the ideas of making use of natural resources and relationships between plants and other things (animals, buildings, the Earth) to make farming more productive, less resource intensive, less damaging and more helpful to the surrounding environment.
Key'ìl Nekxetse on "The Revolutionists"
~$ life --help
The program life received signal SIGSEV. Core dumped.

Tsyal Maktoyu

Yup, that describes it well. ;D

Here's a link from our old forum.

http://forest-living.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=146


Revolutionist

"You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling." - Inception

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest". - Denis Diderot

Tonbogiri

Sounds like it is exactly what we need! Having permaculture in addition to hunter-gatherer would allow us to exist without putting as great a strain on our local area - and thus, we would not need as much land.

So this combination saves us money! Heh heh.


old gallery link?id=2051[/img]

Na'viru san LearnNaviyä sìk oel olo'txepit nerekx siveiyi talun
    lì'fyari leNa'vi 'Rrtamì, vay set 'almong a fra'u zera'u ta ngrrpong...

guest2859

Quote from: Tonbogiri on July 05, 2011, 04:30:43 PM
Sounds like it is exactly what we need! Having permaculture in addition to hunter-gatherer would allow us to exist without putting as great a strain on our local area - and thus, we would not need as much land.

So this combination saves us money! Heh heh.

True, but an impossible scenario: We overproduce and risk wasting a percentage. What then?