[dogscoff]

When I wrote the first part I had genetic diverstiy in mind. FOr some reason I had 30 in my head as the "magic number" but Intimidator's 300 sounds more sensible. Of course the diversity within the Groups would be a factor affecting that number- had the entire settlement been related to start with, you'd definitely have a problem, but as it is we have three significant family Groups (although plenty of in-laws and yong cousins in there adding flavour to the mix) and a fair few unrelated stragglers, and then there's also the other settlement across the way. That should be enough for a few generations at least, and by then you might be able to start looking to the third group across the continent (forgotten about them, hadn't you?)

As for the total number in the settlement- we know there are 19 in John's group, about the same in the african Groups and the kiwis are as yet uncounted, but so far we've named or described at least half a dozen of them. Personally I'm inclined to imagine theirs as the largest group, maybe up near the thirty mark or even more.

Ther next question is, is 60-70 ppl too large a group for such a primitive, hand-to-mouth economy? Would it be better from a social and agricultural perspective to split it into two or three closely-linked but discrete settlements? I'm personally of the opinion that without a really cohesive society and mindset, (which is unlikely in such a random collection of ppl, despite their shared adversities) a group that size would splinter naturally.