Recognition World 2
Nov. 8th, 2006 03:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jamesqWatch with awe as James waves his hands so fast you don't actually notice that the numbers he's producing have been pulled out of his ass!
One of my premises is that on X-day, every adult who has a compatible partner and is sufficiently mature to maintain a permanent relationship, recognizes their life-mate. Just how many people is that? I initially imagined that it would be between 50% and 80% of the adult population. Can I justify that gut feeling?
Well they say that 50% of marriages fail. So we can assume that the 50% that succeed consist of adults who have found someone compatible enough and can maintain a relationship. The ones that fail, fail because either one or the other partner can't hack it, or they just don't work well with each other. A 70% success rate per partner yields a 50% success rate per pairing. This means that at least 70% of the adult population will recognize. Probably more because there the marriage failures fall into two categories: 1) not compatible 2) at least one partner is not ready for a relationship. Those that fall into category 1 would also recognize. Call it 75% total.
This ignores some outliers. Marriages that failed, but shouldn't have - one or both partners hit a rough patch and didn't do the work necessary to make a stronger union. Marriages that don't fail, but probably should have - the stereotypical trapped-in-an-abusive-relationship for example. I'm going to optimistically declare that these cancel each other out.
So that's married people. If we assume that there is nothing special about them (i.e. the non-married people are no more or less likely to have successful relationships - they just don't have them at this moment) we can extrapolate out to the total adult population, not just the married adult population.
Incidentally, I found 59% of the population was currently married (for the States, in 2002. I couldn't find the right numbers at StatsCan). Also, about 75% of the population is adult (20 or over according to this).
There's 32 million people in Canada. 24 million of those are adults. 18 million recognize. That's better then half the population!
Now who recognizes whom? I'm going to say that the Pareto Principle applies - 20% of the recognitions will require 80% of the effort. Or more specifically, 80% of the recognitions will occur in ones own social circle and 20% will not. Potentially 3.6 million people in Canada are going to be searching for their life-mates.
Is 3.6M a big disruption of the economy? As a percentage of the population it's equivalent to the number of soldiers we mustered for WWII and I think there's no question that that was the biggest disruption this country's ever experienced. X-day and it's aftermath would be bigger.
Canada's a very sparsely populated country. Multiple all those numbers by ten when considering the USA. Multiply them by 200 to get a ballpark figure for the world. 720,000,000 million people all with an urge to travel. Almost a billion. Whew!
One of my premises is that on X-day, every adult who has a compatible partner and is sufficiently mature to maintain a permanent relationship, recognizes their life-mate. Just how many people is that? I initially imagined that it would be between 50% and 80% of the adult population. Can I justify that gut feeling?
Well they say that 50% of marriages fail. So we can assume that the 50% that succeed consist of adults who have found someone compatible enough and can maintain a relationship. The ones that fail, fail because either one or the other partner can't hack it, or they just don't work well with each other. A 70% success rate per partner yields a 50% success rate per pairing. This means that at least 70% of the adult population will recognize. Probably more because there the marriage failures fall into two categories: 1) not compatible 2) at least one partner is not ready for a relationship. Those that fall into category 1 would also recognize. Call it 75% total.
This ignores some outliers. Marriages that failed, but shouldn't have - one or both partners hit a rough patch and didn't do the work necessary to make a stronger union. Marriages that don't fail, but probably should have - the stereotypical trapped-in-an-abusive-relationship for example. I'm going to optimistically declare that these cancel each other out.
So that's married people. If we assume that there is nothing special about them (i.e. the non-married people are no more or less likely to have successful relationships - they just don't have them at this moment) we can extrapolate out to the total adult population, not just the married adult population.
Incidentally, I found 59% of the population was currently married (for the States, in 2002. I couldn't find the right numbers at StatsCan). Also, about 75% of the population is adult (20 or over according to this).
There's 32 million people in Canada. 24 million of those are adults. 18 million recognize. That's better then half the population!
Now who recognizes whom? I'm going to say that the Pareto Principle applies - 20% of the recognitions will require 80% of the effort. Or more specifically, 80% of the recognitions will occur in ones own social circle and 20% will not. Potentially 3.6 million people in Canada are going to be searching for their life-mates.
Is 3.6M a big disruption of the economy? As a percentage of the population it's equivalent to the number of soldiers we mustered for WWII and I think there's no question that that was the biggest disruption this country's ever experienced. X-day and it's aftermath would be bigger.
Canada's a very sparsely populated country. Multiple all those numbers by ten when considering the USA. Multiply them by 200 to get a ballpark figure for the world. 720,000,000 million people all with an urge to travel. Almost a billion. Whew!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 10:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 11:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-09 12:48 am (UTC)Is it love? No, though love would bloom quickly. Think of it as certain knowledge that this person will become your love.
That statement and the comments about free will got me thinking. If you know that someone is going to become your love or that you're very likely going to fall in love, doesn't that shift the nature of love? I'm thinking if you know you're going to fall in love, doesn't that make love something innate (and when I think innate I think instinctual) rather than an exercise of human choice?
Also in my books, a large part of love is about vulnerability and risk...
no subject
Date: 2006-11-09 01:37 am (UTC)And some people would rather destroy anything they love rather than expose themselves to vulnerability and risk.
And will drug or alcohol addiction be more or less powerful than the recognition urge? Probably depends on circumstances.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-09 03:33 am (UTC)Others would tell you that they are simply other words for the same thing.
And some people would rather destroy anything they love rather than expose themselves to vulnerability and risk.
"He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune; for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief." -- Francis Bacon
The question about addictions is a good one, but one should really examine the questions of self-destructive behaviour at large. Would people be more likely to seek treatment for such ills if they were more confident in a core relationship -- or would they be more likely to avoid said relationship by any means they deemed necessary?
I'm reminded of a character in Goblins, whose destiny is to rescue a fox when she comes of age. Sure enough, at the appointed time, she finds the fox she's supposed to rescue -- and promptly kills it, thereby showing that she alone decides her destiny.
How likely would people rebel against something that truly was in their nature? Some might say we do it all the time. Contrariness might even be a survival trait, ensuring greater diversity within the species.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 11:23 pm (UTC)So we have point eight of a percent of the adult population heading overseas to find their partner. That means about six million people world-wide (144,000 Canadians) will need to go intercontinental.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-09 03:56 am (UTC)What is/was the catalyst that causes Recognition on X-Day? Is it something akin to what happened in the beginning of Garething's Book (Rise) or what??
no subject
Date: 2006-11-09 05:16 pm (UTC)Did it affect the world simultaneously or did it spread like an infection? Or were there random events leading up to the Urge?
Anyhow.
To clear up one of my earlier points:
There are many different kinds of people in the world. There may different degrees or types of stimulation (some may feel a tug at the heart, some may seen auras when looking in the right direction, some may get headaches if they don't look in the right direction, etc). Also, different people react to the same stimuli in different ways. Some love the adrenaline rush of roller coasters, some loathe that exact same sensation.
It is up to the author to come up with a consistent rational for the Urge. Then the stories will come from the interaction of the Urge and the protagonists.
War Brides
Date: 2006-11-09 06:21 pm (UTC)http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/war-brides/index.html
Re: War Brides
Date: 2006-11-09 09:10 pm (UTC)