I am trying to design a scenario for colonies trying to become independant.
This led to a question on what is the smallest, sustainable,
self-sufficient
colony size. I realize that this will vary with the conditions of the colony.
What is the minimum population needed to have a self-sustaining colony?
By self-sustaining, I mean enough people to avoid becoming inbred,
produce food, shelter, purify water, and support light industry. Please
respond for these two conditions to give me a range: 1) Colony on the Moon
2) Colony on an Earth-like world (plenty of food, water, minerals, etc.)
Hi there!
> Brian wrote:
[MUNCH]
> By self-sustaining, I mean enough people to avoid becoming inbred, >
produce
> food, shelter, purify water, and support light industry.
etc.)
(Some barely informed speculation to follow)
I guess one of the critical points is "What tech level are you talking about?"
With a high enough tech level, (or, rather, with the right technologies), you
can get a minimum colony size in the hundreds. (Genetic Engineering, Food
replication technologies, "Simple" power generation technologies i.e. 'Cold
Fusion' turns out to work after all with suitable modifications, that sort of
thing.)
Avoiding that type of technical extreme, I'd say you need about a thousand
people. This also assumes that there is still some contact with the outside
world i.e. new immigrants, supply ships, something like that. If you talk
total isolation, you may need as much as ten thousand or more to survive in
the extreme long term.
Some parallels could probably be drawn between colonization sizes and the
Polynesian experience during their Age of Colonization. (circa
5-10000BC (?) ) Discover Magazine (Jared Diamond) has a couple of
fascinating articles on what happens when populations (i.e. colonies) are cut
off and forced to survive on their own. (November 1997 has a great example.)
Beyond this, it's hard to get more specific without more specifics.
(8-) Technology Level, frequency of contact with "Mother" culture,
social aspects of colonizing culture, that sort of thing. Indeed, the numbers
I stated above for what I consider a 'typical' scenario, are probably just
nothing but garbage.
Hope this helps,
J.
> Brian wrote:
Phrases like "in-bred" are relative, you could get away with tolerably
little genetic problems with between 100-300 people. As little as 12
will give enough variation to give a good chance of survival, albeit at a very
high price. DNA analysis of Cheetahs show that they suffered a catastrophic
population crash, and were reduced to about 12 individuals within the last
100,000 years, if memory serves. As a result, they're still on the verge of
extinction, there just hasn't been enough accumulation of variation to make
the poor beasts 'hardened' against disease etc.
Food, sheleter etc. - Depends on the technology. At current levels, with
a lot of capital investment, 200 would be quite enough for the Moon. On
an Earth-like world, the numbers are the same, it's the capital
investment that changes.
> At 11:47 PM 11/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
Agreed but what you also need to consider is the type of world that these
"colonists" are trying to set up on. Somewhere like Mars is going to cause
problems due to radiation and low gravity. The first you can avoid to some
extent but the later is still a problem because of the long term problems
caused by living in low gravity particularly on a developing feotus. There may
have been some work done on this (I know the Russians have had a lot of
experience with the effects of low gravity on the body) anyone else? If your
colonists end up on an "Eden" world (Earthlike) then
group/s of 30
or so could form selfsustaining communities that are stable over the long term
(Australian Aboriginies). It might also be interesting to speculate what would
happen if a group of high tech settelers came to live on a veritable paradise.
Might they not take up a primative lifestyle.
> Some parallels could probably be drawn between colonization sizes and
Great articles. Worth reading.
> Beyond this, it's hard to get more specific without more specifics.
This would be very important in determining the culture of the colony. Kim
Stanley Robinson's "Red Mars" had some ideas on this. (I haven't read the two
sequels yet.)
> On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> At 11:47 PM 11/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
There
> may have been some work done on this (I know the Russians have had a
One problem with the Aborigine example as a minimum size is that the
aborigines of any locale have already adapted to their environment and are
working in harmony with it. Another question is what kind of technology
could you sustain with a community of 100-200 people? Unless there is
some way to transmit college or technical information to the community it is
too difficult to maintain a technical data base and skills needed to
maintain fusion reactors/computers/vehicles/cell phones etc. Are
colonists willing to do away with electricity, communication, and lesiure
time? The type of colony will determine if the colonists are willing to do
that. Frontier types are going to colonize because they want to be
there. They want the challenge of homesteading / freedom of lots of
space. Penal colonies will have lots of unwilling people who will do what they
have to to survive, not because they want to be there. BuReLoc colonists will
be similar to penal colonies but will probably have even fewer skills than
colonists found in the penal colonies. The other extreme might be a high tech
society that can afford to drop entire floating cities into the seas with an
instant population of 100,000 per city. This could be rapidly expanded a la
Millenium Society
plan - Using electrolysis and conducting mesh to make "seacrete"
floating blocks for additional cities. Metals are extracted from sea water and
power is derived either from fusion plants or Ocean Thermal converters.
> From the ocean bases expansion into land areas could then progress with
Some ideas,
--Binhan
> On the subject of colonization of other worlds the Brains wrote:
Not always true. The Amerindians of my area led nomadic lives. An extrasolar
colony could lead a nomadic life style in many environments as the Cheyene,
the Lapps, the Bedouins, and other cultures have done for generations. You
just need the room to move around.
> And if we're not to
Well as we folks in Idaho say, " Earth First!...Log the other planets later."
> On the subject of FT, when's FTIII due out?
Yes, when will FTIII be released?
> [quoted text omitted]
In a message dated 97-11-19 15:59:18 EST, you write:
<< >I guess one of the critical points is "What tech level are you talking
> about?" With a high enough tech level, (or, rather, with the right
> Agreed but what you also need to consider is the type of world that
There may have been some work done on this (I know the Russians have had a lot
of experience with the effects of low gravity on the body) anyone else? If
your colonists end up on an "Eden" world (Earthlike) then
group/s of 30
or so could form selfsustaining communities that are stable over the long term
(Australian Aboriginies). It might also be interesting to speculate what would
happen if a group of high tech settelers came to live on a
> veritable paradise. Might they not take up a primative lifestyle.
> Some parallels could probably be drawn between colonization sizes and
> Beyond this, it's hard to get more specific without more specifics.
> This would be very important in determining the culture of the colony.
Kim Stanley Robinson's "Red Mars" had some ideas on this. (I haven't read the
two sequels yet.)
> [quoted text omitted]
Two points:
1. Since inbreeding comes from marrying your cousin, it will take 2 or 3
generations before a members choice of mates become so restricted that
breeding with your cousin is even likely (even in a very small colony!) I
can't see it as much of a concern for at least the first century! In a larger
colony, the date of concern will be at least several centuries down the time
line!
2. Once you have produced enough cousins that inbreeding becomes a concern,
given a couple thousand intial colonist (=> several centuries) the simple
question is How Much Eugenics Will Your People Tollerate! If you postulate
compulsory genetic screening, and therefore abortion of the fetus that fails
the screen, how will you handle this concern? How will you handle the sex
drive of the individual whose genetic history has accumulated too many
"recessives?" P.S. Anyone who says people will line up like sheep for any
government genetics program, no matter how well intentioned, doesn't know
people.
I see the answer to your original question as this: No matter what the size of
your colony, there is no "safe" size. There are only levels of tension.
> 2. Once you have produced enough cousins that inbreeding becomes a
Another question is: how much eugenics will the original colonists
tolerate? If you screen for people who don't _have_ the recessive genes
that can be combined by inbreeding, all you have to worry about is
radiation-induced mutation.
ObFT: various people here seem to know fragments about how FTIII will work.
Any playtest information out there?
... 8< snip >8
> On the subject of FT, when's FTIII due out?
...Please please please can we start calling it FT3! I have visions of the
Knights of Niii changing to vac suited crusaders of the order of Ftiii
!!!
A currently sane Jon (t.c.) Sprayforming Developments Ltd. [production tools]
made in
[prototype times]
'The future is now'
> On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:
> > One problem with the Aborigine example as a minimum size is that the
<rant> Wow, someone who knows something about environmental history. I can't
believe how many people actually believe that ancient peoples lived "in
harmony" with nature. It has been shown by archeology that almost all
primitive peoples across the world plundered nature whenever possible, and
that it's only in the 20th Century that large numbers of people actually have
an awareness of environmental problems.
</rant>
On topic:
This kind of leads me to a question here. If a planet is actually
M-class
and well-inhabitable by humans, wouldn't it be reasonable that life
(especially intelligent life) already exist? How colonists interact with the
locals might provide a much more interesting scenario...
> Binhan Lin wrote:
> One problem with the Aborigine example as a minimum size is that the
:Begin Rant: They adapted to it the way the Maori did in New Zealand: by
exterminating every animal larger than man-sized! The coming of Humanity
to Australia led to mass extinctions of many macro-fauna.
This happens with every wave of primitive migration. And if we're not to be
classed as "primitive" we better clean up our act as regards
over-grazing, desertification etc too. Otherwise we too will be "adapted
> At 11:13 20/11/97 -0700, you wrote:
SNIP
> :Begin Rant:
I was chatting about megafauna extinctions the other day with some friends,
and we noted that anywhere humans "arrive", the megafauna seems to
be for the high jump- with the great whales near as dammit the most
recent
example. The only megafauna left are places where we grew up- Africa
and Asia.
On the topic of local, possibly intelligent life, Earth has had life for
c3,000,000,000 years; multicelled life for c800,000,000; land animals
450,000,000 (400,000,000 for land vertebrates), hominoids for 35,000,000 and
people you could talk to for about 1,000,000. I think what this amounts to
is that it's up to you- life here started almost as soon as it was
physically possible and went along fine with no brains for millions of years,
and then intelligence arose in a fairly short time. Perhaps the
intelligence of the locals might be in doubt- I recall finding (in the
early '70s) a disgusting reference in a children's encyclopaedia to the
extinction
of the "near-human" Tasmanians.
Rob
In message
<Pine.HPP.3.96.971120110745.18458A-100000@hp09.ee.ualberta.ca>
> Chen-Song Qin <cqin@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> <rant>
Why stop with humans? Dumb animals do much the same if given half a chance. So
do plants for that matter.
> On topic:
Not sure what you mean by M-class (Earth-like?).
Anyway, if colonists were to meet 'intelligent' natives, then they're most
likely to be stone age cultures at best. Realisation that humans have come
across alien intelligence might not occur until it's too late (ie they've
almost been wiped out).
Within a window of planetary evolution several billion years wide, we'd have
to catch them in a period about a million years across just to have them fire
using. If you want actualy civilisation, then you've only got maybe ten
thousand years. Any later than this period, and they'll probably be meeting
us.
> On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Rob Paul wrote:
> years, and then intelligence arose in a fairly short time. Perhaps
Hey this reminds me. I recall a sci-fi story where the humans find some
rather corpulent and disgusting lifeforms on another planet who played in
their own feces and all that. The humans wind up disliking them and eventually
causing their annihilation. But it turns out that they were great thinkers and
philosophers... go figure. Can anyone remember any more detail about this one?
> At 17:41 21/11/97 -0700, you wrote:
That sounds like the utods from Brian Aldiss' "The Dark Light
Years"- well worth reading. The utods were symbiotic with space-going
trees (!) called ammps. Utods resembled a segment of an orange with 3 pairs of
retractable limbs and a number of sensors and orifices. In their history,
prior to the story, a cleanliness heresy had arisen, leading to anarchy, but
eventually "law and ordure were restored..."
Rob