[OT] Bureau of Relocation

IIRC there was also mention of this Bureau in "The Outposter", which may have
preceded West of Honor. Though I'll have to check the copy rights. Certainly
seemed to be a logical argument for colonization. Over crowded, economically
strapped homeworld ships excess population to the stars.

On that note... India has officially become the second country to have in
excess of 1 billion people.

  http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/indiababy000511.html

> On Thu, 11 May 2000 Aron_Clark@digidesign.com wrote:

> IIRC there was also mention of this Bureau in "The Outposter", which
Certainly
> seemed to be a logical argument for colonization. Over crowded,

> On Thu, 11 May 2000 sportyspam@harm.dhs.org wrote:

> On that note... India has officially become the second country to

i missed that one. i've heard of UN projections that the population will
overtake China soon. scary.

> On Thu, 11 May 2000 Aron_Clark@digidesign.com wrote:
Certainly
> > seemed to be a logical argument for colonization. Over crowded,

hold your horses - exporting people is *hard*. this is where my flipmode
alternative comes in - keep the people, set up space farms and import
food. you do the processing spaceside, so you only have to ship solid starch
and protein interstellar. shipping bulk food (space = free refrigeration 8))
is much cheaper than shipping people, and it doesn't matter if the transit
time is in years as long as the supply is steady. now, i haven't done the
maths, so i can't show that shipping food would be
cheaper than shipping people - it might be tricky, given the propensity
of people to multiply etc. otoh, you'd have unoccupied virgin worlds to farm
(after you've terraformed, natch), so the farming itself should be cheap
(well, cheaper than colony-building).

tom

> From: Aron_Clark@digidesign.com

And where will this strapped homeworld get the cash to send them? Space

travel isn't cheap.

Let's assume for a moment that Space Travel and Colonization becomes possible.
Will it become feasible, or commonplace? Let's look at it by

expressing the Social, political, economic factors in physical terms.

First of all, there has to be a force causing us to go to the stars. Let's say
that this force can either Push or Pull.

A Push would be some circumstance that makes us want to get away from Earth.
This could be severe overpopulation, War, Oppression, Global Ecological
Catastrophe, or any other Nasty Thing DuJour.

A Pull would be something Out There we want to get to - either we want
to develop new markets for goods, or we discover a new material that is in
short supply on Earth, or new sources of old fashioned raw materials, or we
just want to see what it's like (Scientific curiosity).

Second, there's resistance, as with moving a physical object. Space Travel is
expensive. Space Travel is dangerous. Space travel is fraught with hardships,
discomfort, loneliness. If you go, you may never see Earth, or even the
outside of the ship, again. When you get there, you're on your

own, living in those terrible prefab housing units, eking a living (such as it
is) from a hostile new world.

So the issue is this: for any colony to even be attempted, let alone make
it, the push and/or pull must overcome the resistance.

Let's take Push first. You're the Oppressed Minority, or you're a street
urchin living with 500 other people in the back of a wheelless VW Van. Of
course you want to go. Resistance in the form of danger or hardships does
not deter you.  So it's rough on the Kelp farms of Aquos-7.  Back home
in Angelesisco, you had to fight rats the size of bulldozers for a scrap of

crud to eat. And as horrid as death by rapid decompression may be, it doesn't
compare to the torture chambers of the New Inquisition, or the symptoms of the
dreaded virus GI8.1.2.Green. But COST... now that's resistance. How you gonna
PAY you Tick, Streeter? TANSTAAFL.

Then There's Pull. There's GOLD in them there hills. Or I should say,
there's DILITHIUM in them there stars! Or whatever - you're an
industrial power, and for one reason or another, it is quite profitable to
colonize

Blanton's Hell.  And you have the capital to fund the expedition -
especially since your backers know what the returns could be. But there's a
REASON it's called Blanton's Hell - and who are you going to get to go
"live" on a planet with an average temperature of 120 F (with apologies to the
civilized world for the archaic term) and a relative humidity of 99.99999%,
whose predominant indigenous species is a venomous, carnivourous,
10-meter long, semi-sentient skunk?  So what if you pay better than any
other corp spinward of Rigel? Where are they going to spend it? And on what
kind of life?

Which is why most (not all, but MOST) successful colony efforts are going to
combine both Push AND Pull. Let's take America as an example. Ok, we know that
Jamestown was all soft rich people looking to get richer. Look what happened.
And we know the Pilgrims just wanted to get away. But they had backers. And
the Puritans had profits (Pull) in mind as much as religious freedom (Push).
As for the secular colonies, sure, they were profit makers for the nobles who
had the charters (pull), but the majority of colonists sent over were common
people who were given a choice of America, the Gallows, or a debtor's
prison.(Push). Even in the 19th century, many of the immigrants who came over
to flee poverty and oppression in Europe (Push)

didn't have the money for the trip themselves. Their passage was paid for by
American industries who needed workers (pull).

Look at the BuReloc in Pournelle's books. Earth wanted to rid itself of

masses of poor, but they also wanted colonies which were bound to trade with
Earth. It was both push AND pull.

It's not enough to Want to get away - you have to be able to afford to
get
there.  And it's not enough to want what's out there - you need
colonists who want the Hell out of Dodge bad enough to go there for you.

In the games on the Planet Cotu (If you know Chinese you know where I
bastardized that from) for Starguard the population is Chinese, SE Asian and
East Indian in origin as space is the only place where the People's
Holy Republic (Can we say Saint Mao and Saint Peter in the same breath -
they do!) could live in it's own little "worker's paradise" until Amcrys
(think diLithium) was found in the seas...

Ugly place top die...

Gracias.
Glenn Wilson, Triple Threat Wargamer - (since 1959 loses equally well in
SF/Fantasy/Historical Games.)  Prefers Starguard Science Fiction,
Fantasy
Dwarf, 1500-1700 North America Skirmishes.

> On Thu, 11 May 2000 12:48:34 -0400 (EDT) sportyspam@harm.dhs.org writes:

G'day guys,

I haven't been paying that much attention sorry, so if this question has

arisen before sorry. Can someone please give me a very brief, very quick

explanation (offlist will be fine so as not to rehash) why there is this

perception that space travel will be so cripplingly expensive in relative
terms (I'm afraid my glancing hasn't cleared up why there's the assumption
that given we get FTL at all that its going to cost the stars to get to them).

> Second, there's resistance, as with moving a physical object.

Funny as it may seem there must be something attractive in it otherwise places
like Oz wouldn't exist at all. And its not always the case that you need to be
rich to get the passage, they often had the 'soddingly poor, sitting in the
bilge' class just so as to make the extra money on ever voyage possible. You
may also underestimate how many people would be willing to slave on the
boiling surface of planet xyz if it gave them a chance for a new life
afterwards, happened out here quite a bit at the start.

Cheers

Beth - ps found it amusing that the example you gave of a place people
wouldn't want to go fits Australia very well (hot with venomous wildlife);)

Snippage.

> Second, there's resistance, as with moving a physical object.
Space Travel
> is expensive.

NO, IT IS NOT.

Now that I have your attention....
You are making an assumption here.  Space travel _is_
expensive....at the moment. But we are not talking about the moment, we are
talking about the future, and I think we can take it as a given (in the canon
background) that shipment to orbit is going to become about as cheap as air
travel is now.

What are the technical details of making it cheap? How would I know? But the
game involves hyperspace jumps, and you don't have a problem swallowing that,
so why should you strain at
swallowing relatively inexpensive ground-to-orbit and
interplanetary travel?

Now, I'm prepared to grant that star travel isn't something that just anyone
can do on a whim, particularly not at first. But I'm suggesting that when it
gets to the point where travel time is on the order of a month or so, then
colonization is feasible. That appears to have been the case, historically.

> Which is why most (not all, but MOST) successful colony efforts

Of course. Not only to you need a reason to leave, you need a place to go to.
Otherwise you'd move to New Zealand, instead of another planet. I don't
disagree with most of your analysis. But I think you underestimate the lure of
freedom. If you offered me a square kilometer of farmland and no federal or
state regulations or taxes to worry about, I'd sign up so fast the paper would
smoke. Okay, maybe it would cost $40K per person (I'm figuring that based on
roughly 30 airline flights="a month's travel"), I could sell the house and
have money left over to buy starter equipment, so let's go! Or the army could
offer it as a benefit--stay in for 20 and you can be discharged
on New Eden, with your own land.

hold your horses - exporting people is *hard*.

I like the method used in Bio of a Space Tyrant by Piers Anthony. He used
gravity lens bubbles to get indigents in and out of gravity wells.

Andy A

> From: Aron_Clark@digidesign.com

> But there's a

> From: Aron_Clark@digidesign.com

Re: Hell Hole/Paradise

> So what if you pay better than any

If they're Australians, probably a life a lot like the one back home, just a
bit easier, milder climate and less dangerous wildlife. (OK, the climate isn't
milder, but the wildlife is.) During office hours, they'd be tucked away in
an air-conditioned monitoring room, sipping a coldie and swapping yarns
about whether the MegaSkunk in the company's ornamental garden is more
venomous than their Boss (Consensus is yes, but it doesn't smell as bad..).
Taking advantage of the Sauna outside to sweat out the consumed alcohol during
a
Tea-Break. Reading
"A la Rechereche du Temps Perdue" and discussing Jean-Paul Sartre and
Marcel Proust over a Pie Floater and a nice Chianti at lunchtime. Taking
Sickies when there's a Cricket Match on. Taking a few hours each week to do
their Volunteer

> aebrain@dynamite.com.au wrote:

Then a hundred years later, people from the home world will voluntarily
emigrate, and whine about the weather and the skunks, whinge about the killer
worms and generally make a pest of them selves and move to another nearby
paradise (like New New Zealand).

:-)

> On Fri, 12 May 100 05:54:02 GMT aebrain@dynamite.com.au writes:
<snip>
> the civilized world for the archaic term) and a relative humidity of

According to Beth's implications those are their house pets! <grin>

Gracias.
Glenn Wilson, Triple Threat Wargamer - (since 1959 loses equally well in
SF/Fantasy/Historical Games.)  Prefers Starguard Science Fiction,
Fantasy
Dwarf, 1500-1700 North America Skirmishes.

On Thu, 11 May 2000 22:46:29 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> Snippage.

> Of course. Not only to you need a reason to leave, you need a
PLUS, for us wargamers, you get 'instant militia' on the planetary frontier!

Gracias.
Glenn Wilson, Triple Threat Wargamer - (since 1959 loses equally well in
SF/Fantasy/Historical Games.)  Prefers Starguard Science Fiction,
Fantasy
Dwarf, 1500-1700 North America Skirmishes.

> On Fri, 12 May 100 06:22:01 GMT aebrain@dynamite.com.au writes:

I assume this is only for the types in the "civilized cities" areas, Beth? Not
out on the "wilds" where it get REAL interesting? >grin>

Gracias.
Glenn Wilson, Triple Threat Wargamer - (since 1959 loses equally well in
SF/Fantasy/Historical Games.)  Prefers Starguard Science Fiction,
Fantasy
Dwarf, 1500-1700 North America Skirmishes.

> aebrain@dynamite.com.au wrote:

quite a lot, which I've snipped

> The Men would do pretty much the same thing

You're saying the 10 meter long killer skunks would need
anti-venin after wrestling with the Aussies?

From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>

> >aebrain@dynamite.com.au wrote:

*chuckle*

> From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au>

> them).

Sorry, I feel compelled to answer on list. First, there's the historical
precendence. Travel for the sake of exploration and initial colonization has
always been expensive. Columbus had to get a loan from the monarchy of Spain.
Once colonies are established and trade routes formed, then it becomes
profitable. Second, there's the obstacles specifically involved in
SPACE travel - either launching your spacecraft, or constructing it in
orbit, there's fueling it, manning it with trained crew. The materials
necessary for construction, the construction process itself, all add up to
expense. Granted, once you're going out and getting resources from the
stars, the cost goes down - at least for governments. But for
individuals, it will still be costly.

> Funny as it may seem there must be something attractive in it otherwise

You Aussies are far too modest. Australia is fairly bursting with natural
resources.

And its not always the case
> that you

True. But there was a ship already going there, funded by some rich venturist,
or those "sodding poor" never would have had the means to hire a ship on their
own. Push AND pull working in conjunction, if you read the rest of my post.
Thanks for proving my point.

> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>

Cheap air travel is relatively recent, since around the end of WWII. Before
that, it was the railroad, which went through it's growing pains. It's been
the same with every modern mode of transportation.

> What are the technical details of making it cheap? How would I

Economics will drive it to cheapness as much as technology. If it were merely
a matter of technology, every town in the world with enough open space would
have an international airport.

But the game involves hyperspace jumps, and you don't
> have a problem swallowing that, so why should you strain at

Eventually, nothing. But we're talking about the colonization period of

space travel - wwe're not talking about going between two established
places, we're talking about going to somewhere remote and as yet uninhabited.
Travel of that sort is much more expensive, relative to technology level, than
travel between two markets.

> Now, I'm prepared to grant that star travel isn't something that

Feasible is one thing - practical is another.  It won't be enough that
we can get there fast, we'll need compelling enough reasons to go there, and
for someone to make it affordable. As for the historical case, it seems to
indicate that profits are as important as speed of travel. Sure, I can build a
fast ship to get you there. What's in it for me?

> >Which is why most (not all, but MOST) successful colony efforts

And what's going to compel the government to offer me this fabulous deal? They
want a piece of that new place, for resources or strategic import, or
whatever. Again, Push and Pull working together.

I've been thinking a bit about this, the planet to orbit is trivial in the
published universe. Why?

Well, lets see, we have antigravity. If it is sturdy enough to be used in a
tank it will be used in the civilian world.

With antigravity you can basicly turn electricity into height. Let's see, the
formula for potential energy is: mgh (IIRC).

So, assume each colonist needs 10 (metric) tons of gear to get started and we
need to lift it to, oh, say 100Km. That would be:

1E6m * 10m/sec2 * 1E4Kg, or about 1E11J  A Joule is 1Watt/Second

1E11/3.6E6 = 2.8Kw-Hours.  Even assuming 10% efficiency that's still
only 28Kw hours to orbit. Pretty cheap. The real cost comes in moving from
here to there through hyper, but how much that costs is PSB. It just needs to
be low enough that colonisation is withing reach of governments, corporations,
and religious fanatics. I would guess that in the standard history the cost of
the equipment is much more than the transportation costs.

Of course, on the pull end is untouched resources, interesting environments
that may have commercial uses, freedom of thought, and land for the taking.

> From: aebrain@dynamite.com.au
Or Alaskans, if you put a negative sign in front of the temperature.

> Roger Books wrote:

> I've been thinking a bit about this, the planet to orbit is trivial

Very true.

> With antigravity you can basicly turn electricity into height. Let's

Not entirely correct, but since you used the value for g at surface
level your value is a very conservative upper limit - the real value
will be lower (at least if you ignore nasty things like air resistance
etc <g>).

g decreases the higher you go, so you need to replace the above expression
with an integral

h = orbit
                     /
E = m*G*M* | dh/(h+R)^2
                    /
h = surface

where

R = Earth's radius G = the gravitic constant M = Earth's mass

For small h, eg when falling off a roof, g won't vary noticably and the
integral can be simplified to the formula you quoted. When you go into
orbit, the variation gets important :-/

Later,

Brian, you do have a point with your "it's cheaper to shoot 'em than move 'em"
comments, but assuming there's any kind of "human rights" groups even
the uber-nations might shy from doing something that blatent.

Assuming none will do that -- or even just using the NAC as an example

> Economics will drive it to cheapness as much as technology. If

Technical details will drive the economics.

> Eventually, nothing. But we're talking about the colonization

True but irrelevant. The question is not "is it more expensive" but "is it
acceptably priced." I just sent two engineers to California for a six hour
visit to the client's office, cost about $5000 in air fare and so forth. It
would have been a heck of a lot cheaper to send send us the contract and
source data by
fax/e-mail, but the client was willing to pay to see our
engineers in person, and they found the price acceptable. I wouldn't pay $40K
for each trip if I expected to commute, but if it's a one time, one way trip,
then yeah, I can manage that.

> From: Aaron Teske <ateske@HICom.net>

Umm... point ofclarification... htose were Thomas' comments, not mine.

> but assuming there's any kind of "human rights" groups even

But let's give the good Mr.Barclay his due for a moment. Assuming that any
civil rights protests are ignored, he does have a point, TO a point. In the
short run, it IS a smaller expense to shoot 'em than to ship them... UNLESS
you take into consideration that in founding a viable colony, you're
establishing a source of resources and a new market for your goods. If that
poor sot you just shipped out can turn you a profit, shipping him is no longer
an expense, but an investment.

> If I'm not mistaken, this is largely the theory on which Pournelle's

Yes, you're right. The difference being that instead of sending them to

FOUND colonies, BuReloc was sending them to already established colonies. The
dynamics of migration between habited worlds will be significantly different
from the dynamics of initial, pioneering colonization.

> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>

Actually, it's a two way street. Economics drives technology, technology fuels
the economy.

> >Eventually, nothing. But we're talking about the colonization

Irrelevant only if you haven't beenpaying attention to my arguement the whole
time, but only focusing on the statement about the expense of space travel. My
point was, in initial stages, the cost of being a colonist will be, for
individuals and many groups, prohibitively expensive, unless they have the
backing of financial supporters who are, in turn going to need some inducement
to give that backing.

> I just sent two engineers to

Last time I checked, California was inhabited (my address happens to be there,
that's evidence enough for me). A commercial business trip is nowhere near
being the same thing as a colonization effort. Did you have to send men ahead
of your engineers to build an airport for them to land at?

As for your $40K trip, WHY would you go on it? And HOW did it come to cost
only $40K, instead of $100M? As I have stated, commercial space travel and
immigration are ruled by a different set of dynamics.

From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com>

> > >But there's a

> On 12-May-00 at 18:01, Oerjan Ohlson (oerjan.ohlson@telia.com) wrote:

If you add height slowly enough air resistance should be minimal, as for g
decreasing, I know, but I'm a bit out of date on my calc also. I'm considering
going back to school and auditting a calc course just to correct that.

> Brian Bilderback wrote:
Space
> travel isn't cheap.

Agreed.

> Laserlight wrote:

Just as an added bit of information for everyone that looks only at the money
issue. I have a historian friend who can make a
very strong case for the fact that almost every war pre-WWII war
can easily be explained by population pressure, including the crusades. (Yes,
taking over NA was a war against the natives).

The thing she pointed out to me is when you have population
pressure you don't really need to get rid of _all_ the
excess population, you only need to get rid of most of those who are
troublemakers or are aggressive. Other than those individuals who would end up
being your colonists the majority of the rest of the human race gets along
fairly well in cramped quarters.

> Roger Books wrote:

Well, we have a first problem with this: this material is NOT now at orbital
velocity. In order to get it there, it needs to be moving fairly
fast. Now, I suppose you can leave your anti-gravity on, but eventually
you'll have to MOVE the stuff, and I presume that antigrav drains some power.

> 1E6m * 10m/sec2 * 1E4Kg, or about 1E11J A Joule is 1Watt/Second

        I see only one problem. 1e11/3.6e6 = 2.8e4kW-hours, or 28
megawatt hours. Not a math problem, just a division problem. At 10%
efficiency,
that gives us a power consumption of 280 MW-hours, which is (IMO) fairly
large.

snip
> moment, we are talking about the future, and I think we can

No argument--we'll undoubtedly have wars instead--but I wasn't
discussing colonization as a means to relieve population pressure. Although
the people who go may very well be happy to have some elbow room.

> Roger Books wrote:

There are some historians who will argue that *all* wars, pre and post WWII
have population pressure as their root cause.

Good ol' Malthusian doctrine, if the population is not kept in check by humane
means, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will be ready to keep it in check
by brutal means. (War, Pestilence, Famine, and Natural Death)

Not to start a flamewar or anything like that, but Heinlein mentioned
something like this in STARSHIP TROOPERS.

Please note that I did not say that Heinlein personally believed this (perhaps
he was speaking tongue in cheek).

> In the novel, Rico (studying to become an officer) is given

Actually, the Crusades weren't launched to control population. By that time
the Viking raids had ebbed and the huge military force to defend against them
was no longer needed. This was a predominately feudal force, therefore it was
impossible to just do a budget cut to reduce the size of the army. Even worse
was that there were all these knights bred and trained for war and no war to
fight. So what do a bunch of bored knights do? They go start wars to have
something to do. And where do they fight their battle? In large flat pieces of
land, a.k.a. the peaseant's fields. And what does this do to the local
economy??? The Crusades were a way of "down sizing" the military. Most of the
knights who left never returned.

It's much better to fight war on somebody elses of property. Two World Wars
have proven that.

To me, methods of travel go through three different stages of life

1: Very expensive, only rich travel

ie. planes at beginning to middle of century

2. Still moderatly expensive, but almost everybody travels

ie. today's air travel, 1900's steamers

3. Superseded by another form of travel, becomes tourist/vacation thing

ie. trains and cruise ships today

There was an article in one of the major Canadian newspapers a few years ago
about population and war. The conclusion was that war mostly had it's roots in
any country where there was an excess of the younger generations, those about
20. This was more related to modern conflicts in countries such as Africa but,
with no facts to back me up, that it might be able to be related to other
wars.

On another note, Keegan, in his book The History of Warfare, argues, that with
population pressure, there is no need to go to war. At least at the simplest
level.

> On 13-May-00 at 20:22, Imre A. Szabo (ias@sprintmail.com) wrote:

Just quoting my historian friend, but she didn't seem to think the war had
anything to do with "bored knights". Her take on it was a cross between a
population problem and inheritance. Too many second third and fourth sons in a
system where only the oldest inherits. You ship some off to the church, the
rest need to establish their own territory or end up being peasants.

Makes much more sense to me than, "we're bored, lets go die in the middle of
nowhere".

> Just quoting my historian friend, but she didn't seem to think the war

There was no population problem. The inheritance problem was typically solved
by the monastic movement. Boys became monks and girls became nuns. The huge
expense of out-fitting a knight typically prevented excess sons from
becoming one in the first place. There was a lot of petty warfare going on
between the knights that was causing a lot of economic disruption. Please note
that the church got a tie (percentage) on everything produced, so they had a
vested interest in reducing or eliminating this warfare. Because not only did
increase the financial demands placed on the church (more destitute peasants
and orphans) it also reduced the income the church was getting. Therefore the
church started punishing these knights by stating that their sins could only
be forgiven if they went on a Crusade. This meant that the most troublesome
knights were disposed of... It even applied to kings, such as English Richard
the Lion Heart, etc..

> On 14-May-00 at 13:19, Imre A. Szabo (ias@sprintmail.com) wrote:

Too many people for the available resources is what I would call a population
problem.

> The inheritance problem was typically solved by the monastic

For those able to enter a monastic order. Not everyone can deal with such a
lifestyle, and the ones that can't are the ones that would cause the greatest
stress to your society anyway.

G'day Brian,

While I agree we are making pretty much the same point I think there's a

lot more 'hidden' or egotistical stuff in the push/pull than you. You're

damn right that it cost a heap to colonise in the past, but as I've said

before in relative terms it was as if not more expensive than interstellar
colonisation given the assumption of fairly cheap FTL. A lot of the time

ego and curiosity will be enough of a push.

> You Aussies are far too modest. Australia is fairly bursting with

Something the Brits, Dutch and every other country who tried to claim Terra
Australis didn't know for sure at the time. Hartog, Cook etc didn't exactly do
a geological survey they just stuck up plates and said '"its ours". The fact
that the Europeans then spent decades looking for an inland sea kinda suggests
they knew jack of what the place was really like, the really useful stuff
didn't turn up until later.

Cheers

Beth

G'day guys,

> Brian, you do have a point with your "it's cheaper to shoot 'em than

This is exactly what motivated a lot of the penal colony stuff behind the
early fleets sent to Australia. If you dig a bit you'll find this whole "they
only stole a loaf of bread" business is all just so much gumph. My

ancestor for instance was official sentenced to 8 years down here for stealing
21 pounds, he also happened to slit the guys throat in the process. What was
really happening is there was increasing social distaste at just hanging
everybody, the judges in particular were feeling that strain, but people
didn't want to see over crowded prison hulks in everyday so they shipped them
out of sight off to the colonies. Yes it is more of

Brian's push and pull, in this case the push was social attitude and the

pull was an 'apparently' cheap labour source at the other end (though it

actually cost a lot more than a free colonisation would after you paid the
guards, provided basic staples etc etc).

Cheers

Beth

G'day Nyrath,

> Using space colonies to relieve overpopulation

Actually of all the reasons to push for the stars I think overpopulation

will be the least of our worries. The human population modellers are beginning
to see a much rosier picture of future Earth than they did even 2 or 3 years
back. While we must become more resource efficient to stave off depletion and
what not within the next century or so, population wise we

may well be paying people to have babies by the end of next century. Basically
there's three growth scenarios: 1) We keep growing at the rate we did in the
80s and go shooting off for

50billion people (that in itself sounds less than rosy and would probably
foreshadow massive famines, war etc etc like the doomsayers would claim as we
fell back to carrying capacity) 2) The current trends of birth levels continue
and we end up at about 11

billion by the end of next century, something we could probably manage so long
as we become more efficient and use some alternate power sources etc 3) The
current birth trends in the first world spread to the third world as it
becomes more technologically integrated and the average population ages and
dies off quite dramatically (AIDs kicks the heck out of a fair bit of Africa)
then the total pollution nose dives by the end of next century and we're
looking at maybe 3 billion or less (and our populations start to be a bit
tottery based on economic problems of losing labour base, markets
etc).

At present (2) is the odds on bet, though most scifi needs (1) if its going to
use overpopulation as an excuse to colonise. In case you're interested any of
the population modelling I've done for the GZGverse has been based on an
extrapolation of trends that lie between those used in 1 and 2, so it allows
for the spread of technology and thus lower overall death rates, but there is
less of a concomitant decline in birth rates because the third world doesn't
catch up with the west so fast (via social issues brought about via different
cultures, the spectre of epidemics such as AIDs) and

because the colony worlds themselves will be encouraging population growth
(both in situ as they need more population) and back home (as they represent a
larger resource base and potential prosperity).

Cheers

Beth

From: "Beth Fulton" <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au>

> This is exactly what motivated a lot of the penal colony stuff behind
My
> ancestor for instance was official sentenced to 8 years down here for

> Too many people for the available resources is what I would call a

There was no population problem. The petty fighting was because there was no
urgent threat, and was aimed at prestige, gather more lands for PERSONAL
power.

The actual number of people who went on Crusades was a very small percentage.
Remember, this a pre-industrial, pre-green revolutionary time.  The vast
majority of people worked in agriculture. One battle for personal gain by
knights, lords, etc., could destroy the fields and with it bring sever
economic hardship if not starvation to the local area. This was not because
they were over populated, but because their crops and live stock were
destroyed in a stupid and petty battle.

> > The inheritance problem was typically solved by the monastic

Typically they were sent into the monastic order at about the same time as
sons going the "knight career track" became squires. They were young enough to
be pliable. Besides, most sterotypes of monks are quite wrong. There were
trouble makers there just like in any other part of society.

> On 15-May-00 at 22:09, Imre A. Szabo (ias@sprintmail.com) wrote:

I think we are just going to have to disagree. All I can do is remake
my  point about non-inheriting children and you are  going to remake
your point about petty battles. Can we call it there?

It has really fallen off topic.

> I think we are just going to have to disagree. All I can do is remake

Why?

If you can't afford to out-fit your children as knights, how are going
to afford
to out-fit them as knights AND send them on a very distant (interpret as
very expensive) campaign to the Middle East??? You'll be lucky if he gets
himself killed. Then you're only out the huge expense of an equiped knight and
the cost to send him over there. Otherwise you are out the huge expense of an
equiped knight, the cost to send him over there, and the large ransom to get
him
back...

> It has really fallen off topic.

Isn't that normal for this list???

> On 16-May-00 at 21:55, Imre A. Szabo (ias@sprintmail.com) wrote:

Who said they couldn't afford to outfit their children as knights? As far as
my source tells me it wasn't a monetary issue, it was in inheritance issue.
Only the eldest son inherited, and since England was almost fully enfeofed (I
believe that is the word) second and later sons had a chance of going into the
church or going off and fighting.

how are going to
> afford to out-fit them as knights AND send them on a very distant

Unless of course he manages to capture a piece of land and hold it, or, as is
more likely, help someone else capture a piece of land and receive a section
for his efforts.