Beth,
In answer to some of your comments:
When I said it would be economically difficult to ship out millions of people,
I meant that. Your point about logistics was taken, but what I meant was a)
moving bulk volume of people in FT takes ridiculous amounts of mass b)
ridculous amounts of mass cost points, which presumably equate to
$$$
c) protecting these people convoys would be a must So the task is huge
logistically and hence economically.
The justification for c) above is the nature of the GZGverse. Look at the
canon history - conflicts running almost all the time. If you could
obliterate 100K or even 10K of your opponents, I'm sure you'd find at least
one enemy willing to do that. And as soon as somebody blows up 1 big transport
or 10, then everyone must gaurd them. And THAT would take a huge investment of
people.
A 4% growth rate is VERY high for a human population, I concur. It could
happen I suppose.
Thank you for providing UN numbers. I'm happy with Earth at 15-20
billion. What was your prediction for the capability of the Biosphere
(carrying capacity) in 2185? Presuming advances in recycling, energy
production, green technologies, biotechnology, etc.... I would think that
supporting numbers of up to 40 billion (in bad straights...) might be possible
and that supporting 15 billion might not be more than mildly taxing (as an
average...
knowing human distribution of resources/money, some areas will be
awesome,
others real crappy). The die-back scenario certainly is interesting.
If we believe the off-Earth pop should be in the 15-25% range, that
suggests 2.25 to 5 billion people all together off earth. Enough to get some
votes, but not to control the political frameworks of the day. Or so says I,
YMMV
:)
As to my comment about economics and birth rates, and your reply about
education: a) generally, but not always, education is more prevalent in
prosperous nations b) women in the work force tends to equal women not having
huge families or having no family at all
c) prosperity tends to be its own limiter - if the cost of a
kids is 15% of your posh lifestyle, I've seen a lot of folks unwilling to give
up
the prosperity and their freedom - but this is a byproduct of wealthy,
well paid professional ladies in quite a few cases (not a good or bad thing,
just an observation)
And as for the high birth rates in the colonies... it could be done that
way. But we're assuming that an agro-bot costs a lot to make on Taliban
IV. It might not. If we have a "colony kit" which includes an autominer and a
nano-factory which converts local fauna and minerals into things like a
simple harvester or planter machine, then costs of transport are avoided,
and such factory/automation technologies should be light/robust/cost
efficient/mass efficient by 2190, given the development of stardrive and
other things. Only utterly impoverished colonies would lack these basics
(IMV) - perhaps the ESU or IF might not even bother with these, or
perhaps some individdual colonies can't afford these systems even though they
aren't
too expensive - but similarly they would be doubtful able to afford the
medical tech that will give them a mean lifespan of 70-80. If this
medical tech is believable, then we can assume they have farm systems to help
and thus require less labour. Correspondingly, they probably want fewer mouths
to feed, so 8 children would be rare. Penal colonies are also another
exception, but people might even sterilize prisoners... the last thing I'd
want is my dissidents overpopulating and coming back at my empire 100 years
down the road....
As to the GZGverse "MegaModel" - it's on the stack of tasks to take a
swing at over the winter. So "I'll be in touch" (and no excuses about little
things like Theses shall be acceptable... if need be I'll straighten your
"advisor" out on what constitutes a "priority".... *wink*).
Tom
Looking at the Future History of the GZG universe, I think that the rush to
colonization was a land-grab/power projection move.
It was only 6 years from the launching of the trans-solar probe to the
first
colony ships (only 2 from the first manned trip). 2062-2069.
It was only 1 more year until all of the major powers (and some minor powers)
had launched colony ships (LLAR being the exception). 2070.
Then it is 6 years until the first combat starship (the HMS Thunderer) is
launched. 2076.
Even by 2102, the European Space Force consists of mainly in-system
ships and "very few" FTL-capable ships.
I imagine that these colony ships are either: A) Reusable as components for
the colony
or
B) Leave all but the bridge and engines at the colony for resources.
The colonists would have traveled in cryogenic sleep to save space. Also,
artificial gravity for decks was not implemented until 2104 (MSS Windsor).
It only takes 37 years for the population of Albion to match that of England.
(That's what 2 generations?).
If you look at the money, manpower, and expense that went into the "space
race" to the Moon, it is not hard to imagine what would be spent to claim the
stars before the other powers do.
This colonization time is a time of strife on the Earth. Big powers are eating
up small powers and grabbing all the land they can. There is war on most of
the continents. There has even been use of nuclear weapons (against Israel).
This would provide great impetus to multiply a power's holding among the stars
(numbers survival strategy).
In addition, colonies can:
- Provide rare materials
- Provide food away from the irradiated areas on earth
- Provide relief from overpopulation
- Increase the taxable population
- Provide military bases (and support for forward forces)
- Provide tariff income (company store scenario)
- Increase the power's status in the UN (We represent over 100 worlds!)
- Provide maximum security prisons
- Provide sweatshops (you don't work? You don't eat!)
- Provide new medicinal resources
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org/
Expanded GZG Future History:
http://www.ftsr.org/gzg/gzghist.html
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> And as for the high birth rates in the colonies... it could be done
G'day Tom,
> When I said it would be economically
Difficult yes, but <and this may be coming down to differing GZGverse
views...Jon's really created a monster here;)> not insurmountable.
> a) moving bulk volume of people in
It was ridiculously expensive and space consuming during the age-of-sail
(and even earlier) but people still did it. Given the resource depleted state
of the Earth it may (seem to) be economically sensible to spend a few
quazillion razoos to get to system alpha if it means you suddenly have (at
least initially) uncontested access to a lot more than the original few
quazillion razoos.
> The justification for c) above is the
You've got a sound point, but considering the small crews on GZG ships its
less a people and more a money and resources issue. It makes colony ships more
expensive, but still not totally ludicrous. Or at least so it must seem to the
governments of the day if the NAC is going to have 17 odd planets by 2180s;)
> What was your prediction for the capability
About 30 billion. The model allows for an overshot to about 35 to 40 billion
but it I'd be bad going as the population fell back to close to carrying
capacity or below (widespread famine, plagues, social unrest even in the most
developed of nations and much much worse in the poorer nations).
> supporting 15 billion might not be
Very true the global capacity won't be smoothly spread out across the
continents, places such as Australia would need radical terraforming to see
their carrying capacity get close to even 100 million let alone what China
already supports.
> The die-back scenario certainly is interesting.
Not least for the kind of societies they think it would produce;)
> If we believe the off-Earth pop should
Which would explain why they wouldn't be too worried about writing off some of
the outer colonies during the Xeno War, though any survivors aren't
going to be too happy/friendly when the dust settles ;)
> As to my comment about economics
Once again sound points which have been the prime mechanics identified in the
past, just recently though there has been quite a few papers published showing
education of women alone is enough. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the
world don't they say?;)
> And as for the high birth rates in the
True, but it might. I think there's enough give in that whole topic to
accommodate the various backgrounds people want to think up. What's true of
planet x in the NAC needn't be true for planet y in the ORC.
> Penal colonies are also another
True, but they had that option in the past and haven't taken it. Like I said
it worked before;)
> the last thing I'd
Ahh but do you think the UK has noticed our subtle invasion via the influx of
battalions of the humble backpacker yet?;P
> As to the GZGverse "MegaModel" -
I'm ready willing and able... or is that slack lazy idle and indolent.... mmm
must get that sorted out;)
> (and no excuses about little
Then you can sort out my mother, husband and all other relatives who think
that me finishing up and having a paying job would be quite a good thing
;)
Cheers
Beth
> Absender: tomb@bitheads.com
the medical tech that will give them a mean lifespan of 70-80. If
> this medical tech is believable,
In spite of what many people believe, it doesn't really take that high
a medical tech to get life expectancies in the 50 - 70 year range. Main
contributions to life expectancy are:
1) Sufficient and healthy food 2) Good hygiene 3) Vaccinations
Add in good gynecology/child care and occupational safety measures and
you won't need medical tech much above what was basically available early in
the 20th century or so to get such life expectancies.
Greetings Karl Heinz