What happened to the Romulan Empire after Romulus was destroyed

[Edit_XYZ]

EmperorTiberius wrote:

---

They don't have to be like bacteria to have a massive population. You do know that a sextillion is, say, a million times more than a quadrillion right? They could be the most unfortunate species in the galaxy, suffer all the catastrophies possible, and could easily reach the quadrillion range.

Actually, they DO have to be like bacteria to have a massive population - well fed bacteria, that is.

And no, they couldn't be the most unfortunate species in the galaxy and reach the quadrillion range.
All it takes is for the average romulan couple to have 2 children - or less.
That's it for population increase.

PS - Easily? Within the confines of the trekverse (as presented) or the real world - well, that's laughable!

In fact, the more they spread out on other planets, the less impact any kind of catastrophy would have on them. And you keep bringing up human history, like the Romulans are going to suffer from bad teeth, influenza, no food, stroke and heart attacks due to obesity, chicken pox, scarlet fever, mumps, malaria, amscesses, and other 20th century diseases that can be prevented in a society that uses science.

Not these diseases.
But many others - with similar effects, demographically.
Many of them mentioned in trek canon.

EmperorTiberius - in trek, populations suffer from the same "gremlins" human populations suffered throughout history - regardless of 'colonies' or any other hand-waving you would care to use.
Again, many - most - of them mentioned in trek canon.

You think it not realistic?
Well, fantasy science replicators or transporters are not realistic, either.
You can't pick and choose what you consider 'realistic' and what not (well, you could, but it would make your posts worthless).

Your estimates of 40k are laughable.

During history, many colonists/lineages/populations suffered from a far worse fate - number of descendants: 0.

[MacLeod]

Timo wrote:

---

Star Trek makes mention of several advanced, supposedly interstellar civilizations ceasing to be when their homestar goes supernova. Probably not overnight, but still. Supposedly, then, the evacuation of a couple of Romulan bigwigs to another planet in the Star Empire, and the establishing of a new government, would merely slightly delay the inevitable: by some unknown mechanism, the conquest and dissolution of the Star Empire by its enemies would be assured.

Timo Saloniemi

The main one being perhaps the T'Kon Empire, that collapsed when it's central start went nova.

And it had a population numbering in the trillions.

As others have said, could conquered/occupied worlds rebel against their oppressors?

[EmperorTiberius]

Edit_XYZ wrote:

---

Actually, they DO have to be like bacteria to have a massive population - well fed bacteria, that is.

And no, they couldn't be the most unfortunate species in the galaxy and reach the quadrillion range.
All it takes is for the average romulan couple to have 2 children - or less.
That's it for population increase.

PS - Easily? Within the confines of the trekverse (as presented) or the real world - well, that's laughable!

Not these diseases.
But many others - with similar effects, demographically.
Many of them mentioned in trek canon.

EmperorTiberius - in trek, populations suffer from the same "gremlins" human populations suffered throughout history - regardless of 'colonies' or any other hand-waving you would care to use.
Again, many - most - of them mentioned in trek canon.

You think it not realistic?
Well, fantasy science replicators or transporters are not realistic, either.
You can't pick and choose what you consider 'realistic' and what not (well, you could, but it would make your posts worthless).

During history, many colonists/lineages/populations suffered from a far worse fate - number of descendants: 0.

US has had a growth rate between .9 and 2% for the past 100 years. Are you saying people in US grow unrealisticly like bacteria? Are you saying that advanced Vulcan technology in hands of agressive, expansionist Romulans woudn't be able to match this type of growth?

[Edit_XYZ]

EmperorTiberius wrote:

---

US has had a growth rate between .9 and 2% for the past 100 years. Are you saying people in US grow unrealisticly like bacteria? Are you saying that advanced Vulcan technology in hands of agressive, expansionist Romulans woudn't be able to match this type of growth?

Take a look at demographic increase in developed countries (including USA).
You'll find it goes backwards, stagnates, or barely advances these days (at most).
So no, the populations of rich countries definitely do not breed like bacteria.

Of course, in the trekverse, the conditions - dangerous diseases/wars/lacking food/etc - presented are more like those at the beginning of the 19th century.


PS - For the USA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra..._United_States

One - of many - relevant information: "The total fertility rate in the United States estimated for 2011 is 1.89 children per woman, which is below the replacement fertility rate of approximately 2.1"

Next time, actually do a google search yourself.

[EmperorTiberius]

Wow. I haven't seen someone this stuborn in a long time. You have to look at trends, not particular years which could be an anomaly.
Look at the freaking link that you provided, it says that the average growth rate in the last 100 years or so was 1.3%, just like I said above. US has 300 million people, it's not a myth. According to you, US should be the size of a small village. Math and history don't lie. Stop being so arrongant and full of yourself and present some evidence.

[Edit_XYZ]

I have already shown evidence. You just don't want to look at it; you only look for what you want to believe.

About USA
"76 million in 1900 to 281 million in 2000. It reached the 200 million mark in 1967, and the 300 million mark on October 17, 2006"
Does this look like an exponential curve to you?

Let's use the malthusian equation:
0,02 growth "per year"
112 years since 1900:
(76000000)*((2,71828182846)^(0,02*112))
N=713893177

You fall short by some margin with a mere 300 million.
And that's counting immigration as legitimate multiplication of the population - which, for the purposes of this discussion, it is NOT.

BTW, the demographic trend now in developed countries is negative, NOT positive.

Malthus was wrong - proved decisively by demographic history. Indeed, ANY prediction of continuing exponential curves in the real world was wrong.
Your imitation is also wrong.
Deal with it already!

[EmperorTiberius]

Edit_XYZ wrote:

---

I have already shown evidence. You just don't want to look at it; you only look for what you want to believe.

About USA
"76 million in 1900 to 281 million in 2000. It reached the 200 million mark in 1967, and the 300 million mark on October 17, 2006"
Does this look like an exponential curve to you?

Let's use the malthusian equation:
0,02 growth "per year"
112 years since 1900:
(76000000)*((2,71828182846)^(0,02*112))
N=713893177

You fall short by some margin with a mere 300 million.
And that's counting immigration as legitimate multiplication of the population - which, for the purposes of this discussion, it is NOT.

BTW, the demographic trend now in developed countries is negative, NOT positive.

Malthus was wrong - proved decisively by demographic history. Indeed, ANY prediction of continuing exponential curves in the real world was wrong.
Your mini-me imitation is also wrong.
Deal with it already!

No actually, you got it wrong yet again. With the average growth rate of 1.3, US population would be: 325,946,526
Pretty damn close for a bad equation.

[Edit_XYZ]

EmperorTiberius wrote:

---

No actually, you got it wrong yet again. With the average growth rate of 1.3, US population would be: 325,946,526
Pretty damn close for a bad equation.

Actually, the 1,3 number was obtained post factum. Let's take immigration into account - and we'll get a number of, at most, ~0,6-0,8 (average for the last century) - which in in steep decrease (for the last decades or so, the figure is actually below the replacement factor in most developed countries).

You see? It's easy to do - doctoring the data to get what you want and be in rough conformity with the facts.
If you use such numbers, you can obtain a curve blunt enough to match almost anything you want. And it's getting blunter.
Needless to say, you can never predict anything with such methods.

And 325946526 is pretty far from your 'conservative' 0,02 per year which gave 713893177.

And yet, you go ahead with malthus this, malthus that.

[R. Star]

The correct answer will invariably be "whatever the plot requires."

If they want a weakened Romulan empire, they can manufacture the supporting facts easy enough about how epidemics, industrial failings and manpower shortages cause it's downfall.

If they want a resurgent Romulan empire all they have to do is say okay Romulus is gone, but the other few dozen colonial worlds are doing just fine and the Empire keeps going with a change in the location of it's capital.

A pity ST09 had to screw up the main universe while introducing their physics altering alternate one.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

I'd say the flop of Nemesis and cancellation of Enterprise did a lot more to screw up the Prime universe than blowing up Romulus!

[T'Girl]

Edit_XYZ wrote:

---

So - every romulan couple has to have 3 children per 30 years

My scenario was a generation of fifty years (being Vulcanoids), and a average of three surviving children.

My great'grandmother Izabel had ten, of which seven lived to begin parenting children, plus there was 1 adopted child. She had 14 son/daughter-in- laws (there were some re-marriages), 33 grandchildren, and 115 great'grandchildren (one of whom is me).

every romulan couple has to have at least ~4 children per 30 years (a few "spares").

Yes, I agree. The birth rate would be higher than the survives to reproduce rate.

Which raises the problem: how does a colony manage to feed/educate/etc a population 3 times as numerous as the preceding one, every 30 years?

By producing lots of farmers, teachers, craftsmen, storekeepers, technicians. In other words, children.

Romulans must hand-wave resources in order to support these next generations.

Remember, they arrived on Romulas a technological people.

One - of many - relevant information: "The total fertility rate in the United States estimated for 2011 is 1.89 children per woman, which is below the replacement fertility rate of approximately 2.1"

Don't forget to into account that in addition to the 4 million people born in America in 2011, there were an additional 690,000 who were naturalized as citizens last year. About 11.8 percent of Americans were born outside of the country. But they are still Americans, regardless of their birthplace. And they are part of our ongoing population increase.

Not all Romulans would be born on Romulas, but they would be part of the total population of Romulans.

[EmperorTiberius]

Edit_XYZ wrote:

---

Actually, the 1,3 number was obtained post factum. Let's take immigration into account - and we'll get a number of, at most, ~0,6-0,8 (average for the last century) - which in in steep decrease (for the last decades or so, the figure is actually below the replacement factor in most developed countries).

You see? It's easy to do - doctoring the data to get what you want and be in rough conformity with the facts.
If you use such numbers, you can obtain a curve blunt enough to match almost anything you want. And it's getting blunter.
Needless to say, you can never predict anything with such methods.

And 325946526 is pretty far from your 'conservative' 0,02 per year which gave 713893177.

And yet, you go ahead with malthus this, malthus that.

Big wop. Even if you take 700 million figure, the equation is off by a factor of 2 over 100 years. Not bad. On previous page I wrote that even if it was off by a factor of 1 million, there would still be quadrillions. It's a far cry from your estimate of 40 thousand which no one in their mind would take seriously.

[Edit_XYZ]

EmperorTiberius wrote:

---

Big wop. Even if you take 700 million figure, the equation is off by a factor of 2 over 100 years. Not bad. On previous page I wrote that even if it was off by a factor of 1 million, there would still be quadrillions. It's a far cry from your estimate of 40 thousand which no one in their mind would take seriously.

Big wop indeed.
A factor of 2 is disastrous for any prediction.
Not that what you posted is a prediction; more like you took arbitrary numbers - 0,013 or 0,02 - to ad-hoc "support" whatever you needed supported.

BTW - if you take the fertility rates from the last decade, from the developed world, you would be very lucky to get positive population growth - ANY population growth. Even with massive doctoring, you have trouble "fitting" this into Malthus' mathematical abstractions.

Speaking of which - do look up analysis of Malthus' work (easy to find with google) - for example http://mises.org/daily/5501 - and see just how well has his work stood the test of time before proclaiming it did by using post factum numbers.

[Edit_XYZ]

T'Girl wrote:

---

My scenario was a generation of fifty years (being Vulcanoids), and a average of three surviving children.

My great'grandmother Izabel had ten, of which seven lived to begin parenting children, plus there was 1 adopted child. She had 14 son/daughter-in- laws (there were some re-marriages), 33 grandchildren, and 115 great'grandchildren (one of whom is me).

What about your parents? How many children did they have?
I'm betting - FAR less than 10.

By producing lots of farmers, teachers, craftsmen, storekeepers, technicians. In other words, children.

Except - you have to educate/grow them up first.
And they can't help you with this by being farmers, etc.

And when they grow up, they'll have the same problem you have.

Remember, they arrived on Romulas a technological people.

So were the people in Kirk's colony. Didn't stop them from suffering from lack of supplies.

Don't forget to into account that in addition to the 4 million people born in America in 2011, there were an additional 690,000 who were naturalized as citizens last year. About 11.8 percent of Americans were born outside of the country. But they are still Americans, regardless of their birthplace. And they are part of our ongoing population increase.

Not all Romulans would be born on Romulas, but they would be part of the total population of Romulans.

Except these people aren't biologically romulans; they're subject species.

[EmperorTiberius]

Edit_XYZ wrote:

---

Big wop indeed.
A factor of 2 is disastrous for any prediction.
Not that what you posted is a prediction; more like you took arbitrary numbers - 0,013 or 0,02 - to ad-hoc "support" whatever you needed supported.

BTW - if you take the fertility rates from the last decade, from the developed world, you would be very lucky to get positive population growth - ANY population growth. Even with massive doctoring, you have trouble "fitting" this into Malthus' mathematical abstractions.

Speaking of which - do look up analysis of Malthus' work (easy to find with google) - for example http://mises.org/daily/5501 - and see just how well has his work stood the test of time before proclaiming it did by using post factum numbers.

Are you trolling?
The equation does a good job of doing rough predictions, so you can get some kind of picture. 1.3% is not arbitrary number, it's a fact. Many countries have much higher rates. 1.3% works well predicting US population as well as others, hence I used it. An equation that's used by World Bank and other organizations is fine for me.
Would Romulans have a population of trillions and quadrillions or would they have a population that could fit into a small football stadium? What do you think?
Math, history, and common sense say former. You're claiming the latter because of a current general trend in developed countries. Wow how old are you btw? You're either trolling or you have some serious work to do.