The Buried Age

[Dancing Doctor]

Actually Earth's current population is over 6.8 billion. It's projected to reach 7 billion within the next year or two. The growth seems to be slowing, but it's still likely we'll pass 10 billion before the end of the century.

As relevant technology advances, would you agree that planets are probably more likely to support larger populations?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Actually Earth's current population is over 6.8 billion. It's projected to reach 7 billion within the next year or two. The growth seems to be slowing, but it's still likely we'll pass 10 billion before the end of the century.

True - of course, at 10 billion, I fear for the quality of life on Earth.

However, by federation standards, today's Earth is overcrowded.
In 'Articles of the federation', it is established that there are 155 federation member worlds - the 'core' of the federation, so to speak.
Among them, Deneva with "only" 100 million inhabitants, is established as a federation member world, represented in the federation council. And it's a human world, alongside Earth and Mars - apparently, once a 'colony' is sufficiently developed, it gains 'member world' status;
The horta - millions of them would be quite a feat, as far as population growth is concerned.
And there are probably other examples of member worlds with population far below 6 billion (what about Bajor?).
I counted EACH member world as numbering 4 BILLIONS.

The colonies - we never saw or heard of a colony world which counted more than a few tens of millions.
I counted 2 BILLIONS colonists for each member world (including Deneva, horta, Bajor, the spider-looking species that joined the federation at the end of 'Articles of the federation', etc).

And even with these severely infalted numbers, I couldn't even reach 1 TRILLION!

Add to this the fact that 'Destiny' established the population of BOTH Alpha and Beta quadrants as numbering a few trillions (7000+ densely inhabited planets and space structures) and the number you get is FAR below the UNSUPPORTED 9.85 TRILLIONS!

 

[Christopher]

As relevant technology advances, would you agree that planets are probably more likely to support larger populations?

That depends. If a species' technology advances, it could gain the ability to sustain a larger population per planet at a reasonable standard of living; but if a species' wisdom advances, it might decide it was more reasonable to reduce the population to a level that the planet's ecosystem could sustain without the need for massive technological intervention. The latter path would be more stable in the long term, and would do less long-term damage to the planet. After all, civilizations and species come and go, and you wouldn't want to ruin the planet for its future inhabitants.

Personally, I think ST is way too locked into the assumption that habitation has to be on planets. By building artificial habitats out of the raw materials in the Solar System, you could support hundreds of times the population of Earth. So there's really no need to keep 10 or 20 billion people cooped up together on a single planet even if you do have the technology to make it feasible.

And even with advanced technology, there are practical limits on how much population a single planet could reasonably sustain. Bodies and machines generate heat. The higher the population gets, the more waste heat it generates. Larry Niven and Edward M. Lerner in Juggler of Worlds show the Pierson's puppeteer homeworld as a planetwide city, like Asimov's Trantor or Star Wars's Coruscant, but it's a planet that's had to be moved out into deep space because its own population generates so much heat that being illuminated by a sun would make the planet too hot to live on. I don't care how advanced your technology gets, you can't screw with thermodynamics. Heat is the ultimate limit on all technology, because it's the one inevitable end product of all work.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Personally, I think ST is way too locked into the assumption that habitation has to be on planets. By building artificial habitats out of the raw materials in the Solar System, you could support hundreds of times the population of Earth. So there's really no need to keep 10 or 20 billion people cooped up together on a single planet even if you do have the technology to make it feasible.

As I recall, the federation already has a dyson sphere ready to be colonised.
And even today we have the theoretical capability to create space habitats - O'Neill colonies; of course, the federation could try its hand at orbitals.

And even with advanced technology, there are practical limits on how much population a single planet could reasonably sustain. Bodies and machines generate heat. The higher the population gets, the more waste heat it generates. Larry Niven and Edward M. Lerner in Juggler of Worlds show the Pierson's puppeteer homeworld as a planetwide city, like Asimov's Trantor or Star Wars's Coruscant, but it's a planet that's had to be moved out into deep space because its own population generates so much heat that being illuminated by a sun would make the planet too hot to live on. I don't care how advanced your technology gets, you can't screw with thermodynamics. Heat is the ultimate limit on all technology, because it's the one inevitable end product of all work.

Perhaps some hyper-advanced civilization has found a way to turn Maxwell's demon into reality.

 

[JarodRussell]

but if a species' wisdom advances, it might decide it was more reasonable to reduce the population to a level that the planet's ecosystem could sustain without the need for massive technological intervention.

How do you reduce a planet's population? You know, without mass murder, forced relocation and prohibtion and prosecution of reproduction, stuff that a wise culture simply will never do.

As I recall, the federation already has a dyson sphere ready to be colonised.

If they had the ability to build and maintain a Dyson Sphere, they wouldn't have to worry about the Borg.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

but if a species' wisdom advances, it might decide it was more reasonable to reduce the population to a level that the planet's ecosystem could sustain without the need for massive technological intervention.

How do you reduce a planet's population? You know, without mass murder, forced relocation and prohibtion and prosecution of reproduction, stuff that a wise culture simply will never do.

In developed countries, the rate of reproduction seems to decrease on its own.
As to the sociological causes - career, the child not needed to help his parents with working the land, etc.

As I recall, the federation already has a dyson sphere ready to be colonised.

If they had the ability to build and maintain a Dyson Sphere, they wouldn't have to worry about the Borg.

I never said the federates built a dyson sphere; I said they have one ready for colonization - the one Picard found in TNG: Relics.

 

[JarodRussell]

I never said the federates built a dyson sphere; I said they have one ready for colonization - the one Picard found in TNG: Relics.

Hm... I thought that was uninhabitable by the end.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I never said the federates built a dyson sphere; I said they have one ready for colonization - the one Picard found in TNG: Relics.

Hm... I thought that was uninhabitable by the end.

Solar instability - nothing that can't be dealt with by the federates.

A larger problem would be if its builders were still on the sphere. The fact that the sun was unstable and not carefully regualted seems to indicate that no such advanced civilization lived there anymore - controlling the sun would have been trivial for it.

As for other civilizations - there could be hundreds of billions of inhabitants and still be room for hundreds of billions more.
A dyson sphere is just THAT BIG.

 

[William Leisner]

Deneva was considered one of the most developed 'colony' worlds - in fact, it wasn't considered a 'colony' at all anymore, BUT A MEMBER WORLD (despite being inhabited by humans) - it was represented in the federation council and all. Its population was about 100 million - NOT 6 BILLION.

Among them, Deneva with "only" 100 million inhabitants, is established as a federation member world, represented in the federation council.

Where are you getting that number from? And why are you repeatedly shouting it as if you're a missionary who's just stumbled into the middle of a village full of infidels?

 

[Dancing Doctor]

According to Memory Alpha, as of Operation - Annihilate!, Deneva had a population of around 1 million.

 

[Christopher]

But according to Destiny: Lost Souls, p. 128-9, the population of Deneva at the time of its destruction was "billions." So wherever ProtoAvatar got his figure, it's either out of date or out of continuity.

 

[RonG]

I never said the federates built a dyson sphere; I said they have one ready for colonization - the one Picard found in TNG: Relics.

Hm... I thought that was uninhabitable by the end.

Solar instability - nothing that can't be dealt with by the federates.

A larger problem would be if its builders were still on the sphere. The fact that the sun was unstable and not carefully regualted seems to indicate that no such advanced civilization lived there anymore - controlling the sun would have been trivial for it.

As for other civilizations - there could be hundreds of billions of inhabitants and still be room for hundreds of billions more.
A dyson sphere is just THAT BIG.

wasn't the DS destroyed or was pretty much inaccessible by the end of the TNG novel Dyson Sphere?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

But according to Destiny: Lost Souls, p. 128-9, the population of Deneva at the time of its destruction was "billions." So wherever ProtoAvatar got his figure, it's either out of date or out of continuity.

In TOS, there were only 1 million colonists. A hundredfold increase of the population in a century seemed to be quite generous.

Apparently, the relaunch went way up with its estimates of denevan population.
Very well - Deneva has 2 billion inhabitants by the late 24th century, then. It changes little to the overall figures.

Hm... I thought that was uninhabitable by the end.

Solar instability - nothing that can't be dealt with by the federates.

A larger problem would be if its builders were still on the sphere. The fact that the sun was unstable and not carefully regualted seems to indicate that no such advanced civilization lived there anymore - controlling the sun would have been trivial for it.

As for other civilizations - there could be hundreds of billions of inhabitants and still be room for hundreds of billions more.
A dyson sphere is just THAT BIG.

wasn't the DS destroyed or was pretty much inaccessible by the end of the TNG novel Dyson Sphere?

If you intend to count standalone novels, then the federation encountered dyson spheres on more than one occasion (memory alpha).

As for the novel 'Dyson sphere', I never heard of it before - and what I read about it is not very encouraging, quality wise.
This means, of course, that I don't consider it part of the continuity.

 

[JarodRussell]

But according to Destiny: Lost Souls, p. 128-9, the population of Deneva at the time of its destruction was "billions." So wherever ProtoAvatar got his figure, it's either out of date or out of continuity.

Or Destiny: Lost Souls, got it wrong.

An increase from 1 million in TOS and billions in TNG is a bit too strong, isn't it? Unless it was a colony of rabbits.

 

[TerraUnam]

Humans from the 21st to the 24th Centuries have a pretty good track record of behaving like rabbits. We've managed to colonize Alpha Centauri, Deneva, Izar, Berengaria and who knows what else.

In fact I'll lay money on the fact that the Andorians will make a few gibes about that fact in Paths of Disharmony, seeing as they sort of got cheated out of that future.

 

[Dayton Ward]

^ I'll take that bet.

 

[Christopher]

And of course we're not just talking about breeding here. It's logical to assume that a colony world would have population growth through emigration as well. With hundreds of other Federation worlds around with billions of people each, it wouldn't be that hard for a single colony world to have a couple of billion immigrants arriving within a century.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

Would Federation protectorates count towards the population as well? (I just remembered I hadn't mentioned them when doing the theoretical population math).

 

[ProtoAvatar]

And of course we're not just talking about breeding here. It's logical to assume that a colony world would have population growth through emigration as well. With hundreds of other Federation worlds around with billions of people each, it wouldn't be that hard for a single colony world to have a couple of billion immigrants arriving within a century.

100 years = 3 generations. If every family from TOS's 1 milllion had 6 children, there would be only 27 million by the 24th century.
And all human trek families we saw didn't have more than 1-2 children.

To go from 27 million to 2 billion in a century due to immigrants you'll have to make Deneva the immigrant capital of the entire federation.
But, of course, you must share with the numerous colonies the federation had and founded during that period.

Anyway you look at it, such a population growth stretches believability. Unless you have the denevans use cloning to increse their numbers or something similar.

 

[Dark Gilligan]

Anyway you look at it, such a population growth stretches believability. Unless you have the denevans use cloning to increse their numbers or something similar.

Dude, this is Star Trek. Everything about it stretches believability, and yet you have trouble with population growth--the one thing that's not science fiction.