Population and Federation Habitation

[CuttingEdge100]

I was thinking about something: The size of Star-fleet

• In TOS it was stated that we occupied 1,000 worlds
• In TNG it was stated we occupied 100 worlds

I was thinking about something which I'm wondering if anybody else has thought about

• Our planet has approximately a population of 7 billion
• People are born all the time, and more people are born than die as a general rule in a society which thrives
• A generation is about 25 years as a general rule and adulthood is reached at 21
• It takes time to travel from Star System to Star System even if you have Warp Drive
• It requires a lot of people (about 40,000 according to a NASA estimate) to terraform a planet and it would probably take decades

We'd be pretty fanned out as not everybody would be working on these projects and some would do a whole bunch of things

• Some people do not wish to explore or travel and prefer to stay at home: Some even find jobs which allow them to live close to where they grew up
• Some also contribute little to society: I'm not expressing animosity here, merely pointing out that some people are starving artists, people who bounce from career to career, are lifelong students, are (even in modern day) housewives and a few house husbands; some have no employment

This would spread things thinner, and while it wouldn't be hard to find millions to man organizations responsible for military/paramilitary operations: You would have trouble terraforming the planets quickly, and inhabiting the planets!

Since it would be unrealistic to expect significant populations devoting all their efforts to expanding outwards for more than a generation or two -- I'm thinking many federation worlds would be sparse.

 

[Kilana2]

Interesting background, but what´s your point?

 

[T'Girl]

In TOS, Cochrane had previously ask about Earth, I believe when Kirk said "We're" on a thousand worlds and expanding (something like that) he meant specifically Humans, and wasn't making a reference to the Federation.

When Picard said "over a 150" in response to Lily's quest about Federation planets, I think (imho) that he meant species home worlds and not the total number of all planets on the Federation.

Might newer colonies be sparsely populated? At first this would be likely, but by the 24th century many early Earth colonies would be over two centuries old and could easily have populations in the tens (or hundreds) of millions, descendants of the original colonists and subsequent immigration. Most early colonies would be relatively close to Earth (not all).

Who would want to leave Earth? Despite Sisko's evaluation, not everyone would agree that Earth is a "paradise," opinions vary and there would be the availability of choice.

 

[kirkfan]

I was thinking about something: The size of Star-fleet

• In TOS it was stated that we occupied 1,000 worlds
• In TNG it was stated we occupied 100 worlds

I was thinking about something which I'm wondering if anybody else has thought about

• Our planet has approximately a population of 7 billion
• People are born all the time, and more people are born than die as a general rule in a society which thrives
• A generation is about 25 years as a general rule and adulthood is reached at 21
• It takes time to travel from Star System to Star System even if you have Warp Drive
• It requires a lot of people (about 40,000 according to a NASA estimate) to terraform a planet and it would probably take decades

We'd be pretty fanned out as not everybody would be working on these projects and some would do a whole bunch of things

• Some people do not wish to explore or travel and prefer to stay at home: Some even find jobs which allow them to live close to where they grew up
• Some also contribute little to society: I'm not expressing animosity here, merely pointing out that some people are starving artists, people who bounce from career to career, are lifelong students, are (even in modern day) housewives and a few house husbands; some have no employment

This would spread things thinner, and while it wouldn't be hard to find millions to man organizations responsible for military/paramilitary operations: You would have trouble terraforming the planets quickly, and inhabiting the planets!

Since it would be unrealistic to expect significant populations devoting all their efforts to expanding outwards for more than a generation or two -- I'm thinking many federation worlds would be sparse.

Actually, it's been estimated that the terraformation of Mars would take approximately half a million years. And that seems optimistic.

 

[Kilana2]

Some may be forced, even in the 24th century, to relocate to another world, because they have jobs that can be elsewhere of more use (despite the fact that unemployment is obviously not a big factor in the future).
And by doing that they are likely to start a family in a colony and contribute to its population growth. Some of them might never want to return.

 

[wildsulu]

On the whole I agree but there are several reasons why I can see space colonies grow more quickly than you estimate.

- The federation has mixed/combined populace with some races being very numerous
- The federation (esp.24th C.) very technologically advanced, they're beginning to succeed in controlling large parts of solar systems. So terraforming is not a big deal.
- New settlements have always started very small. But towns/countries or planets can experience booms for whatever reason. A latinum rush or mass immigration, whatever.
- With warp they can basically choose the most ideal planet. it's not like Khan's planet

 

[MacLeod]

I was thinking about something: The size of Star-fleet

• In TOS it was stated that we occupied 1,000 worlds
• In TNG it was stated we occupied 100 worlds

I was thinking about something which I'm wondering if anybody else has thought about

• Our planet has approximately a population of 7 billion
• People are born all the time, and more people are born than die as a general rule in a society which thrives
• A generation is about 25 years as a general rule and adulthood is reached at 21
• It takes time to travel from Star System to Star System even if you have Warp Drive
• It requires a lot of people (about 40,000 according to a NASA estimate) to terraform a planet and it would probably take decades

We'd be pretty fanned out as not everybody would be working on these projects and some would do a whole bunch of things

• Some people do not wish to explore or travel and prefer to stay at home: Some even find jobs which allow them to live close to where they grew up
• Some also contribute little to society: I'm not expressing animosity here, merely pointing out that some people are starving artists, people who bounce from career to career, are lifelong students, are (even in modern day) housewives and a few house husbands; some have no employment

This would spread things thinner, and while it wouldn't be hard to find millions to man organizations responsible for military/paramilitary operations: You would have trouble terraforming the planets quickly, and inhabiting the planets!

Since it would be unrealistic to expect significant populations devoting all their efforts to expanding outwards for more than a generation or two -- I'm thinking many federation worlds would be sparse.

Most of the world generally regonisies 18 as the age when someone becomes an Adult, there are some cases where it is lower and some where it is higher.

As for Terraforming in TNG's "Home soil" and ENT "Cease Fire" does ndicate a period of decades(3-4) for Terraforming. And Home Soil the inital team terraforming team was what half a dozen, though that might increase as the process of terraforming advances. Though we know that the Federation could potentially terraform a planet in a matter of hours (Genesis - had it been activated correctly who knows it might have worked corectly as Protomatter was used eight years later to reginte a dead star in DSN)

And yes it does take time to travel to other worlds but Vulcan is only 4 days away from Earth in TMP, I believe Trip mention in dialouge that Vulcan was 16 ly away from Earth which would be the star system 40 Eridani (16.4ly). So we have a speed of 4 light years per day.

But by TNG you would expect a population number in the high hundreds of billions if not nearing a trillion.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I think the point of 1000 worlds in TOS versus 100 in TNG was an instance of writers not comparing notes. What's your source for the 100 in TNG?

Modern statistics show that the population growth rate is much lower the more developed and safe your country is. The population growth rate in paradise Earth is probably much lower than modern Earth.

And most Federation worlds are the species' homeworlds, and there has never been a planet in the series that had a significant population that was not some alien species' homeworld. It's probably the case that most people stay close to their homeworld unelss they have a reason to leave.

 

[Ithekro]

Isn't Earth in the 24th century still supposedly have a population of around 6 billion? Vulcan has similar in the mid-23rd century. But what about the various colonies. Some have only a few hundred to thousand people on them and can all fit on a single Galaxy-class starship. Others would require every ship in the quadrant a few months to evacuate.

 

[kirkfan]

Isn't Earth in the 24th century still supposedly have a population of around 6 billion? Vulcan has similar in the mid-23rd century. But what about the various colonies. Some have only a few hundred to thousand people on them and can all fit on a single Galaxy-class starship. Others would require every ship in the quadrant a few months to evacuate.

6 billion in a prosperous world seems like a little much, I'd say 3 billion is more likely in a world where everyone has a beach house...

 

[CuttingEdge100]

kirkfan

Actually, it's been estimated that the terraformation of Mars would take approximately half a million years. And that seems optimistic.

True enough, however with teleportation and industrial strength replicators, you'd think it could be done fast.

Still, it would make sense to focus mostly on the Class-M planets to avoid this necessity.

6 billion in a prosperous world seems like a little much, I'd say 3 billion is more likely in a world where everyone has a beach house...

Makes sense I would say: So populations could expand quite a lot as space would allow us to do so.


Kilana2

Some may be forced, even in the 24th century, to relocate to another world, because they have jobs that can be elsewhere of more use

Who decides that sort of thing?


Ithkero

Isn't Earth in the 24th century still supposedly have a population of around 6 billion?

Well, overpopulation being a possibility and the means to travel all over the place: Population would be more like 3 billion.

But what about the various colonies. Some have only a few hundred to thousand people on them and can all fit on a single Galaxy-class starship.

Makes sense that some would be sparse


JirinPanthosa

Modern statistics show that the population growth rate is much lower the more developed and safe your country is.

To some degree, however people tend to have less kids when their country is packed to the gills: If suddenly it was possible to colonize the moon or asteroids like Ceres or something, it would not be inconceivable that lots of people would move.

Once it became possible to inhabit other worlds and the means to harvest asteroids and make spaceships -- it would not be inconceivable for huge spacelifts to occur with people to start leaving in large numbers.

The population growth rate in paradise Earth is probably much lower than modern Earth.

Probably


Everybody

How much population growth has there been on earth during the following time periods

• 1850-1900
• 1900-1945
• 1945-1985
• 1985-2005
• 2005-2015

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Isn't Earth in the 24th century still supposedly have a population of around 6 billion? Vulcan has similar in the mid-23rd century. But what about the various colonies. Some have only a few hundred to thousand people on them and can all fit on a single Galaxy-class starship. Others would require every ship in the quadrant a few months to evacuate.

6 billion in a prosperous world seems like a little much, I'd say 3 billion is more likely in a world where everyone has a beach house...

Not necessarily. Remember that all habitable areas of Earth are not populated equally. People live in big concentrations in cities and more comfortable areas. In the 24th century they can control the weather. Places that are difficult or nearly impossible to live in now are comfortably livable. Hell, they can probably build cities out in the middle of the ocean.

 

[Ithekro]

I am thinking of in Star Trek, I think they have mentioned the populations of a few places over the years. Earth being one of them. I seem to recall six billion still being the figure for Earth in Picard's time. But then Luna has something like 600 million people or something like that.

 

[Shawnster]

Actually, it's been estimated that the terraformation of Mars would take approximately half a million years. And that seems optimistic.

This National Geographic article speculates terraforming Mars in only 1,000 years.

I've wondered about human population growth in Star Trek recently, myself. We have just over 7 billion people on Earth now. Star Trek Earth faced multiple population drops due to the Eugenics War, WWIII and the Post-Atomic Horror all before the end of the 21st Century.

But what happened after that? How fast did the human population grow in the 300 years from the 21st to 24th centuries? Cloning seems to be taboo and unpopular, but that doesn't rule out artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization or test-tube babies on a massive scale. As stated above, colonists on the frontier historically have a reputation for large families, however, they also have a history of high mortality rates. Future colonists may not have such high mortality rates.

 

[tharpdevenport]

In the film First Contact, Riker says (to Cochran) there are 50 million people living on the moon in his time.


It's natural to assume the population on Earth is far greater than that.


Though that's a retcon, as previus shots of the moon in TNG[/i] episodes didn't show lake Armstrong or any of the cities Riker said were there -- it was like it is today.

 

[Timo]

Kirk in "Metamorphosis" was giving as impressive a figure as he possibly could for human exploration and expansion. It's quite possible that humans have indeed been to a thousand planets and are spreading to others, but they are also abandoning planets at about the same rate, having mined them empty, studied everything they can about them without violating the Prime Directive, or otherwise lost interest in them. In extreme cases, individual people may own planets; once they die or leave, a planet may well go fallow...

Picard OTOH wasn't speaking of planets but of the diversity of UFP membership.

Whatever the population of Earth is in TNG, it seems it is not nine billion, because this figure gives Data pause in ST:FC. That is, even before he says "All Borg", the number is supposed to indicate something is wrong down there. Perhaps the "real" figure is nine million, perhaps ninety billion; TNG tech ought to make either possible. (If the former figure is true, then the Atlantis project of "Family" fame might guarantee private beach for each citizen!)

Regarding Lake Armstrong, this figure might be important beyond its physical prominence. Perhaps WWIII involved some party or another launching a really big bomb at the Armstrong Colony, and there's now a discernible black spot there, a basalt lake similar to the natural lakes of the Moon - but nothing big enough to catch our untrained eye?

Riker must be bullshitting Cochrane with his "Oh, the Moon looks so different" speech anyway, trying to goad him into believing in a bright future. There'd be very little to be seen up there in broad daylight with naked eye. Who knows, perhaps during New Moon the thing glows like a Christmas tree for all the illuminated habitation...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

^I don't like the idea of humans going around, mining planets to depletion.

 

[Timo]

Depleting one resource while leaving the ecosystem intact doesn't sound too bad. It's not as if leaving half the dilithium there would be any better - it doesn't grow back (as far as we know), yet it's not really needed down there, either (as far as we know).

We hear Cardassians strip-mined Bajor of certain resources. But the evil thing about that seemed to be a combination of taking it without local permission, and just possibly using environment-unfriendly methods (although no specific mention is made of those). OTOH, the Bajorans themselves were perfectly willing to wreck the Earth-like ecosystem of that moon in "Progress" for cheap or timely energy, suggesting either that recklessness is widespread (many a world could claim to be in an equally tight spot) or that Class M environments are a dime in a dozen and also easily (re)introduced to dead worlds.

Certainly it seems somebody has been wrecking planets for millions or billions of years, terraforming them and thus supposedly destroying their original natural beauty (or ugliness or whatever). It's a natural thing for star empires to do, but in the long term it amounts to "consuming" those worlds.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CuttingEdge100]

I'm curious how long it would take for people to reproduce in significant numbers, then move. Also the technology in the series also limited how fast one could travel spaceward, for example in the 2150's Warp 5 was brand new, most freighters were cruising at around 1.8, and newer designs coming online could do 3

 

[Timo]

Colonists would be hiring transportation for the trip anyway, rather than building or purchasing their own ships - so why not hire something faster than the primitive Earth designs?

It's not as if even the Earthling skippers would be all that interested in receiving payment in dollars or yens or other such units worthless in the bigger interstellar scheme; the colonists would have to cough up something that is worth something for the greater interstellar community, and they could just as well pay Rigelians for the trip, then.

Reproducing in significant numbers is probably trivially easy if one can carry along 20th century hygiene, meaning every one of the twenty or so kids naturally born to a hard-working woman gets to live. Moving on would require those children to mature to at least their mid-teens to keep the society running, though. Getting the wombs to move on to the next breeding target could not be hastened much even if multiple births were forced somehow. But give a planet thirty years, and you have a pool of breeding teens of all ages to steadily feed the population explosion - allowing you to pick a few of those and send not just to the next destination, but a great number of next destinations. After that, it's steady going, with shipments of colonists to new worlds every year or every month if you so wish. And every new colony can be given the grace period of 30 years before they join the older colonies in the expansion project.

Is there need for logistics or other complications? Supposedly, colonies spring up on Class M planets where nothing from the outside is actually needed, so one shipment in and two or three out is all that the project requires. But somebody has to create the extra ships or shipments for the exponentially expanding colonization, or else there's just linear colonization that slowly dwindles as the ships wear down or the colonial hopefuls cease to have enough wealth to purchase further rides. A key element in keeping the colonization going would be the colonies becoming economically profitable, then. (They could always sell slaves to Orions, of course, but I doubt this would be allowed to go on for long - there'd be competition and regulation from the outside even if the Earthlings themselves were happy with the arrangement.)

Timo Saloniemi