There was a TNG episode "Ensigns of Command". An alien race told the Enterprise to evacuate a colony of 15,000 in 3 days or else. Picard said not doable for designated time. It was implied 6 months was need for the task.
The TNG staff worked up numbers for planetary evacuation; they're published in the technical manual. A Galaxy-class ship is capable of supporting 15,000 evacuees for short periods, and can transport 1,250 people per hout via transporters and shuttlecraft. So it's twelve hours to load, twelve hours to unload, plus flight time to the destination.
Even with a population of one billion or so, this is going to take a long time.
How could Earths population only be 3 billion in the 24th century??? It's at over 6.5 billion now, shouldn't it be more like 12 billion?
No. In fact, it should be lower than it is now, for a couple of reasons:
1) The planet's population growth in real life is the result of population explosions occurring in rapidly industrializing countries like India. As populations grow more industrialized and thus more educated, population growth rates tend to decrease on a macro level, and as individuals grow more educated, they tend to have smaller families on a micro level. Since one of the fundamental premises of Star Trek is that everyone is well-educated, real-life tells us that they'll probably have smaller families, meaning that the population growth rate should decline, possibly even becoming negative for a time before stabilizing.
2) A larger population is bad for the planetary ecosystem. This is due to a number of factors. To start with, for every individual living an industrialized, Western lifestyle (which Star Trek implies is the norm), it takes acres and acres of land to support that lifestyle. Further, there's the basic, fundamental fact of thermodynamics: Every living organism generates heat, and the more human beings you have on the Earth (with the accompanyingly larger levels of technology and industrialization), the more heat you have. Eventually, the heat becomes so large that it would damage the entire planetary ecosystem, inhibiting the ability of even the super-industrialized world of Trek to support the population. And that's not even taking into account the fact that we don't know how power is generated on planetary surfaces in the 24th Century; I'd certainly hope, for instance, that they don't use matter/anti-matter reactors, since those things seem like they'd be incredibly dangerous in an atmosphere.
3) A larger population is just a bad idea. A smaller population means that resources go further. On top of that, it becomes proportionally difficult to manage a population as it gets larger. For instance, I sent an email to my state senator the other day on an issue and just got a call back from her today; in India, which is supposedly a democracy, each legislator represents such an incredibly large number of constituents that meaningful democratic accountability to the average Indian becomes virtually impossible. A smaller population is more conducive to human liberty and to democracy.
Unless Ive got the arithmetic wrong (and assuming a billion is 1000million)
You would have to transport 1,653 people per second, just to get them off the planet never mind to somewhere safe. So ... No chance.
They might as well move the earth.![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.