three BILLION people?

[Dayton3]

Even with Star Trek type technology, Earths population will never be reduced significantly through colonizing other planets.

Say One hundred million humans leave Earth every year for other planets.

that would take about 60 starships the size of Galaxy class ships leaving EVERY DAY.

Say Earth has 6 or 7 billion people on it to begin with.

Take 100 million to colonies and how many humans do you have left?

Six or seven billion. One hundred million a year, every year, for centuries won't make a dent in Earths population. A natural low birthrate will replace those 100 million and more in a years time.

And we've never seen a single indication of such a massive colonization effort by Earth. Most of the Earth colonies we've seen are actually quite small.

I don't care if we have 31st century level tech. Earths population will probably stay in the 6 to 10 billion range or higher as far as the eye can see.

 

[Mr. Fergy]

Unfortunately there isn't enough time, this scenario would take a fleet of ships many months to get it done. Even the Galaxy Class E-D could only hold a max of 5,000 troops.

 

[Sector 7]

Since we thought of this scenario, let us hope Starfleet has also thought of it.
If so, I can see a fleet of ships built specifically for the task of emergency transport AND pattern storage until the patterns can be downloaded safely in a new location.
It would require massive amounts of energy and several redundancies to insure the safe pattern storage. Energy is one thing which is plentiful in future Earth.
As I remember, transporters are on almost every street corner. A good emergency evacuation plan would entail linking those for emergency transport to the SAFE-ships.
As for whales, etc. their patterns could be stored without having to store the water around them, since they would be re-materialized into water.
Whatcha think? Logical?

 

[Sci]

And SCI-while your argument about population sounds logical-you included a reference to agricultural needs of a large population. This would not be such a large factor due to replicator technology.

Well, first off, replicator technology is fairly new -- less than a hundred years old in TNG's time. Secondly, it's also been well-established that most people think that replicated food is inferior to natural food. I doubt that most of the population would make predominant use of the replicator -- they'd probably be the equivalent of the microwave. Just because there are microwaves doesn't mean that stoves have disappeared. Further, a replicator can only make food that it's had a pattern programmed for -- and to develop a program for a certain type of food, you'd have to make it naturally first. So agriculture would still be a major, major factor in population dynamics.

 

[Crewman47]

What about using Holodecks?

What is the maximum number that can comfortably fit into even the smallest Holodeck? Even if you could only get the number of people that can fit within the physical confines of them then by using the largest holodecks on all the Starships and civilian ships of Earth you should be able to get a fair number in them, plus the maximum evacuation limit on the ships themselves.

So for example the Galaxy Class has been said to have an Evac limit of between 5,000 and 15,000, add to that, going from the E-D blueprints by either Sternbach or Whitefire then the largest Holodeck is pretty vast (can't get exact figures just now) and looks like they could hold a good 1000 people if you simiulate a good sized environment. Do this with all other ships and it might be enough.

Could this work?

 

[Mistral]

Even with Star Trek type technology, Earths population will never be reduced significantly through colonizing other planets.

Say One hundred million humans leave Earth every year for other planets.

that would take about 60 starships the size of Galaxy class ships leaving EVERY DAY.

Say Earth has 6 or 7 billion people on it to begin with.

Take 100 million to colonies and how many humans do you have left?

Six or seven billion. One hundred million a year, every year, for centuries won't make a dent in Earths population. A natural low birthrate will replace those 100 million and more in a years time.

And we've never seen a single indication of such a massive colonization effort by Earth. Most of the Earth colonies we've seen are actually quite small.

I don't care if we have 31st century level tech. Earths population will probably stay in the 6 to 10 billion range or higher as far as the eye can see.

As far as Pop. goes I think we're still failing to take Col. Green seriously. This guy did things to get his ass remembered for centuries to come. Let's look at it. As leader of the Optimum movement(Optimal?) he said only those who are worthy might live(or words to that effect). In the wake of a nuclear war and in light of genetic testing tech that might mean anyone who showed a genetic disposition towards flaws(like chromosomal damage that could be passed on to their kids) was unworthy and therefore executed. Col. Green's tactics were called "genocidal" even in TOS. Now, if we use the # "600million" which is commonly batted about as the death toll of the WWIII and take a look at Warday by Whitley Streiber(which was written using actual DoD studies for realism) the collateral damage to the Pop. is closer to a billion just for the war. And who knows how many Col. Green killed? Then you have to take into account radiation-induced sterility as well. I really believe the Pop. would be far below our current one. Hence the numbers of my earlier estimate for Earth Pop. in the 24th century.

 

[Geoff]

Six or seven billion. One hundred million a year, every year, for centuries won't make a dent in Earths population. A natural low birthrate will replace those 100 million and more in a years time.

Aren't you failing to take into consideration the fact that people, y'know, die?

Each fertile woman on the planet that dies has to leave behind at least two children just to keep the population static. Due to global childhood mortality, the actual number is closer to 2.33, though one would assume that the number would be much closer to 2.0 in the Trek timeframe. And most industrialized nations tend to hover right around the two births-per-family mark.

So logic suggests that population growth in the future will gradually approach zero, if not reverse.

 

[archeryguy1701]

^But people live so long now in Star Trek's time that by the time someone gets around to dying naturally, their kids have likely already had kids, and possibly grandkids. So even if they only maintain the 2.0 birthrate, te population would still be growing based on longevity.

 

[Geoff]

^But people live so long now in Star Trek's time that by the time someone gets around to dying naturally, their kids have likely already had kids, and possibly grandkids. So even if they only maintain the 2.0 birthrate, te population would still be growing based on longevity.

Well, yes and no.

The current global average lifespan is 67 years. If we were to instantly double that to 134 years, then the global population would continue to grow over the next 67 years until it effectively doubled. But once we reached that point, people would begin to die off at exactly the same rates that they currently do, and the 2.0 fertility rate would still apply to keep the population at that level.

So as long as the average longevity of lifespan continues to grow, there will be a respective marginal increase in population. But obviously the human lifespan can't be extended indefinitely. Ultimately, you still need 2.0 children per woman to maintain the population, regardless of the lifespan of the particular woman or child.

 

[TheMasterOfOrion]

I'd use a Trek transporter, maybe a little out of range but if the Moon colony could accommodate a few billion I'd simply beam them up there

 

[Dayton3]

I'd use a Trek transporter, maybe a little out of range but if the Moon colony could accommodate a few billion I'd simply beam them up there

If Earth is destroyed, either by natural disaster or enemy attack, in all likelihood the moon would either be destroyed as well.

Unsafe regardless.

And we've never seen any indication that ultra long range transporters are available in Star Trek.

The only one we saw was in the one where Picard thought he had a son.

And that required considerable modifications of a Galaxy class transporter.

 

[Dayton3]

What about using Holodecks?

What is the maximum number that can comfortably fit into even the smallest Holodeck? Even if you could only get the number of people that can fit within the physical confines of them then by using the largest holodecks on all the Starships and civilian ships of Earth you should be able to get a fair number in them, plus the maximum evacuation limit on the ships themselves.

So for example the Galaxy Class has been said to have an Evac limit of between 5,000 and 15,000, add to that, going from the E-D blueprints by either Sternbach or Whitefire then the largest Holodeck is pretty vast (can't get exact figures just now) and looks like they could hold a good 1000 people if you simiulate a good sized environment. Do this with all other ships and it might be enough.

Could this work?

Holodecks are actually quite small.

According to the ST:TNG Technical Manual, holodecks have force fields that are used to generate a "treadmill effect" and light waves are bent by the computer to produce the illusion of great space.

 

[Crewman47]

What about using Holodecks?

What is the maximum number that can comfortably fit into even the smallest Holodeck? Even if you could only get the number of people that can fit within the physical confines of them then by using the largest holodecks on all the Starships and civilian ships of Earth you should be able to get a fair number in them, plus the maximum evacuation limit on the ships themselves.

So for example the Galaxy Class has been said to have an Evac limit of between 5,000 and 15,000, add to that, going from the E-D blueprints by either Sternbach or Whitefire then the largest Holodeck is pretty vast (can't get exact figures just now) and looks like they could hold a good 1000 people if you simiulate a good sized environment. Do this with all other ships and it might be enough.

Could this work?

Holodecks are actually quite small.

According to the ST:TNG Technical Manual, holodecks have force fields that are used to generate a "treadmill effect" and light waves are bent by the computer to produce the illusion of great space.

Not all of them would be small though. According to the Sternbach blueprints I mentioned earlier there are 4 Holdoecks on Deck 11 that are over 200 feet long and two decks high. Now as I said above given that you could get up to 15,000 people onto a Galaxy class then you have four large 200 foot Holdoecks and around twelve or so others that are between 50 and 75 feet wide that I'd bet would be more than big enough to handle a few thousand or so more, depending on the physocal limitations of course of each holodeck.

Also I am aware of what the treadmill effect is and how the holodeck can create the illusion of vast space, I'm just asking if it could be used for extra evacuation space and I'm pretty sure too that Starfleet or the Federation will have larger holodecks, maybe even Stadium sized, for whatever reasons that might be used for, example the Holoship which I know may only be one of a kind but it does have it;s uses.

 

[Joshua Howard]

The tech end of this probably would be hard pressed to meet such a difficult deadline, as has been discussed. The most difficult aspect of the problem however is simply the value of human error.

As an example, let us suggest that the Seattle area is being evacuated. There are 3 major exit routes; I-5 north and south, and I-90 headed east. These freeways being used optimally can transport roughly 1,000 cars per minute (at a rate of 5.5 cars per second on each arterial.) Travel time from West-Central Washington to the boarder is roughly 3 hours. The region is host to approximately 2,000,000. Combining this data it is logically conceivable that the Western Washington Metro area could be evacuated in 36 hours under perfect conditions.

Adding the element of human error and illogical behavior to the equation changes the entire dynamic, however; a few accidents, paniced people who are not in the right place at the right time, indecision that accompanies disaster, and the damage that all of these things inflict upon the chain of operation as a whole can quickly change seconds into minutes, or even hours.

A 1.5 day evacuation plan is going to take a week or more; a 7 day evacuation plan is going to take a month or more. Any time you force interface to process more than it is designed for, you are going to wind up with a clog somewhere. In the case of a planet, that may be communication problems between starships, transport buffer problems that throw a wrench into an entire plan, or issues with destination-end resources.

The Star Trek universe is more evolved than ours, but one must realize that it is still an evolving universe. To the 18th century mind, the digital age we know can do anything; we know practically that while people don't generally die from colds or the plague as they may have in the past, we - just like any other era - have obsticles to overcome in terms of innovation. Even in the 24th century, there are some scenarios where there simply isn't a "push a button and it's fixed" solution available.

I am inclined to say that the probability of evacuating earth under any circumstance isn't going to be possible in a week's time.

 

[archeryguy1701]

^^Don't forget the holoships from Insurrection, in which a single ship can supposedly carry 600 people at least.

 

[Dayton3]

What about using Holodecks?

What is the maximum number that can comfortably fit into even the smallest Holodeck? Even if you could only get the number of people that can fit within the physical confines of them then by using the largest holodecks on all the Starships and civilian ships of Earth you should be able to get a fair number in them, plus the maximum evacuation limit on the ships themselves.

So for example the Galaxy Class has been said to have an Evac limit of between 5,000 and 15,000, add to that, going from the E-D blueprints by either Sternbach or Whitefire then the largest Holodeck is pretty vast (can't get exact figures just now) and looks like they could hold a good 1000 people if you simiulate a good sized environment. Do this with all other ships and it might be enough.

Could this work?

Holodecks are actually quite small.

According to the ST:TNG Technical Manual, holodecks have force fields that are used to generate a "treadmill effect" and light waves are bent by the computer to produce the illusion of great space.

Not all of them would be small though. According to the Sternbach blueprints I mentioned earlier there are 4 Holdoecks on Deck 11 that are over 200 feet long and two decks high. Now as I said above given that you could get up to 15,000 people onto a Galaxy class then you have four large 200 foot Holdoecks and around twelve or so others that are between 50 and 75 feet wide that I'd bet would be more than big enough to handle a few thousand or so more, depending on the physocal limitations of course of each holodeck.

Also I am aware of what the treadmill effect is and how the holodeck can create the illusion of vast space, I'm just asking if it could be used for extra evacuation space and I'm pretty sure too that Starfleet or the Federation will have larger holodecks, maybe even Stadium sized, for whatever reasons that might be used for, example the Holoship which I know may only be one of a kind but it does have it;s uses.

Has it occurred to you that the evacuation capacities of ships like the Galaxy ALREADY include using the holodeck spaces?

Chances are they do given that it would be an emergency situation.

 

[Dayton3]

Just packing people into all the available space isn't enough.

So what if you had stadium sized holodecks?

You could pack 150,000 people into the Rose Bowl if you used the field as well.

But could you keep 150,000 people there say for a months time? Feed them? Have adequate sanitary facilities? Keep order?

I have serious doubts.

Face it.

Earth can never be evacuated. Not today. Not in 300 years. Not in 3,000 years probably.

 

[Zeppster]

It's hard to get an accurate count of the earth's population but there are a lot more than 3 billion people on earth right now. Probably around 7 billion. In 300+ years there will be closer to 10 billion people. And if there was some disaster like a black hole coming there's really not much you can do about it. You can evacuate as many as you can but there's no way you could possibly move 10 billion people like that. It would take decades even in TNGs time with their recourses. Yes you may find a planet, but actually moving the people there would just take too long. You may save a few billion lives but that's about as good as it would get. And that's being real optimistic

 

[Sci]

It's hard to get an accurate count of the earth's population but there are a lot more than 3 billion people on earth right now. Probably around 7 billion. In 300+ years there will be closer to 10 billion people.

See my above posts on why that's unlikely. Heck, there's serious question about whether or not the Earth can sustain even a six-billion population.

 

[Dayton3]

It's hard to get an accurate count of the earth's population but there are a lot more than 3 billion people on earth right now. Probably around 7 billion. In 300+ years there will be closer to 10 billion people.

See my above posts on why that's unlikely. Heck, there's serious question about whether or not the Earth can sustain even a six-billion population.

Earth has sustained a population of six billion for several years now without difficulty.

No one starves on Earth anymore due to insufficient food being available. They starve for political reasons.

With Trek era technology (fusion and antimatter reactors, the ability to grow large amounts of food in space or import it from agricultural worlds, the ability to build urban areas underground and in the ocean.........) chances are Earth could support 20 or 30 billion with little difficulty.

Incidentally, IIRC, the FASA Federation sourcebook gives Earths 23rd century ere population at 22 billion.

Not canon of course, but as realistic as the "3 billion" given in this OP.