What happened to the Romulan Empire after Romulus was destroyed

[T'Girl]

The question this begs is, what did Spock hope to achieve with his red matter originally?

My personal theory is that the red matter had a temporal component.

If all the red matter accomplished was to turn the existing supernova remnant into a black hole, it doesn't stop the shock wave from continuing on it's path of destruction. The shock wave is already gone.

However, if red matter has a temporal property, then it would basically reverse all the effects of the original supernova. The shock wave would never have been created and the planet Romulas would be "un-destroyed."

First the star supernovas', which threatens Romulas. Only then does Spock promise to save the planet, after the shockwave is already on it's way, "consuming everything in its path."

After Romulas is destroyed, Spock shoots the red matter into the supernova remnant. I believe what happen next was one of those Star Trek "reset events." As a end result of Spock's actions, Romulas was fine.

This next is from oldSpock's mind meld with nuKirk.

One hundred twenty-nine years from now
A star will explode, and threaten to destroy the galaxy.
That is where I'm from, Jim. The future.
The star went supernova, consuming everything in its path.
I promised the Romulans that I would save their planet...
We outfitted our fastest ship.
Using red matter, I would create a black hole
Which would absorb the exploding star.
I was en route, when the unthinkable happened.
The supernova destroyed Romulus. I had little time.
I had to extract the red matter, and shoot it into the supernova.
As I began my return trip, I was intercepted.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

It depend on how large your petri dish is.

Unless Romulas has a Coruscant or Trantor level of population (not my impression based on what we were shown) then Romulas's population would only have risen to several billions.

However, if you expand the size of the dish to include surrounding planets, and then surrounding star systems, this would enable the Romulan population to grow over the course of two millenium into the hundreds of billions. If the Empire encompasses multiple thousands of inhabitable worlds, then most would have (compare to modern Earth) relatively low population density.

The Romulans would have "Lebensraum."

Mere land does not ensure the survival of the next generation. It needs to be a veritable paradise for this - and, as per what we're shown, it isn't (most planets uninhabitable, etc).

With a population of 38190 romulans, I'm pretty sure you won't have more than a few VERY SMALL inhabited towns. So much for the star empire.

Which is a prime reason for the Romulan population not to be under forty thousand. They certainly would not have anything that could be described as a "Star Empire."

It might be possible for the total Romulan population to be in the hundred million range and still have them do all the things we've seen and had suggested through dialog. But getting much below that make their society difficult to image.

If the romulans were breeding like tribbles, then they could reach ~1-10 billions in 2000 years. Taking into account their pioneering history, wars - or more mundane causes: accidents, crimes, some not finding mates, etc - every single family must have at least 5-6 children.

In which case, the romulan success in ensuring security and reproductive success for the next generation would be impressive; it would be unmatched in the federation, in any case.

 

[T'Girl]

I don't understand why you have 38k number there, it's nonsense. Growth rate is calculated per year, not 30 years.

because they need 30 years to mature and reproduce AKA grow in number - NOT 1 year.

But if you using a 0.02 growth rate, that's 2% annually, not 2% every generation. The mistake you're making is you're actually using a 0.00066 annual growth rate, this is why the number you're getting (38,190 people) after 2,000 "annuals" is so incredible small.

0.02 divide by 30 give you 0.00066.

Even if each generation is thirty years, statistically the birth rate for a population group is calculated over the total time period.

If the romulans were breeding like tribbles, then they could reach ~1-10 billions in 2000 years.

In one of my previous post I said:

If we started with 10,000 people, and each couple in each generation produced an average of 3 children who in turn reproduced, the population of the Empire could be up to 110 billion people.

Now, I did stipulate three children surviving to reproduce another surviving three children. Not three children born. This statement takes into account children and adults who don't survive to reproduce the average number. So, at that rate of population growth, you don't get "~1 - 10 billion," you get 110 billion people in the current population after two thousand years. This already takes into account illnesses, accidents, warfare and all other causes of "not reproducing the average number."

 

[Edit_XYZ]

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

If you take into account hazards such as pioneering, catastrophe, lack of resources, deaths, not finding mates, not having children, etc then every romulan couple has to have at least ~4 children per 30 years (a few "spares").

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?*
Not by building ships and going somewhere where there's no infrastructure.
And not by having magic tech (as Kirk's childhood colony - and every other failed colony in trek) proves.

Oops. Looks like there's no beating that petri-dish.

In conclusion, 2 conditions are needed:
Romulans must breed like tribbles;
Romulans must hand-wave resources in order to support these next generations.

*In human history, couples could afford 5-6 children only because most didn't make it to adulthoold.

If we started with 10,000 people, and each couple in each generation produced an average of 3 children who in turn reproduced, the population of the Empire could be up to 110 billion people.

Now, I did stipulate three children surviving to reproduce another surviving three children. Not three children born.

This alone is a VERY high order.

This statement takes into account children and adults who don't survive to reproduce the average number. So, at that rate of population growth, you don't get "~1 - 10 billion," you get 110 billion people in the current population after two thousand years. This already takes into account illnesses, accidents, warfare and all other causes of "not reproducing the average number."

What losses due to illnesses, etc? What percentage?

 

[EmperorTiberius]

If you take 0,02 rate of growth per year, then every romulan couple has to have 3 VERY SPECIAL children per 30 years:
Every single one of these children must survive and each have 3 children.

If you take into account hazards such as pioneering, catastrophe, lack of resources, deaths, not finding mates, not having 3 children, etc then every romulan couple has to have at least ~5 children per 30 years (a few "spares").

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?*
Not by building ships and going somewhere where there's no infrastructure.
And not by having magic tech (as Kirk's childhood colony - and every other failed colony in trek) proves.

Oops. Looks like there's no beating that petri-dish.

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. 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.
Your estimates of 40k are laughable.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

If you take 0,02 rate of growth per year, then every romulan couple has to have 3 VERY SPECIAL children per 30 years:
Every single one of these children must survive and each have 3 children.

If you take into account hazards such as pioneering, catastrophe, lack of resources, deaths, not finding mates, not having 3 children, etc then every romulan couple has to have at least ~5 children per 30 years (a few "spares").

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?*
Not by building ships and going somewhere where there's no infrastructure.
And not by having magic tech (as Kirk's childhood colony - and every other failed colony in trek) proves.

Oops. Looks like there's no beating that petri-dish.

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]

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]

If you take 0,02 rate of growth per year, then every romulan couple has to have 3 VERY SPECIAL children per 30 years:
Every single one of these children must survive and each have 3 children.

If you take into account hazards such as pioneering, catastrophe, lack of resources, deaths, not finding mates, not having 3 children, etc then every romulan couple has to have at least ~5 children per 30 years (a few "spares").

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?*
Not by building ships and going somewhere where there's no infrastructure.
And not by having magic tech (as Kirk's childhood colony - and every other failed colony in trek) proves.

Oops. Looks like there's no beating that petri-dish.

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.

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]

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!

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.

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/Demographics_of_the_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]

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]

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.

 

[F. King Daniel]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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).

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

 

[EmperorTiberius]

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.

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.