What happened to the Romulan Empire after Romulus was destroyed

[T'Girl]

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

Five children, all of whom reached child producing age. Admittedly my middle sister and I haven't started. So far I have nine nieces and nephews.

Except - you have to educate/grow them up first.
And they can't help you with this by being farmers, etc.

A growing population will need a lot of food, so being farmers would be of tremendous help. The first generation would be people who lived on ships, perhaps for years. These would be the start of the Romulan technical society. Passing knowledge would be a priority.

Their colony might be like when a new community is started here, investors and contractors cut a road into virgin forest, build 100's of homes. Local businesses build a grocery store a few gas stations and a shopping center.

Instant community.

So were the people in Kirk's colony. Didn't stop them from suffering from lack of supplies.

They didn't suffer from a lack of supplies, the food was destroyed by fungus.

And nothing says that this, or something like it, didn't happen to the Romulans.

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.

Descendants of those people who originally came from Vulcan. People who would spread outwards from Romulas. Colonization or invasion, people who built the Romulan Empire, who went to spend the rest of their live on some new world.

Then, after a half dozen generations, their prodigy would spread to yet another new world, new colony.

And after a half dozen more generations, the "children" move outward again.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

T'Girl

Five children, all of whom reached child producing age. Admittedly my middle sister and I haven't started. So far I have nine nieces and nephews.

Congratulations, T'Girl.

But what's the average number of children per family these days? Do you think your family is the rule or not?

A growing population will need a lot of food, so being farmers would be of tremendous help.

You can't have 1 year old farmers, educators, engineers, etc, T'Girl.

They didn't suffer from a lack of supplies, the food was destroyed by fungus.

And nothing says that this, or something like it, didn't happen to the Romulans.

EmperorTiberius is going on and on about how it couldn't/didn't.

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

Descendants of those people who originally came from Vulcan.

The romulans would be the descendants of the ~10000 vulcan exiles. No more.

The parallel to immigration into USA is people NOT related to these. And you don't have vulcans among the future romulan subject species.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

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.

EmperorTiberius, you're the one who's trolling.
Either that, or you're confused as to the definition of the word 'prediction'; you couldn't do a simple google search if your life depended on it; etc.


For example:
Malthus's work - and prediction of unstoppable growth - never gave even half-reliable predictions. Which is why it was repeatedly debunked - apropos this, did you even bother with a google search; or even to peruse my link? Doutful, considering the contents of your post.

Your post-factum figures are nothing resembling predictions.
A prediction must come BEFORE the fact.
After the fact, you can look at statistics and make them fit almost whatever you want (as you did); these are NOT predictions, but doctoring the data.

During the ~last decades, more and more (48% at last count) of the world population lived - and lives - in nations with sub-replacement fertility.
And, of course, this fits Malthus.

At least you dialed down the number of romulans to trillions - from sextillions. How many orders of magnitude is that, EmperorTiberius?

As for 40000 - that was with 0,02% fertility rate - a number as arbitrary as any other you came up with.
Based on historical and current trends in the growth of human population, the romulans could be either 0 in number or numbering in the billions (not more).


PS - "Math, history, and common sense say former."

You really do need to read up on history. And then see how "well" exponential curves fit in.
It could save you a lot of embarrassment in the future.

 

[T'Girl]

Congratulations, T'Girl.

Thank you.

But what's the average number of children per family these days? Do you think your family is the rule or not?

The average Latin family in the United States has 4.1 children for married couples, and 3.5 children for single adult women.

At 5 children, my immediate family is only slightly larger.

As noted earlier, White/Caucasians aren't even replacing themselves in American. Without international migration the population of the US (and Europe) would currently be dropping.

 

[EmperorTiberius]

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.

EmperorTiberius, you're the one who's trolling.
Either that, or you're confused as to the definition of the word 'prediction'; you couldn't do a simple google search if your life depended on it; etc.


For example:
Malthus's work - and prediction of unstoppable growth - never gave even half-reliable predictions. Which is why it was repeatedly debunked - apropos this, did you even bother with a google search; or even to peruse my link? Doutful, considering the contents of your post.

Your post-factum figures are nothing resembling predictions.
A prediction must come BEFORE the fact.
After the fact, you can look at statistics and make them fit almost whatever you want (as you did); these are NOT predictions, but doctoring the data.

During the ~last decades, more and more (48% at last count) of the world population lived - and lives - in nations with sub-replacement fertility.
And, of course, this fits Malthus.

At least you dialed down the number of romulans to trillions - from sextillions. How many orders of magnitude is that, EmperorTiberius?

As for 40000 - that was with 0,02% fertility rate - a number as arbitrary as any other you came up with.
Based on historical and current trends in the growth of human population, the romulans could be either 0 in number or numbering in the billions (not more).


PS - "Math, history, and common sense say former."

You really do need to read up on history. And then see how "well" exponential curves fit in.
It could save you a lot of embarrassment in the future.

No, I bothered with college-level courses, you stick to google

 

[Edit_XYZ]

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.

EmperorTiberius, you're the one who's trolling.
Either that, or you're confused as to the definition of the word 'prediction'; you couldn't do a simple google search if your life depended on it; etc.


For example:
Malthus's work - and prediction of unstoppable growth - never gave even half-reliable predictions. Which is why it was repeatedly debunked - apropos this, did you even bother with a google search; or even to peruse my link? Doutful, considering the contents of your post.

Your post-factum figures are nothing resembling predictions.
A prediction must come BEFORE the fact.
After the fact, you can look at statistics and make them fit almost whatever you want (as you did); these are NOT predictions, but doctoring the data.

During the ~last decades, more and more (48% at last count) of the world population lived - and lives - in nations with sub-replacement fertility.
And, of course, this fits Malthus.

At least you dialed down the number of romulans to trillions - from sextillions. How many orders of magnitude is that, EmperorTiberius?

As for 40000 - that was with 0,02% fertility rate - a number as arbitrary as any other you came up with.
Based on historical and current trends in the growth of human population, the romulans could be either 0 in number or numbering in the billions (not more).


PS - "Math, history, and common sense say former."

You really do need to read up on history. And then see how "well" exponential curves fit in.
It could save you a lot of embarrassment in the future.

No, I bothered with college-level courses, you stick to google

Really?
And you managed NOT to find out that, from Malthus's equation, you can get ANY number between 0 and infinite - if you insert the appropriate terms in it?
Or the definition of the word "prediction"?

Or how Malthus's actual predictions were conclusively proven false?

Of course you bothered with college-level courses.

 

[T'Girl]

A friend reminded me of a Voyager episode, The 37.

A alien species, the Briori, visited Earth in the year 1937.They abducted over three hundred people to be used as slave. But the Humans rebelled. Fifteen generations on the world they were marooned upon, the population had rose to over one hundred thousand.

That's a growth rate of 0.013, or 1.3%

 

[EmperorTiberius]

A friend reminded me of a Voyager episode, The 37.

A alien species, the Briori, visited Earth in the year 1937.They abducted over three hundred people to be used as slave. But the Humans rebelled. Fifteen generations on the world they were marooned upon, the population had rose to over one hundred thousand.

That's a growth rate of 0.013, or 1.3%

Didn't you get the memo? That science stuff is overrated.