Re: colony size was 1900's

Don M schrieb:
> From: K.H.Ranitzsch <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de>
> > I doubt that even a colony of several 100.000 would be 
> > able to sustain such an infrastucture.
> 
> I really don't think anything under 200,000 is a colony.

Well, in this whole thread, very little has been said about actual coly 
sizes. My impression was that most people on this thread thought in 
terms of wilderness planets with very thinly scattered populations. 

> And to further insure that the colony  does succeed you would
> spread the settlements out across the planet in say 5 to 
> 10 thousand each. (helps to stave off a planetary natural
> disaster wiping out the whole venture.) Anything smaller
> would I think be either a military or corporate venture 
> with very specific aims not a self sustaining colony.

Well, at medieval technology levels, a settlement of a few dozen people 
is basically self-sustaining (assuming an earthlike environment), 
though prone to be wiped out by local catastrophes. A single settlement 
of 5.000 to 10.000 people is quite a large town, and hardly 
self-sustaining. It will require food brought in from surrounding 
areas. 

However, spreading 200.000 people over a whole planet AND assuming 
high-tech industry implies very easy transportation and communications. 
I don't see a viable infrastructure or vehicle industry within that 
framework. 

200.000 people in a reasonably compact area (a US state or European 
country, at most) might be more plausible. 

Greetings