RE: Thinking out loud. . .

>> John, you've got a free hand to paint whatever you want
>> (and I'm trying to think of a reasonable top end for that)
>> because there simply isn't enough hard information on
>> which to base a proper estimate.

> From: ~ On Behalf Of Beth.Fulton@csiro.au
> Sent: 05 September 2002 01:00
> Subject: RE: Thinking out loud. . . 

> Do you mean population modelling now with projections forward,
> or information in the timeline to guide the projections?

Apologies for the late reply on this; I've been working late
the last few nights.

I was thinking of information not only from the timeline, but
also canon information about the "present day" (say 2183 or '88)
GZGverse. I see from your final paragraph that you are already 
fretting about most of the factors I had in mind. Let's try a
simplification:

1. We only want a top-end figure; any lower total can be put
   down to whatever accidents of fate future histories might
   decree.

2. The number of habitable planets is "sufficient", or people
   can adapt to living in a protected environment without any
   reduction in fertility.

3. There is enough lift capacity to transport everyone to
   wherever they need to go to get that "wide open spaces"
   perspective. If they need a protected environment when they
   get there, there is the industrial capacity to do this. 

4. The practical upshot of assumptions 2 and 3 is that the
   entire population (including that part remaining on Earth)
   can expand at whatever you decree the maximum rate to be.
   Assumption 4 is that every power has adopted a policy of
   maximum growth because those that do not will be reduced to
   insignificant numbers by those that do.

Yes, there are lots of reasons why assumptions 2 and 3 don't 
stand up: see assumption 1. Side [FH] issue: those states that
don't have their own access to significant FTL technology have
to subscribe to the UN expansion programme in order to avoid
being trammelled on Earth.

>> Beth, I've no more evidence than that, but my gut
>> reaction is that your figures for off-world populations
>> are too low. If the powers have got themselves into a
>> "population race" and started fooling around with birth
>> labs then you want to consider maximums rather than
>> growth rates.

I should admit here that I'm starting from the desired
objective of a large off-world population then working back
to find how it might come about.

> The population growth rates I used set pretty quickly to
> levels close on double that humans comfortably naturally
> maintain (though they would equal what you'd get everyone
> had big "farming" families and no infant mortality).

Idle curiosity here: what is the "comfortable" rate, and where
is it drawn from?

By "birth labs" I'm referring to the wholesale construction
of clone populations a la C.J.Cherryh's "Cyteen" and other
Merchanter novels. The maximum growth rate then becomes a
question of economics and industrial power.

-- ========================================================

Nathan "GM [Stellar Conquest]" Girdler