Re: [GZG] FTverse colonies

G'day Tom,

I must say its nice to have you back around. 

> 1) In your low population model, I think your NAC population offworld
> must not be canonically consistent. Please consider the following:...
> Do we susect that England only has 8 million people in it in 2135?
> Possible, but unlikely. I think this alone indicates that Albion must
> have at least 40-60 million people by itself. I'm not sure if you were
> meaning the low and high cases to be canonically consistent or not
> though.

Not really. Almost the opposite of St^3 Jon in the low and high cases I
took the bounding assumptions and played them out everywhere to see what
it'd look like rather than being tied up meeting canon exactly. You
could spin some PSB for the UK dropping to 8 million under the low case
(anything from catastrophic events to shifting centre of gravity to the
Nth Americas as the UK becomes increasingly unpleasant place to live and
loses bunches of arable land under sealevel rise or something), but it'd
be PSB ;)

> 2) What are the possibilities of mixed cases? That is to say, having
> one nation obey one set of constraints and another user a different
> progression? 

Plenty of scope for that. It was a simple model run with simple bounds
to show the scope of potential outcomes. There's plenty of room for more
specific tailoring.

> I was wondering if NI could be following a heavy reproduction regime
> (essentially case high) while the other nations were following a
> normal (case average) regime.

Nothing to stop an even more differential split across nations, some on
low, others medium yet others on high. The only constraint is on
migrants, some combos will be feasible as there will be migrant pools as
feeders, you can't have the source populations on low and the sink
populations on high because you wouldn't have high enough migration
rates to meet the high immigration rates.

> All I'm suggesting here is the numerical disparity is kind of
staggering -
> quantity has a quality all its own (famous line).

Simply based on actual numbers available as feeder populations from
current UN numbers and then plausible (with grains of salt for tech
expansion) growth/transport rates etc. I think this is one spot where
the PSB has to go on thick to fit something in with Jon's imagination.
For instance the bulk of the IF may get tied up on a world that goes
insular (think of the Chinese through history). The beauty of the space
setting is that its not the equivalent case to having a billion people
who can just walk across the border, they have to be on transports - so
millions on the ground do not equate necessarily to millions able to get
up in your face.

> In order to address this, tweaking downwards the IF pop and/or upwards
> the NI pop might be workable. What do you think? Seems to me that if
> the holocaust that destroyed Israel was bad, the neighbours would be
> getting seriously reduced in retributive return.

True and there is plenty of space to do that. But if you look the IF
populations on Earth are already comparable with that of the NI, its
just the IF have a much broader base of people to draw on globally as
migrants than the NI. I can chase up some figures for you later, but off
to a meeting.

Cheers

Beth

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l