Terraforming in the OTU

[Jame]

Originally Posted by PoorMerchant

Perhaps the insidious atmosphere is a result of terraforming gone awry?

Sure, once.

Twice if they haven't heard of each other.

[freetrav]

Originally Posted by PoorMerchant

Perhaps the insidious atmosphere is a result of terraforming gone awry?

In such a case, wouldn't they abandon the planet and put a biohazard sticker on the door?

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

There are IMO only two resons to colonize a world with insidious atmosphere: a) lack of choice (The misjump scenario) and b) there's something there that it's economically advantageous to go live there to exploit. Once there's an outpost there, the possibility exists that a self-perpetuating community will develop, although it's much more likely to stay some sort of "oil platform" setup. The high-population worlds would be very much the exception that beat the odds. Which is why a world creation system that doesn't link population with habitability has a rather large built-in flaw. A population distribution that is the same regardless of the physical stats is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Annother dodge is to say that people don't live ON the world, they live in orbit around it (They just work down on the surface ;-)).


Hans

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Malenfant

Which pretty much trumps everything you said earlier in your post.

No, not really. Easier is counter to makework; they are in fact exclusive in most cases.

Terraforming is, at best, a long term goal. At worst, makework. And if the goal is making work for displaced workers, taking the easier route is contraindicated by virtue of the goal of tying up as many people on the project as possible.

It's politics, not economics, that drives it.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by freetrav

In such a case, wouldn't they abandon the planet and put a biohazard sticker on the door?

If it's a local population, who's going to pay for moving them? Interstellar travel is expensive. If it's a sufficiently small population, they may be saved by charitable neighbors, but if they have to pay for it themselves, they're more or less stuck on their rapidly deteriorating world. They'll either develop habitats that can protect them (and that they can afford) or they die.


Hans

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

There are IMO only two resons to colonize a world with insidious atmosphere: a) lack of choice (The misjump scenario) and b) there's something there that it's economically advantageous to go live there to exploit. s

There is one other. You have a cargo of insidious atmosphere-breathing colonists.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

There is one other. You have a cargo of insidious atmosphere-breathing colonists.

Many people find that less verisimilitudinous than political grandstanding.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

There is one other. You have a cargo of insidious atmosphere-breathing colonists.

I watched Alien this afternoon. Is the "xenomorph" the sort of colonist you had in mind?

:)

[Malenfant]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

There are IMO only two resons to colonize a world with insidious atmosphere: a) lack of choice (The misjump scenario) and b) there's something there that it's economically advantageous to go live there to exploit.

Living in a ship in space is easier than living on a Venus-like hellhole. Heck, living on an airless rockball or asteroid elsewhere in the system is easier. The 'lack of choice' assumes that there is absolutely nowhere else in the entire system (including the ship itself) that is better than the hellhole.

Which is why a world creation system that doesn't link population with habitability has a rather large built-in flaw. A population distribution that is the same regardless of the physical stats is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

On that we can agree, at least.

Annother dodge is to say that people don't live ON the world, they live in orbit around it (They just work down on the surface ;-)).

Though if they live on a moon, then you might as well list the moon's UWP as the mainworld and not the hellhole's.

[Malenfant]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

Many people find that less verisimilitudinous than political grandstanding.

I guess you've done huge surveys of the traveller community to know that, have you? ;)

Also, I don't buy your "makework" idea. You start with the assumption that people would do that, I don't think they would. There'd be easier and more visible ways to "makework" than throwing people onto a hellworld. Hell, you could do any number of megaengineering projects/follies on more habitable worlds instead (e.g. build pyramids, statues, great big patterns of lights visible from space etc).