|
|
|
|
|
#1 | |
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
The problem with the 19th century US example is that it depended on mass immigration. Russia and Siberia, or Japan and their northernmost island, show that it can take thousands of years before a society even thinks of expanding into nearby marginal, lightly populated territory.
Quote:
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Quote:
another thing to consider is how "filled up" the US is today. I grew up in a town of 30,000. there is nothing bigger than us for 120 miles in any direction. The land wasn't settled because it wasn't desirable, and is now off limits for settlement (not that there is a burning desire to do so). I know that I am the exception, but the fact that it exists demonstrates what america considers to be "settled". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | ||||
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
I wouldn't expect a high growth rate. The richer you are the more a child costs. If you have nothing it is easy to give a dozen children what you have. If you are rich it is impossible. Giving them what you consider a reasonable upbringing is expensive. Women also tend to be not willing to have lots of children if they have a choice. The combination leads to low to negative growth rates. A frontier world would select for people who want to have larger families to some degree and TL10 allows exowombs and such to make having children less of a hassle. That gives you a moderate growth rate for the first few generations, dropping to close to 0 for the city dwellers I'd think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Quote:
That also happens to be the starting wealth at TL10 so it should be like $20,000 to a TL8 person. It's also not much at all if you start thinking of 401k money. 20,000 for another lifetime looks real affordable to me. So it's possible that your growth rate does nothing but go up though still morre slowly than late 19th century rates. There might be a significant number of women who wouldn't mind having 1 child every 20 years and if you lose very few people to old age you can still have real population growth at that pace . Asd to what people might be doing in th wilderness, bio-survey is a good/momneymaking possibility on an actual alien-but-frendly world. There's lots of possibility for new and useful biochemicals and even whole plant and animal species. Also sustainably exploitable biomes. The planet is goign to be hungry for investment opportunities if it has a lot of long view quasi-immortals.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
to those pointing at decreasing birth rates, there are a few things to consider:
the upper rich have never colonized. Their life style can't follow them out there, and neither can their wealth. The wealthy are found in the cities and follow civilization, not lead it, which affects your communities. One of the hallmarks of a classic frontier society is that resources are much more abundant than manpower. This is going to allow you pass on decent amounts of wealth to your children. The exceptions to the rule: "wealthier women don't have as many children" breed true. yes, the number goes slightly down, but you get generations of exponential growth. The families that continue to breed usually have the genetics for it, and they pass on an attitude. example: I know a friend with around 800 second cousins, and I know others who are the only children of only children. And in this case, the guy with 800 comes from a wealthy family. Not rich, but certainly upper middle class, which is what's going to matter in this case. so yes, the birth rate isn't going to go crazy, but its not going to die out either. Last edited by ericthered; 07-03-2012 at 09:05 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
However, in a quasi-realistic setting (one where interstellar trips are very expensive and machines-that-can-reproduce-themselves are dangerous and inefficient) TL 10 tech will be in very short supply. The colonists will have what they brought with them until it breaks down, and possibly a few imports if round trips home are available. And a lot of the colony's early industrial era farmers, miners, loggers, foresters, and hunters will suffer serious accidents and die before they can get to ultra-tech medical care. Of course, without more details we don't know whether the OP wants vaguely realistic economics, but the colony less advanced than its metropolis is a common trope in interstellar colonization stories.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
|
Quote:
Anyway I think this is really going to come down to whatever you want the setting to be. Full TL 10 tech is blue-collar workers are replaced by AI, and white-collar workers (if need be) are replaced by bioroids. (Who enjoy their work so much its not really work.) Now through in limits on the AI, ethical concerns, not full grade TL 10 tech ect. things require more and more work. Heavy limits might even make things dangerous like Polydamas suggested. In addition a colony can be closer to whatever resources you want (water, rare earth elements, sunlight, inspiring nature scenes, ect.) giving them some sort of economic edge which combined with the above factors can set up any sort of dynamic you want. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Quote:
So move along now.No gray goo to be seen here.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Tags |
| brainstorm, high-tech, low-tech, space, ultra-tech |
|
|