GURPS Space: Carrying Capacity

[SenorPez]

Does GURPS Space consider Earth to be an Affinity 10 planet? It's obvious it's Habitability 8, but in order to have a sufficient carrying capacity to account for the world's population (10 B) it would have to have Very Abundant resources to get to Affinity 10.

Or am I missing something in the Carrying Capacity calculation?

Base Carrying Capacity, TL8: 10 M
Affinity Modifier, Affinity 10: 1000
Affinity Modifier, Affinity 9: 500
Diameter: 1

10 M * 1000 * 1^2 = 10 B (Enough!)
10 M * 500 * 1^2 = 5 B (2.5 B short!)

If that's the case, I need to reconsider my "Average" resource planet. I modeled its mining activity based on Earth, tweaked for lower tectonics and volcanic activity. But if Earth is Very Abundant, that Average planet would be far less rich in minerals than I've envisioned.

[Humabout]

Originally Posted by SenorPez

Does GURPS Space consider Earth to be an Affinity 10 planet? It's obvious it's Habitability 8, but in order to have a sufficient carrying capacity to account for the world's population (10 B) it would have to have Very Abundant resources to get to Affinity 10.

Or am I missing something in the Carrying Capacity calculation?

Base Carrying Capacity, TL8: 10 M
Affinity Modifier, Affinity 10: 1000
Affinity Modifier, Affinity 9: 500
Diameter: 1

10 M * 1000 * 1^2 = 10 B (Enough!)
10 M * 500 * 1^2 = 5 B (2.5 B short!)

If that's the case, I need to reconsider my "Average" resource planet. I modeled its mining activity based on Earth, tweaked for lower tectonics and volcanic activity. But if Earth is Very Abundant, that Average planet would be far less rich in minerals than I've envisioned.

You assume the Earth can support its current population (7.53 B) indefinitely. The jury is out as to whether or not that is possible. Furthermore, SPACE, p. 92, states :

Originally Posted by GURPS Space, p. 92

On the other hand, a high-tech society can also exceed the carrying capacity, but only by using world resources in a way that can’t be sustained indefinitely. Such a society will be in trouble within a few generations, unless it can improve the carrying capacity of its world.

...

At TL5 and above, a homeworld’s population can vary widely from its carrying capacity. Select a population as needed, or roll 2d. Multiply the carrying capacity by 10, and divide the result by the die roll to get the world’s population.

Finally, GURPS Space was written twelve years ago. Science has come a long way since then. It'd be understandable if the ideas in GURPS Space are out of date. That's actually why Jon F. Zeigler has been writing a new star system generation system called Architect of Worlds based on more modern planetary science research.

So with all of that said, I'd be more likely to believe that Earth hass Average Resources...like most other planets in existence...and expect either a population crash, mass emigration, or the plane to be stripped of all resources and then a massive population crash/extinction.

[AlexanderHowl]

I agree. The Earth is a TL8 society at 3x its carrying capacity (and merrily breeding itself to 4x). This is why we are experience global warming, mass extinctions, crushing poverty, etc.

If the Earth population was 2 billion people, the average income would be $31,000 (GURPS) or $62,000 (2018$). In effect, the average standard of living on Earth would be slightly better than that of the USA. Imagine if the average person in Ethiopia or Bangledesh earned $31,000 (2018$) rather than $900 and you start to understand the difference. The global GDP would be around $62 trillion (GURPS) or $124 trillion (2018$) because there would be less inefficiencies in the global economic system.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Humabout

...and expect either a population crash, mass emigration, or the plane to be stripped of all resources and then a massive population crash/extinction.

I figure we'll start mining other bodies long before this plane crashes...


;)

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

If the Earth population was 2 billion people, the average income would be $31,000 (GURPS) or $62,000 (2018$). In effect, the average standard of living on Earth would be slightly better than that of the USA. Imagine if the average person in Ethiopia or Bangledesh earned $31,000 (2018$) rather than $900 and you start to understand the difference. The global GDP would be around $62 trillion (GURPS) or $124 trillion (2018$) because there would be less inefficiencies in the global economic system.

Only if you assume that the economic output remained the same while nearly 75% of the labor force disappeared. At best that's a partial equilibrium solution.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by SenorPez

Does GURPS Space consider Earth to be an Affinity 10 planet? It's obvious it's Habitability 8, but in order to have a sufficient carrying capacity to account for the world's population (10 B) it would have to have Very Abundant resources to get to Affinity 10.

Strictly speaking, no it wouldn't. . If our Affinity is 8 then that would mean our carrying capacity is 2.5 billion at TL 8. Being 5.5 billion people over that carrying capacity means that our "Typical" income is adjusted from 31,000 down to 9,687 "dollars". Now if you look at the income of the average person here: https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/MateNagy.shtml

GURPS might be slightly generous. But In GURPs we'd definitely be classed as a Poor world due to our "overpopulation". The people in this discussion just happen to live in the richest parts of a generally Poor world.

[hal]

The Malthusians always seem to figure that mankind will hit its limit with respect to resource use, food supply and other factors. Funny thing is, every time they've predicted the end of the world, it hasn't quite hit.

There is more to the equation than simple math, simple economics, or even simple resource allocation and and distribution. Throughout history, we've seen what happens when a political class institutes itself in a manner that becomes parasitic. The more you burden the working class in the form of taxation, and then force them to live by laws regarding "living within your means", the more the tax burdens cause the population being taxed, forced to exchange services in lieu of taxes, food production etc - begin to shrink.

Expecting a 2% population growth is simply not viable in the long run and history does not show it to be true. Sure, it CAN happen under the right circumstances - but it almost inevitably slows down. The population of England over the period of several hundred years resulted in a growth rate of .3% per year. Not 2% - but .3 percent.

Couple this with the knowledge that medieval England's ruling elite (the roughly 2%) were able to tax the rural peasants some nearly 50 to 55% and even in some instances 60% of their production (what we'd call income) were in large part, living as parasites. What HOST can anyone point to, survive the loss of 50 to 60% of its energy and nutrients and survive as a healthy specimen?

So - take a hard look at the taxes being paid by today's young. Add all of the Income Taxes taken by your government(s) in all its levels (Federal, state, Local) and add to that the gasoline taxes levied on your gas that you have to use if you own a vehicle. Then toss in all of the taxes you pay on your cable and phone and internet use. Throw in your property taxes, your fees that you pay to the government for any given thing (car inspections, etc).

Want to be that you'd be very close to the 45% to 50% mark? Some European nations are definitively at the 50% mark.

Now compare/contrast the birth rates (children per woman) and note that in some countries, the rate is 1.7 to 1.9 (Western Civilizations) and then make the sobering observation that to have a zero percent growth rate, we need a reproduction rate of 2.1 children per woman. One to replace the mother, one to replace the father, and .1 children to account for fatalities before the age of adulthood, disease, fertility issues, and even the decision to not get married or have children at all.

So, 2% annual growth without taking into account something as silly as government parasitical behaviors, is kind of like forgetting some basic math functions when adding numbers together that are large in scope.

Do I expect the Earth to grow warmer over time? Sure. Is it man-influenced Global Warming? I tend to doubt that. If our sun is 20% brighter today than it was when it first started burning, that implies that it brightens up on its own, whether mankind is present or not. Do we have living records of weather patterns over the last few hundred years? Yup. Do we have historical records of dry/wet hot/cold seasons over time from ancient past periods (we call them petrified wood) and yes, it appears that what we see today has happened in the past. Even California's dry/wet cycles are historical and predate an industrial mankind. <shrug>

In the end? The Malthusian alarmists would have us believe that we're heading to perdition if we don't abstain from sinning against Mother Earth. So far their record of being right tends to be dismally low (from a statistical standpoint).

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the GURPS WEALTH rules just don't model reality all too well. Trying to utilize those rules for future modeling is going to be inherently fraught with inaccuracies.

True story: My father purchased unimproved land back in the mid-50's. He told us all that for what he paid for the land, he could have purchased a GOOD car. After paying property taxes on the land over the years, when he finally sold it (still unimproved), guess what. The money he made on the sale (after capital gains taxes) was enough to buy him a higher end car.

So - take it for what it is worth, the economics portrayed in GURPS is not something I'd use for a doctoral thesis.

[SenorPez]

Thank you all for the input, it's given me a few ideas, not just for what the colony planet will look like, but how earth itself might progress on an arc toward TL10!

Originally Posted by Humabout

<snip>
Finally, GURPS Space was written twelve years ago.
</snip>

This is probably the most surprising thing from the thread, though. Sheesh. Time flies when you're having fun.

[Humabout]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I figure we'll start mining other bodies long before this plane crashes...


;)

Yeah, I missed the 'T'.

As far as stripping other bodies for resources, that would effectively reduce their carrying capacities and introduce an inefficiency into the whole system.

If you want to get far too simulationist for my taste, you might consider finding the total carrying capacity for whatever passes as "local" in your setting, plus an efficiency factor between 0 and 1. Then each body can 'borrow' carrying capacity from other bodies at that efficiency factor to support more population. The efficiency factor would likely be a function of distance and propulsion method.

[AlexanderHowl]

Mining asteroids for metals is not going to improve the carrying capacity of the Earth (it does not to address deforestation, soil erosion, mass extinction, global climate change). It also does not do much to damage the carrying capacity of the asteroid belt.

For example, 8 Flora is the closest of the massive asteroids. At a mass of 8.47 quadrillion metric tons, it could supply human civilization with iron for a million years before it ran out of ore. As a byproduct of producing 2.5 billion metric tons of iron per year, it would also produce every other needed metal without difficulty (for example, it would produce around 4,000 metric tons of gold per year). And that is just one of dozens of similar asteroids in the Main Belt.