Terraforming in the OTU

[Malenfant]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

'Rational' is a relative thing. An action is rational or irrational depending on the underlying motive, and motives can be nearly infinitely various.

Yes, but they're not really that "infinitely various" here at all. When faced with a borderline-habitable planet, one can either:

1) Skip it and find a more habitable one further away.
2) Colonise it with environmentally sealed habitats.
3) Terraform it.

The first option is generally a viable option (especially in the OTU, with its high number of habitable worlds). We're talking about founding colonies here, so this is in a time/region where the Imperium is expanding, so there almost certainly will be a habitable world further along the exploration path.

The second option is eminently sensible. It requires minimum effort, it uses immediately available technology, can be set up very rapidly, and works to provide a habitable (if not sealed) environment for the populace. Built the enclosures large enough and you can have large parks and forests growing inside too!

The third option (given the other two) is completely crazy. It requires a lot of effort, a lot of planning, huge amounts of investment, a guaranteed long-term commitment, and very little (if any) short term results. Such a project may be started, but unless you have an instant Genesis Device (a la star trek), given all the possible things that can happen over the decades/centuries that could derail such a vast project (be they social, political, or physical), it's pretty much a certainty that it will not be finished.


And when faced with a completely uninhabitable world, the options become:

1) Skip it and settle elsewhere
2) Colonise it with environmentally sealed habitats.

Terraforming simply isn't worth even considering at all for such worlds.

[Flyndaran]

That opens up some nice planets partly terraformed slowly moving toward or away from fully habitable. Maybe some machines that just need that little something to push it further, but alien funding fell through at the last moment.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by Malenfant

Yes, but they're not really that "infinitely various" here at all. When faced with a borderline-habitable planet, one can either:

1) Skip it and find a more habitable one further away.
2) Colonise it with environmentally sealed habitats.
3) Terraform it.

The first option is generally a viable option (especially in the OTU, with its high number of habitable worlds). We're talking about founding colonies here, so this is in a time/region where the Imperium is expanding, so there almost certainly will be a habitable world further along the exploration path.

There are only 9000 systems in the Imperium and the Imperium is hemmed in by neighbors. The first option was viable in the Imperium's early days, but since the Civil War at the latest, every world in the Imperium has belonged to someone. A relatively small company like Al Morai managed to get title to two out of the 400 worlds in the Marches long before that. Today the RAW imply that the Imperium is willing to accept governments of low-population worlds as sovereign[*]! And the Imperium also reserve some worlds for other purposes, such as conservancies and reservation worlds.

[*] Mind you, I think the RAW is completely stuffed up on this subject, but it not relevant to this discussion, since low-population worlds that belonged to someone else would be just as effectively pre-empted.

The second option is eminently sensible. It requires minimum effort, it uses immediately available technology, can be set up very rapidly, and works to provide a habitable (if not sealed) environment for the populace. Built the enclosures large enough and you can have large parks and forests growing inside too!

Agreed. Ultra-tech is manifestly able to support population in the billions in vacuum environments. Conditions really can't get any worse than that. That is to say, if a world has worse conditions (e.g. insidious atmospheres), you can always put space habitats in orbit around it.

The third option (given the other two) is completely crazy. It requires a lot of effort, a lot of planning, huge amounts of investment, a guaranteed long-term commitment, and very little (if any) short term results. Such a project may be started, but unless you have an instant Genesis Device (a la star trek), given all the possible things that can happen over the decades/centuries that could derail such a vast project (be they social, political, or physical), it's pretty much a certainty that it will not be finished.

So you won't find any for-profit terraforming projects. I believe we've already established that. That still leaves not-for-profit projects.


Hans

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Well, if it's as important as 'hearts and souls' they might ignore economic good sense. That doesn't mean it will work out well, though.

They wouldn't necessarily IGNORE economics in the sense of not taking practical account. They however would not stop terraforming the Holy World of Oblisk to prepare for the return of the Children of the Oblisk just because money ran out; they would simply start another fundraising. However that would not preclude hiring good accountants.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Yes, but no one had to terraform Virginia or New England, dude.

:)

You keep skipping that bit, Johhny.

Utah is a better example. It was practically a deathworld when the Mormons arrived. Still is for that matter. But from what I understand, they were at the forfront of what might be called "small-scale terraforming".

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

'Rational' is a relative thing. An action is rational or irrational depending on the underlying motive, and motives can be nearly infinitely various. Just for a single real-world example, imagine a (technologically) primitive tribesman from a Bronze Age tribe, contemplating Mount Rushmore.

In one sense it's fully familiar, a monument to the tribal king might be completely part of his frame of reference. But the scale of it! It's totally irrational, it would require the effort of the entire tribe to the exclusion of all else for years on end if it could be done at all (which it could not, at is tech level). No sane tribe would carve a mountain into such a thing, when there are so many easier, cheaper ways to make a monument.

Motives don't have to make sense to anyone else, esp. once resources reach a certain level.

Stonehenge's trilithons alone would be a tribe's non-food efforts for several years. The quarrying alone would be a year's work for a tribe of a couple hundred. The transport looks to be a season for the same, if we guess their tech base right. And the assembly would be a season, as well. Plus years of observations (decades even), to establish placement. And that's only one of 4 periods of use of the site. (Modern use being period 4, and involving very limited new construction.)

Religious reasons can bring rather improbable and economically unwise projects into being.

Pride can do even worse. Just look at the gothic churches of France.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

Pride can do even worse. Just look at the gothic churches of France.

How is that worse? It's bad to build a gorgeous cathedral that brings huge numbers of pilgrims , merchants, and artisans to your town or city, and makes the people living there happier? You seem to have underestimated both the economic and the moral benefits of building a cathedral. Building one not only honored God, it could really but a town on the map. It could be a big economic boost in the long run.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Utah is a better example. It was practically a deathworld when the Mormons arrived. Still is for that matter. But from what I understand, they were at the forfront of what might be called "small-scale terraforming".

And the Indians who lived there didn't need to drink water or breath air?
Sorry, no real comparison here, Jason.

Utah was rough for large populations of farmers. It wasn't a deathworld.

[sjard]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Utah is a better example. It was practically a deathworld when the Mormons arrived. Still is for that matter. But from what I understand, they were at the forfront of what might be called "small-scale terraforming".

You don't actually buy into the myths the trappers in the Utah area tried to spread to keep settlers out do you? Sure, some parts are fairly inhospitable, but there are large portions that have always been good farmland, and most areas can be turned into such with even minimal irrigation.

The part I live in has quite a bit of farmland, but looks remarkably like many of the more mountainous areas of the middle east.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by sjard

The part I live in has quite a bit of farmland, but looks remarkably like many of the more mountainous areas of the middle east.

Yup, like a part of the world where people have lived for a long time.