Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
@mrxak, on Jan 17 2007, 07:37 AM, said in Government Systems and Politics:
It's that time again, folks...
Okay, we've discussed a number of things in the past, like space warfare, space travel, population growth, and other things. But now it's time to talk about politics.
**This is really a fascinating topic and I wish I'd spotted it sooner so I wouldn't be so far behind.
Never the less, just a bit here and there on my thoughts, which I'm sure I will have more of as I slowly catch up with everyone else's responses.
To me, science fiction has never really gotten it right. We see visions of the future where humanity is spread throughout the stars, yet these realities are barely three or four hundred years into the future. The sheer amount of time it would take, bar some species-threatening imminent disaster, to move even a sliver of the population of the Earth to another world would be enormous. In fact, would probably take well over six hundred years for just one world to even begin to approach the population of Earth, even at a steady rate of say, perhaps, 5 million a year. Since we always assume there are multiple colonizable planets within travel distance of Earth, that number becomes further and further diluted.
So what does this have to do with politics? It is quite simple. As Peter Cartwright explained in his fascinating topic on the EVO board, in his galaxy, the United Earth government begins and ends on Earth simply because the vast, overwhelming majority of humans still live there. I believe that this is the only way a human society that has multiple colonies outside of the solar system can exist; and thus there must always be a central power that resides at Earth. Republics, in which a government based on the system of representation for all members would simply not work, unless the body itself were made up of tens of thousands of members. More simply; how would each planet elect one, or perhaps two individuals to represents all the many ethnicities (and species) residing there, in a body made up of similar individuals all representing different planets?
If we assume that to be considered a major colony, each planet must support at least a population that exceeds, perhaps twenty million. The figure is arbitrary but it serves the purpose in the point I'm trying to make. In order to be a colony that can sustain that kind of population, any world would be completely and totally dependant upon the mother world for resources, aid, what have you. This puts the government(s) of Earth in a position of great power. Why then, would they relinquish power to planets that are dependent upon them, knowing full well any planet without the support of Earth would fail?
The simple answer is they wouldn't. Not at least until the colonies could establish themselves enough to be self-sufficient. Then, bar any major conflicts from outside the human realm (or within) it would be free to set up its own government that serves the purpose of this new society, rather than that of the planet and Earth. It's like a giant tree growing seeds. At some point the seeds will fall off and land in the dirt, where they will battle to survive, growing and maturing on their own. Eventually, it becomes its own tree that produces more seeds. The only way I see an Earth government relinquishing power is because it has to; one can only imagine the strain of dozens of colonies on the economy and resource stock piles of the planet Earth.
In the scenario I've begun work on this much is true, to a certain extent. Every human planet is free to ally with whomever they choose. The price is providing resources back to the home world, which has become so barren and stripped of natural resources that now it is dependent on its colonies. In exchange, it is given absolute protection from the navy, which it provides ships, weapons and crews for. The details are unimportant, but the basic idea is that Earth is no longer the focal point of the galaxy; rather, the first world discovered outside the solar system has replaced it, leaving it a distant shadow of its former self. The new government rules essentially as I have outlined; it consists of a central monarchy, the ruler of which only directly controls his capital world. However, his military is the strength of the Empire, and beyond that, individual members of this group are left free to govern themselves as they see fit. No two planets govern themselves in the same way; they all simply support the overall military alliance. I suppose this whole idea came around when I started thinking about back story for the whole scenario; I sort of starting getting those cliched ideas of a big galactic republic like in Star Wars, but then it struck me. There are hundreds of countries in this world, very few of which are actually organized into alliances, let alone joint governments. It is impossible, therefore to assume, in my view, that anything would be different in colonies settled by individuals from Earth, who would presumably bring with them the same cultural and social differences.
_bomb
**
Quote
The sheer amount of time it would take, bar some species-threatening imminent disaster, to move even a sliver of the population of the Earth to another world would be enormous.
Are we extending the one-child policy into space as well?
In 1800, the world population was less than one billion. 1950, the world population was around 2.5 billion. We're now around 6.5 billion. While I'm not advocating a 5 billion jump in population in 200 years (obviously, there are exponential factors at work here), I also think that the effects of native population growth will soon (assuming your rate of 5 million a year) become a significant factor in their own right. It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to predict the existence of future colonists who will desire relatively large (3 or more children) families.
In order to be a colony that can sustain that kind of population, any world would be completely and totally dependent upon the mother world for resources, aid, what have you.
I'm not quite sure I understand this assertion. It seems, given the presence natural planetary resources that would ostentatiously make the planet desirable for colonization in the first place, it would seem that a larger population and more established infrastructure would result in less dependence upon the mother colonies.
There are hundreds of countries in this world, very few of which are actually organized into alliances, let alone joint governments. It is impossible, therefore to assume, in my view, that anything would be different in colonies settled by individuals from Earth, who would presumably bring with them the same cultural and social differences.
I think 'impossible' is a bit of a stretch. A high level of dependence upon and trade with 'mother colonies' would likely foster amalgamation upon cultural or ethnic lines, especially if different countries sponsored different colonies. If the British were to colonize Alpha Centauri III and Capella IV, for example, those two colonies would be settled by relatively privileged colonists sharing a common heritage. Their initial ties to the mother country and (by extension) each other would be inherently stronger than those with, say, the Chinese-controlled world of Canopus Prime or the American-settled world of Eridanus. As well, they would probably be predisposed to form stronger ties with each other, as dictated by their initial connections- trade and cultural contacts. Unlike the colonial periods following the Renaissance, humanity will probably have a blank slate upon which to transpose pre-existing societies and ties- no native cultures and people to deal with and assimilate. It's not too much of a stretch to say, later on, that those two worlds, Centauri III and Capella IV, in the future, will possess some sort of formal ties towards each other.
This post has been edited by UE_Research & Development: 25 January 2007 - 10:59 PM
I mostly agree with you on that, Bomb, with two exceptions. First, on average, the global population doubles every fifty years. So, by that logic, to go from one million to just over one hundred million is about five hundred years. That, however, assumes that one sixth (roughly) of the population lives in a colonizing society where more children are an economic burden as opposed to a frontier society where children are an economic boon. In that circumstance, the population could double, or even triple, every generation. Then it would only take only one hundred fifty years to go from one million to one and a quarter billion, or two hundred years to go from one hundred thousand to almost two billion.
Why one hundred thousand or million? Slowboat exploration. My assumption in that we will discover super-light travel (i.e. small multiples or c), say, one hundred years before we discover hyperspace. It could take us even longer. So we start colonization by sending a few slowboats to nearby starts, Proxima Centauri, etc., the usual suspects. A few probably end up on the wrong course. You now have a dozen stranded human enclaves spread throughout the stars. Some of these enclaves, like Proxima Centauri, may be in fairly regular contact with Earth, while others, especially the ones that went off course, are probably on their own. If they all develop hyperspace at approximately the same time, give or take twenty years, then most are probably on the same footing. And, in my opinion, that sets up some very interesting scenarios for interstellar dynamics.
I should point out, this also creates some interesting circumstances vis-a-vis missions. For example, the player could find a lost colony that is barely surviving.
@flavius, on Jan 26 2007, 03:39 AM, said in Government Systems and Politics:
This is almost what happens in David Weber's Honor universe. Except that hyperspace is invented centrally instead of at multiple locations. So some colony ships, en route through normal space, get overtaken when ftl travel is invented, and the colonists find 'squatters' who got there first when they arrive.
My 'generic sf universe' idea - which I frequently adapt to various projects - is a little similar. It assumes a 'dying' Earth, with ftl travel discovered in time to send out six or so colony ships looking for planets to inhabit. All these 'seed' populations have hyperspace already, but because their numbers are small and their priority is making a world livable for themselves, there's a limit to how much they can do with it. The result is a universe (in the early stages) in which resources and room for expansion are unlimited, and the limiting factor is manpower.
This post has been edited by pac : 26 January 2007 - 05:56 AM
@ue_research---development, on Jan 26 2007, 03:36 AM, said in Government Systems and Politics:
**I'll agree with you here. However part of my (admittedly fuzzy) math takes into account the same sort of problems that affected the early American colonies; native diseases, the long trip over, general lawlessness and the like. Simply put, landing on a new world wouldn't be like dropping into New York City. It would be difficult and time consuming, no matter the level of technological development of the colonists. I'd imagine the whole principle with large families and such would not be an issue until a planet had achieved some semblance of stability, hence, several hundred years (by my calculation) into it's existence. **
**Agreed. However, as I stated before, just because a planet has oil, or water, or minerals to be harnessed does not mean they are immediately and readily available. Just think how much planning goes into constructing one building in a modern city. Imagine then how long it would take to put down the simplest, most basic support structures of a colony on a new world. Sanitation, residential, economic and military needs would far outstrip a fledgling group's ability to mine the natural resources, unless they had systems in place well before the arrival of the main population. Just think how much time it would take to build houses for those million people. Then work places, and plants to process food and water, waste. I think it would be highly unlikely that any colony would exist on any rudimentary level without many, many decades of influx from the home world of personnel, resources and the very basic needs. Who is to say what resources a planet might offer? Just because a world is pretty and green does not necessarily mean it would have ores and metals that could be shaped for building parts, or plastics and other components for use in vehicles and computers. Unless the society is hyper-advanced, and has methods for immediatly and speedily tapping the resources of a world, it would be an extremely time consuming process. **
**Again, I have no argument here. In my scenario a similar turn of events has developed; though rather than forming based on terran cultural lines, the colonies have slowly formed their own, new identities free from the original social constraints of Earth. But at the same time, I'd hesitate to wonder just how deep any of these "stronger ties" between colonies may run; remember, a colony would work in a very similar way to countries on this planet; the many individuals are represented by the select few. How much a colonist from Levo cares about one from Capella (or even another from a different colony on Levo, for that matter) would be rather limited. I think (and again, this is just opinion) that most planets would become very insular; regulating their own affairs and for the most part just staying out of the business of others. We know too well how muddled affairs can become between countries; can you imagine how difficult it would be to deal with those issues on your own world, all the while being drawn into a conflict with a neighboring world with a full suitcase of problems of its own? For example, why would Centauri III even need relations with Capella IV, if it stands on its own feet, and otherwise has no military or diplomatic issues to resolve with them? Would a farmer of eggplant on Centauri care enough to vote on a measure to invade Capella because their carrot exports are cutting into Centauri's stranghold on the vegetable market? I've gotten all convoluted here, but what I'm essentially trying to say is that bar any unforeseen events or outside threats, I don't think planets even need to have 'formal ties' with one another and as such they might be unlikely to develop.
**I'm glad you knew some more accurate numbers; I was tempted to look around for some data but I decided to just go with arbitrary numbers to prove my point, rather than guessing and making a fool out of myself.:) Of course, this is assuming ideal conditions such that exist on Earth. Who knows what dangers would lurk on planets that prospectors and explorers were unable to find. Additionally, the amount of time it would take simply to build the infrastructure of a colony would be enormous. Calculate then how many resources it would take simply to keep up with the rising population both from immigration and natural birth. A colony would have to been in a perpetual state of expansion, at a rate I would imagine would be awfully difficult to maintain all the while keeping some sort of sense of social stability. Too many people and not enough homes or jobs would create poverty and lawlessness, both of which would severely slow the progress of a colony, no matter how large its population.
@bomb, on Jan 26 2007, 09:19 PM, said in Government Systems and Politics:
I think that sounds about right. Especially considering that hundreds of perfect, Earth-like worlds close to our own are rather implausible (but make for easy sci-fi :p), I would agree that the first several generations would involve the colony simply struggling to survive.
I agree, again. I do agree greatly with your resource scarcity argument- it seems that at least at first, the only resources people will know how to use are the ones native to Earth! It would take quite a while before some sort of rare resource that would only be found upon that planet could see widespread adoption- it would require people figuring out what to do with it, then people figuring out how to extract/grow it, then people building all the infrastructure- which takes a long time and lots of money...again, point well taken.
I see your point, and I actually did choose to make a large portion of the human worlds in Retribution independent- because of a lot of the reasons you stated. At the same time, I'm sure there will probably be some sort of factor- mutual defense, trade dependencies, or maybe ideologies and religions- that would serve to connect people on different colonies.
Another assumption: life in space is different to and relatively isolated from planet-bound life. If this is true, politics in space might not align with politics in the population centres. So, if the Hindus and Muslims are engaged in bloody conflict on Mars, the port authority on Deimos and the extra-terrestrial manufacturers and shipping companies might be making a mint selling arms to both sides, for their part arguing instead over docking fees or whether planet-based authorities have the right to tax asteroid-based factories. Or even if the planets in the Alpha Centauri system had a quarrel with planets in the Canopus system, the pilots who fly to both places might get on just fine with each other, but be unified in a trade union action against pilot registration schemes at both docks. I guess I'm saying, it could be fun to draw attention to the difference between the interests of the player as a pilot, and the politics of planet-bound people which might not be vital to him.
Oohh! The webboard has fonts...
This post has been edited by Bubbles : 27 January 2007 - 10:55 AM
Assuming that resources can't be tapped immediately may be somewhat flawed. I know that if I was going to set up a colony somewhere, I'd have a ship capable of being broken down rather efficiently into a few basic buildings immediately. I could very easily see a medical center set up within the first few days, modular habitat pods in a matter of hours, and a complete survey of the planet ahead of time (you could put a couple of satellites in orbit years before you started distributing recruitment posters on more populated worlds) would tell you exactly where to put it all. There's no reason why heavy machinery and modular factories couldn't be placed on the planet too. Bringing more people in to grow the colony? Just have them bring their own modular habitats for a few years until construction personnel are freely available and the heavy metals are being mined.
Now this of course depends really on whether or not the colony was set up by a government with an interest in seeing a viable colony there, some kind of a business venture, or a bunch of refugees just trying to get away from their old world and not caring where they end up.
But, if you can live just fine on a space ship, you can live just fine on a hostile world. Working that hostile world may be difficult, but actually surviving somewhere shouldn't be any harder than in space. All it comes down to is how many resources you bring with you to kick-start any sort of industry or agriculture.
On second thought, all power in the galaxy in the future will belong to whichever bureaucrats come up with the complex acronyms and abbreviations used in diplomacy and government. The demographics of a republic, after all, would be impossibly staggering.
Oh, okay - the answers for anyone who was too lazy to look them up.
GB & NI - Great Britain and Northern Ireland HM - His/Her Majesty MoD - Ministry of Defence RSPCA - Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals QUANGO - Quasi Non-governmental Organisation DEFRA - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DUP - Democratic Unionist Party NEC - National Executive Committee (this is a Labour Party body responsible for overall policy direction) SDP - Social Democratic Party MORI - Market & Opinion Research International
UN - United Nations NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organisation IMF - International Monetary Fund IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change