Size of 'empires'

[Victor_D]

I understand why we won't get a map (it's difficult to make a 2D representation of what is a 3D space, plus it would be an awful lot of work), but I have a few general questions:

How big are the two respective 'empires' at war in terms of

1) size: in light-years, or a number of jumps it would take to get from one side to the other, or the time that would take. Simply for us to have some idea of how vast these 'territories' are and how long it takes to move around.
2) population: are there many inhabited worlds, are habitable planets common (I'd assume they should be due to all the terraforming done by the Precursor empires)? Are the colonies as densely populated as the homeworld(s), or are there many 'frontier' worlds with relatively low populations? What are typical planet populations for the Loroi/Umiak? (I noticed that Earth in this setting is supposed to have over 20 billion people, which I find both environmentally and demographically unsustainable). Also, what's the share of Loroi population in the overall population of their 'empire'? Are they totally dominant? What about the Umiak?
3) economy: Umiak are supposedly industrially superior to the Loroi. I imagine a warship in this universe must be a bloody expensive toy (the US navy warships definitely are), so can the Loroi economy sustain military spending this high? (Even though Loroi are not democratic by any standard, they probably are more individualistic than the Umiak, and thus more impacted by their living standards).

That's about it for now. I apologize if this has been discussed to death before

[GeoModder]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall the number of Loroi planets runs in the hundreds, with a 100 billion population.
The Loroi themself that is. Not occupied planets, allied races, or whatnot.

Can't remember to have read hard number on the Umiak, but it WILL be alot more then the Loroi.

[Grayhome]

I do not believe that Arioch has ever stated the numbers of either faction, humanity is the only one that has been listed at 25 Billion+.

[Arioch]

The territory isn't accurately mapped out, which is why there isn't a map and I have to be vague about sizes and population figures. The key areas around the events of the story are reasonably well defined, which is what's most important, though even those need more detail to be properly mapped; mapping the whole region is something that's only my list to do, but obviously requires a lot of effort and decision-making. So, since the complete data doesn't exist, I can only give rough figures as to size and estimates of population.

The Loroi empire is about 300 light years across, and it would take several months for a ship to cross. There are at least seven sectors, each of which is larger than Terran space. There are more than 100 inhabited systems, with 20-30 major population centers (including aliens). The Loroi population is probably around 50-100 billion, and the alien population is probably more than that. Most of the alien Union members' worlds are limited to their own territory prior to the establishment of the Union, but these are often heavily populated. The major Loroi worlds have regulated populations (mostly less than 5 billion), but the Loroi have set up many new colonies since the formation of the Union, ranging widely in population up to several hundred million. The Neridi and Barsam also have some colonial presence in the Seren and Tinza sectors.

The size of the Umiak sphere of influence is not known, but it is believed to be larger than Loroi territory. The Umiak population is certainly much larger than the Loroi population.

Here's a rough map that gives you the overall scale and position of the empires within the context of the Local Bubble.



Regarding economy, starships are indeed very expensive, and the industrial output of entire worlds must be allocated to produce any significant number of them. This places a great strain on the economy, but the Loroi economy was never very free in the first place, and since Greywind's accession many industries are under direct government control. All sectors of society are under constant rationing restraints, and there are few luxuries... but this is not all that much different from the prewar situation, since the Loroi have always been a military dictatorship and not a civilian consumer society. But of course there's only so long that any society can run at maximum effort before its systems start to fall apart, especially if there is no end in sight. So morale is increasingly a problem the longer that the stalemate continues. These problems will be especially acute in the non-Loroi alien member societies.

[bunnyboy]

I noticed that Earth in this setting is supposed to have over 20 billion people, which I find both environmentally and demographically unsustainable.

It's only 3 times of the population today, which isn't hard to feed, if we could make some changes.
- Less meat. The production 1 lb meat needs 3-10 lbs grain.
- Less waste. We throw more food on garpage than which is used on humanitarian aid.
- Smaller farming. The biggest farms produce maximum amount of food per used work hour, but they aren't as energy or resource efficient than some alternative methods and they are almost vasteful, if you count their land use.
- Vertical/city farming. Gives more space to food production.

[Majincarne]

Hmm right, thats a thought. Has anything been said about earths orbital industries? Is it all zero G production(exotic materials ect) or are there any Algae farms and such making engineered products ect. So are fancy electronics and spaceship parts all thats possibly going on up in orbit or is earth making space wheat as well?

[fredgiblet]

- Vertical/city farming. Gives more space to food production.

Simply using what we have more efficiently would probably get us able to feed 20 billion. Most of the issue with hunger in the world today isn't an issue of production (there's MORE than enough food) it's an issue of distribution. Places that food can't get to easily, places where the people don't have enough money to make shipping food there make enough profit, that sort of thing.

[Smithy]

It's only 3 times of the population today, which isn't hard to feed, if we could make some changes.
- Less meat. The production 1 lb meat needs 3-10 lbs grain.
- Less waste. We throw more food on garbage than which is used on humanitarian aid.
- Smaller farming. The biggest farms produce maximum amount of food per used work hour, but they aren't as energy or resource efficient than some alternative methods and they are almost vasteful, if you count their land use.
- Vertical/city farming. Gives more space to food production.

As I'm someone who is working part time in agriculture especially on the horticultural side of it at the moment, with experience in growing Wheat, Sedum, and Opium. With a parent who was actively involved with Cattle at an early point in his career. I like to think I know a little bit about it. And I take issue with certain aspects of your comments.

-"Less Meat":
Firstly: No Farmer/land owner tends to want to raise livestock, they all want arable. It is by far the hardest form of agriculture. It's risky at the best of times, and the profit margin is very very slim. It's hugely labour intensive (ask any dairy farmer what time he wakes up), very expensive, and at any point your livestock can take ill, be considered a health hazard and be completely slaughtered. Hell you give a lamb a stern look at it dies. So why would you bother you may ask? Because their land lacks a fertility high enough to warrant crops. Cattle go on land not good enough for cereals. Sheep go on land not good enough for cows, and goats get bare rocks...

Secondly: "1 lb meat needs 3-10 lbs grain". Livestock is not just dependent on grain, you need to include feed caking from crushed oil meal, pasture, roughage, haylages and silages. An animals grain intake is also dependent on the "finishing" regime and the species itself, you can go all grain feed to no grain feed. Often dependent on the local agricultural scene. Eg, a farm placed near a brewery will supplement it's feed mainly with Brewers grain (pulped barley malt). But perhaps most importantly is animal grade feed is not fit for human consumption. It's a far too harder grain, mainly because it's been in the field much longer. The reason grain farmers rush to get their crops in during dry spells is that combines can't harvest wet crops. Excessive rain pushes harvest back, and can force expensive premium bread grade wheat into cheap feed quality grain.

So the issue is a little less cut and dry as you suggest.

-"Less waste. We throw more food on garbage than which is used on humanitarian aid."
Waste is an issue, but biological waste is actually becoming quite a useful resource as it can be digested for methane, and the sludge left after is an effective fertaliser. Humanitarian aid is a tricky and touchy subject. The food distribution infrastructure is not good enough basically. That's a limitation of field to mouth, and the fact that virtually all countries requiring food aid lack the infrastructure to actually store it. Ie silo structures, decent roads, and refrigerated warehouses. They also have members of their beloved governments that gladly take the aid and then sell it to line their own pockets, or divert it all to their "armies" which are fighting in escalated tribal conflicts. There's a reason food aid is pretty much just long grain rice from the swamps of Louisiana, it's damn easy to keep from perishing. It also costs quite a significant amount of money. Good cause you might add, but that's tax payers money that's not going to their own countries welfare, healthcare, infrastructure, education, services, pensions and ad infinitum. If you really want to deal with food issues in Africa, you have to stop virtually all the major conflict, and remove systemic corruption. Basically totally restructure their governments, and implement the rule of law.... I hope to God that is possibly without Empire mk 2... Or in Britain's case, Mk 3.

-"Smaller farming. The biggest farms produce maximum amount of food per used work hour, but they aren't as energy or resource efficient than some alternative methods and they are almost vasteful, if you count their land use."
Not at all, but if your going on field size which I think you do mean then still, no, but if anything the middle ground is better. Efficiency in labour, spray, fertalizer, fuel, and harvest nearly always goes up with field size, just basic economy or scale, and if you have ever driven a tractor, you'll understand the work part. However there is a caveat. The wind. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl. Soil erosion is a complete nightmare for any farmer. And very large fields lack wind beakers. Ie trees and hedges. If you ever go to England I'm sure you'll see that quintessential patchwork of hedgerows, that act not only as exemplary wind breakers, but also habitat that helps control pests. The small farmers of France exist almost solely due to EU heavily subsidising their "way of life".

-"Vertical/city farming. Gives more space to food production."
I haven't made my mind up about this one. But I believe it to be an overly engineered solution to problem we don't yet have. If anything, mass hydroponics would work much better in a warehouse structure rather than the eco-architects wet dream of huge farm towers, and when you go up, you get more and more expensive. If it is effective, I think it would only really be useful for horticulture at a stretch, and then it's competing with plasticulture (which is actually what I currently work in) which is dirt cheap. And if I remember correctly, USA land use is something like only 5% developed, building towers for farms doesn't make a lot of sense.

If you want to see the future, the future is Wheat that fixes it's own nitrogen. GM crops are the next step in the constant agricultural revolution. No matter how much people fight against it. Which if I recall is exactly what the Loroi have in the shape of the misesa supergrain.

[Trantor]

If you want to see the future, the future is Wheat that fixes it's own nitrogen. GM crops are the next step in the constant agricultural revolution. No matter how much people fight against it. Which if I recall is exactly what the Loroi have in the shape of the misesa supergrain.

Brave new world.

One downside is that we humans tend to f*** up when we fiddle with nature. Monsanto anyone?
The other downside is that capitalistic companies are not altruistic, by definition.
They just focus on their profit and their shareholder value.
How good that works with potentionally highly hazardous stuff (chemistry (UC/Bhopal et al), biology/genetics (Monsanto et al), physics (Tepco)) can be seen in all branches. It´s a pattern.

I´d rather opt for natural/conventional improvements in agriculture.

[Victor_D]

Thanks, Arioch, very informative and interesting (*downloads maps for further study*). It seems that the Terrans still have some room to expand before they run into the big boys, if given the chance.

It's only 3 times of the population today, which isn't hard to feed, if we could make some changes.

I am not talking about simple "feeding" the population, I am talking about the global environmental impact of such a huge population (resource depletion, overfishing, soil erosion/salination, habitats destruction, biodiversity loss, pollution, climate change, toxin build-up, etc. etc. etc.). We are thoroughly screwing this planet now, when there is about 7 billion people, only 1 billion of which live in something approaching decent living standards (and is responsible for about three-quarters of the above-mentioned problems). I read estimates that the gross human impact on the environment would increase 11-fold over today if all people in the world reached 1st world living standards with the accompanied increased in consumption. I don't think this planet can take it, so logically I don't think it can take ~4 times the number of people (25 billion as stated in Insider).

Then there is the demographic argument - fertility rates are dropping rapidly. If we can somehow prevent our civilization from collapsing due to the aforementioned problems and increase the living standards of people in developing countries, they *will* fall below the replacement threshold (~2.1 child per woman) by the end of this century, with the overall Earth population plateauing at 8-10 billion, and then slowly beginning to fall. 25 billion thus makes little sense from the demographic point of view, even if such a huge population was somehow sustainable, which I doubt VERY much.

I guess a possible answer to this is that Terrans now live a lot longer (150-200 years?) and that their 'productive' age has been greatly lengthened; so that women can safely have children not just for ~30 years, from the age of 15 to about 45, but from, say, the age of 15 to 105. But then, why wouldn't they try to impose some kind of population control policies? The Loroi did that for a reason, I'd say. And I don't think "but Humans are democratic" is a good answer; democratic societies should have the same self-preservation impulse as the Chinese. It wouldn't even be that hard, you'd just give people a choice: either limit yourselves to 2 children maximum, or you'll be excluded from medical treatments that would double or triple your natural lifespan. Also I'd think that governments would try to redirect the population surplus toward the off-world colonies (first in the Solar System, then extra-solar settlements).

[Absalom]

Just a few points.

Cattle go on land not good enough for cereals. Sheep go on land not good enough for cows, and goats get bare rocks...

Actually, here in Oklahoma, they're commonly put on the wheat fields during some particular part of the wheat's growth cycle. Apparently, if the wheat plant loses it's seeds at that point, it'll grow back 3 times as much. The reason for the interest from the farmers is understandable.

Secondly: "1 lb meat needs 3-10 lbs grain". Livestock is not just dependent on grain, you need to include feed caking from crushed oil meal, pasture, roughage, haylages and silages. An animals grain intake is also dependent on the "finishing" regime and the species itself, you can go all grain feed to no grain feed. Often dependent on the local agricultural scene. Eg, a farm placed near a brewery will supplement it's feed mainly with Brewers grain (pulped barley malt). But perhaps most importantly is animal grade feed is not fit for human consumption. It's a far too harder grain, mainly because it's been in the field much longer. The reason grain farmers rush to get their crops in during dry spells is that combines can't harvest wet crops. Excessive rain pushes harvest back, and can force expensive premium bread grade wheat into cheap feed quality grain.

Just as importantly, cattle at least don't do that well on grains in the first place, they're biologically grass eaters and the grains cause them problems. Humans, on the other hand, have both traditionally and now rarely ever eaten the actual grass itself, as we don't have the digestive system for it.

However there is a caveat. The wind. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl.

Eh, while I agree, you really should remember that the region where the dust bowl formed isn't omnipresent. It's basically a quasi-desert region, and Oklahoma is windy in general. Chicago may be the "windy city", but only because of public figures. Oklahoma is essentially at the intersection of three different weather patterns, and we have almost constant wind as a result. That tends to skew things (personally, I'd look at water erosion in other places).

Soil erosion is a complete nightmare for any farmer. And very large fields lack wind beakers. Ie trees and hedges. If you ever go to England I'm sure you'll see that quintessential patchwork of hedgerows, that act not only as exemplary wind breakers, but also habitat that helps control pests.

Presumably larger fields could be sectioned into a "snake" pattern with windbreaks if the correct species could be selected for the region, right?

-"Vertical/city farming. Gives more space to food production."
I haven't made my mind up about this one. But I believe it to be an overly engineered solution to problem we don't yet have. If anything, mass hydroponics would work much better in a warehouse structure rather than the eco-architects wet dream of huge farm towers, and when you go up, you get more and more expensive. If it is effective, I think it would only really be useful for horticulture at a stretch, and then it's competing with plasticulture (which is actually what I currently work in) which is dirt cheap. And if I remember correctly, USA land use is something like only 5% developed, building towers for farms doesn't make a lot of sense.

Algae culture might make sense for some places, though it might produce some unexpected variations. For example, a New York tower with a seafood restaurant & up-scale clientele might have an algae-culture system on the tower's southern face, with salmon or trout or something released into it.

Mostly though, I think the idea's relevant for places like Japan, where the usable land isn't enough to feed the population anyways.

If you want to see the future, the future is Wheat that fixes it's own nitrogen. GM crops are the next step in the constant agricultural revolution. No matter how much people fight against it. Which if I recall is exactly what the Loroi have in the shape of the misesa supergrain.

Actually, I don't think many people would fight that one (or perennial varieties, or salt-resistant varieties). What they don't like is things such as grains that naturally produce their own pesticides.

As Trantor pointed out, Monsanto. To be frank, all of the GMO crops that I know of were made for the sake of increasing pesticide sales, not anything else. The promise of GMO is still on the horizon, all of these years after the first varieties were released.

I am not talking about simple "feeding" the population, I am talking about the global environmental impact of such a huge population (resource depletion, overfishing, soil erosion/salination, habitats destruction, biodiversity loss, pollution, climate change, toxin build-up, etc. etc. etc.).

The current statistics are anomalous, and will improve with the flow of population back into the cities. Greenhouse-gas emission especially is going to steadily improve in the US as we move out of the suburbs, causing an increase in building of modern structures closer to the things that people leave their houses for. At the same time, this urbanization across the world will improve mass transit (city administrations won't have much choice, and private developers have actually done it before as well). Overfishing will simply produce new businesses (open-ocean fish farms), and as land and ocean use centralizes the depopulated zones will experience a resurgence in local life.

Things don't always go down, especially when we already know that they've been pushed "down" by temporary anomalies.

Then there is the demographic argument - fertility rates are dropping rapidly.

I don't have any evidence (I think it's actually too early for the evidence to exist), but I suspect that this will "breed" itself out. As the population shrinks, it'll become dominated by those who culturally have more children (e.g. Mormons). This will counter the shrinkage, as those demographics become more dominant than the "sexual revolution" demographic that the current statistics are dominated by.

And besides which, in 50 to 100 years time, I wouldn't be surprised if all of today's 1st-world nations will either no longer be in that bracket, or will have pushed through reforms that tie social-program retirement benefits to the number of children that the person in question raised: the demographics practically scream for it.

I guess a possible answer to this is that Terrans now live a lot longer (150-200 years?) and that their 'productive' age has been greatly lengthened; so that women can safely have children not just for ~30 years, from the age of 15 to about 45, but from, say, the age of 15 to 105. But then, why wouldn't they try to impose some kind of population control policies?

Because they wouldn't need to. In the Outsider setting they have both colonies on other planets, and large space habitats. They have all of the growth room that they need, and any time that they want more they can just spend a few years building it. Population growth wouldn't be enough to push humans out of the star system for hundreds (more likely thousands, or hundreds of thousands) of years.

Incidentally, the age-extension stuff is likely coming in our lifetimes (among other things, there's an anti-cancer drug that also fights some early-aging diseases).

The real question is the fertility stuff. If you've got people who have a 40 year old body when they're 80, then certainly you'd see more demand for substitute mothers (I've forgotten the actual phrase, sorry), but I don't know that it would produce anything more than a blip.

The Loroi did that for a reason, I'd say. And I don't think "but Humans are democratic" is a good answer; democratic societies should have the same self-preservation impulse as the Chinese. It wouldn't even be that hard, you'd just give people a choice: either limit yourselves to 2 children maximum, or you'll be excluded from medical treatments that would double or triple your natural lifespan. Also I'd think that governments would try to redirect the population surplus toward the off-world colonies (first in the Solar System, then extra-solar settlements).

Actually, they'd redirect it to orbital stations. Arioch mentioned somewhere that there's likely to be a fairly respectable number of those.

Also, I think you're underestimating the potential impact of proper management on an ecology. We have to do the basic research before we can really get the stuff going, but it should be quite possible to super-charge many of the eco-systems on Earth if we spent the money on it. It would be a large project, but the biggest parts of it (building hydrogen pipelines inland so that hydrogen can be burned for energy and then condensed for water, using charcoal to sequester carbon as a form of fertilizer, probably some other things) would often be either long-lived (charcoal) or self-sustaining (cheap hydrogen). The world would certainly be a mess for several decades after any such theoretical project was begun, but the end result would be (at least for as long as we spent the effort to maintain it) a stronger ecosystem than when we first started causing problems. To understand what I'm talking about, start with a rainforest. Consider the fact that they're normally nutrient poor. Now consider the possibility of using drip irrigation or something equivalent to add nutrients to the soil in sufficient volume to have an impact on fertility. With a focused plan, that type of thing (even if not the sheer scale) should be achievable over the course of a few decades.

[Smithy]

Actually, here in Oklahoma, they're commonly put on the wheat fields during some particular part of the wheat's growth cycle. Apparently, if the wheat plant loses it's seeds at that point, it'll grow back 3 times as much. The reason for the interest from the farmers is understandable.

I have read about that once, but it's not a practice I'm familiar with in Hampshire. I'll read a little more in I thinks. It's probably a stress reaction from a certain variety of grain, but that be said for the rest of the season your cattles going to be on pasture or overwintering inside. But then again, in some parts of the USA Cattle never see grass. I'm not entirely sure, but I think that's illegal over here, but even it isn't I don't know anyone who does it.... It definitely wouldn't work with the opium crop...

Just as importantly, cattle at least don't do that well on grains in the first place, they're biologically grass eaters and the grains cause them problems. Humans, on the other hand, have both traditionally and now rarely ever eaten the actual grass itself, as we don't have the digestive system for it.

I know, which is why in all the systems I'm familiar with grain is basically a supplement along with Feed cakes. TMR (total mixed ration) is starting to come into fashion as a result due to it basically giving you a very scientific control over the nutrition intake. Most feed is silage/haylage and plenty of roughage from wheat/rye straw. Oats straw tends to be used mainly for bedding because it's softer. But this is just overwintering or supplement on pasture due to either being in milk or being finished. Spring pasture is an important part of the feed cycle here in England. So I think grain heavy feeds tend to be more of an American phenomenon.

Eh, while I agree, you really should remember that the region where the dust bowl formed isn't omnipresent. It's basically a quasi-desert region, and Oklahoma is windy in general. Chicago may be the "windy city", but only because of public figures. Oklahoma is essentially at the intersection of three different weather patterns, and we have almost constant wind as a result. That tends to skew things (personally, I'd look at water erosion in other places).

I was mainly using the dust bowl as an example of when wind get's the upper hand due to drought, the Virgin land scheme would be another example. Their was a plethora of issues causing the dust-bowl and I simply couldn't be bothered to go into depth. Crop rotation, fallow fields, cover crops, soil terracing and wind-breaking trees were all absent in the farming systems, which meant that the whole system was vulnerable to severe drought. We've had a couple of nasty droughts in the last couple of years in Hampshire, but are yield doesn't tend to suffer too badly because of land management, and we don't get catastrophic soil breakdown.

Presumably larger fields could be sectioned into a "snake" pattern with windbreaks if the correct species could be selected for the region, right?

I guess that would work. But over here in hilly Hampshire, that wouldn't make a lot of sense.

GM Crops

GM is pretty much exactly the same as selective breeding. Except your taking a gene which you understand and splicing it into the plant. Selective breading is taking genes which you think you like and you think you understand and then trying to force them into one plant. They both achieve the same result, GM is quicker, and both can be just as dangerous as each other. If anything GM crops are safer as they have to be field tested for about 10 years before they can "released". They is no monitoring of selective breading varieties in some cases. They was an incident in america a few years back now. I'll cite this article as it makes an interesting read, http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/ ... page=0%2C0.

"It sounds pretty wild, but all plant breeding is potentially hazardous, as Wilford Mills at Pennsylvania State University, discovered. In the 1960s, Mills bred a pest-resistant potato by crossing the popular Delta gold variety with a wild Peruvian variety. The resistant potato, called Lenape, had already been released to commercial breeders and was even being made into potato chips when a breeder based in Ontario, Canada, cooked some and ate them. He got nauseous, and sent the potatoes to a biochemist at the nearby university. They were loaded with glycoalkaloids, natural toxins. Decades of breeding to remove toxins from wild potatoes had been returned in one stroke by Wilford Mills."

Just like radiation, GM is very misunderstood. If anything we could have grains producing pyrethrin a naturally weak neurotoxin which poses no risk to mammals but repulses insects. Rust resistant grains would also help reduce the spray footprint. But the holy grail if you will is nitrogen fixing grains. Now that would be something.

Other stuff

About people living longer, read about this stuff. It's not a closed shop, and it still has issues such as increasing the chance of cancer, but varieties as recent as 2012 have seemed to of eliminated this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase

Anyway for energy, obviously Fusion is the physicists wet dream. But in the mean time Nuclear fission using Thorium in LFTR concept is in my opinion is the best option (Just nobody knows what it is, it still needs work, but is totally plausible, and has a long and interesting history of missed chances, read up on it!) along with tidal and hydroelectric power, giving excess heat for hydrogen production through thermolysis, and excess power can be shunted into Hydrogen electrolysis. Hydogen isn't far away from being able to power everyday cars and transport, see http://www.cellaenergy.com/index.php?page=technology, and then you have bio diesel for heavy machinery like tractors, and there you have it, clean energy (Over simplified yes, but very plausible). Solar power towers make sense in some places, but not in this United Kingdom. It's just that the people who make decisions on these kind of things are almost never Engineers, which is why we keep building wind turbines. Which simply aren't energy dense enough. And take several years to net produce power. On a good day last time I looked 15% of Spain's national grid is provided by wind and solar, on a bad day that drops to 2%. That's a lot of backup coal fired stations.

[Smithy]

Just to be clear by thermolysis, I mean two things, heat catalysing basic electrolysis, which reduces input wattage. And the Sulfer-iodine cycle, which is a thermochemical reaction that needs a large source of heat. I'm abusing technical terms for the sake of simplicity. Forgive me.

[Trantor]

GM is pretty much exactly the same as selective breeding. Except your taking a gene which you understand and splicing it into the plant...

...and get a result you don´t understand anymore. scnr.

Or a result that no one needs, like those for boosting pesticide sales, like Absalom pointed out.

No, i stay sceptical.

[Absalom]

It's probably a stress reaction from a certain variety of grain,

I believe it was specifically wheat. I don't know if there was a specific variety. It would have been a Red Hard, though, since that's what's best suited to this part of America.

I was mainly using the dust bowl as an example of when wind get's the upper hand due to drought, the Virgin land scheme would be another example. Their was a plethora of issues causing the dust-bowl and I simply couldn't be bothered to go into depth. Crop rotation, fallow fields, cover crops, soil terracing and wind-breaking trees were all absent in the farming systems, which meant that the whole system was vulnerable to severe drought. We've had a couple of nasty droughts in the last couple of years in Hampshire, but are yield doesn't tend to suffer too badly because of land management, and we don't get catastrophic soil breakdown.

Actually, the Dust Bowl can be described pretty quickly (in Ken Burn's documentary, it was at most a half of the first part). The causes:
1) A wet period, followed by:
2) A dry period (this is when it actually happened), which interacted with:
3) The complete disruption of the sod with new plows, which lead to:
4) Soil loose enough to easily blow away in the almost constant wind.
We actually still get the occasional dust storm, just as we got them before the Dust bowl. It's just that the Dust Bowl was the tail-end of a period (specifically, the Dust Bowl ended it) when farmers in that region were using techniques that are only suited to wetter climates. We're apparently in a worse drought now, but the change in techniques and technologies has prevented a repeat.

Presumably larger fields could be sectioned into a "snake" pattern with windbreaks if the correct species could be selected for the region, right?

I guess that would work. But over here in hilly Hampshire, that wouldn't make a lot of sense.

In the Oklahoma Panhandle at least, the ground is very flat. Even much further east (I'm thinking of an area a little bit west of OKC) the only major slopes are all either gullies, or associated with streams/rivers.

Just like radiation, GM is very misunderstood. If anything we could have grains producing pyrethrin a naturally weak neurotoxin which poses no risk to mammals but repulses insects. Rust resistant grains would also help reduce the spray footprint. But the holy grail if you will is nitrogen fixing grains. Now that would be something.

GM is currently being done by companies that're either owned by, or own, pesticide companies. As a result, most varieties are specifically designed to resist and/or produce pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. They also don't produce major improvements in production. GM isn't currently being done to produce a new "Green Revolution", it's to milk the market. The promise and the reality are very different.

Besides which, those toxins don't just disappear, they stay in the ground.

Other stuff

About people living longer, read about this stuff. It's not a closed shop, and it still has issues such as increasing the chance of cancer, but varieties as recent as 2012 have seemed to of eliminated this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase

Not what I was referring to. Specifically, there's this toxin that's naturally produced by the human body. Production increases with age, except that some people produce large amounts from when they're children, and display some of the signs of aging very early. A certain cancer drug (I don't recall the name) has some sort of positive effect on this toxin (I don't know if it prevents production, neutralizes it, or something else).

Hydogen isn't far away from being able to power everyday cars and transport,

Hydrogen can be used in internal combustion engines, the only big problem is lubrication and supply. The first is solvable with engineering, the second is a genuine stumbling block.

At any rate, I was talking about hydrogen used for fixed-location power production. The main idea is to use the electricity production to reduce the cost of breaking down the water, piping it, and cooling the waste steam back to water. The reason is that much of the central US is expected to get drier over the next few decades or centuries, so we want a way to counter that.

[Power production]

You forgot OTEC. We don't have much use for it now, but over time we will see actual ocean "colonization" (particularly for open-ocean fish farms and similar), so it'll start to show up. For that matter, if you use the electricity to break down sea water into hydrogen, then it could become useful for coastal cities.

On a good day last time I looked 15% of Spain's national grid is provided by wind and solar, on a bad day that drops to 2%. That's a lot of backup coal fired stations.

That's a lot of need for large-scale flywheel generators, actually.

[Smithy]

GM is currently being done by companies that're either owned by, or own, pesticide companies. As a result, most varieties are specifically designed to resist and/or produce pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. They also don't produce major improvements in production. GM isn't currently being done to produce a new "Green Revolution", it's to milk the market. The promise and the reality are very different.

Besides which, those toxins don't just disappear, they stay in the ground.

Pyrethrin is produced by daisies, it's just as toxic as the evils of the insecticide caffeine.

Perhaps in your experience of GM companies, but I think that is mainly a US experiance, the article I mentioned involved an attack on the research wheat of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (which is operated by the Australian state), if you read the article they were producing varieties which were resistant to rust, produce better noodles, and reduce he incidence of bowel cancer. Hardly devious schemes of the Man.

That's a lot of need for large-scale flywheel generators, actually.

Those flywheels better be big, impractically big.... (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-sto ... lectricity, eg see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

Hydrogen can be used in internal combustion engines, the only big problem is lubrication and supply. The first is solvable with engineering, the second is a genuine stumbling block.

Hydrogen in IC engines have an issues with thermal efficiency which are inherent to IC engines in general. Which is why they stopped seriously considering them back in 1976. Fuel cell vehicles are a much more efficient. The supply can be countered by "liquefying" your dangerous high pressure hydrogen tanks by dissolving Hydrogen into chemical hydrides in plastic beads, as shown in the link earlier.

[fredgiblet]

Perhaps in your experience of GM companies, but I think that is mainly a US experiance, the article I mentioned involved an attack on the research wheat of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (which is operated by the Australian state), if you read the article they were producing varieties which were resistant to rust, produce better noodles, and reduce he incidence of bowel cancer. Hardly devious schemes of the Man.

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess it's not Monsanto making those crops.

[Victor_D]

I have an additional question: do the Loroi and others do a lot of terraforming? Or is it considered not cost-effective enough in most cases? Also, since the region of space where Outsider is taking place has been colonized many times before by various Precursor empires, are there many "leftover" planets which had once been terraformed and which are now 'reverting' to their natural state? I imagine terraforming those would be much, much easier than terraforming planets like Mars.

(Oh, BTW, it's too bad Alfa Centauri in Outsider is so barren, but at least it's different from most sci-fi setting where the system houses one or more Earth twins )

----

The current statistics are anomalous, and will improve with the flow of population back into the cities. Greenhouse-gas emission especially is going to steadily improve in the US as we move out of the suburbs, causing an increase in building of modern structures closer to the things that people leave their houses for. At the same time, this urbanization across the world will improve mass transit (city administrations won't have much choice, and private developers have actually done it before as well). Overfishing will simply produce new businesses (open-ocean fish farms), and as land and ocean use centralizes the depopulated zones will experience a resurgence in local life.

Unwarranted optimism (read "handwaving"). Most of Europe already is densely urbanized with higher-density cities, excellent public transportation, green energy subsidies everywhere and for everything, and we're still consuming at rates which are 3-5 times more than what is sustainable. China et. al. are rapidly increasing their consumption, which only makes things worse, and then there are ~3 billion people who have not yet begun to properly develop economically.

Things don't always go down, especially when we already know that they've been pushed "down" by temporary anomalies.

It's not an anomaly, it's a trend. There have been other cultures which have experienced the "anomaly" of unsustainable growth. Most of them collapsed into nothingness shortly afterwards.

I don't have any evidence (I think it's actually too early for the evidence to exist), but I suspect that this will "breed" itself out. As the population shrinks, it'll become dominated by those who culturally have more children (e.g. Mormons). This will counter the shrinkage, as those demographics become more dominant than the "sexual revolution" demographic that the current statistics are dominated by.

More handwaving, no offence. The observed trends lead toward people having fewer children. Almost EVERY developed country is now near or below replacement levels and their populations grow, if they grow at all, due to immigration (Latin America -> North America; Africa+Middle East -> Europe ). This trend is pretty independent of the countries' respective ethnic or religious backgrounds, it affects countries as diverse as Japan, Poland, Germany, Italy, Armenia, Algeria, Brazil, Iran, Cuba, even South Africa. (see here)

And besides which, in 50 to 100 years time, I wouldn't be surprised if all of today's 1st-world nations will either no longer be in that bracket, or will have pushed through reforms that tie social-program retirement benefits to the number of children that the person in question raised: the demographics practically scream for it.

To me it seems that humanity is (belatedly) realizing that building your economy around a huge Ponzi scheme where each subsequent generation needs to be bigger than the previous to pay for welfare, healthcare, and pensions, is a stupid idea which is no longer sustainable. Stop-gap measures like motivating people to have more children or "importing" people from less developed country have only limited effect, are politically problematic, and won't solve the primary problem.

Because they wouldn't need to. In the Outsider setting they have both colonies on other planets, and large space habitats. They have all of the growth room that they need, and any time that they want more they can just spend a few years building it. Population growth wouldn't be enough to push humans out of the star system for hundreds (more likely thousands, or hundreds of thousands) of years.

Incidentally, the age-extension stuff is likely coming in our lifetimes (among other things, there's an anti-cancer drug that also fights some early-aging diseases).

Ad the bolded part: do they? I don't recall. In any case, I don't see much point in space habitats, as they are the space equivalent of artificial islands in the middle of an ocean. Zero-G factories, fine, but large settlement space habitats? I don't see what would their economic rationale be.

Actually, they'd redirect it to orbital stations. Arioch mentioned somewhere that there's likely to be a fairly respectable number of those.

I can't see how they'd house billions of people. Unless humans change into something pretty "un-human", planets will remain our primary habitat. Preferably planets with not too high surface gravity and terran-like atmospheres, or at least something that makes terraforming possible (read "not Venus").

Also, I think you're underestimating the potential impact of proper management on an ecology. We have to do the basic research before we can really get the stuff going, but it should be quite possible to super-charge many of the eco-systems on Earth if we spent the money on it. It would be a large project, but the biggest parts of it (building hydrogen pipelines inland so that hydrogen can be burned for energy and then condensed for water, using charcoal to sequester carbon as a form of fertilizer, probably some other things) would often be either long-lived (charcoal) or self-sustaining (cheap hydrogen). The world would certainly be a mess for several decades after any such theoretical project was begun, but the end result would be (at least for as long as we spent the effort to maintain it) a stronger ecosystem than when we first started causing problems. To understand what I'm talking about, start with a rainforest. Consider the fact that they're normally nutrient poor. Now consider the possibility of using drip irrigation or something equivalent to add nutrients to the soil in sufficient volume to have an impact on fertility. With a focused plan, that type of thing (even if not the sheer scale) should be achievable over the course of a few decades.

My worry is that by the time we get to the point when we can start with massive geo/eco-engineering projects, there won't be much left to work with. Rainforests are being destroyed at record rates, main fisheries are collapsing, coral reefs around the world are dying, biodiversity is being lost faster than during the last major mass extinction event, and we're approaching the energy abyss without having developed and deployed practical alternatives to fossil fuels (oh wait, we have, but people are scared of nuclear energy which is basically the only viable way, with some help of renewables, of surviving until the time when we finally start building fusion power plants).

SpoilerShow

In 2008, the Earth’s total biocapacity was 12.0 billion gha, or 1.8 gha per person, while humanity’s Ecological Footprint was 18.2 billion gha, or 2.7 gha per person. This discrepancy means it would take 1.5 years for the Earth to fully regenerate the renewable resources that people used in one year, or in other words, we used the equivalent of 1.5 Earths to support our consumption.
Just as it is possible to withdraw money from a bank account more quickly than the interest that accrues, biocapacity can be reused more quickly than it regenerates.

[Dragoon]

I would, and use for my mental mapping of world i create, imagine that most colonies exist as a source of resources, and a dump for excess population, for the core planets. This has been the case in most historical Empires.

If the colony was a resource producing world Its Demands are probably far less than it's production, essentially adding it's surplus to the core worlds deficits in production versus consumption. so If Earth has Si ( i believe) colonies that produce a reasonable surplus, say 2 to three percent of the total output of Humanity. that gives earth a 12% boost in it's available resources.

Also if you move some production off world, to orbiting habitats or Lunar colonies, you drop transfer some of the ecological impact out of the system, creating a reduced load on the planet. Assuming habitats are at least partially self sufficient.

Add in fusion power, non combustion power sources such as electric motors for vehicles, Etc the ecological footprint of 20 Billion people drops pretty dramatically. a few breakthroughs in synthetics, such as non-petroleum based plastics, or even the introduction of a completely biodegradable plastic and you knock another chunk out of the impact overshoot.



I'd have to imagine that Loroi and Umiak are far less concerned with depleting a colony or subject race than we'd be comfortable with. From what I've read, I'd say the Umiak just don't care what their subject races think about the issue, and the Loroi probably spend a great deal of time with Diplomatic arm twisting.

[bunnyboy]

It's only 3 times of the population today, which isn't hard to feed, if we could make some changes...

As I'm someone who is working part time in agriculture especially on the horticultural side of it at the moment, with experience in growing Wheat, Sedum, and Opium. With a parent who was actively involved with Cattle at an early point in his career. I like to think I know a little bit about it. And I take issue with certain aspects of your comments.

I did oversimplified it, so I'm blamed. I myself lived most of my live in farm having both cattle and crops, and I have seen many generations and revolutions of farming techniques come and gone. In Finland, there are still people, who used to send their cattle on to untamed forest and call them back by singing. But because food prices are low (paid to farmer) and work price is high, it does encourage to quantity of production just to keep farmers living, but usually with price of quality.

-"Less waste. We throw more food on garbage than which is used on humanitarian aid."
Waste is an issue, but biological waste is actually becoming quite a useful resource as it can be digested for methane, and the sludge left after is an effective fertaliser. Humanitarian aid is a tricky and touchy subject. The food distribution infrastructure is not good enough basically...

Keep that tought next time, when you see people searching through trashs for food.

-"Vertical/city farming. Gives more space to food production."
I haven't made my mind up about this one. But I believe it to be an overly engineered solution to problem we don't yet have. If anything, mass hydroponics would work much better in a warehouse structure rather than the eco-architects wet dream of huge farm towers, and when you go up, you get more and more expensive. If it is effective, I think it would only really be useful for horticulture at a stretch, and then it's competing with plasticulture (which is actually what I currently work in) which is dirt cheap. And if I remember correctly, USA land use is something like only 5% developed, building towers for farms doesn't make a lot of sense.

I have seen a plans, where you can give the people of Manhattan all they need (thought not what they want) by products of one building. Thought I'm still little suspicious of that.

If you want to see the future, the future is Wheat that fixes it's own nitrogen. GM crops are the next step in the constant agricultural revolution. No matter how much people fight against it. Which if I recall is exactly what the Loroi have in the shape of the misesa supergrain.

The current way of mass producing GM seeds aren't sustainable. Monocultured crops are very weaks against pestilences and diseases. Also, how the genes are shooted in, produce lot of weird mutations as the placement of foreign genes are random.

It's only 3 times of the population today, which isn't hard to feed, if we could make some changes.

I am not talking about simple "feeding" the population, I am talking about the global environmental impact of such a huge population (resource depletion, overfishing, soil erosion/salination, habitats destruction, biodiversity loss, pollution, climate change, toxin build-up, etc. etc. etc.). We are thoroughly screwing this planet now, when there is about 7 billion people, only 1 billion of which live in something approaching decent living standards (and is responsible for about three-quarters of the above-mentioned problems).

The problems are the "living standards". You are living better and using more resources than movie star of the age of black and white. The luxuries are becoming norm and then necessities, but we don't need everything we have to live or even to be happy. Fix this and everything else would be "easy".