Colony requirements

[alanb]

Originally posted by Drakon:
That infrastructure needs to be brought with you when you set up the colony. Or else your cars are useless. You need to import the fuel, and spare parts with the cars, and all that increases the cost of your colony's transportation. If you have a device that depends on something being on the next transport, you got problems. The device is far less useful.

The writers (Pournelle, amongst others) that introduced the low tech idea were, of course, rationalising a setting for their stories. People here are extending this by taking it as the truth in their Traveller universes. (Which is fine, for any specific campaign.)

Unfortunately, in the general case, it's complete bunk.

In the real world, most imports are shipped by sea. This involves considerably longer periods of time in transit than are involved in travelling by J-Drive. It's not clear that transport costs are proportionately higher (or that much higher...) for interstellar travel at instellar TLs than they are for maritime travel at the present TL.

Most present day countries import oil, even if they produce it themselves. Most present day countries import vehicles, even if they produce them themselves. Most of these countries import spare parts for these vehicles as well. Many of the vehicles they produce use at least some imported parts, too...

No country on Earth is entirely self-sufficient. All countries are dependent on imports.

The arguments for low tech colonies are absurd. They essentially are based on the idea that imports are too expensive, or too sporadically available, to be worth using. This may be the case, but it hasn't been demonstrated. A more credible case could be made if colonisation was occurring on a sublight basis, with an extended timelag between vessels being sent and arriving. This might also be true if you were engaged in something like the Zhodani Core expeditions, where it can take decades to travel the full length of the route. But these are more likely to be a product of serial colonisation programs, where local infrastructure is built in one place, and then used to support the next colony. Each particular link in the chain wouldn't need to be especially long.

Let's be clear about this: part of the costs of, say, running a mine are the costs of bringing things like fuel and vehicles to the site, as well as building roads, installing and maintaining things like generators, and the general creation of all those bits of the infrastructure of civilisation that aren't available in the particular area that the mine is located in. Often, of course, all or most of that infrastructure is already available. Your mine might happen to _not_ be located on some island in the South Pacific, in Alaska, or off in some desert somewhere. It might be in New Jersey.

A colony is exactly the same. In fact, a mine in a remote location is _exactly_ a colony. For the duration of the mine's production, people will be living there. If we look at Earth, the settlements that build up around it may be non-existent, or may be quite substantial. And, of course, where there are people, there will be the possibility of other enterprises being founded. And, of course, once you have iron (for example) being mined, why not locate a steelworks next to it? That way, you increase the value of the goods you are shipping out. This is a logical enough next step. But maybe you need a source of coal force. Funnily enough, your exploration teams have been out there ever since your colony was founded...

A Wild West farmer mentality isn't really quite adequate for understanding colonisation. It can be the truth sometimes, but it isn't the whole story. It's not even the only alternative for agricultural and pastorally oriented colonisation programs. Plantations and ranches can actually often work better if they are large scale, high tech enterprises, rather than the property of individual rednecks. Of course, the latter _may_ have to depend on low tech, and _may_ have actually migrated in order to win their freedom to marry as many of their cousins as they like, but, frankly, who cares?

Alan B

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:
That's a very good question. Perhaps we've been using a slightly inaccurate term. Instead of saying low tech, we should be saying locally sustainable tech.

Unless your colony is outside of practical transport range (which is not the case if you're merely a couple jumps away from something), why do you need fully sustainable tech? Obviously, you are at the end of a fairly long supply chain and want to be able to use local resources where the cost of doing so is reasonable, but to give a real world example, there'd be little need for a chip fab even if you use computerized equipment. Beyond this, based on the evidence of the Long Night, most traveller worlds are _not_ self-sustaining in terms of tech.

To give a real example, McMurdo station in antarctica is difficult and expensive to get stuff in and out of (and is totally cut off for about half the year), and is not exactly a hospitable area at best. You could easily have colonies built along that design theory.

 

[Whipsnade]

Anthony wrote:

"Unless your colony is outside of practical transport range (which is not the case if you're merely a couple jumps away from something), why do you need fully sustainable tech?"


Mr. Jackson,

Let me quote the final sentence of my post and highlight a portion you may find interesting:

"Think locally sustainable tech; sustainable by local materials and skills or sustainable by local export credits, instead of low tech."

If you can pay for it, no matter how long the supply line, you can use it. If you cannot pay for it, no matter how short the supply line, you better learn to do without it. In some cases, like your McMurdo example, you can get someone else to pay for it when you cannot.

"Obviously, you are at the end of a fairly long supply chain and want to be able to use local resources where the cost of doing so is reasonable, but to give a real world example, there'd be little need for a chip fab even if you use computerized equipment."

True. You'll have no need of chip fabrication capabilities as long as you can buy all the chips you need. If you cannot, you'll need to find another way to do the things those chips did for you. Or you can do without.

"Beyond this, based on the evidence of the Long Night, most traveller worlds are _not_ self-sustaining in terms of tech."

Yes, the 'unobtanium' trade. The loss of interstellar trade leads to a loss of 'unobtanium', the item on which most Traveller worlds' tech levels depend. The Long Night and the Hard Times are examples of this in the OTU.

I'm no marxist, but I feel that we as a hobby place far too much empahsis on 'unobtanium' being a physical item and too little emphasis on it being an intangible cultural factor. I believe that 'unobtanium' isn't an ore, a repair part, or some other such objects. Instead 'unobtanium' is skills, training, and education. In short, 'unobtanium' is culture in the broadest sense of that word(1).

I can transport jump drive parts anywhere I can fly a starship, so why do starport ratings also include construction limitations? (Note to Mr. Rancke-Madsen: Yes, governments can import any parts they need to build military vessels regardless of their starport rating.) Why can't Roup build Beowulfs with parts from Regina? For the same reason Namibia can't build a ferry boat and Sri Lanka(2) can't build a 747; because no one there has the requisite skills and training for the job. (Note to Mr. Jackson: Yes, China is currently producing certain assemblies for Boeing. Remember, they are doing so in order to learn how to build such aircraft. It is a technology transfer in return for guaranteed sales.)

"To give a real example, McMurdo station in antarctica is difficult and expensive to get stuff in and out of (and is totally cut off for about half the year), and is not exactly a hospitable area at best. You could easily have colonies built along that design theory."

McMurdo Station, Admunsen Station, the ISS, and all the others are prestige projects and/or scientific research centers. They do not 'pay their way' in the usual sense. They get others to pay their way for a variety of reasons; pride, science, etc. 'Colonies' of that type can and will planted everywhere. However, colonies of that type were not the intent of the thread's original question.


Sincerely,
Larsen

1 - Culture is far more than funny hats, odd holidays, and new flavors of booze.

2 - Or Ceylon or Tamil Land or Bob or whatever they're calling themselves this week.

 

[Anthony]

Colonies which can't sustain a reasonably high level of technology based on their available export resources will not become low-tech colonies. They will become defunct colonies. I'm sure there are many 'ghost colonies' around in the Imperium, which were established for some purpose, and turned out not to be self-sustaining at a reasonable level.

 

[vegascat]

I am suprised this thread has gone so long and still stayed on topic.

Gentlemen, Ladies, Transgenders of other origins,
Thank you.

 

[Drakon]

I disagree that the idea is complete bunk. Yes, you are right that shipping and transit times in todays world are comparible to jump drive travel times. However, the countries that import oil, have the infrastructure in place already to utlize that import. We have refineries and cars and gas stations and all that stuff already here. So the comparison with a brand new colony is not applicable.

When you are first starting off a colony, there is no infrastructure. There are no roads, no power systems, plumbing, television stations factories or any of the multitude of things that make for an advanced technical civilization except one, the skills of the people. All that has to be either imported, or created in situ. And whether it is imported or not, it has to be maintained in situ. With the available materials and skills present at the colony.

You have a choice. Either create a high tech colony from the beginning, that is completely dependent on supplies from the home world, on their politics, assumption that resupply of the colony will always be their number one priority, that they know, understand your needs and are willing to supply what you think you need, instead of what they think you need.

Or you start off with lower more self sustainable technology, obtain self sufficiency far earlier, and thereby ensure the survivablity of the colony. The greater the colony's independence from the home world, the greater its survivability. Especially during those early years when the colony is most at risk.

Larsen brings up the issue of economics. I may want to migrate to another world, and there may even be a lot of folks willing to pay my way off planet. But they are not me, and if I need constant resupply, that has to get factored in with all the rest of the agnecies needs, wants and desires. Lets face it, any agency may have more pressing concerns and demands on their resources than my colony. And if they have to cut me off, I had either be self sufficient, or I am dead. It won't affect them any, at least physically. (Heck some of them might be quite happy.) My colony is an easy cut, and it is their money, not mine.

 

[alanb]

A colony won't be cut off if it is a profitable asset. That's why we are arguing that the stage after the initial survey work is the establishment of productive enterprises - mines, plantations, ranches, or whatever. These things produce income. Potentially, lots and lots of income, since there is an entire world to exploit.

Whether or not people actually chose to live there permanently isn't important. It's not important that there are families. It's not important that there is a viable gene pool. This things may or may not develop over time. What matters is that the relevant agency - government or corporate - is making a buck.

In fact, if anyone is bothered by the thought that mining asteroids is more profitable than mining a habitable planet, it may well be the case that the initial economic activity occurs off the main planet, with the settlement of the latter being a sideshow of research and recreational facilities, perhaps with a bit of food production.

None of this is being done for the convenience of some pack of religious sectarians or other freaks. In fact, it's quite likely that such types might be banned from the world as troublemakers. This is a "best and brightest" project staffed by people seeking hefty paychecks.

You aren't incidentally, going to abandon them if the world itself is abandoned. There is a good real world analogy in the copper mine on the island of Bougainville.

Virtually all the infrastructure needed by the mine had to be built from scratch. There were a few roads, and some rather rudimentary landing facilities around the island, but the facilities actually used by the mine were created _for_ the mine. In effect, at least two towns were created, although there was a township of sorts already at Kieta. Roads (and bridges) were built. Generators were imported and installed. Fuel storage facilities were built, and fuel imported. Trucks, bulldozers, and cars were imported. Not to mention the actual mining machinery itself... This mine was one of the largest open cut mines in the world. The machines were _big_. Oh yes, and there was the port, complete with loading facilities. And the computers. And the sporting facilities, the schools, the hospitals, the police stations, the shops, the banks, the post offices and...

There was some local labour. A lot of training had to be provided if this was going to be useful for more than the most basic tasks. So even that free asset was at least partly offset by additional training infrastructure.

The Bougainville mine provided something like a third of the Papua New Guinean government's revenue.

And then it was shut down by a secessionist revolt.

The company wasn't exactly thrilled by losing this _huge_ asset. The PNG government wasn't thrilled either, and fought a decade long war, before making a peace deal that hasn't yet led to the mine reopening, and may never do so.

The expatriate staff, at least, weren't abandoned to their fate. They were evacuated. (The PNG nationals were another story. At least some were fighting for the rebels on the weekends when they weren't at work!)

In our hypothetical Traveller situation then, if the colony had to be abandoned in its early stages, we would expect the population of the colony to be evacuated, when this is still possible. As it grows, this would become less feasible, but the world's self-sufficiency would tend to develop as its population grows. Or vice versa.

It's entirely possible that for its first few decades the population of the colony might overwhelmingly consist of contract employees without families, who are not there to settle permanently. That's irrelevant, because when they leave, they will be replaced. The existence of the colony is maintained.

Alan B

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by alanb:
A colony won't be cut off if it is a profitable asset.

Sort of true. If another opportunity arrises that the colonizing agency thinks is more profitable, and it is limited in supporting the existing colony, or chasing the other opportunity, then the colony can very well be screwed. That is what the colonists are going to worry about, their fate being in the hands of someone else, who has their own agenda, desires, and such.

Which is why it is in the colonists best interest to be self sustaining as soon as possible. It relieves them of the dependence of the home agency that much sooner. And then its profitability to that agency, how that profitability compares to other ventures is moot. To the colonist.

The colonizing agency and the colonist are not the same people, and will have different agendas. You may hire me to solve your problems, but I take your job to solve my own. And in such situations where those agendas diverge, self sufficiency is better than dependence.

In fact, if anyone is bothered by the thought that mining asteroids is more profitable than mining a habitable planet, it may well be the case that the initial economic activity occurs off the main planet, with the settlement of the latter being a sideshow of research and recreational facilities, perhaps with a bit of food production.

Good point.

None of this is being done for the convenience of some pack of religious sectarians or other freaks. In fact, it's quite likely that such types might be banned from the world as troublemakers. This is a "best and brightest" project staffed by people seeking hefty paychecks.

Banned? That is kind of strong, and needs enforcement and monitoring. Unless you are running a police state, this can quickly become a bad or irrelevant idea.

Besides, these freaks as you call it are going to be a pain in your neck anyway, simply by being freaks. Why not just dump them on some remote rock and get them out of your hair? Let them try out their radical ideas of how civilization should be ordered on some rock, and let them succeed or fail on their own. It costs you transportation costs, which, depending on the particular freaks in question, they'll pay for.

As to sending your "best and brightest" suppose they don't want to go? A few might, but there are plenty of other opportunities that are not as risky as colonizing a planet. Colonial freaks may end up cheaper to send than someone who wants a fat paycheck and a return ticket.

You aren't incidentally, going to abandon them if the world itself is abandoned. There is a good real world analogy in the copper mine on the island of Bougainville.

Good point. But still that lifeline back to the home world is literally a lifeline. Suppose something happens back home that prevents resupply. War, alien invasion, pirates, plague, a nearby star going nova, and all the things I cannot think of off the top of my head.

The way you have it set up, you lose the lifeline, the colonists die. You may feel really bad about it an all, but you'll get over it. They won't. So the colonists will generally take those steps to insure their own self sufficiency. Whether the agency desires it or not.

In our hypothetical Traveller situation then, if the colony had to be abandoned in its early stages, we would expect the population of the colony to be evacuated, when this is still possible. As it grows, this would become less feasible, but the world's self-sufficiency would tend to develop as its population grows. Or vice versa.

And if it is not possible to evacuate? The colonists die, or find things very rough. Which again is the reason why the colonists are going to require self sufficiency as soon as possible. All the generators and mining gear and such may be great to have around, but it is far better to have some kind of self sufficient backup then be at the mercy of not only the fates, but someone else's ability to keep their promises.

You are right, as the population grows, the infrastructure grows, and higher levels of technology become more self sufficient at the colony. The question is how to get to self sufficiency as quickly as possible, and what technology gets you there.

You seem to be arguing from the point of view of the colonizing agency, rather than thinking like the colonists. Perhaps that is why our approaches are different. You bring up Bouganville as a good example of a commercial colony. I am thinking more along the lines of early American settlers, up through the westward expansion. We very well me talking about two sides of the same coyne.

 

[Drakon]

Also, unlike Bouganville, Traveller colonies will be outside of radio contact with their home planets. Which means they will be on their own most of the time anyway, (unless you are devoting ships to that colony, which might be hard to justify in a lot of situations)

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Drakon:
Sort of true. If another opportunity arrises that the colonizing agency thinks is more profitable, and it is limited in supporting the existing colony, or chasing the other opportunity, then the colony can very well be screwed.

The colony, yes. The colonists, no. They tend to be valuable resources to the colonizing agency, and will thus be withdrawn from the colony and sent elsewhere.

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by Drakon:
Suppose something happens back home that prevents resupply. War, alien invasion, pirates, plague, a nearby star going nova, and all the things I cannot think of off the top of my head.

Yeah. The world might end. Bummer.

War is the most serious of these. The Japanese advance in WWII messed up the people in various colonial outposts rather badly.

But it would be silly to build your plan around this kind of stuff.

Of course, you might want to keep a ship or two around in your system, just to keep in touch. That's easy: Type S scouts are cheap.

You seem to be arguing from the point of view of the colonizing agency, rather than thinking like the colonists. Perhaps that is why our approaches are different. You bring up Bouganville as a good example of a commercial colony. I am thinking more along the lines of early American settlers, up through the westward expansion. We very well me talking about two sides of the same coyne.

Well, yes, I am arguing from the point of view of the colonizing agency, because they are the ones doing the planning, providing the budget, paying the colonists and appointing the colony management. Or, more precisely, they are doing this during the critical early decades of the colony. Later on, of course, you might even have a democratic government being set up, but this is an entirely different situation.

Just FWI, I worked as an expatriate in Papua New Guinea for a while, although sadly not on Bougainville. That experience is where I am drawing a lot of my ideas from.

It seems to me that this kind of corporate approach seems more probable, and actually safer, in a high tech environment than the US pattern. On the other hand, given the "facts" presented by Traveller world generation, it is likely that both general patterns, and a whole lot of other ones, are all going on as well!

I think I have pretty much said everything I want to say on this thread, apart from admitting to one small prejudice.

I don't really like the US West model.

It has been used in lots of good stories and could be used a whole lot more. Let's face it - there isn't a huge amount of difference between Space Opera and Horse Opera. It's even been used by detective fiction writers - some of Dashiell Hammett's mysteries are set in western towns only a generation or so away from the frontier. (I'm reading Hammett at the moment.)
But still, it grates on me. Partly, this is philosophical. You see, "the West" is as much an ideological construct as an actual historical reality. It carries all kinds of social and political assumptions, myths and other baggage.

A lot of that stuff gets carried across to SF written under these influences.

An example of the kind of nonsense that results is in one of my favourite books, Piper's "Space Viking". There is this concept that the interstellar activities of the Sword Worlders is leading to a brain drain. Apparently, their society is so flimsy that the emigration of a couple of thousand people has a measurable impact on the viability of their civilisation.

This is part of a story, of course, and we shouldn't get too excited about it, but we could find traces of a bunch of different ideas there. In particular, there is a definite sense that those who emigrate are the best bits of a society, and those who remain are the conformists and drones. This is an interesting opinion, whose factual basis still remains untested. It does, however, remind us that Piper was an American, and he might, just possibly, be responding to the myth of the frontier...

Alan B

 

[LordVince]

Okay, we seem to have all settled into two camps, here. Half of us are talking about Colonist BEING on a planet, and half of us are talking about Colonists GETTING to a planet -- and both are mere parts of the greater question.

So, let's take this discussion back to its most basic beginnings, then work our way forward.

Here's the Premise:

A Scout has discovered an Earth-like world. Let's say this Scout is an Active Duty member of the IISS. He spends several days in orbit around this new garden world, then heads to the nearest Scout Base with his findings and makes his report to his superiors.

Okay, what happens next?

(I'll wait for a few responses before I put up my ideas, so as not to influence any answers)

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Lord Vince:
Here's the Premise:

A Scout has discovered an Earth-like world.
<snip>
Okay, what happens next?

Nothing? If it's only now been discovered, it's probably a long ways from anywhere, and likely no-one cares.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by alanb:
Yeah. The world might end. Bummer.

Think about this for a second. The HOME World might end. And because the colony is dependent on the home world for its very existence, the colony dies too. It seems to me that one of the major points of starting a colony in the first place is to avoid that exact fate. I know there are plenty of parallels in human history, which is all the more reason to avoid that exact situation.

Type S scouts are cheap.

That will get you back to the home world with a message, and what, maybe 8 colonists? Then the home world has to organize a rescue mission, get the resources, and then head out. Minimum of 2 weeks, but probably more like 3 or 4 weeks pass. A lot can happen in a month.

Yes, the home agency will rescue the colony if the colony is in danger. But it will only do so if two conditions are met. 1) the agency knows there is a problem, and 2) has the resources quickly available to conduct a rescue. If either condition is not met, the colonists die, and the agency is screwed (for a bit). And as we are talking about either a megacorp or government, it is higly doubtful they have a enough ships just sitting in port awaiting a rescue call, which, when it comes, may be too late to do much about anyway.

It seems to me that this kind of corporate approach seems more probable, and actually safer, in a high tech environment than the US pattern. On the other hand, given the "facts" presented by Traveller world generation, it is likely that both general patterns, and a whole lot of other ones, are all going on as well!

I will agree that both approaches will probably be used. And probably others we have not thought of. You will have megacorps trying to make a buck, and freaks trying to get away from imperial control, or even just the home world's culture.

I think as the CEO of a megacorp, you are missing some great opportunities here. Lets say you have been given an imperial patent to Planet X. You need labor for your molydium phosdex mines. You want to maximize profits, which means spend the least amount of money as necessary to get the job done.

Lower tech should be a lot cheaper. And also, you can pay your workers less, and sweeten the deal by handing out land grants to new colonists. Yes, it makes the colony more self sufficient, which for political reasons you might not like, but by giving your workers a stake in the colony, you probably will see a more productive colony from the beginning. People work better for themselves than they do for other people. Make use of that, and cut your costs at the same time.

I don't really like the US West model.

Ah

This is part of a story, of course, and we shouldn't get too excited about it, but we could find traces of a bunch of different ideas there. In particular, there is a definite sense that those who emigrate are the best bits of a society, and those who remain are the conformists and drones. This is an interesting opinion, whose factual basis still remains untested. It does, however, remind us that Piper was an American, and he might, just possibly, be responding to the myth of the frontier...

Grin, I think looking at human history, one can see the test of that. Some of the "conformist drones" might not like the implication, but that is life. When someone has superior technological and economic base, has the political and cultural influence to become the last remaining superpower, you have to ask what they are doing right, comparative to the rest of humanity.

The fact they did it all by rejecting the political and social paradigms of their home world has got to be threatening to those who stayed behind.

But I think you miss a very important point. The ones that emigrate and colonize are not necessarily the "Best and brightest". In fact, in most cases, they are the worst criminal elements that the home government wanted to get rid of, or religious fanatics, or freaks in some other manner. Those that do not fit into the existing social structures of their home world. Most emigrants come from the bottom of the economic ladder. The best and brightest are the LAST to want to colonize, because they have it cushy where they are. Other than a sense of adventure, why give up your wealth, prestige, and all that infrastructure to go out in the boonies somewhere to mine molydium phosdex?

Whether we like it or not, we live in a Darwinian universe. New colonies are rough and risky, and not all colonists will survive. When the Puritans came over from England, that first winter better than half of them died. Mostly this was because of a economic model they were utilizing, and the later events proved that model's flaws. So they changed, adapted, abandoned their model and adopted a new one. Adapt or die is the Darwinian imperative.

It is not the colonists themselves that are the best and brightest. Quite often, they are considered the worse that a society has, and is more than willing to get rid of. It is their survivors that have been tested, have met the challenges of an uncaring universe and are still here. That have done all this without noble titles or the advantages of the artifical social and political structures humans had created in the past.

You see those westerners as fat headed. And it is hard to argue with that. But it was not derived by some guy claiming to speak for some invisible deity, crowning them "good guys". Their fat headedness is a direct result of their own choices, their very survival in what was a hostile and unforgiving world.

And as their genetic stock often comes from freaks, fanatics, criminals, and the dregs of the former society, it is understandable that some in the old world might be a bit annoyed by those colonial upstarts, who think they are so much smarter than their betters. When those you thought of as garbage start attracting your best and brightest, when you feel the need to send your children to their schools, and are influenced more by their civilization than your own history, it can't be good for one's self image. When those folks who got kicked out of evey decent nation on the planet, become the only remaining superpower, well, one can see the difficulty.

And there is a bit of a reverse thing going here too. Home worlders may see those colonists as freaks, weirdos, criminals and fanatics, contributing to the colonists sense of inferiority. The colonial success, coupled with the apparent stagnation of the home world, despite coming from that home world's dregs, well that tends to make them all the more fat headed.

Or to put it another way. The frontier was a socialogical laboratory, in which not all the experiments were successful. Those that did succeed, because of the difference in paradigm utlilized, make the those colonists a walking, talking, breathing blasphemy to the older way of doing things. So naturally there is an amount of hostility between the two camps. Old worlders may see the colonists as freaks, who should listen to their betters. While the colonists, lets face it, if they liked the old world so much, they would have stayed.

But we are talking space opera here, and a central element in this and all RPGs is the individual's heroic nature. That necessitates focus be on the individual and his struggles, either against nature at large, or the overall culture/society that he finds himself in. Like all RPGs it is about what you do, whether you kill the dragon, whether you escape the Varge corsairs, whether you lead your megacorp to higher profits, or bankrupcy. Not the committee, nor how society in general deals with these challenges, but how you as an individual deal with them. In that sense, it models life.

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by Lord Vince:
Okay, what happens next?

It gets filed.

I started writing a long account of bureaucratic paper shuffling, but it was pointless.

Let's just say that at some point, more detailed surveys will be made. These could take decades. Eventually, the world might be opened up for economic exploitation.

This is, of course, the case where official procedures are followed. In some cases, the world will, instead, be discovered by cowboy operators.

In this case, it is likely that economic exploitation would begin without proper scientific investigation. The resulting colony would have a much higher chance of failure.

Alan B

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Drakon:
Think about this for a second. The HOME World might end. And because the colony is dependent on the home world for its very existence, the colony dies too. It seems to me that one of the major points of starting a colony in the first place is to avoid that exact fate.

Historically, not a particularly common reason to establish a colony. Certainly, a paranoid survivalist group creating a colony will have different priorities than a typical group.

And, despite preparation, if the homeworld goes down, the colony is probably toast too. If not, it drops to no better than TL 3, any higher TL requires a minimum population of millions and a substantial infrastructure.

That will get you back to the home world with a message, and what, maybe 8 colonists? Then the home world has to organize a rescue mission, get the resources, and then head out. Minimum of 2 weeks, but probably more like 3 or 4 weeks pass. A lot can happen in a month.

Yeah, but almost anything that can destroy a colony in a month can probably destroy a self-sufficient colony as well.

I think as the CEO of a megacorp, you are missing some great opportunities here. Lets say you have been given an imperial patent to Planet X. You need labor for your molydium phosdex mines. You want to maximize profits, which means spend the least amount of money as necessary to get the job done.

No, cheap is less important than efficiently exploiting the resources. Lower tech mining gear will be cheaper, but it also won't recover as much material. Equipment isn't replaced by a higher tech, more expensive version unless the higher tech version is also better in some important way.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Anthony:
And, despite preparation, if the homeworld goes down, the colony is probably toast too. If not, it drops to no better than TL 3, any higher TL requires a minimum population of millions and a substantial infrastructure.

Now why would a self sufficient colony suffer the same fate as the home world? They are completely different planets, even star systems. Home world breaks out into a world war. Its still limited to that world. Corporate headquarters gets ransacked by angry mobs, records destroyed, people killed. How will that make a self sufficient colony die out?

Why increase the risk to the colony by making it more dependent when it can be cheaper to make is self sufficient, using lower or more self sufficient tech? Other than political considerations, which would make your colony less attractive to labor in the first place, I can't see a reason for doing so.

If its cheaper to make it self sufficient, why not do it? If it reduces the risk to the colonists, by making it self sufficient, then do it.

Yeah, but almost anything that can destroy a colony in a month can probably destroy a self-sufficient colony as well.

I don't buy this argument at all. Dependent colony is more risky than a self sufficient colony. A misjump on a food delivery could destroy a colony, while a self sufficient colony would be safe. By the time the next sceduled ship arrives and finds out about the previous missing shipment, and then reports this back... well you see where I am going.

There are a lot of bad things that can happen to the colony. Self sufficiency gives them tools to handle a lot of those problems. A dependent colony has less ability to deal with problems, because it is dependent. Also a dependent colony is more at risk, because it is dependent.

The self sufficient colony may not be able to handle everything, but that is not the point. It is more able to deal with potential challenges itself, because it is independent of the supply train and corporate offices. Also, corporate does not have to use as much of THEIR resources to keep the colony viable, since the colony will be utilizing the resources in situ. Both sides win.

No, cheap is less important than efficiently exploiting the resources. Lower tech mining gear will be cheaper, but it also won't recover as much material. Equipment isn't replaced by a higher tech, more expensive version unless the higher tech version is also better in some important way.

Exactly. That way has to be self sufficiency and repairablity out in the sticks. It has to be independent from that long supply line back to the home world. Again we have a confusion in terms, as generally speaking, lower tech will get you there. It will get you to exploiting the resources and is more survivable without that infrastructure. Higher tech can get you there as well, as long as it is properly designed, as long as this independence is a main design feature.

If your high tech mining thingy dies, its going to take from about 2 weeks or a month to get the parts and get it back in operation. Or, you are going to need a large cache of spare parts at the colony, collecting dust. Otherwise its just wasted metal and resources, not helping your bottom line. And in a lot of cases, a lower tech alternative (that is more reliable) may end up being a better means of efficiently exploiting the resources. It might not have the same output, but because it is more reliable, you get that constant (if less) output than the higher tech piece of belgacarb.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Anthony:
And, despite preparation, if the homeworld goes down, the colony is probably toast too. If not, it drops to no better than TL 3, any higher TL requires a minimum population of millions and a substantial infrastructure.

Now why would a self sufficient colony suffer the same fate as the home world? They are completely different planets, even star systems. Home world breaks out into a world war. Its still limited to that world. Corporate headquarters gets ransacked by angry mobs, records destroyed, people killed. How will that make a self sufficient colony die out?

Why increase the risk to the colony by making it more dependent when it can be cheaper to make is self sufficient, using lower or more self sufficient tech? Other than political considerations, which would make your colony less attractive to labor in the first place, I can't see a reason for doing so.

If its cheaper to make it self sufficient, why not do it? If it reduces the risk to the colonists, by making it self sufficient, then do it.

Yeah, but almost anything that can destroy a colony in a month can probably destroy a self-sufficient colony as well.

I don't buy this argument at all. Dependent colony is more risky than a self sufficient colony. A misjump on a food delivery could destroy a colony, while a self sufficient colony would be safe. By the time the next sceduled ship arrives and finds out about the previous missing shipment, and then reports this back... well you see where I am going.

There are a lot of bad things that can happen to the colony. Self sufficiency gives them tools to handle a lot of those problems. A dependent colony has less ability to deal with problems, because it is dependent. Also a dependent colony is more at risk, because it is dependent.

The self sufficient colony may not be able to handle everything, but that is not the point. It is more able to deal with potential challenges itself, because it is independent of the supply train and corporate offices. Also, corporate does not have to use as much of THEIR resources to keep the colony viable, since the colony will be utilizing the resources in situ. Both sides win.

No, cheap is less important than efficiently exploiting the resources. Lower tech mining gear will be cheaper, but it also won't recover as much material. Equipment isn't replaced by a higher tech, more expensive version unless the higher tech version is also better in some important way.

Exactly. That way has to be self sufficiency and repairablity out in the sticks. It has to be independent from that long supply line back to the home world. Again we have a confusion in terms, as generally speaking, lower tech will get you there. It will get you to exploiting the resources and is more survivable without that infrastructure. Higher tech can get you there as well, as long as it is properly designed, as long as this independence is a main design feature.

If your high tech mining thingy dies, its going to take from about 2 weeks or a month to get the parts and get it back in operation. Or, you are going to need a large cache of spare parts at the colony, collecting dust. Otherwise its just wasted metal and resources, not helping your bottom line. And in a lot of cases, a lower tech alternative (that is more reliable) may end up being a better means of efficiently exploiting the resources. It might not have the same output, but because it is more reliable, you get that constant (if less) output than the higher tech piece of belgacarb.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Drakon:
Now why would a self sufficient colony suffer the same fate as the home world?

Because after contact drops they'll discover that they weren't as self-sufficient as they thought they were.

If its cheaper to make it self sufficient, why not do it? If it reduces the risk to the colonists, by making it self sufficient, then do it.

It's reliably not cheaper.

 

[Drakon]

So your argument is that a self sufficient colony would collapse following the destruction of the home world because it is not self sufficient? I fail to see the logic here.

Perception has nothing to do with it. All either the colony or the home world has to do is look at the books. Check the shipments going in to the colony. As a colony becomes self sufficient, even at a reduced tech level, those shipments will become less and less. As well as less and less critical. So one has a factual basis on which to judge the self sufficiency of a colony.