Colony requirements

[Whipsnade]

Drakon wrote:

"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."


Mr. Drakon,

I believe that Mr. Jackson is pointing out; in his usual minimalist style, that there is self sufficiency and then there is self sufficiency. I've found it helps to think of Mr. Jackson's posts, both here on the TML, as 'hints' and not 'explanations'. Here's my stab at an explanation as I've never been good with hints.

Your colony could easily be self sufficient at TL6 but not self sufficient at TL15 even though the colonists are accustomed to TL15 goodies. They could be growing food, generating power, handling all of their industrial needs, and so forth all at a TL6 level of progress. What they still get from the TL15 mother world may be seemingly inconsequential things; that nifty pan-spectrum cancer innoculation, man-made oolites and other reactants for their petro refineries, the occasional geegaw or consumer item, and all the other 'little' items that a Beowulf arrival per month could easily handle.

The colony and the mother world may even believe the colony is self sufficient, after all it imports very little from the mother world. When the mother world goes 'poof', the colony will find that it is self sufficient, just self sufficient at a much lower TL than it supposed.

Perform a little thought experiment here on current day Earth. How many polities are truly self sufficient? I can think of only two that might qualify; the USA and the EU, and even that is a bit of a stretch - especially for the EU and its abject need for foreign (read Persian Gulf) oil.

Wave your mental magic wand and make everyone and everything beyond the borders of the USA or EU vanish, how far will their consumer driven economies drop before a stabilization occur? Life will change within the USA and EU but the people will only be pinched at bit. Both polities can feed themselves, can make anything and everything they may require, it's just that priorities will shift and shift dramatically.

Now wave your magic wand over any other portion of our world. Would Argentina survive? Of course it will, but at a level somewhat below the 'pre-poof' level. Would sub-Saharan Africa survive? Of course it would too, but at a level no where near the 'pre-poof' level.

This is what Mr. Jackson was hinting at.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by Drakon:
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.

While it is irrelevant to "what happens if the homeworld blows up", there is another aspect to checking the shipments going into the colony, and that is: what is coming out? The low tech colony will inevitably, have less stuff coming in - because it can't afford it! Its exports will be low value goods, produced in a needlessly inefficient manner, that is, uncompetitive. (We are talking about a market economy, aren't we?)

Alan B

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by 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.

No, my argument is that the people who think the colony is self-sufficient are deluding themselves. Something which, incidentally, humans are very good. If the colony has outside trade of any sort, corners will be cut because it's just easier to import item X rather than to make it locally.

It's unlikely that any colony with less than hundreds of millions of people will even be self-sufficient enough to make up for the difference if cut off. There's pretty much nothing less than continent-sized on earth which could survive at above TL 2 if cut off.

 

[Drakon]

Having given you the means to determine objectively just how self sufficient, or not, a colony is, you still maintain such a minimum is required? Or any thoughts of self sufficiency is delusional?

And if people are so adapt at self delusion, why not save a fortune and simply delude folks into thinking they are some colony? With an attitude like that, why even bother with space flight in the first place? I see a very negative view of humanity in your posts, that I think is inconsistent with fact.

Also, again this comes to "right teching" the technology required. As Bucky Fuller said, the entire direction of technology has been to do more and more with less and less. That includes less people and less resources. Granted such items as food (calorie content) that are biologically based, but it appears to be the direction of technology to reduce the amount of people required, to perform the same taskes.

It does come down to what is required to be self sufficient. And yes, there are economies of scale and infrastructure requirements that have to be looked at. Food, basic housing, perhaps some emergency medical, maybe. But beyond that, a lot of the technology we utilize is more for play than remaining alive. We want a better house and easier access to entertainment, which is why we require the army of contractors, and amount of labor we have.

Plus, there is something that a colony will have, that will be of help even if they have nothing else whatsoever. The collected wisdom of their ancestors. Any colony will draw from the present home world population. Among the things such a population has already worked out, includes physics, biology, all the sciences. Also, the history, economics and politics that the old world has tried, even the failures.

Instead of trying to invent the wheel, you already know how one is built. And can easily duplicate that work. The same goes for fusion reactors, bulldozers, or even saddles and stirrups. You can look up how to build a horse collar, thereby increasing the amount of acreage it can provide. You don't have to invent it from scratch like our ancestors did.

In short, what is in the colonist's head is probably the most valuable resource you can ever have. It is that one resource that will help you develop all the rest, create a self sufficient colony, to the benefit of not just the colonists themselves, but also to the colonizing agency.

Granted, it ain't going to be just like the home world, but that is part of the point of a colony in the first place. It may operate at a couple or three tech levels lower, but so what?

I note your comment about "any colony with less than hundreds of millions of people will even be self-sufficient enough" I find this rather surprising, when looking at American history. Consider that these former colonies don't not even have 3 hundred million they are still pretty self sufficient, especially in terms of food production. I know you can argue balance of trade, but the essentials are not part of that equations. Food and housing, we make ourselves. We invent most of the products that are manufactured overseas for our market, which can be argued is the really important bit.

And also, it is important to look at why such inventions are manufactured overseas. America has traditionally had too few people compared to her European competitors. While the demand for labor is pretty high, there has never been enough of us to do all the jobs that are wanted to be done. That drives labor costs here up. In places where they have far more people, it is simply cheaper to build them overseas.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by alanb:
While it is irrelevant to "what happens if the homeworld blows up", there is another aspect to checking the shipments going into the colony, and that is: what is coming out? The low tech colony will inevitably, have less stuff coming in - because it can't afford it! Its exports will be low value goods, produced in a needlessly inefficient manner, that is, uncompetitive. (We are talking about a market economy, aren't we?)

Alan B

Good points. It seems to me that most colonies will start as raw material export businesses. As to whether it is competitive or not, that is a BIG question.

That really depends on what the commidity is, and what the competition is. Raw food stuffs may be more competitive for a home world that is utilizing their arible land for other things, parks, cities, what have you. Special native exotics might be quite profitable (which equals "economic efficiency" as well as it can be measured) despite the method of gathering them.

I don't really see metal mining being a major reason for colonization. It seems that asteroid mining would be easier than dealing with the gravity well of the planet.

As to whether your colonists can afford uber tech goods, (let alone support and maintain them) this is a question on how the colony was set up. An independent homestead type scenario, you would be right. But lets say, my objections to the contrary, you do have a mine on the colony planet. It really depends on what the owner of that mine can afford, and if that is a home world agency, it might be able to afford the most high tech equipment available.

Speaking in generalities, you have a good point, that requires looking at the specifics of a particular planet, and the colonizing agency, to analyze further. Can that agency subsidize some or all of its equipment and supplies? How much do they have to pay colonists to move there? (Or do they have to pay at all? Are they SELLING land on the new planet?)

One other thing occured to me. Look at electronics. My first computer, an Atari 800 with a whopping 48 k of ram, along with floppy drive and monitor (TV) cost me 2700 dollars in 1981. Recently I purchased a laptop, with a 60 gig harddrive, Pent 4 at 2.4(?) gigahertz, internal floppy, DVD-CDR, and built in WIFI for 1100 dollars. Now even without adjusting for inflation, this is a heck of a set up.

How "obsolete" technology gets priced becomes a big question. Higher tech does not always mean more expensive. Yes, at first it does, as you have to take into account all the R&D and other factors just getting to the point where you can start production. But advancement in technology can also mean making things cheaper, as well as more powerful. As well as it affects the manufacture of lower tech items as well.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:
I believe that Mr. Jackson is pointing out; in his usual minimalist style, that there is self sufficiency and then there is self sufficiency. I've found it helps to think of Mr. Jackson's posts, both here on the TML, as 'hints' and not 'explanations'. Here's my stab at an explanation as I've never been good with hints.

Your colony could easily be self sufficient at TL6 but not self sufficient at TL15 even though the colonists are accustomed to TL15 goodies. They could be growing food, generating power, handling all of their industrial needs, and so forth all at a TL6 level of progress. What they still get from the TL15 mother world may be seemingly inconsequential things; that nifty pan-spectrum cancer innoculation, man-made oolites and other reactants for their petro refineries, the occasional geegaw or consumer item, and all the other 'little' items that a Beowulf arrival per month could easily handle.

Well this makes a lot more sense. And that is why I think you have to "right tech" your colony materials to make it as self sufficient as possible. That will usually entail going lower tech in some areas, use technologies that are easier to maintain in the field (some military technology comes to mind) or going the biobot route. Designing critters that are self repairable, and self replicating as beasts of burden, or replacement for machinery.

I am not so much worried about the home world going poof, as I am the home world deciding on other priorities or simply wanting to throw its weight around. And I think there are objective ways of figuring out whether a colony is self sufficient by simply looking at its incoming manifests.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Drakon:
Having given you the means to determine objectively just how self sufficient, or not, a colony is, you still maintain such a minimum is required? Or any thoughts of self sufficiency is delusional?

You've given an objective means to determine whether the colony is self-sufficient. I claim that if you apply that objective means, the answer you will get is 'NO'.

However, that objective means is not applicable in the real world. Colonies exist for a purpose, and that purpose involves trade. Unless the colony is being cruelly exploited, trade means that the colony is receiving goods in return for the resources it sends back to the homeworld.

Also, again this comes to "right teching" the technology required. As Bucky Fuller said, the entire direction of technology has been to do more and more with less and less.

Actually, the direction of technology is to do more and more with more and more. Efficiency goes up with advanced technology, but resource consumption today is greater by any standard than it was fifty years ago.

It does come down to what is required to be self sufficient. And yes, there are economies of scale and infrastructure requirements that have to be looked at. Food, basic housing, perhaps some emergency medical, maybe.

Notable big things that don't scale well: Materials processing. Electronics. Heavy industry. Those are critical industries.

I note your comment about "any colony with less than hundreds of millions of people will even be self-sufficient enough" I find this rather surprising, when looking at American history.

Lessee, we have >100 million people today, and have since 1920; we've had tens of millions since 1830. Before the 20th century we were generally technologically behind.

Yes, the US could survive with pretty much full technology (though a significant loss in standard of living) if cut off from trade, particularly if exploitable natural resources were still present. So could Europe; I'm less sure about Japan, though if you suck in a reasonable portion of China it would be fine. None of those areas are less than Pop-8 in Traveller terms.

 

[Jame]

The thing is, this is Earth, which is the homeworld. So we could still find something here, even if we had to scavenge the infrastructure. A colony wouldn't have this infrastructure if things went poof.

This brings up another question, though: wouldn't a colony, no matter where it is, be interested in building as much infrastructure as possible, as fast as possible? Even if its a ~tl6-7 infrastructure?

 

[robject]

This sounds like a job for "Pocket Empires" from the T4 line. Anyone have a copy handy?

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Jame#1:
This brings up another question, though: wouldn't a colony, no matter where it is, be interested in building as much infrastructure as possible, as fast as possible? Even if its a ~tl6-7 infrastructure?

Colonies might be interested in building up infrastructure, but they're also interested in not going bankrupt. In general, infrastructure will be built to attract business and/or people, or to service businesses/people who are already there.

 

[Jame]

Ah. So infrastructure would come later, then, when the colony's going full swing.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Jame#1:
Ah. So infrastructure would come later, then, when the colony's going full swing.

No, infrastructure comes at the very beginning, but it is very specific infrastructure, in that it's necessary to operate the colony. Roads, for example, are very early. Stuff that's unnecessary, or unnecessary assuming you remain in contact with the homeworld, is going to wait.

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by robject:
This sounds like a job for "Pocket Empires" from the T4 line. Anyone have a copy handy?

Err, no.

Pocket Empires has its own inbuilt assumptions that would only muddy the issue.

Similarly for World Tamers' Handbook for TNE, although it works on a scale closer to what we are talking about.

Alan B

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Anthony:
You've given an objective means to determine whether the colony is self-sufficient. I claim that if you apply that objective means, the answer you will get is 'NO'.

Always no? Then we'll have to agree to disagree here. I think you are wrong.

However, that objective means is not applicable in the real world. Colonies exist for a purpose, and that purpose involves trade. Unless the colony is being cruelly exploited, trade means that the colony is receiving goods in return for the resources it sends back to the homeworld.

First off I see a lot of other reasons beside trade to start a colony. Perhaps somebody wants to try out his ideas on social engineering, perhaps he wants to set up his own version of utopia. Perhaps you got a bunch of folks who are simply sick and tired of dealing with the nobles. Perhaps you got criminals you want to dump someplace. History shows a lot of reasons for colonization besides just trade.

In any case, if what you are trading for is a necessity, you got a problem. All the homeworld has to do is miss a shipment, or some other snafu, and your colony is in trouble, and you lose your investment. Therefore it makes sense to produce as much necessary items that a colony needs in situ instead of importing them. Unless what you want IS political control over the colony.

Actually, the direction of technology is to do more and more with more and more. Efficiency goes up with advanced technology, but resource consumption today is greater by any standard than it was fifty years ago.

This is not quite right. And we are talking two different things here. 6 billion people are going to use more resources than 3 billion, no doubt. But there is no more silicon in today's computer chip than there was 10 years ago. The difference is in the precision of etching.

The idea for technology is to do more with less. Why? because it is a business first and foremost. Using fewer resources, means you are more efficient, not just practically, but economically as well. It means higher profits due to lower costs.

Now as a result of this, it makes products cheaper, and folks more productive. It also helps them be healthier longer, reduces infant mortality and keeps more folks alive than otherwise would not. So you got more folks with greater abilities and more choices as to what they can do, than their ancestors did. Therefore you do get a greater utilization of resources overall, despite the fact that the direction technology takes is to do the most with the least.

Notable big things that don't scale well: Materials processing. Electronics. Heavy industry. Those are critical industries.

That is actually the 64 dollar question. Just how essential are these things? Living small and simple, at a lower tech level, those industries are not required. Heck the human race has already proven it can live without them. Possibly not at today's population level, but the point is that the species can survive, it has in the past.

Yes, the US could survive with pretty much full technology (though a significant loss in standard of living) if cut off from trade, particularly if exploitable natural resources were still present. So could Europe; I'm less sure about Japan, though if you suck in a reasonable portion of China it would be fine. None of those areas are less than Pop-8 in Traveller terms.

I don't think Japan could do so, simply because she cannot feed herself. Too many people in too small an area, not enough natural resources. I don't think you are right about the US being behind technically until the 1920s, as I note that the cotton gin, and the interchangable parts ideas both originated here, and lets not forget the airplane. There was a wealth of technical progress, some of it even ahead of Europe, despite the lack of population.

What there was for most of the 19th century was a big ole frontier out there that needed 'colonizing'

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Drakon:
First off I see a lot of other reasons beside trade to start a colony. Perhaps somebody wants to try out his ideas on social engineering, perhaps he wants to set up his own version of utopia.

Yes, random isolationist colonies are possible. By and large, they will be dependent on regular cash infusions from co-believers on the homeworld, or else will rapidly drop to a rather primitive tech level. They will probably also collapse after a few decades.

In any case, if what you are trading for is a necessity, you got a problem. All the homeworld has to do is miss a shipment, or some other snafu, and your colony is in trouble, and you lose your investment.

There's a difference between 'dependent on trade' and 'collapses instantly without trade'. A typical colony can probably last on its own for at least three months, and probably for several years with gradually decaying equipment.

This is not quite right. And we are talking two different things here. 6 billion people are going to use more resources than 3 billion, no doubt.

We're using more per capita too.

That is actually the 64 dollar question. Just how essential are these things?

If you want to maintain a TL above around 3, critical. If you're happy being a subsistence farming community, not.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Anthony:
Yes, random isolationist colonies are possible. By and large, they will be dependent on regular cash infusions from co-believers on the homeworld, or else will rapidly drop to a rather primitive tech level. They will probably also collapse after a few decades.

Again, I don't think so. Well that is really not quite right. It depends.

Assuming the colony is constructed along, say collectivist lines, yes the colony will collapse rather quickly. We saw that in Plymouth that first winter the Pilgrims suffered. But that does not necessarily have to be. Maybe you got some nut cases who are trying to perpetuate the revolution of 1776, or some more individual based political structure, they would survive better.

I am not sure it would collapse all the way back to the stone age however. You still have the knowledge in the colonist's heads, books on how to build transistors and equipment. Even if the infrastructure to build them today does not exist, knowing that it was done before means that the colony could bootstrap itself rather quickly.

And depending on the nature of technology, one can foresee a colony jumping around say, gasoline engines and going directly to fusion power.

Also, I don't see continuing subsidies as being realistic. Sooner or later, sending money to people you don't know, who don't even live on your planet, is going to get shunted to the bottom of the "to-do" pile. And those colonists will be on their own. Which is one of the reasons I see business colonies, (established for a particular venture, like recovery of raw material) as wanting to make them self sufficient as soon as possible. Its cheaper in the long run for the business, and makes their extraction processes more economical.

There's a difference between 'dependent on trade' and 'collapses instantly without trade'. A typical colony can probably last on its own for at least three months, and probably for several years with gradually decaying equipment.

But isn't this what we are talking about? Whether a colony is self sufficient or not? Perhaps we are using the same terms for different meanings, and confusing each other with what we see as essential.

First thing people need is 1)air, 2) water, 3) food. Shelter and clothing are dependent on climate, and risks due to other life forms. But can range from anything like a palm shack to a stone walled fortress. Medicine, well its useful if you have accidents and disease, however unless you have those problems, its not essential.

My position is that unless a colony can provide those first three items completely in situ, its doomed. Being dependent on a home world is not a good thing, for those three basic necessities. It is not self sufficient until and unless it can provide the basic necessities of life, without trading to another world, or relying on technology that is not built there.

[This says nothing about the reliance of the business venture that may be the reason for the colony in the first place. If you miss a shipment of much needed parts for the mining gear, the mine may shut down, and stress the colony. But as long as the colony can feed itself, it will survive. Whether the business does or not is secondary]

As to decaying equipment, that is a very good point. The colony may have to resort to subsistence farming, which sucks, but is far better than dying. And I think can be allievated to some extent by "right teching" the technology you take with you. If you include in the beginning of the design a requirement for being field maintainable, this will go a long way to fix this.

We're using more per capita too.

Why is that? Because the individual technologies we use have gotten cheaper, in terms of utilizing available resources and such, giving us more free time as well as making us more productive. We use more because of the efficiencies inherent in the specific technologies themselves. Not because the technologies use more resources.

Like I said before, there is the same amount of silicon in today's computer chip as their was 10 or 20 years ago. Yet today's computers are far faster and more capable than their ancestors, as well as cheaper and smaller. This technology has advanced, despite its smaller utilization of resources.

It used to take several hours to cook a meal. Now, toss something in the microwave and swear at it for taking too long. What do you with the time that otherwise would have been used cooking? Read a book? Build something in your garage? Chase the wife around the coffee table? Expend your energies utilizing other resources?

If you want to maintain a TL above around 3, critical. If you're happy being a subsistence farming community, not.

Why are we maintaining the tech level in the first place? Yes, computers and the internet are cool things, but things our species have lived without for millions of years. Yes, higher tech makes it easier to support higher populations, but a starting colony does not have a problem with overpopulation, if anything, the potential for underpopulation is serious.

What is the purpose of technology? Is it to create a new master for a species that needs to be ruled? Or is it to create tools that a species may utilize to improve its lot in this 'verse, as it sees fit?

I say its the latter. That technology is there to serve my goals, not the other way round. Technologies that do that, great, lets use them and bring them with us. Technologies that do not, or whose costs (not necessisarily monetary) cannot be supported by a colony, will not get brought with the colonists. It won't.

Two basic human desires exist, and I think it can be argued is going to be common for any sophont species. That is the desire to live, and be happy. Life and death, those are pretty universal. Pretty objective. Usually blowing a persons head off kills them regardless of which person you are talking about.

But happiness, that is much more subjective. Dependent on the specific individual in question. What makes me happy, may make you miserable. Not everyone likes polka music, but some do. Not everyone likes cell phones, or needs them to accomplish some other goal. And some folks find enjoyment merely pondering all the ins and out of a subject like this, completely inside their head. There are a lot of enjoyable things that do not require a high tech level to accomplish.

And again, depending on which technologies we are talking about, this may not even be an issue. If the technology is designed for operation without a high tech infrastructure, (and it works as planned), then again, no problem.

Heck, this is a Traveller forum. Just what tech level is required to play Traveller? Pencils, paper, and dice. Our dice may comprise some high tech NASA plastic, or simply fired clay. It doesn't matter too much.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Drakon:
But isn't this what we are talking about? Whether a colony is self sufficient or not? Perhaps we are using the same terms for different meanings, and confusing each other with what we see as essential.

By self-sufficient, I mean that a colony can maintain its existing tech base and standard of living, not that it can survive. Most colonies will be designed to be self-sufficient enough to survive for a reasonable period, unless this is very impractical.

 

[vegascat]

It seems the important questions conderning colony requirements are:
Who is sponsoring the colony?
Why is the colony being created?
How far from civilized space will it be?
What are the conditions on the planet?
What are the exportable items/resources?
Who will be making a profit?

Any important type questions left out?

 

[eiladayn]

Don't you think that ANY starfaring people capable of founding a colony on another world would also utilize those resources off the colony planet, there's lots of stuff orbiting around ol' Sol we haven't touched, lots and lots of water, metal, etc., enough to support and FEED many more times six billion of us here in our own solar system. I think that a star colony might very well be self sustaining once the infrastructure allows it to tap those resources and self sustaining for a long,long time.

As for a small colony that doesn't use these resources, why bother UNLESS your founderss are isolationists and do want to live apart from the founding society?

Pappy

 

[Jame]

I think eiladayn and I are thinking the same thing here. Tell me, tell me, hey!