General Die back worlds

[gchuck]

Regarding the TL of 'DI' worlds: Is the TL of said worlds the highest TL achieved by the 'extinct' natives, or the 'current' TL of the the survivors?

It's very hard to stomach the thought of 100% 'casualties' due to plague/natural disaster/war/evolution, especially if the population is 'humaniti'. AFAIK the bubonic plague was the 'worst' that ever struck the earth, and it was not 100% fatal.

 

[whartung]

In what era are we talking about?

I've never head of a "DI" world.

In theory such a world may have been abandoned. Perhaps a disease that was so virulent and entrenched, even if you had a natural immunity, perhaps your offspring did not, and it eventually caught them. So, after a generation, "everyone" is dead, or they just up and left to a safer place.

 

[gchuck]

"DI", trade-code, 'Die-back' world.

Mainly I'm questioning the TL of the ruins/remnants of the previous/current civilization.

 

[inexorabletash]

T5 introduces dieback, remark code Di or Di(Sophont) if named/not obvious.

TL is the TL of the junk lying around you can scavenge.

If the population is non-zero, that's not a dieback, that's just low population. Humans haven't gone extinct or been wiped out so far, but most species don't last very long in the grand scheme of things, and the universe is a harsh place.

 

[Condottiere]

Apocalyptic de industrialization?

 

[Dragoner]

Watch out for the Id (Forbidden Planet).

 

[Timerover51]

Regarding the TL of 'DI' worlds: Is the TL of said worlds the highest TL achieved by the 'extinct' natives, or the 'current' TL of the the survivors?

It's very hard to stomach the thought of 100% 'casualties' due to plague/natural disaster/war/evolution, especially if the population is 'humaniti'. AFAIK the bubonic plague was the 'worst' that ever struck the earth, and it was not 100% fatal

In England, there are a considerable number of reports of entires villages and monasteries dying from the plague, with no survivors. As the plague was carried by flea-infested rats, you could have one village wiped out while another where the rats did not reach loose no one. London was very hard hit due to the poor sanitation.

In you have a highly contagious disease being passed on from one infected person to another through personal contact, not by some other form of carrier agent, you could have a die-back situation.

 

[Krikkitone]

Regarding the TL of 'DI' worlds: Is the TL of said worlds the highest TL achieved by the 'extinct' natives, or the 'current' TL of the the survivors?

It's very hard to stomach the thought of 100% 'casualties' due to plague/natural disaster/war/evolution, especially if the population is 'humaniti'. AFAIK the bubonic plague was the 'worst' that ever struck the earth, and it was not 100% fatal.

100% casualties on a planet that is not atm 6/8 or size 12+ or hyd 0 should be easy…have some supply chain problems due to a serious interstellar event and the failure/lack of air purifiers, antigrav treatments, or water recyclers / food shipments/hydroponics lead to 100% casualties easily and quickly. As mentioned, that happened in isolated locations all the time…on the planet we evolved to live on.

 

[Shadowrunner]

I guess there are exceptions, where an entire population would be extinguished, but you'd need something like a death star, supernova or planets colliding.

 

[whulorigan]

Dieback is effectively the same as Barren - i.e. no sapient life. The difference is that a Barren world has no evidence of any civilizations, past or present. A Dieback world had a civilization at one time that no longer exists - they are all dead, but the ruins of their stuff remains behind.

• Barren: UWP Code "0" for both population and TL
• Dieback : UWP code "0" for population, but non-zero for TL

 

[infojunky]

Short answer without looking is if a World needs technological support for its population then damage to that support would pretty much finish the population. It started as a TNE thing.

 

[BackworldTraveller]

Which depends upon the level at which that technology is embedded. Life in many places on earth needs technological support. Without support there are troubles and deaths. But if the support is adequately embedded then that isn't an issue.

At present we can get over low air pressure, cold, heat and dry quite well - even at tech levels in low single digits. Water is doable to some degree (but not permanently), ditto underwater. We can cope with polluted air (with shortened life though). High pressure is very iffy. As are high winds, fast river currents, etc. Lava and Ash are generally bad.

A planet with a tainted or very thin atmosphere etc with a manufacturing base will be much less susceptible to cataclysmic failure than one with a small population and no manufacturing capacity. Necessity is, after all, the mother of invention.

 

[Condottiere]

At some point, the industrial base could be self sustaining, once you have access to sufficient resources, energy, and self replicating machines.

 

[Timerover51]

At some point, the industrial base could be self sustaining, once you have access to sufficient resources, energy, and self replicating machines.

The higher the Tech Level, the greater the population that is required to support it to be self-sustaining.

 

[kilemall]

The higher the Tech Level, the greater the population that is required to support it to be self-sustaining.

I’d say that’s true of our prejump tech, not sure that still applies with expert systems and robots.

 

[Condottiere]

I think a lot of us don't want to think that far, considering the socio economic implications, or that for the human race in general.

 

[kilemall]

I think a lot of us don't want to think that far, considering the socio economic implications, or that for the human race in general.

Gotta take a stand with it somewhere if only for story/plot purposes.

Probably best answer is it depends…

 

[Grav_Moped]

Gotta take a stand with it somewhere if only for story/plot purposes.

Probably best answer is it depends…

One thing that might be under-appreciated about Traveller, especially in the Classic era, is that it's intended to simulate (for RPG purposes) science fiction from about the 1930s until maybe as late as the mid-1970s.

The source fiction for it often didn't go into that kind of detail -- and to the extent it did, it did so with then-contemporary (and now obsolete) projections of the future.

Looking back at it from nearly a half-century distance, I can see echoes of a "Space 1899 Effect". That is, that game was set in a universe where space travel happened using the technology of the designated era (plus the SF elements to enable it); Traveller is set in a universe where space travel happens with "future" technology as envisioned in the 1970s (plus the SF elements needed to enable it). Later editions and versions moved the baseline technological assumptions forward in time, but still lagged a bit.

 

[Drew]

I guess there are exceptions, where an entire population would be extinguished, but you'd need something like a death star, supernova or planets colliding.

Toba catastrophe theory could be a population bottleneck. Massive famine and total climatic destruction. Such an event could be a reason why a small colony could be effectively wiped out in a short time period. Few if any follow-on contacts by regularly scheduled starships - disease and starvation could wipe out the remaining survivors. Even a relatively high-tech startup colony would be impacted. An ice age could have been triggered and the few if any survivors would revert to a near-neolithic existence to survive.

 

[Shadowrunner]

Toba catastrophe theory could be a population bottleneck. Massive famine and total climatic destruction. Such an event could be a reason why a small colony could be effectively wiped out in a short time period. Few if any follow-on contacts by regularly scheduled starships - disease and starvation could wipe out the remaining survivors. Even a relatively high-tech startup colony would be impacted. An ice age could have been triggered and the few if any survivors would revert to a near-neolithic existence to survive.

That is true, looking at Easter Island, a sudden disappearance occured probably due to over-culling of trees (fishing boats, houses) in response to a successful, growing population. Suddenly due to lack of exploration, isolated on the island and with dwindling resources perhaps.