• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Highest population density worlds

Second, what are the resources in the system? There has to be something that keeps that many people in one spot. Is it on a trade route and is the central brokerage point? Are there rare minerals people mine in the hopes of getting wealthy?

That might be the case when a system is established, but after a while a population could grow while being focused on maintaining itself. Does it have to have something that keeps them in one spot other than that it's where they live, have livelihoods, and may not have anywhere else to go?
 
If you have a population of 100 billion, with a .001 growth rate, you are adding 100 million new persons to that population a year. Those are 100 million persons to raise, house, educate, and find jobs for. One hundred million is adding about 14 Hong Kongs every year. Those thinking of very high population planets might want to give that a least a small amount of consideration.
 
If you have a population of 100 billion, with a .001 growth rate, you are adding 100 million new persons to that population a year. Those are 100 million persons to raise, house, educate, and find jobs for. One hundred million is adding about 14 Hong Kongs every year. Those thinking of very high population planets might want to give that a least a small amount of consideration.

Or, if you don't have a good feel for the population of Hong Kong, that world will add a full population of China in 13.56 years.
 
If you have a population of 100 billion, with a .001 growth rate, you are adding 100 million new persons to that population a year. Those are 100 million persons to raise, house, educate, and find jobs for. One hundred million is adding about 14 Hong Kongs every year. Those thinking of very high population planets might want to give that a least a small amount of consideration.

But, "so what"?

I mean, .001 growth rate is pretty small. It's all a matter of how close to the threshold of capacity (for whatever definition of "capacity" you like) the population is. Yea, there's 100 million people to raise, feed, train, and put to work. But there's 100 billion people, and the infrastructure to support them, ready to do it. The society is already, implicitly, at a scale to handle this.

Imagine in 1900, when we had ~75million people and someone saying "3 million population growth per year, how can that be possible?", which is roughly where we are at today.

Now if the society is on the brink, on the edge waiting for the last child birth that sends the entire planet in to chaos, then, that's something different.
 
But, "so what"?

I mean, .001 growth rate is pretty small. It's all a matter of how close to the threshold of capacity (for whatever definition of "capacity" you like) the population is. Yea, there's 100 million people to raise, feed, train, and put to work. But there's 100 billion people, and the infrastructure to support them, ready to do it. The society is already, implicitly, at a scale to handle this.

Imagine in 1900, when we had ~75million people and someone saying "3 million population growth per year, how can that be possible?", which is roughly where we are at today.

Now if the society is on the brink, on the edge waiting for the last child birth that sends the entire planet in to chaos, then, that's something different.

In the US today, it takes about 1 acre of farmland to feed one person for one year (reference: www.farmlandlp.com/2012/01/one-acre-feeds-a-person/ )

Using the US as a test case, that means that 320 million people need 1.295*10^12 m^2 farmland, compared to a land area of the US of 9.16*10^12 m^2. About 14%.

Now consider a world size 1, with no hydrographics, with a population A and multiplier of 9 - that's 90 billion people. 90 billion people need 364 trillion acres of farmland to produce the food that they eat, yet the entire surface area of a size 1 world is only 16 trillion acres. Even if everyone lived in archaeologies there is a shortfall of 348 trillion acres of farmland. That shortfall is presumably made up by increases in food production efficiency at high tech levels or food imports.

Taking the food import case, from the same article a person needs about 907 kg of food per year, about 867 kg of which must be imported.

So, that's 78.03 billion metric tons of food imports, and presuming that food is generally the density of water, 5.5 billion Dtons of food cargo must be imported per year, or 5,574 shipments of ships that have 1 million Dtons cargo capacity. 15 arrivals per day of 1 million Dtons food cargo each, that has got to be quite serious cargo handling capacity and I can't imagine anything other than type A starports would work.

That quite easily could be straining the cargo capacity the subsector has available, and any increase in population increases the risk that a disruption in shipping results in mass starvation.
 
"We at the Soylent Corporation have a wide variety of food and food-like products to help struggling, overpopulated worlds meet their daily minimum caloric intake. Ask about our Soylent Orange, Soylent Red, and our always-popular Soylent Green. Size One worlds get a ten percent discount when they mention this ad!"
 
That quite easily could be straining the cargo capacity the subsector has available, and any increase in population increases the risk that a disruption in shipping results in mass starvation.

Beyond the obvious answer that these are more of the truckloads of odd results you'll get as the result of a random die roll based generation system that hasn't had enough influence of the "realism police" to more aggressively eliminate the large number of unlikely outliers, there's a number of solutions:

* Perhaps at any given time, the overwhelming population of the world is literally hooked up into a Matrix-like system where from birth to death everyone spends their life in a pod fed nutrients directly into their blood. Only those with critical maintenance or security roles, as well as jobs that require travel are not hooked up to it. This isn't considered slavery or creepy by the world's inhabitants, it's considered a good lifestyle. I have no idea what they do for a "living" (or perhaps they don't have jobs or whatever as their living expenses are so low and paid for by the state).

* Assuming these population increases were reasonably predictable, another world may have a complex series of literally tens of thousands of huge disc-shaped agricultural habitats close to their local star (as well as using artificial lighting closer to home). A significant portion of the population is devoted to transporting inputs to these habitats and transporting outputs to their homeworld. The process of building such an infrastructure might seem like a ludicrous expense, but if this population growth has been going on for decades or centuries, this infrastructure would have been built up over a similar period of time, so ongoing costs of expansion and maintenance are amortized as inhabitants refine their systems.

* A world may have engineered chemosynthetic bacteria that can be refined to produce nutrition for humans. These extremomphiles have low productivity, but essentially every single one of the system's "barren airless moons" in orbit around gas giants are essentially huge farms of for this stuff, utilizing geothermal heat from gravitational stress which keeps underground water liquid. The water and geologic grinding action liberates nutrients from the rocks, which the bacteria use for food. The bacteria are harvested and refined into human-usable nutrients and transported to the world.

* Entire efficiencies of food production we can't even imagine might occur on some of these worlds, driven by simple need, without resorting to synthesized foodstuffs but foodstuffs that a 21st century person would be familiar with. Cheap, compact, fusion power makes all kinds of things possible. Fast-growing foodstuffs, laws that require every large apartment building to be self-sufficient for basic nutrition, aggressively recycling programs combined with mining and refining infrastructure strip-mining moons to make up for losses of resources. Given how these kinds of things turn out, at least one of the worlds would be a net exporter of high quality luxury foodstuffs to neighboring systems even while nobody goes hungry on their world, something that is widely discussed and studied in the Imperium (even moreso because nobody else has ever been able to achieve the same results).

Another point is that all of these worlds are going to be like an industrial Japan's resource situation: Traveller has some (rather quaint now) assumptions about some blithely capitalist future involving interworld trade, without touching those assumptions, we can infer some things. Since these worlds can maintain these populations (you don't have large starving slums on such worlds - they couldn't afford that kind of entropy, even 0,000001% would be a huge number of people - there's not enough space for it). That means the large population is very productive in various economic areas. There is simply NO way a world like that is going to be able to fuel its own industries by the resources on its world and likely even in their own system while exporting products. So even without the specter of starvation, they require a massive fleet of starships simply to transport raw materials for use by the planet's inhabitants to keep their economic engine greased.

The economic productivity of such a world cannot be underestimated. The number of ideas generated by a population that size and with the easy access to workers means ever-increasing benefits of economies of scale. These worlds are going to be the Shenzens of their local area, basically forcing many worlds around into agricultural and resource supplier subservience simply because they cannot hope to compete with such a concentration of talent and industry.

If you thought the population situation was bad there, you have to imagine such a prosperous world is likely to be a magnet attracting all kinds of immigration from surrounding worlds, perhaps as far afield as a subsector. These worlds are far from the overpopulated dystopias you'd first imagine. They're glittering, wealthy, fashionable places to be, bursting with opportunity - people want to go there. Sure they might have to deal with laws that are considered oppressive to keep the population in order, but it's likely there's still enough distraction and freedoms to keep the population content. If they were anything short, they couldn't maintain their populations; there'd be conflict and conflict would quickly result in mass exodus, wars, and starvation. So these worlds have obviously avoided these situations, which would make them productive by default. It'd be a huge headache for a sector Duke to prevent or at least slow such immigration to such a world without being a tyrannical oppressor of some stripe.
 
Last edited:
Beyond the obvious answer that these are more of the truckloads of odd results you'll get as the result of a random die roll based generation system that hasn't had enough influence of the "realism police" to more aggressively eliminate the large number of unlikely outliers, there's a number of solutions:


Indeed, and these sorts of descriptions are the kinds of things I was looking for - plausible explanations to what initially seems to be nearly impossible situations.

So, taking a maximum worldwide population density of 247 persons/km^2 (to provide enough farmland to support that population) there are some hard to explain oddities:

Juess, E100964-7 with a pop multiplier of 9. At least 9 billion people, vacuum world, size 1, and tech 7 along with starport E.

Sagal, X887A9C-6, 80+ billion people, size 8 world but hydrographics limits land area, no real starport and tech level 6 (plus Red zone). if the tech level were a bit higher it might plausibly be explained that most of the food comes from sea harvest, but it's more difficult to explain with a low tech level. Irasumshu is similar.

Depending on the definition of tech level, though, it could be explained that the tech-6 worlds have imported their fusion power plants but don't have the ability to manufacture them.
 
So, that's 78.03 billion metric tons of food imports, and presuming that food is generally the density of water,
it's not.

It varies widely. Most fresh food runs 0.95 to 1.2, usually a hair over 1...
Dehydrated can be (by container volume) anywhere from 0.3 to 5 times the water displaced.
 
it's not.

It varies widely. Most fresh food runs 0.95 to 1.2, usually a hair over 1...
Dehydrated can be (by container volume) anywhere from 0.3 to 5 times the water displaced.

Yes, "usually" a hair over 1 implies that 1.0 is not a bad estimate in general, if you're trying to estimate an average over trillions of samples. And when importing to a world with 0 hydrographics, that water must be imported as well, it's above the trace amounts of water you would expect a vacuum world to have available for reconstitution of that food.
 
In the US today, it takes about 1 acre of farmland to feed one person for one year (reference: www.farmlandlp.com/2012/01/one-acre-feeds-a-person/ )
<snipage>
TL9+ asteroid and world size 1 settlements are not limited to antique US farming practices (which are bettered by many countrie's farming methods here in the real world)... :) :devil:

Nor are you going to build an asteroid or world size 1 settlement without extensive 'hydroponics' (look at how food is grown in poly tunnels on multiple levels to give a volume based food industry rather than an area based one). You build your farms upwards and downwards - multi-storey farms.

The other option for the world size 1 farms is to build them in orbit or on other bodies in the system.

As to TL 6 worlds not being able to fish industrially at TL 6 - Spain, Japan and Iceland have been pretty prolific fishers for a long time now, the question is is it sustainable on the size 6 world?
 
Last edited:
TL9+ asteroid settlements are not limited to antique US farming practices (which are bettered by many countries and farming methods here in the real world)... :) :devil:

nor are you going to build an asteroid settlement without extensive 'hydroponics' (look at how food is grown in poly tunnels on multiple levels to give a volume based food industry rather than an area based one).

Those statistics were actually for worldwide food production and consumption, but this site claims that "No country produces as much as efficiently as the U.S. Despite having a smaller workforce than China, total U.S. agricultural product is almost as high."

So out of curiosity, which countries produce more food than the US on a per-workforce basis?
 
Not total production, production methods (edited original post for clarity). Multi-storey polytunnel farming methods outproduce flat land production. Scale these up and you would out produce the USA, Canada, China, Russia, India...
 
Not total production, production methods. Multi-storey polytunnel farming methods outproduce flat land production.

Yes, and I'm looking for a statistic that I can apply to this situation, in particular calories produced per acre, or something like that. I can track down the statistic if I know which countries make use of that as an example.
 
TL9+ asteroid and world size 1 settlements are not limited to antique US farming practices (which are bettered by many countries and farming methods here in the real world)... :) :devil:

Nor are you going to build an asteroid or world size 1 settlement without extensive 'hydroponics' (look at how food is grown in poly tunnels on multiple levels to give a volume based food industry rather than an area based one). You build your farms upwards and downwards - multi-storey farms.

The other option for the world size 1 farms is to build them in orbit or on other bodies in the system.

As to TL 6 worlds not being able to fish industrially at TL 6 - Spain, Japan and Iceland have been pretty prolific fishers for a long time now, the question is is it sustainable on the size 6 world?
You are going to be limited by solar insolation levels as you follow the energy through various trophic levels to the final product; foods eaten for energy. Tech levels can make the process of capture slightly more efficient, but there is still an absolute limit to production.

For food production in tunnels/vats/etc., the limit will be energy provided by the grower without a sun, so power plants would be needed and presumably, climate control of some sort ( life support ).
 
Depending on the definition of tech level, though, it could be explained that the tech-6 worlds have imported their fusion power plants but don't have the ability to manufacture them.

And just found in the T5 rulebook (p. 496) :

Use Does Not Imply Manufacture. The world TL indicates the expected TL of commonly used equipment. Industrial worlds probably manufacture goods at their TL, but other worlds may not have such manufacturing capability

So, in explaining our very high population TL6 worlds (like Irasumsh) with not enough land area to sustain the population by farming, we can't presume cheap, miniature, imported fusion power generators. Technology in typical use is TL6, energy is at best nuclear fission.
 
You are going to be limited by solar insolation levels as you follow the energy through various trophic levels to the final product; foods eaten for energy. Tech levels can make the process of capture slightly more efficient, but there is still an absolute limit to production.

For food production in tunnels/vats/etc., the limit will be energy provided by the grower without a sun, so power plants would be needed and presumably, climate control of some sort ( life support ).
You have fusion power plants and LEDs, and the plants are actually part of the life support system for the farmers - win win.
 
So, in explaining our very high population TL6 worlds (like Irasumsh) with not enough land area to sustain the population by farming, we can't presume cheap, miniature, imported fusion power generators. Technology in typical use is TL6, energy is at best nuclear fission.
More than likely it would be TL12 fusion+, in the OTU setting fusion+ monopoly is how the 3I became an empire in the first place. The technology is 1100 years old and makes the high pop world dependent on the Imperium.
 
More than likely it would be TL12 fusion+, in the OTU setting fusion+ monopoly is how the 3I became an empire in the first place. The technology is 1100 years old and makes the high pop world dependent on the Imperium.

Yes, but according to the rules (T5 anyway), a TL6 world doesn't make use of technologies beyond TL6. "The World TL indicates the expected TL of commonly used equipment", meaning a TL6 world, even though a member of the Imperium and presumably trading with it, is generally using TL6 technology.
 
Back
Top