How many people ...

[daryen]

How many people can a single world realistically support?

While obviously, if a full system is in use, the number can be pretty large. But even so, Traveller has an implicit assumption that regardless of what other resources a system may have, the "mainworld" will have at least a full order of magnitude more people than any other spot in the system.

So, given that, how many people can a TL C+ society support on an a 867 world (i.e. Terra)? How about something less favorable, like say, a 549 or a 436 world?

 

[Anthony]

Depends mostly on power production. Probably in the vicinity of 1-10,000 people per square kilometer; a trillion people is a reasonable limit for a size 8 world.

 

[Malenfant]

What, food production isn't important too?

It depends on a lot of things - tech level, society, energy distribution, distribution of wealth... how many people could Earth support in the future if things carry on as they are today? I'm getting the distinct impression that we're heading for a nasty crunch or collapse soon because we're outstripping the resources that are currently available, destabilising the environment etc...

I mean, a trillion people (ie 1,000 billion) on a size 8 world? I can't believe that's even remotely possible. Hell, think of the waste disposal problems alone!

 

[daryen]

Well, for the original question, I did specify TL C+. You can use TL E+ if that would matter. I am not particularly worried about present day Earth, nor do I care at what point a lower TL starts causing problems. (Not that those questions are relevant overall, they just aren't part of my question. I am hoping for a good answer before we wander afield. )

Given the high TL, power is irrelevant. Given that these are high TL worlds in the Traveller universe, we can also assume they are reasonably stable. (Actually, for the purposes of my question, they are, in fact, stable.)

BTW, besides food and water, what resources would be used in a TL C+ society? Energy shouldn't be an issue, given the presence of cheap, incredibly efficient fusion power.

 

[Malenfant]

You cannae change the laws of physics!

You've got to have the power to support all those people. You need the energy (ie food) to sustain them. You need the space to put them all in. You need the capability to remove their waste products (be it bodily waste, garbage, or even waste heat from their bodies - and from all the resources that are being used up to keep them there).

I don't get why people think that having fusion power or high tech is a magic wand to solving these problems. Our tech is increasing, and so is our population - at a phenomenal rate - and our problems are only increasing over time. Fusion reactors generate still generate heat and require maintenance (and Helium 3), and you'll need a lot of them to provide power for all those people.

How much food would a trillion people need to consume every day to survive? Or even a hundred billion, or 50 billion? What would the quality of life be on such a crowded world?

 

[Pickles]

How many people would a planet want to support? All the evidence from our little corner of the Solomani Rim is that as standards of living rise, population growth slows, stabilises or even declines. Is your question related to the maximum possible population, or a likely population?

 

[Spinward Scout]

Telephone sanitizers. Definitely need those. hehe

Dameon

 

[vutpakdi]

There are some funny Irregular Webcomic strips around this issue (as applied to Coruscant):
First Set of Five
Second Set of Five

Note: Not all in the 10 strips are on the issue.

Ron

 

[daryen]

Good one Toth!

The Traveller world generation system will allow a world to be created with up to 90-99 billion people living on it. The Regency Sourcebook even goes as far as to list a world with 100 billion people on it.

So, regardless of whether it is desirable (which it surely isn't), is 100 billion sustainable?

If 100 billion isn't sustainable, what is? Do you have to drop to 50 billion? How about 10 billion? There are several worlds with 10-40 billion. Are those as fanatasical as 100 billion?

 

[Liam Devlin]

Hmmmm..how many folk can dwell on a world?

How many folk can higher technology sustain? Say TL-C+...

Thorny problem.

Mssr Mal is correct on several issues--that That many beings on one world Pop A, or say pop B [taking the UWP at FACE value only, and not using one's imagination thoroughly] need some sort of waste disposal/ energy support/ food production.

Here's an idea, gleaned from ther posts around this forum that dance about this topic--[not unlike how many angels can dance on the head of a pin question of long ago]:


FOR GAME USE in this post--not as Scientific facts--Sci Fiction, mind ye, Traveller style!

Using World Building planetary pop modifiers
Planet size Pop Mod.
0-3 -2
4-7 -1
8 0
9 +1
A +2

TL* Modifier
0-3 -3
4-6 -2
7-8 -1
9-A 0
B-C +1
D-E +2
F-G +3

* defined as medical/ food / energy production/ city construction & advances for life extension of humaniti.

UWP Atmos. Min. req.TL for life support
0-3 TL-6
A TL-7
B TL-8
C TL-9

UWP Hydro. pop. Modifier
0-1 -2
2-3 -1
4-9 0
A -1

Now...
just for grins here: Take all those factors, and for every 1 or 2 tech levels above the required needed for a sustainable population, add +1 to the world's pop UWP digit. The reverse can also be true.

That's a crunchy solution.

The sci fi solution is in the case of the world that has 100's of billions pop B, IIRC, has a TL-E in the Marches-Deneb area; which means grav cities [beginning at TL-D], arcologies, etc..and folk stacked like sammiches dirtside, and a wee looser in orbit, and in the skies, or seas.

Food production? If they haven't exhausted their own world resources, orbital habitats that are strictly agro producing. Or for a mor sinister Verse, recycles even folk--ala Soylent Green.

Industrial output at TL-E, with that many folk, and automation--that one system can outproduce almost some sectors. Their neighbors probably have tariffs on their goods, just to keep par with them.
Sounds like a great place for Naval construction shipyards, and a HQ for Megacorporations methinks.

BTW Daryen what's the UWP of this mega pop system?

Ya'll have a great day!

 

[daryen]

Liam:

The one you mention is:
Askigaak B549BA8-E 101

Other interesting worlds:
Lilad A447A7B-F 924
Pikha A738A86-E 712
Deneb A537ADD-E 810
Lintl A739AEE-F 604
Narsil A574A57-D 424
Junidy A434AEE-D 410
Albe A540A52-F 413

Then I got tired of looking. I am sure there are a couple more in there. These are all dated 1202 from the Regency Sourcebook.

In addition to those, elsewhere in the Trojan Reaches, we have these (dated 1117):
Strend B436AFB-F 802
Hreahrya B333AH9-D 924
Irlaiw C336AH5-D 813

As you might guess from the names, the last two are Aslan worlds.

(Edit: In case it isn't obvious, the last three numbers are the PPG.)

 

[Anthony]

Ok, based on some studies of space stations, the minimum surface area per occupant was 155 square meters, which works out to a population density of about 6,500 per square kilometer. This does, of course, require levelling mountains, filling oceans, and otherwise rendering the entire surface of the planet livable. It also assumes solar powered agriculture, and it doesn't include actual power production areas. At a typical power consumption of 10 kW/person (which may be low for the TU), using solar cells at 30% efficiency and assuming they get an average of 6 hours exposure per day, we need to add 100 m^2 per person, which cuts us down to a mere 3,900 per square kilometer. A size-8 world has an area of 5 billion square kilometers, so our limit is approximately 20 trillion.

Now, if you're not using solar powered agriculture, you can stack layers of city on top of one another, and the problem becomes thermal issues -- at what point does your society cook from waste heat. Going with the same 10 kW/person, a planet fairly far out from its primary, but with a livable surface temperature, can dissipate around 250W/m^2, so this leaves us at 40 m^2 per person, or 25,000 per km^2, or a peak population of 125 trillion.

In practice, I'd be pretty dubious of anything over a trillion, but so far no-one has pointed out any worlds over 100 billion, so not really a problem in Traveller.

 

[Malenfant]

But that's just assuming that all the room is taken up by living space and solar cells for power. As you said, it doesn't include other means of power production.

What about industries? Waste disposal, power generation spinoffs, trade districts etc - those are going to take up room too.

One big thing we're missing too is whether a trillion people is sociallyu stable. Would that many people actually be able to stomach being
crammed together without killing eachother? How would you govern a trillion people in one place? Maybe there's a 'social' population cap above which a society isn't stable.

 

[far-trader]

Is it going to drag the topic too far afield to suggest that maybe above a certain population with the appropriate TL that most of the problems are solved by the classic sci-fi crowd problem fix of "time sharing".

You get so many hours/days/weeks or whatever up and about to do your job to earn money to make your down time enjoyable. Said down time being in hibernation/stasis/closetted with a virtual world tap to the brain/etc...

Heck even steal an idea from "The Matrix" and use all that waste body heat of the "dreamers" for power production.

 

[whartung]

Tokyo (one of the densest population centers) runs ~13,500/km^2.

Earth has 510Mkm^2 total surface area. It's estimated that about 1/8 of that is arable land. If you mow down the assorted forests, you can get more arable land. But we won't for this discussion.

If you apply Tokyo's population density to that entire 1/8th of arable land on Earth, you end up with a population of ~64 Billion.

But, I think that the real big problem moreso than simply living space, will be as someone else mentioned, waste heat.

We are already experiencing "warm areas" surrounding metropolitan cities, coastal power plants changing ecosystems by using the oceans for cooling.

These are clinate changing events, but I don't think they're extinction events. It's just dealing with the consequences of warmer oceans and all that can bring about.

Anyway, I think 1 Trillion is a bit much to support on an earth size planet.

As for us, I always hear that we'll top out at ~10 Billion and all sorts of odd factors will come into play to pretty much just float around that number.

Western Europe is already shrinking, and we're growing at a slower rate here.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by Anthony:
/snip/It also assumes solar powered agriculture,/snip/

I thought ALL agriculture was solar powered?!

Originally posted by whartung:
If you apply Tokyo's population density to that entire 1/8th of arable land on Earth, you end up with a population of ~64 Billion.

Why would you put all these people on arable land? Wouldn't they eventually end up on all the otherwise non-productive land - build your arcologies in and on the Rockies, the Alps, the Urals, etc.? Undersea cities for ocean farming, place your solar panels in the deserts, etc.? Haven't you guys been reading the scifi on your shelves?

Would I want to live there? No. But, I wouldn't have any choice. My character would, being a Traveller, and all. (Well, maybe I would have a choice, being the world traveller that I am through my military experience.)

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by daryen:
Liam:

The one you mention is:
Askigaak B549BA8-E 101

Okay--the BIGGIE of OTU, beyond a doubt!
-1 for size; [reduces to maximum of pop 9], +2 TL-E = B. works for me!

Other interesting worlds:
Lilad A447A7B-F 924

-1 size [pop 9 maximum]; +3 TL-F= B. A possible second Askigaak! at 90 billions, packed, but feasible.

Pikha A738A86-E 712

-1 size, [pop max 9] +2 TL. Same as above, feasible.

Deneb A537ADD-E 810

-1 size, [pop max 9] +2 TL. Same as above, feasible.

Lintl A739AEE-F 604

-1 size [Pop max 9] +3 TL. Again, packed, but Feasible. Another possible Askigaak.

Narsil A574A57-D 424

-1 size, [pop max 9] +2 TL. Same as above, feasible. Another possible Askigaak.

Junidy A434AEE-D 410

-1 size, [pop max 9] +2 TL. Same as above, feasible.

Albe A540A52-F 413

-1 size & -2 Hydrosphere [pop 7 max]+3 TL-F.
A is max population here.

[SNIP]

In addition to those, elsewhere in the Trojan Reaches, we have these (dated 1117):

Strend B436AFB-F 802

-1 size [pop 9 max] +3 TL-F.Another possible Askigaak.

Hreahrya B333AH9-D 924

-2 size & -1 Hydropshere [max pop 7] +2 TL-D. This one should be maxxed at pop 9. THEY have problems! Foodstuffs might have to be imported! Water reclamation a MUST here.

Irlaiw C336AH5-D 813

-2 size [Pop Max 8]+2 TL = A. This planet within it's pop maximum.

As you might guess from the names, the last two are Aslan worlds.

(Edit: In case it isn't obvious, the last three numbers are the PPG.)

As you have seen the crunchy reasoning works for all but one of these worlds, guys [and gals--I know yer out there, aye?].

When in doubt it IS YOUR job as a GM to explain it away, in a manner unique to the world itself.
TY Msr Daryen for the stage.

The Play, Gentlemen, is yours..
Ya'll have fun now, ya hear?

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
I thought ALL agriculture was solar powered?!

Nope, hothouse growing often uses artificial light.

Originally posted by whartung:
If you apply Tokyo's population density to that entire 1/8th of arable land on Earth, you end up with a population of ~64 Billion.

Hm. 510M x 13,000 x 1/8 = 840B. I did make an order of magnitude error in my numbers, but 1T is still possible, if not particularly desireable.

 

[daryen]

So, putting this together, what I am hearing is that for TL D+, atmos 4-9, hydro 4-9, a population of 100 billion is sustainable, though likely not terribly desirable.

Is that a valid conclusion?

 

[Pickles]

Looks that way. What are you getting at, Daryen? I'm sure I'm not the only one on tenderhooks.