Mora's Atmosphere

[Dragoner]

It also seems very small, gravity would be a problem and low tech, what of value do they manufacture? In the end run, it would be more economical to have an automated factory move to the source of raw material and manufacture right there. One thing I always ponder for these high pop worlds is what do people do for a living?

 

[rancke]

what?

I gathered from your remark that you felt the abbreviated description I provided didn't sound very non-malthusian. Rather than continuing to provide piecemeal quotes, I suggest you go read the whole description for yourself.

BTW, arcologies may be dystopian, like in Caves of Steel, but that's not a universal trope. Check out Niven and Pournelle's Oath of Fealthy for another version.


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

I gathered from your remark that you felt the abbreviated description I provided didn't sound very non-malthusian. Rather than continuing to provide piecemeal quotes, I suggest you go read the whole description for yourself.

BTW, arcologies may be dystopian, like in Caves of Steel, but that's not a universal trope. Check out Niven and Pournelle's Oath of Fealthy for another version.


Hans

I'm not really interested in hunting down random things on the internet, that don't seem relevant to the op. If it's not worth it to print here...

The main dystopian views are from Silverberg's Monads, Ballard's High Rise, etc., even stuff like Ranxerox's multi-level Rome and Judge Dredd's Mega City 1. The problem with Arcologies is running into psychology and then winding up with Ratopolis or Calhoun's experiments. How are certain issues dealt with, such as what happens when the 33million of one arcology decide to off 6 million of their own members? Something humans do without overt population pressure, such as one would expect in an arcology. Hunger may be a trigger, though I doubt it's the only one and that is just one issue, I often see the trope of "land intensively used for agriculture", which is not more efficient than hydroponics and usually would just lead to salinization or desertification in short order. It starts to become one unreal situation piled on another.

 

[Enoki]

It also seems very small, gravity would be a problem and low tech, what of value do they manufacture? In the end run, it would be more economical to have an automated factory move to the source of raw material and manufacture right there. One thing I always ponder for these high pop worlds is what do people do for a living?

In the metals and materials industry low or no gravity is acutally useful in limiting crystal growth and direction in things like metals and ceramics. Small uniform crystal structures improve the product making it tougher and more uniform. So, having a low grav world is useful.

Many processes are also more easily done by cheap plentiful labor rather than automation. I can see many businesses simply choosing, as they do here on Earth today, to use cheap expendable labor rather than expensive machines in some industries simply because it is cost effective.

 

[Dragoner]

In the metals and materials industry low or no gravity is acutally useful in limiting crystal growth and direction in things like metals and ceramics. Small uniform crystal structures improve the product making it tougher and more uniform. So, having a low grav world is useful.

Many processes are also more easily done by cheap plentiful labor rather than automation. I can see many businesses simply choosing, as they do here on Earth today, to use cheap expendable labor rather than expensive machines in some industries simply because it is cost effective.

For today, it is cost in many ways, for the expense of the robots, but they always do a better job than humans, one reason being precision which is unmatchable by human labor. Once the price falls, human labor is far less desirable, given a multitude of factors.

The gravity issue is one for human life, how little gravity can a human survive without being a twisted mutant? One reason I always include grav plates in domed cities and such. I agree about the manufacturing asset quality, another attractive thing about orbital or space based factories and if one wants micro-gravity, impart spin.

 

[rancke]

I'm not really interested in hunting down random things on the internet, that don't seem relevant to the op. If it's not worth it to print here...

Fair enough. I'll just note that your objections are based on limited knowledge and leave it at that.

The problem with Arcologies is running into psychology and then winding up with Ratopolis or Calhoun's experiments. How are certain issues dealt with, such as what happens when the 33 million of one arcology decide to off 6 million of their own members? Something humans do without overt population pressure, such as one would expect in an arcology.

Why would one expect population pressure in an arcology? Surely that would depend on the available space and the rate of population increase compared to the rate of new construction.

In any case, it has been established since JTAS#15 (Azun by J. Andrew Keith with Marc W. Miller) that these problems can be dealt with. So I guess the answer is that the 33 million don't decide to kill off 6 million of their own members.

(Note that the existence of belter societies like Glisten (not to mention all those worlds with no atmosphere at all) likewise indicate that techniques for living in enclosed habitats have been developed over the millenia.)

Hunger may be a trigger, though I doubt it's the only one and that is just one issue, I often see the trope of "land intensively used for agriculture", which is not more efficient than hydroponics and usually would just lead to salinization or desertification in short order. It starts to become one unreal situation piled on another.

Actually, I see the agricultural land as being used to raise higher-quality food than the stables produced by hydroponics and carniculture. There's plenty of wilderness too, just not much of it on arable land.


Hans

 

[G. Kashkanun Anderson]

The world now is a malthusian horror for billions now.

That's a a bit of an exaggeration. The number of malnourished people in the world is currently estimated at around 925 million; by contrast, over 1 billion people are overweight... eating too much for their own good. Everyone else is sort of muddling along in-between. This strongly suggests that whatever problem TL7-8 Terra has with feeding its population is a matter of distribution, not supply.

In fact, the world is actually a lot less hungry than it used to be. As a percentage of population, global malnourishment has declined by more than half in the last 40 years, from 37% to 14%.

There is more to life than caloric intake, I can't see how being crammed in with 32 billion people couldn't be a living hell. I've been to a lot of places, NYC, LA, Cairo, Mexico City, places where human life becomes worthless and people just step over dead bodies on the sidewalk. There is something about human nature that TL will never change, if you pack people in like rats, it becomes "This Phenomenal World."

Now you're channeling Hobbes, not Malthus. At any rate, it's a subjective evaluation. I'm sure that a yurt-dwelling Mongolian or an Amazonian rain forest tribesman might consider my existence (packed in as I am with my fellow humans at 5,348 people per square mile) to be hellish, but I assure you that I and my fellow rats generally are quite happy here, even prosperous. I can readily imagine that a person born and raised in what he considered to be the cozy, controlled confines of a far-future TL14 arcology might find the yawning, exposed emptiness of my 21st-century city life to be their own personal vision of Hell.

 

[Dragoner]

That's a a bit of an exaggeration. The number of malnourished people in the world is currently estimated at around 925 million; by contrast, over 1 billion people are overweight... eating too much for their own good. Everyone else is sort of muddling along in-between. This strongly suggests that whatever problem TL7-8 Terra has with feeding its population is a matter of distribution, not supply.

In fact, the world is actually a lot less hungry than it used to be. As a percentage of population, global malnourishment has declined by more than half in the last 40 years, from 37% to 14%.

Now you're channeling Hobbes, not Malthus. At any rate, it's a subjective evaluation. I'm sure that a yurt-dwelling Mongolian or an Amazonian rain forest tribesman might consider my existence (packed in as I am with my fellow humans at 5,348 people per square mile) to be hellish, but I assure you that I and my fellow rats generally are quite happy here, even prosperous. I can readily imagine that a person born and raised in what he considered to be the cozy, controlled confines of a far-future TL14 arcology might find the yawning, exposed emptiness of my 21st-century city life to be their own personal vision of Hell.

Statistics are what they are, remember what Twain said, safe enough to say that the billions living in misery would agree with Malthus.

Hobbes' "All against All" is too extreme, which even he admited and only created to make point. Star Trek's TNG Tasha Yar came from a failed Arcolgy, which could be described as Hobbesian.

The subjective perspective is important, as to connect with the reader, I would think though that a Mongolian or some other living a life of subsistence would definitely trade life with a first worlder, they immigrate all the time. As to how cities are, I lived in Oakland, the hub of San Francisco's Bay Area for 20 years, and last thing I saw was a kid cut down in my neighborhood with a MAK-90, I went out to see if I could help and I threw away my old First Responders First Aid Kit from when I was in the Fire Department, at some point it's just too much. Systems work until they don't, they reach a tipping point and things fall apart or become to fragile to change. How does an arcology adapt to a business cycle that renders their economy irrelevant for example?

 

[Dragoner]

Fair enough. I'll just note that your objections are based on limited knowledge and leave it at that.


Why would one expect population pressure in an arcology? Surely that would depend on the available space and the rate of population increase compared to the rate of new construction.

In any case, it has been established since JTAS#15 (Azun by J. Andrew Keith with Marc W. Miller) that these problems can be dealt with. So I guess the answer is that the 33 million don't decide to kill off 6 million of their own members.

(Note that the existence of belter societies like Glisten (not to mention all those worlds with no atmosphere at all) likewise indicate that techniques for living in enclosed habitats have been developed over the millenia.)


Actually, I see the agricultural land as being used to raise higher-quality food than the stables produced by hydroponics and carniculture. There's plenty of wilderness too, just not much of it on arable land.


Hans

There is population pressure now, sans arcologies.

I try to keep the handwavium put away for special circumstances. Azun is a nice piece, very enjoyable to read, however, applying a generic basis to everything is not only illogical but boring, every world should be it's own special case, as countries are now. Saying it just doesn't happen is unsatisfying, I did not bring up the discussion about bits that don't sense, but it's a good idea to discuss them, as to make things better. If there is to be a leap of logic, or a basic change in human nature, it's good to try to come up with a backstory of how this came to occur.

The question of wilderness is a good one, though often I hear europeans describe parks as wilderness, which are very different. Usually parks are not so dangerous, but wilderness is rapidly disappearing. Even with parkland, how much nature does one need to survive? I read a good thesis on trees and their importance to the human psyche, trees have a primal place.

 

[rancke]

There is population pressure now, sans arcologies.

And we're TL7 now, not TL14. And as was pointed out to you, it's distribution, not production that keeps some of Earth's millions hungry.

Azun is a nice piece, very enjoyable to read, however, applying a generic basis to everything is not only illogical but boring, every world should be it's own special case, as countries are now.

And Mora is its own special case. It's just one of the cases where they do pretty well.

Saying it just doesn't happen is unsatisfying...

I'm not saying it never happens. Just that evidently it doesn't inevitably happen. I'm sure there are habitats where conditions are as dystopian as you could ever wish for. But there are also habitats that aren't dystopian at all.

...I did not bring up the discussion about bits that don't sense, but it's a good idea to discuss them, as to make things better. If there is to be a leap of logic, or a basic change in human nature, it's good to try to come up with a backstory of how this came to occur.

As far as I know there's not a single bit in mine and Andy's description of Mora that doesn't make sense. (Not that I'd be surprised if we got something wrong; I'm just not aware of any such thing at the moment).

The question of wilderness is a good one, though often I hear europeans describe parks as wilderness, which are very different. Usually parks are not so dangerous, but wilderness is rapidly disappearing. Even with parkland, how much nature does one need to survive? I read a good thesis on trees and their importance to the human psyche, trees have a primal place.

Evidently not in the Traveller Universe. There are plenty of people in the Traveller Universe that live on worlds with no open air wilderness at all. Or in planetoid belts and orbital stations for that matter. You are stating as a fact a theory that does not agree at all with the (admittedly fictional) rock solid, cast iron facts of the setting.


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

And we're TL7 now, not TL14. And as was pointed out to you, it's distribution, not production that keeps some of Earth's millions hungry.


And Mora is its own special case. It's just one of the cases where they do pretty well.


I'm not saying it never happens. Just that evidently it doesn't inevitably happen. I'm sure there are habitats where conditions are as dystopian as you could ever wish for. But there are also habitats that aren't dystopian at all.

Evidently not in the Traveller Universe. There are plenty of people in the Traveller Universe that live on worlds with no open air wilderness at all. Or in planetoid belts and orbital stations for that matter. You are stating as a fact a theory that does not agree at all with the (admittedly fictional) rock solid, cast iron facts of the setting.


Hans

It's not distribution that is the problem, it's money. Human nature does not change with TL as far as anybody knows, so it's better to keep things realistic or to explain a change as to why it happened. As far as dystopian goes, things will inevitably remain a mix of both, as things are in reality (which even in a fictional setting should be followed as closely as possible).


As far as nature goes, when I created my CinoCor City for Dead Moon that I posted in adventures, I gave over about half the area under the dome to parkland and farms, plus grav plates for a constant G. So there at least could be a simulacra of earth like conditions, something that would be done everywhere and would be possible given high enough technology. There is a minimum of space people need to survive, this would be repeated in every structure possible, starships as well, maybe not as extreme like the K'kree, but similar.

 

[rancke]

It's not distribution that is the problem, it's money. Human nature does not change with TL as far as anybody knows, so it's better to keep things realistic or to explain a change as to why it happened. As far as dystopian goes, things will inevitably remain a mix of both, as things are in reality (which even in a fictional setting should be followed as closely as possible).

In fact, the world is actually a lot less hungry than it used to be. As a percentage of population, global malnourishment has declined by more than half in the last 40 years, from 37% to 14%.

So apparently things do change a bit every once in a while.

As far as nature goes, when I created my CinoCor City for Dead Moon that I posted in adventures, I gave over about half the area under the dome to parkland and farms, plus grav plates for a constant G. So there at least could be a simulacra of earth like conditions, something that would be done everywhere and would be possible given high enough technology. There is a minimum of space people need to survive, this would be repeated in every structure possible, starships as well, maybe not as extreme like the K'kree, but similar.

And what makes you think the people of Mora don't have that minimum space available? Can you even tell us how much space that minimum is?


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

​

So apparently things do change a bit every once in a while.



And what makes you think the people of Mora don't have that minimum space available? Can you even tell us how much space that minimum is?


Hans

Do things change or is the dataset incomplete...time will tell.

If as per op, Mora has 32 billion, space would be at a premium, 10 bil less so, but who knows.

 

[aramis]

One of the problems of an arcology, which Hans seems to be overlooking, is that 3 dimensional cities allow far more interaction per person than 2D cities.

Also, crime rates scale with population density; violent crimes and gangs rise proportionally with density and inversely with average income. Average education doesn't seem to factor directly (tho' it does link to average income with a contributory relationship). Also, studies of social interaction show that the same 2D density in a 3D space has about the same social effects as that same density in a 2D space; Areas of Tokyo with a density equal to that of downtown NYC have a similar rate of both crime and social distancing behaviors. (I can't vouch for how they measured social distancing, as I read the paper 4 years ago during my MAEd program; I recall it measured the number of social pleasantries per hour in a given area, but not how counted.)

It's interesting to note that the densest pre-industrial populations also were among the most socially formal; Byzantium, Feudal Japan, Urban Rome... Even the Imperial City of China was said to be socially rigid in form.

The idea of social rigidity in custom is, in point of fact, one of those areas where lots of North Americans find the whole idea of formal interaction abhorrent; US cities, rather than formal interactions, tend towards non-interaction; Japanese tend to fall to rigid forms of limited interaction and "false privacy" (People willfully ignoring individuals until the correct social forms are followed).

The social rules needed where a 1km movement can bring one into contact with 10 million people are far more stringent than those where it can only bring 10,000, and those more so than when it's 500 people. As someone who's lived in range of about 5k, and now am in an area where it's about 2K, the social pleasantries are in fact far more common; it's only 16km distance, but the social environment is VERY different; 3km away, it drops even more, and people are FAR more friendly there.

So I would expect that Fenrock, at 33M on 6km^2 (in 4.5km^2) would be 5M per km^2... 100 times that of Manilla, the most dense on the list on Wikipedia, and 100 times that of Mumbai... would be stiflingly formal. You can run into too many people. I would expect clear social indicators, and clear restrictions on who goes where. Even if not properly uniforms, I would expect clear social class dress modes. All things that make it horrific to me. And, from the corner, you've got 5 million people within a kilometer. Oh, and that's only 136.36 cubic meters per person... INCLUDING industrial space. Assuming a nice 3m ceiling, that's 45m^2 per person, or 6.75x6.75x3m each.

That's pretty damned cramped there, Hans. 22x22 feet each. That's my living room per person, counting work and accessway spaces. Using a general rate from MT, 10% will be LS and power to run it; and half the quarters space will be outside the quarters, that's 20m^2 per person in quarters, and 20m^2 per person in commons, presuming only LS is accounted for; if there's industrial space, it gets MUCH worse.

 

[aramis]

One of the problems of an arcology, which Hans seems to be overlooking, is that 3 dimensional cities allow far more interaction per person than 2D cities.

Also, crime rates scale with population density; violent crimes and gangs rise proportionally with density and inversely with average income. Average education doesn't seem to factor directly (tho' it does link to average income with a contributory relationship). Also, studies of social interaction show that the same 2D density in a 3D space has about the same social effects as that same density in a 2D space; Areas of Tokyo with a density equal to that of downtown NYC have a similar rate of both crime and social distancing behaviors. (I can't vouch for how they measured social distancing, as I read the paper 4 years ago during my MAEd program; I recall it measured the number of social pleasantries per hour in a given area, but not how counted.)

It's interesting to note that the densest pre-industrial populations also were among the most socially formal; Byzantium, Feudal Japan, Urban Rome... Even the Imperial City of China was said to be socially rigid in form.

The idea of social rigidity in custom is, in point of fact, one of those areas where lots of North Americans find the whole idea of formal interaction abhorrent; US cities, rather than formal interactions, tend towards non-interaction; Japanese tend to fall to rigid forms of limited interaction and "false privacy" (People willfully ignoring individuals until the correct social forms are followed).

The social rules needed where a 1km movement can bring one into contact with 10 million people are far more stringent than those where it can only bring 10,000, and those more so than when it's 500 people. As someone who's lived in range of about 5k, and now am in an area where it's about 2K, the social pleasantries are in fact far more common; it's only 16km distance, but the social environment is VERY different; 3km away, it drops even more, and people are FAR more friendly there.

So I would expect that Fenrock, at 33M on 6km^2 (in 4.5km^2) would be 5M per km^2... 100 times that of Manilla, the most dense on the list on Wikipedia, and 100 times that of Mumbai... would be stiflingly formal. You can run into too many people. I would expect clear social indicators, and clear restrictions on who goes where. Even if not properly uniforms, I would expect clear social class dress modes. All things that make it horrific to me. And, from the corner, you've got 5 million people within a kilometer. Oh, and that's only 136.36 cubic meters per person... INCLUDING industrial space. Assuming a nice 3m ceiling, that's 45m^2 per person, or 6.75x6.75x3m each.

That's pretty damned cramped there, Hans. 22x22 feet each. That's my living room per person, counting work and accessway spaces. Using a general rate from MT, 10% will be LS and power to run it; and half the quarters space will be outside the quarters, that's 20m^2 per person in quarters, and 20m^2 per person in commons, presuming only LS is accounted for; if there's industrial space, it gets MUCH worse.

 

[rancke]

One of the problems of an arcology, which Hans seems to be overlooking, is that 3 dimensional cities allow far more interaction per person than 2D cities.

I'm not sure that's true, but you're quite right that I haven't given it any thought.

Also, crime rates scale with population density; violent crimes and gangs rise proportionally with density and inversely with average income. Average education doesn't seem to factor directly (tho' it does link to average income with a contributory relationship). Also, studies of social interaction show that the same 2D density in a 3D space has about the same social effects as that same density in a 2D space; Areas of Tokyo with a density equal to that of downtown NYC have a similar rate of both crime and social distancing behaviors.

It sounds plausible, anyway.

The social rules needed where a 1km movement can bring one into contact with 10 million people are far more stringent than those where it can only bring 10,000, and those more so than when it's 500 people. As someone who's lived in range of about 5k, and now am in an area where it's about 2K, the social pleasantries are in fact far more common; it's only 16km distance, but the social environment is VERY different; 3km away, it drops even more, and people are FAR more friendly there.

All this is fascinating, but it fails to account for two things: That the descriptions of the social mores of Mora's (and Azun's) arcologies are very scanty and that arcologies are an established fact. The problems you point out may be very real, but they have also been solved.

(I must say that a more detailed exploration of life in arcologies would be really interesting.)

[Analysis of the figures given for Fenrock]That's pretty damned cramped there, Hans. 22x22 feet each. That's my living room per person, counting work and accessway spaces. Using a general rate from MT, 10% will be LS and power to run it; and half the quarters space will be outside the quarters, that's 20m^2 per person in quarters, and 20m^2 per person in commons, presuming only LS is accounted for; if there's industrial space, it gets MUCH worse.

That's a good cogent argument, Wil. I don't want to throw Andy under a bus here, but I had assumed he had worked out the sums and given the good people of Fenrock plenty of room with enough left over for parks and other public spaces. Perhaps he got his sums wrong. Assuming your figures are correct, it would seem so. And if that's the case, there's a very simple remedy: Change the scale of his excellent drawings. Mora is certainly capable of building arcologies that are bigger than 3x2x0.75 km. (Azun, at TL11, are able to build arcologies that are three km tall and they aren't even mostly submerged). Or maybe Fenrock is just an unusually overcrowded arcology, although I would be against that solution.

The point is that there is room enough on Mora to put in all the mega-arcologies that are needed to give the inhabitants all the floor space they need. Maybe Fenrock is a bad example, but the arguments I put forward earlier (that in the Traveller Universe hundreds of billions of people quite evidently do live in artificial habitats) still apply.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Hans, the most likely way Fenrock "Solved" those issues is by a pathologically rigid society. Think "Makes Imperial Japan look flexible"... Not having seen the plans for Fenrock (at least not that I recall), the level of space is comparable to that of urban Tokyo, but with much higher total population encounterability.

I'd still define it as hellaciously tight.

If it's not a rigid society, then it's got to have some other means; perhaps not a true arcology, having the population mostly working outside. (A true arcology is literally a society in a box, not just a city in a box.... the residents live and work inside. The only difference from a dome really is that an arcology is not axiomatically a sealed environment, and usually imports food in exchange for industrial production.)

Now, extrapolating just a bit. If we assume a 1:3.5 worker:non-worker ratio (couple + 2.5 kids), and 1:35::worker:Td_worked (1:490::worker:kL_worked), we can actually crunch some numbers for how bad off that place really is. We'll assume only 2.5m residential ceilings to give maximal floor space...

33M/4.5=7.333333M workers
7.333333*490=3593333170kL
4500000000kL-3593333170kL=906666830kL
906666830kL/33000000p=27.475kL/person
27.475Sqm/2.5m=10.999m^2 per person
half that is roughly 5.5m^2 per person in quarters, the rest in commons. about 2.35m square per person. 1.5x1.5 deck squares per person in quarters, and same in commons. Expect LONG halls, and small lounges, at least if the parks are big.

Now, the actual equipment ratio might be less, but we KNOW from CT rules that this rate works for power production machinery on full-up-time rates. Probably also works for industrial production.

A scientist would take far less space each; figure comfortably a lab and office (total 112kL) instead of a large chunk of industrial machinery... about 1/4 the space. Schools would be about the same efficiency as industry: 1 classroom is roughly 300kL and is one person's workspace, plus additional access space and common rooms to about 50% more rounds it out. (It's hard to share a classroom in a double shift; it is easier in more technically adroit rooms, but students and teachers both find it less pleasant.) Higher Education probably balances out by larger (about 600kL) classrooms, shared by 2-3 instructors, and larger commons, but each instructor also having an office and many having a lab.

The spaces for ed could easily be coopted for entertainment and/or commons enhancement...

Essentially, if we accept the 35Td:1 worker rate, and 1:4.5 workers, 1/3rd of the space is habs... it's small craft stateroom rates, or double occupancy rates.

The solution, as I said before, is likely to be a society where those not able to cope have been selected against both by criminality (and thus removal from breeding populations) and self-removal at opportunity (emmigration) and non-arrival of those who can't stomach it (low immigration); after a few generations, you'll get some small genetic predisposition towards higher density, and a strong cultural one. (Known axiom: culture adapts far faster than genetics.)

Also note: higher status individuals are going to have bigger quarters; this is a fundamental pattern of all urban societies, and most rural ones as well. Even where status is officially decried, it's been true that higher social or political position resulted in larger quarters. Which means some portion are living tighter than 27kl each...

 

[rancke]

Hans, the most likely way Fenrock "Solved" those issues is by a pathologically rigid society. Think "Makes Imperial Japan look flexible"... Not having seen the plans for Fenrock (at least not that I recall), the level of space is comparable to that of urban Tokyo, but with much higher total population encounterability.

I'd still define it as hellaciously tight.

Yes, and that's not what we were going for, nor does it fit with the described details. Hence my preferred solution would be to amend the available space rather than accept the (unintended) ramifications.

If it's not a rigid society, then it's got to have some other means; perhaps not a true arcology, having the population mostly working outside. (A true arcology is literally a society in a box, not just a city in a box.... the residents live and work inside. The only difference from a dome really is that an arcology is not axiomatically a sealed environment, and usually imports food in exchange for industrial production.)

No, it's pretty much a society in a box. More open for imports and exports than if trade had to go by starship, but still pretty self-contained. There is some sea-bottom farming, but I don't think that would help much.

Now, extrapolating just a bit. If we assume a 1:3.5 worker:non-worker ratio (couple + 2.5 kids), and 1:35::worker:Td_worked (1:490::worker:kL_worked), we can actually crunch some numbers for how bad off that place really is. We'll assume only 2.5m residential ceilings to give maximal floor space...

33M/4.5=7.333333M workers
7.333333*490=3593333170kL
4500000000kL-3593333170kL=906666830kL
906666830kL/33000000p=27.475kL/person
27.475Sqm/2.5m=10.999m^2 per person
half that is roughly 5.5m^2 per person in quarters, the rest in commons. about 2.35m square per person. 1.5x1.5 deck squares per person in quarters, and same in commons. Expect LONG halls, and small lounges, at least if the parks are big.

Good stuff, Wil, and I hope Dom will decide to talk it over with me and Andy, but I've already acknowledged that the figures seem unintendedly tight. Which is why I've suggested that it may be a good idea to reexamine those figures. Doubling the dimensions would increase the available space by 8, tripling it by 27. (Mind you, as described, Fenrock is not making maximum use of its space).

The rest of your post is even more good stuff. May I suggest a spin-off thread about arcologies? It would be nice if we had a basis for figuring out how big Fenrock (and any other arcology) would have to be to fit with our intentions.

BTW, World Tamer's Handbook has a 1:3 worker to non-worker ratio.



Hans

 

[kilmore]

Op here. Man, this topic went places!

At any rate, I'd originally intended Mora to be just a jumping off point for my Traveller campaign, but now this place just gets more and more interesting. The more data I can get on this place the better. Since we're getting down to the nitty-gritty:

1.) Is there a planetary map?
2.) Do the dolphins have a colony?
3.) I'm guessing Mora is the scientific base for the Nexine project?
4.) Fornice is the obvious major trading partner. I would guess that thousands travel from world to world at any given time, and apparently water is at a premium there, while Mora is quite wet so water/ice shipments would be common, but what else is the trade based on?
5.) I remember fishing being mentioned in some book or another. I'd imagine that this would be a very carefully managed economic activity, but the people of Mora apparently care about their world's natural order to some extent so I would guess that they would try to leave the native sea life to go as it will as much as possible. I'd think that they'd have large reservoirs of food fish, possibly including favorites from other worlds such as tuna and salmon that they keep from native biomes. Also, with a profusion of nobles on hand, I'd imagine a robust sport fishing industry.
6.) The "Eleven Brides". It is noted that they are so "married" to their work that they don't take husbands. This suggests that this life-path is a life long commitment, with the appropriate apprenticeship and mandatory bachelorettehood. I would expect that they are drawn from an elite cadre. How are they selected? Election amongst themselves? Hand picked by Duchess Delphine?
7.) Likewise the 33 member legislative Caucus. Is this the one branch of government that is elected by the people? If so, I'd say there's either 11 or 33 elective areas on Mora.
8.) Warm climate, 92% water, atmospheric impurities, this suggests a robust tropical weather system. It was noted that most settlements are towards the equator, where it would be naturally lower in air pressure and less likely to get annihilated by massive hurricanes. Agreed?

I believe I will go with the 10 or 11 billion residents. I don't see it being realistic that 33 billion people live in the system, de facto sector capital or no.

 

[rancke]

1.) Is there a planetary map?

I'm afraid not. At one point I hoped to get one made, but it didn't happen. I do have some cartographical notes somewhere.

2.) Do the dolphins have a colony?

What dolphins?

3.) I'm guessing Mora is the scientific base for the Nexine project?

That's quite likely, but not established.

4.) Fornice is the obvious major trading partner. I would guess that thousands travel from world to world at any given time, and apparently water is at a premium there, while Mora is quite wet so water/ice shipments would be common, but what else is the trade based on?

There are (at least) three different kinds of canon: Canon that makes sense; canon that seems strange but can be made to work[*], and canon that makes no sense at all. A world with 42% water cover is unlikely to have a significant shortage of water. Perhaps if it is cheaper to import water than to purify the local oceans, but how likely is that? YMMV.

[*] Actually, you often get the most interesting features out of this kind of canon; the first kind tend to be a bit blander.​

5.) I remember fishing being mentioned in some book or another. I'd imagine that this would be a very carefully managed economic activity, but the people of Mora apparently care about their world's natural order to some extent so I would guess that they would try to leave the native sea life to go as it will as much as possible. I'd think that they'd have large reservoirs of food fish, possibly including favorites from other worlds such as tuna and salmon that they keep from native biomes. Also, with a profusion of nobles on hand, I'd imagine a robust sport fishing industry.

The people of Mora (or at least the government) is interested in sustainability. I don't see them so much as tree-huggers as canny resource managers. (Should there have been a second 'as' in front of 'canny'?)

8.) Warm climate, 92% water, atmospheric impurities, this suggests a robust tropical weather system. It was noted that most settlements are towards the equator, where it would be naturally lower in air pressure and less likely to get annihilated by massive hurricanes. Agreed?

There are a couple of ridges encircling the world on both sides of the equator. They make for good building sites in (realtively) shallow water.


Hans