Official Codex Discord Server

  1. Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
    Dismiss Notice

Fruit Fly Population Experiment

Discussion in 'StarLife' started by tiagocc0, Jan 14, 2013.

  1. tiagocc0 Arcane

    tiagocc0
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,056
    Location:
    Brazil
    I wanted a better source, but this will do:
    (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100716175144AArkjPC)
    So what is the meaning of this?
    The meaning is that the jar will get full, there will be a jar completely full of flies. Which all of them starved to death.

    Now let's think about Earth, in case we do not expand to space and our technology remains as is.
    Population will grow so much, conflict will arise, wars will happen, food production will come to a halt because:
    Some areas just can't produce food anymore;
    Some areas were devastated because of war;
    Experts in the area will die of starvation or war.

    Some people think technology can/will resolve all issues.
    Some people think space exploration will save us.

    Now let's think about a game.
    If you go to space the problem will still exist, you colonize other planets, population will rise again.
    So colonize more planets. But that's assuming planets stay the same, but if the conditions to grow food on Earth were depleted, then planets have a 'lifetime' in which one day it will be useless.
    So space colonization will also force the population to migrate to other planets as time passes.

    If technology makes food production possible on otherwise depleted places then a planet doesn't need to be discarded.

    On a game perspective this level of technology should appear only in a very late game.

    Imagine a game where when you start your home planet is already fucked up.
    You HAVE to colonize other worlds or die.

    As you grow your empire, you also speedy up the process of 'killing planets'.
    Your empire will start to move in the galaxy as you dry planets of resources.

    Now we have a very good reason to expand and make wars, instead of making a fucking good home planet and attacking everyone just for the sake of winning a completely nonsense goal of being the last surviving species for the sake of it.

    In midgame most stars of the star cluster (about a thousand stars) you live in are completely useless.
    The most advanced races will now start to discover advanced planet revitalization techniques or advanced resource extraction techniques. Why mine a planet when you can mine a star? Things like that.

    So the already used stars starts to get colonized again.
    And now you have a completely different end game to play.
    A decent mid game reason to expand and fight.
    And early game should be about securing good stars for you to rely on later instead of just colonizing completely useless planets so they can pay you taxes.
    :kfc:
     
    ^ Top  
  2. Malakal Arcane

    Malakal
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,068
    Location:
    Poland
    The problem is advanced societies do not reproduce enough to maintain their population or experience a small growth at best. Most games base on the assumption that populations maintain their growth rate no matter how advanced they are, or even grow faster due to tech advances.

    So in order to make space exploration necessary we have to take out the natural slowing population growth and replace it with infinite growth demanding new planets that are colonizable.

    I could wager that IRL we would never estabilish a colony outside of our solar system because there wont be need for that.
     
    ^ Top  
  3. Malakal Arcane

    Malakal
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,068
    Location:
    Poland
    Also is it even possible to feasibly drain a planet of all resources? Certain ones definitely, even if we recycle, but most minerals and metals are abundant enough to never really be exhaustible.

    For game purposes I would divide resources into resources with infinite supply (common metals and minerals, energy) and rarer resources that may be exhausted (radioactive elements that tend to be exceedingly rare).
     
    ^ Top  
  4. tiagocc0 Arcane

    tiagocc0
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,056
    Location:
    Brazil
    But games usually have infinite growth, right?
    Or do you mean a planet population would grow more than the limit causing overpopulation requiring then new planets.

    It's an interesting approach because if you do not get more planets soon your population may get angry and revolt.


    Resources will get depleted on the level we are able to mine\acquire them.
    New techs would be necessary for you to get resources again. So while you don't have the tech the planet is useless.
     
    ^ Top  
  5. Average Manatee Prestigious Gentleman Arcane

    Average Manatee
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2012
    Messages:
    10,399
    This is entirely cultural though. There's nothing to prevent you from going out there and impregnating a dozen fertile women every day, other than the basement-dweller thing. And if interstellar colonization became feasible there is no reason China wouldn't immediately lift it's one child policy and immediately start with the galaxy dominance. Nevermind what will happen if we discover immortality-granting stem cells or genetic modification or some age-reversal drug at some point.

    Depends on your level of technology. If you are at the level of Dyson Sphere technology then you'll be running out of everything.
     
    ^ Top  
  6. Norfleet Moderator

    Norfleet
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    9,187
    Yeah, China's having kind of a problem with that, though. They've basically attempted to retract the policy, but as it turns out, now it has become cultural and people no longer WANT to spam children. Historically, no policy has ever successfully convinced people to have MORE children than they actually want to have. China has sort of hit a point from which it is difficult to return from: The people who grew up under this policy now consider it a norm and do not wish to make more.
     
    ^ Top  
  7. Destroid Arcane

    Destroid
    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    16,620
    Location:
    Australia
    We need an economics intended for stable populations instead of infinite growth of activity, resources and labour units.
     
    ^ Top  
  8. tiagocc0 Arcane

    tiagocc0
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,056
    Location:
    Brazil
    I'm planning on a finite grow of an empire.
    You can only grow so much before it starts to collapse, so not more one empire controls half of the galaxy.
    A player could try but it would be very difficult to maintain a very big empire in one piece.

    With limited grow you have limited resources, you have to plan where to colonize, how to colonize instead of just grabbing everything you can as fast as you can.

    Generally games tend to make it hard to expand too quickly, but after you get your planets developed you can keep expanding. So it doesn't really help.
    You can expect several small empires actually coming out of a really big empire, pieces that it couldn't control or didn't want to control anymore.

    This also makes alliances much more interesting.
    Why should I have an ally if I can just conquer him and get all of his resources? Because now you can get all of his resources, after you expand to your limit you need to make alliances as to expand your area of influence.
     
    ^ Top  
  9. tuluse Prestigious Gentleman Arcane

    tuluse
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    11,399
    Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong
    Are you going to have the ability to spawn off vassals?
     
    ^ Top  
  10. tiagocc0 Arcane

    tiagocc0
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,056
    Location:
    Brazil
    This is planned, also dangerous.
    There is nothing greater for a vassal than conquering their masters. :smug:
     
    • Brofist Brofist x 1
    ^ Top  
  11. Malakal Arcane

    Malakal
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,068
    Location:
    Poland
    If you make administrating an empire hard enough then it may be the limiting factor as it was in history. Administrative burdens are always overlooked in games. Look at the Foundation series where the capital planet (Trantor?) was just one huge city filled with officials and was facing huge challenges due to that - supply of food for example.

    Centralized government should be hard to run and decentralized one should be dangerous (civil wars, vassal rebellions, think feudalism in space).
     
    ^ Top  
  12. SCO Arcane In My Safe Space

    SCO
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2009
    Messages:
    16,297
    Shadorwun: Hong Kong
    Decentralized government is dangerous for other reasons too. Namely corruption, and race to the bottom self-interest. Of course, that is bad for the people (in the long run), but not for the overlords.
     
    ^ Top  
  13. tiagocc0 Arcane

    tiagocc0
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,056
    Location:
    Brazil
    One thing I would to develop is that in the end game empires will start to shrink instead of increasing, but population would stay the same.
    One way to do that was the creating of an artificial world. The size of a gas giant where it would be populated on the outside and on the inside all the way to the core.
    So if you can have for example 30 billion pop on a large planet you could have 300 billion pop on this artificial world, just throwing numbers.
    What would actually happen is that people would move to these artificial worlds. They would need to keep colonies for mining and research purposes but those would become more and more automated and thus the population these would decreases with new techs.

    Just a random idea.
     
    ^ Top  
  14. The Brazilian Slaughter Arcane

    The Brazilian Slaughter
    Joined:
    May 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,872,144
    Location:
    Belém do Pará
    Bro, I see that with those mechanics you want to stop rampant empire growth.

    I think this site is a excelent source for what is going to happen with expansion: http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/
    I read this a lot for my worldbuilding projects.

    I like a lot this series of articles, some of them go directly on the question of population and space:
    http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2007/04/history-past-future-and-fake-i.html
    http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2007/05/history-past-future-and-fake-ii.html
    http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2007/05/history-past-future-and-fake-iii.html
    http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2007/05/history-past-future-and-fake-iv.html
    http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2007/05/history-past-future-and-fake-v.html
    http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2007/06/history-past-future-and-fake-vi.html

    I think that stopping rampant empire growth (IMHO a serious problem when it comes to 4X games) should involve the complexities of administering a immense star-empire.
    For example, let's compare Europe and China, off my head.
    Why Europe is fragmented since 370 AD and China has been fragmenting and reuniting since before Christ?
    The key issue here is geography.

    China is a big, wide plain land without any mountains between regions, only big rivers that require constant maintenance in order to stop floods and keep crops doing right. Fertile land exists mostly near rivers that all conect to the same sea. Its what we call a Hydraulic State: It needs infraestructure to keep functioning, so if the government is destroyed or becomes incompetent, the infraestructure goes down, hunger happens, bad things happen, people start rioting and wanting to depose the government, bad shit happens. While the infraestructure works, everyone obeys. No natural blocks mean that its easy to stop rebellions, its impossible to hide behind a chain of mountains and stop imperial reclamations from there. So its easy to keep centralized.

    Europe, on the other hand, has the mediterranean bringing it together, but on the other hand there are lots of mountains (Pyrinees, Alps, Balkans in general), hills, big rivers and swampland. Only way to avoid them is to have naval supremacy, which the Romans did until the 7th century. The Romans were lucky to be in the smack-dab middle of the Mediterranean. You can't, say, control a Mediterranean empire from Britain or current-day Warsaw.

    I'm thinking that imperial integrity and centralization/descentralization depends on government, which depends on technology, biology and speed of travel. For example, let's say that you got a empire where space travel from the center to the edges takes:

    1) A Week.
    2) A month
    3) Two months or more

    The more time it takes to arrive to the edge, the more autonomy the edges would have to get, both in order for them to properly protect themselves and for them to not leave the Empire. There's also technology: A empire with no FTL communication but fast FTL travel would be administered indrectly, IE Put our people there to rule nearby and come to us in case of urgency. On the other hand, a empire with FTL communications would have more direct administration due to faster communications. Eventually, you might see a feudal empire in space, where the rich and powerful rule because they got the starships and everyone else doesn't. If the empire fell, they would turn into Pirate-Kings, ruling by extracting tribute from planets and destroying any independent attempt at making a star fleet. They would be like feudal lords in space, and the FTL starship is their horse.
     
    • Brofist Brofist x 1
    ^ Top  
  15. tiagocc0 Arcane

    tiagocc0
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,056
    Location:
    Brazil
    That's very interesting, it gave me some neat ideas.
    I will read those links too, thanks! Later I will post what I came up with.
     
    ^ Top  
  16. glorious jim Literate

    glorious jim
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2013
    Messages:
    5
    that's true but more because of the eventual death of our star and massive disasters like asteroids and supervolcanos, not overpopulation

    populations stabilize. barring awesome memes like mormonism, which compel their adherents to procreate as much as possible, people tend to start having less children once their quality of life improves past a certain level. putting more resources into fewer eggs becomes a better strategy, even to the point of sub-replacement birth rates. the extreme of this trend is japan
     
    ^ Top  
  17. tiagocc0 Arcane

    tiagocc0
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,056
    Location:
    Brazil
    That's assuming their quality of life improves.
    Also alien species may act entirely differently.

    Even if population stabilizes here on Earth, being able to colonize another world may just allow population to go on a rise again on that colony.
    In MoO2 the best optimal population grow is when you have 50% of the max population. So you have less population grow before you reach 50% and after you reach 50%. Which goes with this theory of stabilization.

    But you have to colonize other worlds because you will consume whatever you can on that planet given your current technology.
    You have two choices, you can improve your technology to be able to exploit more of your world or you can colonize other worlds.

    In the game you will probably have to colonize other planets before you reach a certain level of tech so you can use more of those planets, that means that you will be able to go back to colonized planets after you acquire the given tech and make it productive again.

    In other words if you stay in just one planet you will reach a limit where you do not have enough resources to sustain a reasonable quality of life for everyone, even if it was already stabilized, then when quality of life drops your population will start to regress, many will die and your population will start to grow again but now your entire planet is in conflict. Not because resources about to end and everyone is about to die, but because they can't maintain the high level quality of life they are used to.

    This will impact directly on your research slowing it down and making you unable to reach that point in technology where you can exploit your world again as much as you were used to.

    This could lead to three outcomes:
    1. Your population stabilizes again and gets used to this new low quality of life, thus you become a secondary species instead of a major player.
    2. War starts, your population gets decimated. Most or all of them dies, if some survives they go back to their primitive state.
    3. You overcome this problem with another solution, your research goes back to normal, you become a major player with an interesting twist.

    Option 3 could be the background of one of the major races.
    Option 1 could be the background of one of the minor races.
    Option 2 could be the background of an event where you find a planet with artifacts and primitive life.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2013
    ^ Top  

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.