How much of the OTU is habitable?

[Chaos]

Regarding the population density... according to the world generation rules (which after all are supposed to mirror the reality of the OTU), population density is distributed:

1/36 pop A worlds
2/36 pop 9 worlds
3/36 pop 8 worlds
...
1/36 pop 0 worlds

The population multiplier gives you an average result of 4.6 ((1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+1)/10), so the average pop A world has 46 billion inhabitants, and so on.

So the average planetary population is
46 bn*(1/36)+4.6 bn*(2/36)+...+4.6*(1/36)
or about 1.2777 bn+0.2555 bn+0.0388bn+0,0051bn, plus some small change, which adds up to a bit less than 1.6 billion.
That means about 80% of the population lives on pop A worlds (which make up about 2.8% of all worlds), about 15% on pop 9 worlds (5.6% of all worlds), and 5% on the remaining 91.6% of all worlds.
The median planetary population, meaning half of all planets have more people and half have less, should be 400,000 or 500,000 people.

 

[mbrinkhues]

I admit I often link "tainted" to worlds like Pournelles Heaven (high levels of heavy metals, low oxygen levels), Nivens Plateau (Poisenous lower Athmosphere), Vulcan from Sten or Cold Mountain and King from 2300AD. Unhealthy if you plan to reach the Imperial Standard lifespan of 100+ years but not letal in the short term

 

[MichaelSnyder]

I know it is implied that that all known systems are chartered on the sector maps.

I've always assumed that there were a lot of systems that would not be interesting which is why the 2-D representation works.

The first reason is that there are a lot of other systems in range - but not that you'd want to visit. The systems that are chartered are either habitable, have a strategic location, or have some resource worth exploiting.

The other part of my explanation of a 2-D map is that hyperspace doesn't touch every part of chartered space (at least in ways currently understood). In addition to uninhabitable systems, systems with navigation hazards or hyperspace anomalies are not displaced - and off limits unless you are in the IISS or feeling lucky.

Both of these things work together to significantly reduce the percentage of habitable planets/systems.

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ishmael James:
I wonder if "global warming" could be considered terraforming...

By all means - IIRC one of the plans to terraform Mars was to construct massive factories on its surface which will pump out greenhouse gasses into its atmosphere.</font>[/QUOTE]In the case of a low-CO2 atmo, this works, but in the case of an ample-CO2 atmo like Terra's, you're making things worse and actually "venusforming" the world into a runaway greenhouse.

Clearly, terraforming requires not only high technology, but advanced planetary science models as well...

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Ishmael James:
I wonder if "global warming" could be considered terraforming.....

Well, "terraforming" is changing a world to be more earth-like. Since by definition the current earth is exactly earth-like, anything that changes the climate makes it less earthlike, and is thus anti-terraforming.

On a world that starts out colder than earth, warming up the planet (with CO2 or otherwise) is terraforming.

 

[Straybow]

Originally posted by atpollard:
Tainted atmospheres are required for the trade status of 'Industrial'.

Yeah, well lots of things about worldgen and trade are broken... such as a silly assumption that 57th century industry will be as polluting as mid-20th century industry.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Straybow:
Yeah, well lots of things about worldgen and trade are broken... such as a silly assumption that 57th century industry will be as polluting as mid-20th century industry.

Yes, we can figure the 57th century will come up with New and Creative forms of pollution, not our boring old vanilla types.

 

[Pickles]

If 57th century industry was as polluting as mid 20th century industry, there wouldn't be any 57th century industry.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
If 57th century industry was as polluting as mid 20th century industry, there wouldn't be any 57th century industry.

Well, what do you think the Jump Drive was invented for? Ruin one habitable world with wanton pollution - and go to the next one to set up shop and start emitting smoke and sludge. And don't worry, the WorldGen tables will yield you a constant stream of pristine earthlikes to suffocate with industrial smog

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
And don't worry, the WorldGen tables will yield you a constant stream of pristine earthlikes to suffocate with industrial smog

Hey, maybe that's the real reason why all those Hi population worlds are tiny, airless rockballs and the garden worlds are nigh on empty of humaniti - environmental legislation! The imperium is run by the greens!

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
And don't worry, the WorldGen tables will yield you a constant stream of pristine earthlikes to suffocate with industrial smog

Hey, maybe that's the real reason why all those Hi population worlds are tiny, airless rockballs and the garden worlds are nigh on empty of humaniti - environmental legislation! The imperium is run by the greens! </font>[/QUOTE]No, it is to the contrary - these worlds weren't tainted-atmo rockballs to begin with, they were all T-Primes. Now, after millenia of Human infestation, they no longer are.

 

[Spiderfish]

Originally posted by Anthony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ishmael James:
I wonder if "global warming" could be considered terraforming.....

Well, "terraforming" is changing a world to be more earth-like. Since by definition the current earth is exactly earth-like, anything that changes the climate makes it less earthlike, and is thus anti-terraforming.
</font>[/QUOTE]

Sorry... Just the idea of Earth becoming "less earthlike". Isn't "earth-like" sort of a relative definiton?