System Sustainability

[bookwyrm]

Railroads allowed cheap access to vast amounts of arable land producing crops and animals, at the same time food preservation like refrigeration and canning were developed. Both huge multipliers in food generation, transportation and spoilage reduction.

We tend to learn about these things in history and kind of take them for granted, but going through this thread, I can't help but wonder what it was like when these technologies first came out. Was it the same or a different feeling for us concerning the new technologies that have come out more recently? Something to ponder.

Thinking about this, I then start to think about what this is like in the Traveller universe. Although the Traveller universe and ours are different in many ways, the desire to sustain our ability to survive anyplace we go is the same.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Only liquid. See the MOON and MARS for examples of non-liquid water in abundance.

Hence why you would need MINING operations to extract it ... and then some kind of "refinery" to yield potable water (among other things). You aren't going to have "conveniently accessible underground rivers in caves" or other sorts of "nicely sealed environments" where you can just shirt sleeves go out and get a drink of water. Somebody is going to have to go OUT THERE ... on the surface (and not die!) ... and use mining equipment to extract the necessary Stuffs™ to bring back to extract water from (whether that's rocks or ice or whatever).

I'm not convinced that it's possible to engineer a vacc suit @ TL=4, let alone supply it with the necessary life support to do this kind of resource extraction work in a "net positive" manner (you bring back more than you lose/use up doing the work).

In my opinion, TL=6 is "straining" to be able to do this kind of thing ... because Mercury/Gemini/Apollo era hardware was TL=6.

 

[Krikkitone]

Hence why you would need MINING operations to extract it ... and then some kind of "refinery" to yield potable water (among other things). You aren't going to have "conveniently accessible underground rivers in caves" or other sorts of "nicely sealed environments" where you can just shirt sleeves go out and get a drink of water. Somebody is going to have to go OUT THERE ... on the surface (and not die!) ... and use mining equipment to extract the necessary Stuffs™ to bring back to extract water from (whether that's rocks or ice or whatever).

I'm not convinced that it's possible to engineer a vacc suit @ TL=4, let alone supply it with the necessary life support to do this kind of resource extraction work in a "net positive" manner (you bring back more than you lose/use up doing the work).

In my opinion, TL=6 is "straining" to be able to do this kind of thing ... because Mercury/Gemini/Apollo era hardware was TL=6.

I think with TL 12+ knowledge, you Might be able to get something with TL 4 technology.
In the Megatraveller Referee’s Companion
TL 5: sealed/conditioned cities
TL 8: orbital settlements
TL 9: Orbital cities/ Arcologies

So I could see TL 5 as possible, TL 9 as typical, for a self sustaining city/community.

 

[Dragoner]

Pop wise 25,000 minimum, and better to have 50,000 people. Machines can do a lot, about food, basic nutrition could be done by food printers, hydroponics can add to that as well. A lot of this is TL9, with fusion power in particular. Gravity is important, probably from 0.5-1.5 g is ideal. One could do a lot of this in stations. Economics is also important. A lot of what drew the Europeans to America was trees, and drove the westward expansion as well. So uh ... space trees? There has to be something. In my game I have stations built, and then abandoned after people found the mother-lode and mined it out. These have been some of my thoughts on sustainability.

 

[Grav_Moped]

I guess that human touch is a premium cost.

And yet, you pay premium without it, by ensuring greater sanitation.

Springfield, R. (1983)
We all need The Human Touch.

(Link to youtube, of course.)

 

[atpollard]

I was working on MTU and wanted to invent a TL level at which a planet could be 100% sustainable, regardless of planet type.

So, ignoring terraforming for a moment, if a planet of a million people lived on an airless moon, or corrosive ball of rock, there would likely be a TL where they could produce all the food and resources they require without the need of imports.

Setting the issue of ENVIRONMENT aside as a separate matter to be resolved for "Minimum TL", I have a HOUSE RULE for TL self-sufficiency at TL = POP Code.

<10 people [POP 0] could maintain a self-sufficient TL 0 Hunter-Gatherer family unit [obviously more people would be needed for a 'breeding population', but they could also be independent family units of less than 10 people that were each fully self-sufficient at TL 0].

10-99 people [POP 1] could achieve a small settled community with Agriculture, pottery and limited metalworking ... the minimum criteria for TL 1

[As an aside, human populations tend to plateau around the numbers 1, 2 ans 5 ... so 10, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, etc. check local populations and see how often those values appear. Other populations tend to be quickly growing or shrinking. It is just an empirical observation.]

Hundreds of people [POP 2] could support a minimal TL 2 self-sufficient Colony (like Plymouth, MA. or Jamestown, VA.).

Thousands of people [POP 3] could support a factory and begin Urbanization [TL 3]

and so on ...
At the higher end ...

TL 9 represents the Top End of a Space-faring and start of Interstellar society ... suggesting POP 9 as the point where a single world can no longer support a higher population and SPACE is a must for POP/TL 10-12.

At POP 12, the entire Solar System is built out and Interstellar Empires are a must for population growth to sustain the Technology growth (TL 13-15).

Just my HOUSE 'Rules-of-Thumb'.

 

[kilemall]

Setting the issue of ENVIRONMENT aside as a separate matter to be resolved for "Minimum TL", I have a HOUSE RULE for TL self-sufficiency at TL = POP Code.

<10 people [POP 0] could maintain a self-sufficient TL 0 Hunter-Gatherer family unit [obviously more people would be needed for a 'breeding population', but they could also be independent family units of less than 10 people that were each fully self-sufficient at TL 0].

10-99 people [POP 1] could achieve a small settled community with Agriculture, pottery and limited metalworking ... the minimum criteria for TL 1

[As an aside, human populations tend to plateau around the numbers 1, 2 ans 5 ... so 10, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, etc. check local populations and see how often those values appear. Other populations tend to be quickly growing or shrinking. It is just an empirical observation.]

Hundreds of people [POP 2] could support a minimal TL 2 self-sufficient Colony (like Plymouth, MA. or Jamestown, VA.).

Thousands of people [POP 3] could support a factory and begin Urbanization [TL 3]

and so on ...
At the higher end ...

TL 9 represents the Top End of a Space-faring and start of Interstellar society ... suggesting POP 9 as the point where a single world can no longer support a higher population and SPACE is a must for POP/TL 10-12.

At POP 12, the entire Solar System is built out and Interstellar Empires are a must for population growth to sustain the Technology growth (TL 13-15).

Just my HOUSE 'Rules-of-Thumb'.

Hmm, I’d say that thumb rule should be adjusted by planet size/surface area vs species size.

Contrast Droyne to Kkree as edge cases off the bell curve, and perhaps an underlying reason why the Kkree are territorially aggressive.

 

[atpollard]

Hmm, I’d say that thumb rule should be adjusted by planet size/surface area vs species size.

I assume you mean the high end. It is just a POP vs TL issue. The problem with your adjustment is that it does not matter HOW MUCH a TL 6 world needs FTL travel to expand to other stars ... it still REQUIRES TL 9 to invent the J1 Starship. My Rule-of-thumb merely posits that they invent JD at TL 9 because POP 10 REQUIRES more space, so it becomes a technology that is a necessity (vs zero population growth).

LOTS of factors impact the carrying capacity of a world. Too many for a rule-of-thumb.

 

[Commander Truestar]

Having read through the posts before.....I think the OP misses the mark.

IMO, It's not, and never "can be" just technology.

Let's take the pre-rail US west for example (between the top of TL 2 and bottom of TL 3)

A great many towns and villages existed in an entirely sustainable balance because:
- The farms and cattle ranchers could feed the locals
- The craft-folk could make everything the locals needed from local animals and resources
- The "entertainment economy" could provide for the needs of the communities in their area

All stable and sustainable on the local tech.

But then, we insert historical events:
- The railroad come into the region and
1) pulls manpower from the farms and ranches.....Not to mention buying some up and closing them down
2) New imports via the rail change the economics wants and needs of the communities...

Even more happens, but is that due to the increased technology?
Or, is it due to how the "desires of the population" changed?

Certainly, if the towns of that region had fought to keep the railroads out of their region, they would have survived for nearly a century more.

But, they'd only fail because advancing technology in a neighboring region where the rail "did go through" drove their mode of operation out of economic survivability.

To counter that, imagine a world where the population have gently spread across much of the world's 'easily settled and managed' surface.
Without modernization as a pressure, they could happily exist on the borders of TL 2 and 3 forever.

In that case, it is the "potential advance" of technology which is the destroyer.

So, where tech is a factor, I believe it is culture....not technology....which prevents stability

 

[whartung]

Certainly, if the towns of that region had fought to keep the railroads out of their region, they would have survived for nearly a century more.

No, they would have died.

Consider the small communities on Route 66 and the consequences of the movement of traffic to the new interstate highway system. There's remnants of those communities scattered across the west.

At the time period you site, those communities were not self sufficient. They relied on trade, just not in the volume justified by a rail connection (which, arguably, is why the railroad did not go there in the first place). While certainly some food stuffs and such can and were locally produced, a lot of other goods and raw materials necessary for life at the time were not. Lumber, iron, cloth, etc. Even if they had live stock, doesn't mean they had a tannery, for example. Even a grain mill was a large capital investment, and if not that, someone needed to produce the grinders for local folks to grind their own flour, etc. Not a lot of people at that time grinding flour on rocks save for the Native Americans.

Now, could those communities do better "off the grid" than communities today? Absolutely. But, in the end, they would not stay long. The people would simply move some place better, there was not actual long term sustainability.

 

[Commander Truestar]

At the time period you site, those communities were not self sufficient. They relied on trade, just not in the volume justified by a rail connection (which, arguably, is why the railroad did not go there in the first place). While certainly some food stuffs and such can and were locally produced, a lot of other goods and raw materials necessary for life at the time were not. Lumber, iron, cloth, etc. Even if they had live stock, doesn't mean they had a tannery, for example. Even a grain mill was a large capital investment, and if not that, someone needed to produce the grinders for local folks to grind their own flour, etc. Not a lot of people at that time grinding flour on rocks save for the Native Americans.

That is a "very large" set of assumptions.
As a collection of communities, the assumption at least one of them did not have a tannery is a large one.
And mills? Mills were common throughout the known world from biblical periods
Recall that these communities grew up for decades without trade outside their region.

How do I justify this?
There was no US mail, there were no catalogs, there was little communications outside "Riders".
Even telegraph did not come to most towns "which got it" unless the rail did too.

And stage coach?
The rail largely followed those routes.....
In fact, coach service was not much different from subsidized traders in the OTU.
So, you're not talking more than a visit every month or two.

That said, the cluster of towns and villages would be a collection of varied needs and capabilities which would certainly have:
- Some local mines and miners within their existing trade circle
- Local mills and trade good sources would be well within their existing trade circle

You have to recall these were not all "some farms, some ranches and a one-street downtown"
They were a collection of varied communities with differing strengths and needs..
....You should check early to mid-1800's census data

 

[Bartleby]

Having read through the posts before.....I think the OP misses the mark.

IMO, It's not, and never "can be" just technology.

I very much appreciate your post and your excellent points. No doubt sustainability without imports or exports relies on a lot more than just having the right tech. I certainly never meant to imply otherwise.

I still think it cannot be done without some minimum tech level.

So, where tech is a factor, I believe it is culture....not technology....which prevents stability

Sure, but I have trouble believing if we moved a bunch of TL 2-skilled people to an airless moon they would last very long despite their culture. Even if they were given a high tech head start.

 

[Commander Truestar]

Sure, but I have trouble believing if we moved a bunch of TL 2-skilled people to an airless moon they would last very long despite their culture. Even if they were given a high tech head start.

Actually, you are 100% correct

In reading the many replies, I lost awareness of the "on any planet" in your original post.

That is my fault
I still do not feel a simple tech level will lead to sustainability, and that culture needs to be considered
In my TL 2 example, it also assume complacency. A society so complacent with the routine of their lives that they would not embrace improvement.

But, you are correct that such a model does not work for many worlds including the airless example

My apologies for losing awareness of your post

 

[vegas]

I will be amazed in China doesn't have a permanent settlement on the Moon within the next decade.

Care to place a wager on that? What odds you laying?

 

[Commander Truestar]

I will be amazed in China doesn't have a permanent settlement on the Moon within the next decade.

I'd be surprised if China went for "Permanent" right off.
They have a habit of proceeding in steps, like their orbital presence.
They started with "Tiangong-1" and "Tiangong-2" before beginning construction of a more permanent Tiangong ('Sky Palace')

I would be very surprised if they did not land a "starter facility" on the moon, but I'd expect them to put in place several short-term missions which are months or even years long before starting construction on a permanent site.

 

[Condottiere]

They have the political will to keep rolling the dice.

But can they allocate the resources, is another question.

 

[atpollard]

They have the political will to keep rolling the dice.

But can they allocate the resources, is another question.

Not in the long term ... which brings us to another tangentially related point to the OP.

The policies of the Chinese Government have created an imbalance [M:F and age] that has resulted in a population that has ALREADY peaked and is expected to decline from (let us round to rough figures to see the point rather than the minutae of exact numbers) 1.5 billion today to at most 1 billion and perhaps as low as 500 million by 2100.

When POLICY can impact POPULATION (with no other outside extinction forces like an ice age or a sun expanding) ... would THAT impact the self-sufficiency of a population on a world? Can 500 million [POP 8] Chinese do what 1.5 billion [POP 9] Chinese could?

 

[Condottiere]

Historically, they are due a major revolt, which will either weaken them catastrophically, or replace the current regime.

 

[atpollard]

Historically, they are due a major revolt, which will either weaken them catastrophically, or replace the current regime.

Which might be an answer to Bartleby's OP and Spinward's "doomsday" prognosis for disasters. When sustainability (or sustainable trade) are disrupted by anything pushing the system "out of balance" it will precipitate a "revolution" which will effect one of two results:

1. catastrophic collapse
2. radical paradigm reform

Only BALANCE creates stability. Imbalance drives change (good or bad).

 

[Condottiere]

Outside of genetic and generational diversity, all things being equal, a hundred million would be enough to sustain a colony.

China, too.

The issue might be nearby competing polities, which might disturb political, social and/or economic equilibrium.