How small population can maintain contemporary technology level

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around creating a pen and paper RPG scenario set on a habitable planet with Earth-like life forms, where a group of settlers must establish a technological civilization. Key considerations include the planet's colder climate, higher atmospheric pressure, and reliance on water power for electricity. The minimum population required to maintain an industrial complex and produce essential technology, such as computers and medications, is debated, with estimates suggesting a few hundred to several million people, depending on societal structure and resource availability. The conversation also touches on the importance of transportation methods, governance, and the sustainability of technology in a new environment. Ultimately, the aim is to develop a coherent and logical setting for the RPG without significant plot holes.
  • #31
Nimbian said:
How ever it would also mean that one bad virus could send the entire population back to the stone age.
+100000000. Size = redundancy and this should be taken into account as well. It's all very well that the exact minimum population of 11,632,742.6 people trained to various levels in various specialities with strict work schedules is shipped to Planet X but one bar fight, one bout of flu, one fire etc and the whole thing comes crashing down.

Obviously I exaggerate for effect but it is a really interesting point because it has really important implications for the socioeconomic models that the society will adopt. As a very simple example a society with too much personal freedom might leave itself open to accidental self destruction (think tragedy of the commons), too little freedom might create escalating social tension ending in bloody revolution.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Ryan_m_b said:
+100000000. Size = redundancy and this should be taken into account as well. It's all very well that the exact minimum population of 11,632,742.6 people trained to various levels in various specialities with strict work schedules is shipped to Planet X but one bar fight, one bout of flu, one fire etc and the whole thing comes crashing down.
One car from which a few friends came from work crashed. I understand consequences.

But I started to wonder - wouldn't industrial base be the more limiting factor. When I tried to look for industrial output, for ex. mobile phones:

Randomly chosen, unrepresentative example with actual data - one line - 3 mln mobile phones per year, whole, finished factory 10 millions mobile phones per year. Wouldn't economics of scale be a bigger problem?

http://www.chinascopefinancial.com/news/post/15411.html
 
  • #33
Industrial base is scalable thou. In the above example they make 10 million phones because they believe they can make a profit off 10 million phones.

In a Colony situation, certain things will be majorly scaled down.
EX. there is no need to make 1 million phones a year for a population of 1 million, likely only a few thousand a year to make replacements and for the colonist's children. It would likely be made of identical or nearly identical design.

Large production run type industrial base. would be reserved for things the colony regularly consumes in quantity, is necessary for survival and/or can be stockpiled.
 
  • #34
Nimbian said:
Industrial base is scalable thou. In the above example they make 10 million phones because they believe they can make a profit off 10 million phones.

In a Colony situation, certain things will be majorly scaled down.
EX. there is no need to make 1 million phones a year for a population of 1 million, likely only a few thousand a year to make replacements and for the colonist's children. It would likely be made of identical or nearly identical design.

Large production run type industrial base. would be reserved for things the colony regularly consumes in quantity, is necessary for survival and/or can be stockpiled.
That's all well and good but the point is to consider economics of scale. Making 10 million phones isn't necessarily 10 million times more expensive than making 1. This has an interesting effect economically on our smallest group because it may be that they are less efficient than a slightly larger group. This line of thinking pretty much follows the thread because for the last few posts we've been talking optimum number rather than straight minimum.
 
  • #35
Ryan_m_b said:
Obviously I exaggerate for effect but it is a really interesting point because it has really important implications for the socioeconomic models that the society will adopt. As a very simple example a society with too much personal freedom might leave itself open to accidental self destruction (think tragedy of the commons), too little freedom might create escalating social tension ending in bloody revolution.

I'd consider as more natural solutions curbed personal freedoms. As long as a only few people are seriously p**** off:

Do they break law in any way?
NO - no problem, thank you citizen for raising awareness about this problem. It will be discussed in the future and we would be grateful if you help making a draft of new law that would mitigate it... READ: Good luck, your idea would be either silently drowned in a subcomission or officially killed in the parliament ;)
YES - well that's merely (or at least can officially claim) a problem of selfishness (like tax evasion), mental problems (like psychopathology) or lack of knowledge and responsible behaviour. Would be dealt accordingly by tax authorities, health care system, education authorities or police pending on its nature.

Relatively small group while there are no weapons among general public that would also be solvable. As if left wing riots that are in Germany every first May or regular strikes on French universities were about to change anything...
Just have riot police prepared, don't overreact to avoid loosing general support and problem would be solved.

However, there's a place where a see a potential explosion that couldn't be solved easily. At first there would be taken people generally without children. Then, there would be at first a few years of food rationing. So either people deliberately would have no children, or in really bad scenario some women would not have menstruation cycle anyway. Then, the conditions would improve, official policy would be encouraging having children... And we end up round 2 decades later with a baby boom which would not accept hardships and sacrifices as politely as their parents did.

Solutions:
- High quality education with proper amount of indoctrination
- Official policies (including both tax structure and provided free services) encouraging early marriage and having children (yes, officially lack of people, unofficially married males are not so hard working revolutionaries)
- Long compulsory education (talents are needed) and proper care for school dropouts (read: sending them compulsory a few islands away for let's call it vocational training for a physical job)
- Leaving recreational drugs legal but purchased only in limited amount and at high price from state monopoly (yes, "circuses" part of "bread and circuses")
- Poorly paid public works offering everyone a job (it disarms people who complain that there is no work)
- Keeping low corruption and more or less reasonable policies to avoid making gov an easy target
- Having a few parties that change from time time that have roughly the same policies but place slightly different accents among policies and can be no complain that there is a dictatorship
- Keeping high level of surveillance to reduce crime (mild punishment to show how humanitarian the gov is, and after a few wrist slaps most of people would learn anyway)

Do you consider that as workable?



Nimbian said:
In a Colony situation, certain things will be majorly scaled down.
EX. there is no need to make 1 million phones a year for a population of 1 million, likely only a few thousand a year to make replacements and for the colonist's children. It would likely be made of identical or nearly identical design.

Actually if you produce 5000/year and have 1 000 000 users, even if there is no population increase you get that an average phone has to survive for 200 years...

No, the phones that I had couldn't do that ;)

So... maybe 100 000 a year, it has to survive for 10 years and has a battery that was replaced in the meantime at least once or maybe even twice.

With 100 000 a year you get 384 daily (for 5 day work week, no other holidays or 274 for work every day) Too much to produce in a tiny workshop but rather small amount for purpose of serial production.

Solutions (except of mentioned one standard model)? The electronics inside also serves as transmitter for wireless internet, with longer antenna for mobile stations or any electronic device that replaces radio or TV? The factory produces electronics for mobiles only for one month every year, then recalibrates tools and produces somethin else?
 
  • #36
[bump]

[I hope that in last almost 2 years someone got new ideas]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K