132 réponses à ce sujet

[Knubbsal]

I think you somewhat underestimate how much space you need for those 13,2 million people on the Citadel. And it's in space, so it's not like there's slums attached to it.

And well, the krogan apparently needed to be genophaged to keep their population down. The asari don't seem like fast breeders (4 kids in 1000 years?). Salarians even have breeding contracts since of their short lifespan and disinterest in making eggs. Most drell died on their home planet, so only the ones at the hanar survived. 17 million quarians on a bunch of space ships isn't little either, if you imagine the size it has to be (and they have to keep their populations in check too since they can't produce enough food else). Turians are a mystery, but they seem to be everywhere. Elcor, volus and hanar, no idea really, but the volus have a fair amount of colonies.

So well, for the races that were big once there have been some horrible disasters that killed most of them. Earth is next!

Also: you can't really go off on those colonised planets. They might be small when compared to a home planet, but imagine transporting billions of people. It's not like houses and whatnot will just pop up. Not to mention that a planet is generally colonised since of some kind of resource people want from it, not since it has a better view.

[tmp7704]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Incidentally, this brings us back to the "no sense of scale".

The calculations in the comic use 'canonical' cargo capacity of the largest known star destroyer in order to demonstrate that'd make the idea of shipping stuff from outside impossible. Two* obvious issues pop up:

* the cargo capacity of what's first and foremost a military vessel is both quite irrelevant and more importantly for this subject, more than likely way off. -- e.g. modern oil supertankers have the capacity of ~500 k metric tons (1/5th of the used value) ... while being ~400 meters long, vs 17+ km long 'canonical' star destroyer.

* even if that didn't mean the figure of "80 000" ships could be easily reduced to way smaller number, 80 000 ships isn't exactly large number in itself when you compare it to the size and population of entire planet. Again as example, if you wanted to distribute that amount of ships uniformly over entire Earth, you'd have one ship per about 6000 sq km. That means a territory as large as say, France, would have to manage less than 100 of such ships per day. Now think for a second, how many planes go through the air control and airports of a country the size of France each day? How many ships are handled through ports?

Suddenly the logistics become quite less staggering and much closer to stuff we handle already, rendering the latter part of the discussion about the laws of thermodynamics etc... pretty irrelevant, don't they? As they're only associated with suggested alternative of handling the food production on site.

*) (actually three issues, but we'll leave out the "10000 agricultural planets" because we know nothing about how effective agricultural production in SW universe is, so that's not really a point possible to argue either way)

Modifié par tmp7704, 12 février 2012 - 12:57 .

[Peer of the Empire]

chengthao wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

The world hunger problem could be fixed easily. If the western world spent as much on charity, as we do on our pets, we'd solve he hunger problem. Inversely, if the leaders of countries with hunger problems spent as much on agricultural  technology as they do on guns and ammo, they'd be able to solve their own problems. It's pretty embarrassing that the only thing ****ing the planet is mismanagement and incompetence.

actually the best way to solve world hunger isn't charity but destroying the rainforests, the reason America is so successful isn't b/c the ppl are "superior" or that Americans are "smarter", its because we have huge huge amounts of land that we use for agriculture, thus the price of food in America is cheap compared to other nations, we don't have to spend an entire paycheck on food and so we have extra money for "luxuries" like cars and insurance and video games, and that's what drives our economy, if we Americans simply stopped being stupid tree huggers and allowed nations, like Brazil or Loas or Vietnam or any other nation with a rain forest, to destroy their rainforests for farmland, world hunger would be much less of an issue

Actually the best way to solve world hunger is for the Third World to stop having so many kids

The old America was part of a civilization that built the modern world.  We could be spending that luxury money, driving the economy, on lead makeup and gladiator games.  No, this technology does not come from nowhere, it took a special people to create it, and not just any people and civilization can sustain it.

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 13 février 2012 - 08:43 .

[Peer of the Empire]

dblpost

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 13 février 2012 - 08:42 .

[Peer of the Empire]

Slidell505 wrote...

XDMMX wrote...

Isn't Earth supposed to be an overpopulated acid washed slum compared to the alien home worlds.

If bioware thinks 12 billion is over populated, they can't into statistics, or didn't do research. The US could produce enough food for 12 billion nearly on its own (farmers get paid extra by the government not to grow food), and we could fit 12 billion in and around texas, (assuming we built up, like new york). Overpopulation is overhyped, ironically enough. If you look at UN statistics and take into account agricultural technology growth, we won't be overpopulated for a very long time. I don't feel like getting into it at 3:54 am. Or anytime for that matter, I haven't slept in four days, insomnia's a ****.

Wrong.  Overpopulation is a quality of life issue, not a simple packing problem.  Just see Exhibit A: the decline of the First World.  Fit 12 billion in Texas, ROFLMAO

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 13 février 2012 - 08:55 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

Actually the best way to solve world hunger is for the Third World to stop having so many kids

The old America was part of a civilization that built the modern world. We could be spending that luxury money, driving the economy, on lead makeup and gladiator games. No, this technology does not come from nowhere, it took a special people to create it, and not just any people and civilization can sustain it.

Go on.

[AlanC9]

tmp7704 wrote...
* even if that didn't mean the figure of "80 000" ships could be easily reduced to way smaller number, 80 000 ships isn't exactly large number in itself when you compare it to the size and population of entire planet. Again as example, if you wanted to distribute that amount of ships uniformly over entire Earth, you'd have one ship per about 6000 sq km. That means a territory as large as say, France, would have to manage less than 100 of such ships per day. Now think for a second, how many planes go through the air control and airports of a country the size of France each day? How many ships are handled through ports?

Oh, yeah, that all works. But if your economy really can support that sort of thing then you end up with fleets of thousands of Star Destroyers and millions of fighters.. Nothing wrong with that as long as everybody's willing to play in that kind of scaled-up universe.

[tmp7704]

AlanC9 wrote...

Oh, yeah, that all works. But if your economy really can support that sort of thing then you end up with fleets of thousands of Star Destroyers and millions of fighters..

Yup, but once you start to divide these fleets between supposed hundreds and thousands of planets the SW setting claims the empire/republic are made of ... these numbers start looking relatively sensible again

Or to put it differently, if someone added together military forces from all countries on Earth that'd give some impressive numbers too; and that's just single and not very developed planet/civilization. The scale thing, again.