Trent Shipley wrote:
>
>> My estimate includes all five. Of course, as in Drake's equation,
>> each factor has an error from 10% to 900% :-)
>>
>>>> * about 10 planets per race
>>>> * about 200,000 races
>
> Alberto, as I recall Drake's Equation has no factor for
> "Planets Fallow by order of the GIM."  
>
???

What I said is that the factors I get for Uplift have error bars
similar to Drake's equation's terms: they can be 1/10 to 10 times
the guesstimate.

> Are you proposing there 2M habitable planets, some of
> which are Fallow or that there are, perhaps, 6M habitable
> planets 2M of which are *not* Fallow?
>
No. I propose that there are 2M planets _with_ galactic
civilization settled on them. But they could be 20M or 200k.

> Have you made any allowance for an increase in the number
> of habitable planets due to terraforming?  (Do you need to?)
>
No, because I suppose that this is a small factor in the last,
say, 500 My.

Stars come and go, planets come and go. The terraforming of
planets should probably just keep the number of planets in
a stable number.

BTW, I also guess that there are about 10 fallow planets for
each settled planet, based on the data that a planet is usually
leased for 100ky, and it is let fallow for a minimum of 500ky
[usually more].

>
>>> If we want 1MY mean life-spans, then 11% clients and 5% patrons might
>>> provide for interesting but not grossly inequitble politics consistent
>>> with existing sources on the Uplift Universe.
>>
>> Uh?
>
> I picked 11% 
>
I got the 11%. I didn't get the "provide for interesting but not grossly 
inequitble politics consistent with existing sources on the Uplift Universe."

> because there will be some mortality among uplift projects. 
> With current medical technology the replacement birthrate is
> something like 2.1 births per couple.  1.1 is a convenient
> (if not totally convincing) replacement rate for the
> population of O-2 species
>
Ok, but I am not (yet) worried about this precision :-)

> My other point is that if there are X uplift minors and X uplifters then
> the system is egalitarian.  The Uplift Universe is *VERY* fair.  Even if
> there are 10 uplift projects for 9 uplifters the system is still pretty
> darn fair. We get what economists would call a flat wealth curve.  The
> implication is that there is little class warfare -- most (almost all)
> races are middle class and equal.  It implies that even powerful clans,
> like the Soro or Thennanin are not too powerful.  Democratic and
> egalitarian socio-political dynamics keep them in check.
>
> This is bad for literature.
>
No - the system may be fair, but some clans might twist it a little
bit. So, most of the 200k races would be egalitarian, except a small
minority of powerful clans.

> If there are 10 clients being uplifted then we need fewer than 10 patrons. 
> If there are 2 or 3 patrons per 10 clients things are ripe for revolution. 
>
But then things would be quite unstable. Most of the lines would quickly
extinguish - at the fast rate of 50% to 66% each "generation"!

> 4 to 6 to 10 and things are noticibly unfair, but we can claim there is
> equal opportunity.  Social Darwinism is good say Dr. Pangloss.  7 or 8 and
> we have some sort of dialectic between fair distribution and rewards to
> cummulative advantage.
>
> The wealth curves that involve 4 to 8 patrons per 10 clients probably make
> for good story backgrounds.
>
But it is _very_ unstable. I claim that the rate should be quite close to
1 client : 1 patron, so that _most_ lines would be mantained for long
periods of time.

This doesn't prevent a few lines to "usurp" clients from extinguished
lines, and growing at the expense of others. These expansionist
lines should be just a few, otherwise the system would be too
unstable.

Literature is saved: the famous fanatical races of the Canon are those
expansionist clans, eager to expand by taking Terra's 3 unfinished races.

> (These ratios assume that patrons are assigned their clients all at once,
> instead of finishing a project and starting the next.... Still you see my
> point.)
>
Yes - I think

Alberto Monteiro

_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to