SDN: Industrial Capacity and Territorial Holdings

[Praeothmin]

Yes you have provided the definition of the word modest and that definition had nothing to do with the word average. Therefore you have not shown how modest has anything to do with average or below average.

Average (pertaining to numbers):
-approximating the statistical norm or average or expected value;
-around the middle of a scale of evaluation;
-an intermediate scale value regarded as normal or usual;
-median(a): relating to or constituting the middle value of an ordered set of values;

This is the meaning of "average", so if our Galaxy is considered "large", it is therefore not an "average" sized-galaxy.

Modest:
-not large but sufficient in size or amount;
-minor: limited in size or scope;

Since "modest" is "not large", and our Galaxy is "large", then our Galaxy cannot be modest.
Since the SW Galaxy is a "modest-sized" Galaxy, then it cannot be large.
It is thus necessarily smaller then ours.

Now granted, I have to admit that up to now, I hadn't linked "modest" and "average", I have to conceed on that point.

what i did, however, demonstrate, is that the SW Galaxy is smaller then the Milky way, and that "modest", if a "large" Galaxy is 100 000 LY accross, will not be a Galaxy 80 000 LY accross, since that would still be large, when compared to the "average".
Since an "average" is a "median", or middle-ground number, then that cannot be large either.
So the "average" is actually closer to "modest" then to "large".
So again, this means the SW Galaxy cannot measure close to 100 000 LY accross, and is actually a lot smaller.

But you were right, I had not, up to now, demonstrated how "modest2 could relate to "average".
I have now... :)

This is your argument:
"No these people weren't a fraud but they failed to predict the outcome of the war because no one could count on the wormhole aliens helping and if it wasn't for that wormhole I'm sure that everything else would be correct because Starfleet Captains and Admirals have stated many times they were on the verge of losing the war".

There, fixed that for ya... ;)
but yeah, that's pretty much my point... :)

Are autistic people generally locked up in a mental institution?

The "heaviest" cases are.
those they may be deemed dangerous to them or others because of their disruptive behavior can be.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Again where did I claim he is an individual immigrant as in the only member of his species being Federation citizen? I mean "individual" as in person not individual as in the only one if his species.

Either way is unlikely; either way is not likely to mean a significantly different species count.

How many immigrants would there need to be before that species is considered "member"?

A good question. A completely open question, however.

It's perfectly clear that a colony won't be referred to as a member any more than a territory will be referred to as a state. What does this have to do with whether a colony/territory can/did become members/states?

You're making the wrong distinction. It's member/protectorate/territory and colony/homeworld. There's nothing that precludes, intrinsically, the combination of a colony/member world.

The distinction between homeworlds and colonies is crystal clear, and has nothing to do with the various political divisions of the Federation.

Genesis was useless as far as terraforming is concerned as evidence by a much modest effort seen in TNG. Justice has Data state a number of worlds Federation could've chosen.

Not useless. It's an indication of the budgetary value placed upon blue sky terraforming techniques.

It's not the only terraforming we've heard of, just the most dramatic.

Well then I guess there was a misunderstanding. My only point is that there is no evidence of there existing any major or significant planets outside of the 150 count Picard gave.

Excepting Archer IV if we're measuring by population. Alpha Centauri's colony is the site of a major shipyard. All we know about Aldebaran colony is that it's developed enough to be home to the Tri-Planetary Academy. Archanis IV is only identified as one of the most important planets of a given sector, passed between the Empire and the Federation.

What we do know, in other words, is that within a hundred years of being discovered, a hospitable close planet can go from 0 to 700 million flat.

What points? You simply state that it's implausible to Bashir without providing any evidence for it or even explaining why. Do you know how the uprising would proceed in detail so that you know that population and what numbers would be critical?

I know the projections are convergent. Populations being similar is a baseline condition for that. How much sense would this make:

"Well, the Federation was leveled so badly that the population hasn't even recovered its numbers, but it recovers its will and capability to fight just as quickly anyway."

Very little.

And Kirk said 1000. So if we would to interpret their lines strictly first Federation grew to 1000 then shrunk to over a 100 then grew to over 150. What is more likely is that they all filtered out worlds based on their importance and what is consistent is that there is 100-150 major planets in the Federation.

What is most likely is that Kirk was referring to human colonies when talking to Cochrane, while the others refer to the membership of the Federation.

I would be interested in some evidence and sources behind that 2% figure. Especially interesting is that you have no idea what the fertility rate would be yet somehow know the growth rate.

Actual overall growth rate back before the world's rate slowed.

None of this addresses the point that, if you have a choice, you build your outpost on or in orbit of a fertile hospitable planet and leave the rock to the enemy.

Why?

What is your evidence they converge? He states that either way they are in for five generations of Dominion rule but "eventually" a rebellion will form centered on Earth.

Right. In either case, the exact same thing happens.

Will this rebellion be equally effective in all cases?

Yes. The scenarios converge. The rebellion succeeds, a new stronger Federation lasts for thousands of years, et cetera. Bashir's argument is that it makes no difference in the long run whether the Federation struggles or surrenders - so why not surrender to save lives now?

Will this eventual war of independence last the same amount of time in all scenarios? Apparently in all scenarios the rebellion is centered on Earth which means they obviously thought Earth more important than any number of casualties.

Not necessarily.

Even if we assume that only homeworlds are members than "member world" is actually a term describing not only the homeworld but all the planets and space the government of that nation is controlling. So it's actually a political division. Lilly was not asking about political divisions, she wanted to know how many planets there are.

She asked about the Federation. It's like asking what the United States is; you get an answer of fifty states, never mind Puerto Rico, the Virgins, or Guam. The UN; you count the member nations.

[Kane Starkiller]

Average (pertaining to numbers):
-approximating the statistical norm or average or expected value;
-around the middle of a scale of evaluation;
-an intermediate scale value regarded as normal or usual;
-median(a): relating to or constituting the middle value of an ordered set of values;

This is the meaning of "average", so if our Galaxy is considered "large", it is therefore not an "average" sized-galaxy.

Modest:
-not large but sufficient in size or amount;
-minor: limited in size or scope;

Since "modest" is "not large", and our Galaxy is "large", then our Galaxy cannot be modest.
Since the SW Galaxy is a "modest-sized" Galaxy, then it cannot be large.
It is thus necessarily smaller then ours.

Now granted, I have to admit that up to now, I hadn't linked "modest" and "average", I have to conceed on that point.

what i did, however, demonstrate, is that the SW Galaxy is smaller then the Milky way, and that "modest", if a "large" Galaxy is 100 000 LY accross, will not be a Galaxy 80 000 LY accross, since that would still be large, when compared to the "average".
Since an "average" is a "median", or middle-ground number, then that cannot be large either.
So the "average" is actually closer to "modest" then to "large".
So again, this means the SW Galaxy cannot measure close to 100 000 LY accross, and is actually a lot smaller.

But you were right, I had not, up to now, demonstrated how "modest2 could relate to "average".
I have now... :)

I didn't see "not large" mentioned in Merriam-Webster dictionary. Nor did you demonstrate the average size of a galaxy is the same in whatever corner of the universe SW galaxy resides.

There, fixed that for ya... ;)
but yeah, that's pretty much my point... :)

Then you admit they were failures?

The "heaviest" cases are.
those they may be deemed dangerous to them or others because of their disruptive behavior can be.

And if those people started predicting that US would loose WW2 or the Cold War we would not exactly take them seriously right? No matter what their IQ was.

Either way is unlikely; either way is not likely to mean a significantly different species count.

That is not the point. The point is you can't automatically assume a species is a member, as in all of it's planets are in the Federation, just because you see one of them serving in a political capacity in the Federation.

A good question. A completely open question, however.

Which would mean one is a second class citizen if the number of his species don't exceed a certain number?

You're making the wrong distinction. It's member/protectorate/territory and colony/homeworld. There's nothing that precludes, intrinsically, the combination of a colony/member world.

The distinction between homeworlds and colonies is crystal clear, and has nothing to do with the various political divisions of the Federation.

Then why did you constantly claim that colonies can't become members? Obviously I never claimed that colonies can become homeworlds only members so I don't see what's the point of the second paragraph here.

Not useless. It's an indication of the budgetary value placed upon blue sky terraforming techniques.

It's not the only terraforming we've heard of, just the most dramatic.

Having a planet blow up from under your feet seems pretty useless to me.

Excepting Archer IV if we're measuring by population. Alpha Centauri's colony is the site of a major shipyard. All we know about Aldebaran colony is that it's developed enough to be home to the Tri-Planetary Academy. Archanis IV is only identified as one of the most important planets of a given sector, passed between the Empire and the Federation.

What we do know, in other words, is that within a hundred years of being discovered, a hospitable close planet can go from 0 to 700 million flat.

Again, you showed no evidence these planets were excluded from the number Picard gave to Lilly. And sure a planet can go from 0 to 700 million. We know there are billions of humans on Earth already so there is plenty to spare.

I know the projections are convergent. Populations being similar is a baseline condition for that. How much sense would this make:

"Well, the Federation was leveled so badly that the population hasn't even recovered its numbers, but it recovers its will and capability to fight just as quickly anyway."

Very little.

It wasn't me who claimed that predictions from mental patients will necessarily make sense or that it makes sense to want to surrender based on their predictions alone regardless of the assumptions.
And as I already stated: in a fight against a ruthless enemy with complete space superiority population will be the least of their worries.

What is most likely is that Kirk was referring to human colonies when talking to Cochrane, while the others refer to the membership of the Federation.

You don't have a shred of evidence for this and again are making the most generous possible interpretation.

Actual overall growth rate back before the world's rate slowed.

And when fertility rate was higher than today. Since you don't know the future fertility rate you can't know the growth.

None of this addresses the point that, if you have a choice, you build your outpost on or in orbit of a fertile hospitable planet and leave the rock to the enemy.

Why?

Because it can do whatever the rock can plus be a huge food source and the source of natural resources. Plus in the future, when the conflict is resolved, it can be turned into a developed world.

Right. In either case, the exact same thing happens.

You don't know that. All they say is that rebellion starts. Northern Ireland rebelled against the British as did India. Yet these cases are not remotely identical.

Yes. The scenarios converge. The rebellion succeeds, a new stronger Federation lasts for thousands of years, et cetera. Bashir's argument is that it makes no difference in the long run whether the Federation struggles or surrenders - so why not surrender to save lives now?

They converge when? Again there is no information as to how long the fight lasts. 100, 1000 years? In how long a run does it make no difference? And where is your evidence that population is critical, that with 90 billion survivors the fight would be impossible?

Not necessarily.

Then you claim that not in all scenarios Earth is the center of the rebellion and they didn't mention it? Then it's equally possible that not in all scenarios Federation is only 5 generations under Dominion rule isn't it?

She asked about the Federation. It's like asking what the United States is; you get an answer of fifty states, never mind Puerto Rico, the Virgins, or Guam. The UN; you count the member nations.

She didn't ask "what" the UFP is. She asked how many planets are there.

[Praeothmin]

I didn't see "not large" mentioned in Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Your failure at understanding the definition and what it can and cannot mean has no bearing on the discussion.
I've said all I wanted to say, and whether or not you don't (or won't) understand the implications of the definition and its relation to sizes has no importance to me.
Although, on the bright side, you did, by your insistance, help me define my point.
Thanks.

Nor did you demonstrate the average size of a galaxy is the same in whatever corner of the universe SW galaxy resides.

The very first link I gave stating the average size of the galaxies in the universe states this in (what I thought of) plain english.
Again, your failure (or unwillingness) to understand has no bearing on ths discussion.
I've said all I care to say on this point.

Then you admit they were failures?

I admit that the Aliens in the wormhole made their predictions fail... :)

And if those people started predicting that US would loose WW2 or the Cold War we would not exactly take them seriously right? No matter what their IQ was.

"Mental patients" are not always trisomic, or even autistic.
some "mental patients" are in institutions because they have, say, no sense of "right or wrong".
Now if you had such people, with elevated IQ, who've shown themselves adept at planning, and scheming, you'd want to have them under control.
I talked about Autism at the start, but these guys don't even need to be Autists.
All they need to do is to show sociopatic behavior which, coupled with their enhanced IQ, makes them dangerous without supervision of the kind found in a mental institution.
The fact that these guys needed psychological help didn't diminish their intelligence, or their analitical abilities.
The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that there was no way to predict the actions of the wormhole Aliens doesn't help your analysis at all, and thus renders your conclusion dubious at best.

I have now said everything I wanted to about this subject, but thanks for an interesting debate, Kane.
It is clear I will not convince you, and that you will not convince me... :)

Your... persistance has forced me to elaborate, and precise my thoughts.
Thanks.

[Jedi Master Spock]

That is not the point. The point is you can't automatically assume a species is a member, as in all of it's planets are in the Federation, just because you see one of them serving in a political capacity in the Federation.

Automatically? Perhaps not. With high confidence? Yes.

Which would mean one is a second class citizen if the number of his species don't exceed a certain number?

Highly doubtful.

Then why did you constantly claim that colonies can't become members?

I haven't. As I've repeatedly pointed out to you, I believe in every post I've made in the last four pages. What I've claimed is that they by and large don't become members. As supported by the empirical evidence.

Having a planet blow up from under your feet seems pretty useless to me.

This would qualify as a completely irrelevant comment.

Again, you showed no evidence these planets were excluded from the number Picard gave to Lilly.

She didn't ask "what" the UFP is. She asked how many planets are there.

Such evidence has been shown repeatedly.

Let's review one more time. If Picard is referring to all worlds occupied or claimed by the Federation, then we have clear absurdity. If Picard is making an arbitrary distinction between worlds occupied, but not the distinction of Federation membership, we have a completely unwarranted arbitrary assumption. The only reasonable interpretation of the evidence is that he is referring strictly to the membership of the Federation.

Let's also review the exchange:

Lily : "How many planets are in this Federation?"
Picard : "Over one hundred and fifty, spread across eight thousand light years."

A federation being an alliance of member states, the meaning of this is clearly what I've said it is: Member planets of the Federation.

This is further clarified by Sisko, speaking several years earlier:

Sisko : "The Federation is made up of over a hundred planets who have allied themselves for mutual scientific cultural and defensive benefits."

Clearly the planets referred to in the counts on this scale are signatories to the Federation charter. I.e., these planets are in the federation of planets. Not "held by," but "in."

It wasn't me who claimed that predictions from mental patients will necessarily make sense

No, it was the episode itself which levies this claim. As I have explained at great length. Quod erat demonstrandum.

You don't have a shred of evidence for this

Except for what I've already mentioned. Especially, again, the reduction to absurdity of claiming the Federation has shrunk by a factor of over six while adding new members, exploring and expanding territory, and reclaiming distant colonies like Cestus III.

And when fertility rate was higher than today. Since you don't know the future fertility rate you can't know the growth.

Can't know the growth. Can, however, guess probable growths. Based on non-human populations, we expect the fastest overall growth rate seen by a species restricted to one environment to hold as the overall growth rate when environmental restrictions are removed.

So again, while we can't know the growth rate of the human population, our most reasonable guess is a bit over 2% during the unrestricted space-colonization phase.

Because it can do whatever the rock can

No, it can't. As explained previously.

plus be a huge food source

Which is not required by a military installation, whose food needs are modest.

and the source of natural resources. Plus in the future, when the conflict is resolved, it can be turned into a developed world.

The only part that makes sense of that entire claim is securing the world for development into a full-scale colony later.

Which brings us back to square one, planets being strategic as sites of future colonies.

You don't know that. All they say is that rebellion starts. Northern Ireland rebelled against the British as did India. Yet these cases are not remotely identical.

And in both cases, it happened after the exact same length of time with the same culture being occupied... wait, no, it didn't. The fact that the rebellion starts the same place at the same time with the same end results is plenty to say that the models should have converged by that point. To say anything else is to make unreasonable claims with no evidence in favor of them.

[Kane Starkiller]

Your failure at understanding the definition and what it can and cannot mean has no bearing on the discussion.
I've said all I wanted to say, and whether or not you don't (or won't) understand the implications of the definition and its relation to sizes has no importance to me.
Although, on the bright side, you did, by your insistance, help me define my point.
Thanks.

You evaded my question. Show the connection between modest and not large or concede the point. Also show evidence that galaxies are roughly the same in SW part of the universe as those in our own part.

The very first link I gave stating the average size of the galaxies in the universe states this in (what I thought of) plain english.
Again, your failure (or unwillingness) to understand has no bearing on ths discussion.
I've said all I care to say on this point.

You know, as well as I do, that NASA didn't explore the entire universe and can only speak about visible universe.

I admit that the Aliens in the wormhole made their predictions fail... :)

Failure is a failure.

"Mental patients" are not always trisomic, or even autistic.
some "mental patients" are in institutions because they have, say, no sense of "right or wrong".
Now if you had such people, with elevated IQ, who've shown themselves adept at planning, and scheming, you'd want to have them under control.
I talked about Autism at the start, but these guys don't even need to be Autists.
All they need to do is to show sociopatic behavior which, coupled with their enhanced IQ, makes them dangerous without supervision of the kind found in a mental institution.
The fact that these guys needed psychological help didn't diminish their intelligence, or their analitical abilities.
The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that there was no way to predict the actions of the wormhole Aliens doesn't help your analysis at all, and thus renders your conclusion dubious at best.

I have now said everything I wanted to about this subject, but thanks for an interesting debate, Kane.
It is clear I will not convince you, and that you will not convince me... :)

That's a large chunk of text but you ignored my point: And if those people started predicting that US would loose WW2 or the Cold War we would not exactly take them seriously right? No matter what their IQ was.

Automatically? Perhaps not. With high confidence? Yes.

Let me rephrase so we can stop the word games: you need to provide explicit evidence that a species is a member of the Federation before making such a claim. An individual or several individuals being citizens of the Federation is not evidence any more than Chinese Americans are evidence of China becoming the 51st state.

Which would mean one is a second class citizen if the number of his species don't exceed a certain number?

Highly doubtful.

Then what is the point of the political institution of "member species"? Does it even exist?

I haven't. As I've repeatedly pointed out to you, I believe in every post I've made in the last four pages. What I've claimed is that they by and large don't become members. As supported by the empirical evidence.

Then on what basis are you claiming that Picard only included homeworlds in his count?

This would qualify as a completely irrelevant comment.

How? You claimed that terraforming technologies are advancing and cited Genesis as an example. I pointed out that Genesis is completely useless as a terraforming tool.

Such evidence has been shown repeatedly.

Let's review one more time. If Picard is referring to all worlds occupied or claimed by the Federation, then we have clear absurdity. If Picard is making an arbitrary distinction between worlds occupied, but not the distinction of Federation membership, we have a completely unwarranted arbitrary assumption. The only reasonable interpretation of the evidence is that he is referring strictly to the membership of the Federation.

My point was always that members do not mean only homeworlds and that there is no evidence that there are further significant planets beyond the 150 figure. That is all.

Can't know the growth. Can, however, guess probable growths. Based on non-human populations, we expect the fastest overall growth rate seen by a species restricted to one environment to hold as the overall growth rate when environmental restrictions are removed.

So again, while we can't know the growth rate of the human population, our most reasonable guess is a bit over 2% during the unrestricted space-colonization phase.

You evaded my request. What fertility rates are you expecting. Without that you can't begin to discuss the growth rate when growth rate depends directly on number of children per woman.

No, it can't. As explained previously.

What can't it do?

Which is not required by a military installation, whose food needs are modest.

You continue to ignore my point that a fertile planet can be developed into a major colony, industrial center, food source or mining center. In addition to providing a military outpost.

The only part that makes sense of that entire claim is securing the world for development into a full-scale colony later.

Which brings us back to square one, planets being strategic as sites of future colonies.

Or food sources or mining colonies. Episodes like DS9 "The Ship" show the Starfleet performing survey of a planet in Gamma Quadrant for traces of minerals in hopes of establishing a mining colony. Clearly there is a need for mining expansion and clearly any such planet closer to home would be valuable and fought over with or without a population pressure.

And in both cases, it happened after the exact same length of time with the same culture being occupied... wait, no, it didn't. The fact that the rebellion starts the same place at the same time with the same end results is plenty to say that the models should have converged by that point. To say anything else is to make unreasonable claims with no evidence in favor of them.

How long were 13 American colonies under British control before rebelling? What was their population? What was the population of India when it was conquered and how long did it take for it to rebel?
You continue to ignore there are many other important factors than population and you keep repeating that the results are identical when you provided no evidence. Federation is free in both scenarios but we don't know after how many years of struggle and how many further casualties.

[2046]

Show the connection between modest and not large or concede the point.

You must be joking. Why would you even try to argue that? Even allowing for your bias it makes no sense.

Also show evidence that galaxies are roughly the same in SW part of the universe as those in our own part. {...} You know, as well as I do, that NASA didn't explore the entire universe and can only speak about visible universe.

Argumentum ad ignorantium.

You claimed that terraforming technologies are advancing and cited Genesis as an example. I pointed out that Genesis is completely useless as a terraforming tool.

The underlying point stands. We may assume any technology in active use will advance over time. Terraforming is active, given its use on Weytahn in the 2050's (completed by at least 2097 if not sooner) ("Cease Fire"[ENT2) and of course "Home Soil"[TNG1]. Genesis is clear evidence of continued interest in and use of terraforming technology in the 23rd Century, even if Genesis itself is a failure.

(Cars advance even if the Edsel was created.)

To demand proof of something so incredibly normal is abnormal.

What fertility rates are you expecting. Without that you can't begin to discuss the growth rate when growth rate depends directly on number of children per woman.

You just claimed that one cannot discuss growth rate without discussing the rate of children per woman. Clearly you do not see the absurdity in that, so let me explain.

Growth rates can be calculated based solely on population at the beginning of a period and population at the end of a period.

In 2100 there are 500,000 persons. In 2200 there are 3,000,000 persons. The population goes up to a factor of 6 over the initial population in 100 years. The growth rate (using the common-sense 'formula' on Wikipedia) is:

Rate = 3,000,000 - 500,000 / 500,000
Rate = 2,500,000 / 500,000
Rate = 5

That's 500% increase over the century. (I know that confuses you, but just remember that if the population had doubled (i.e. increased to a value a factor of two of what it was), the new value would be 200% of the old one, but only representative of a 100% increase.

Annually, the rate would be 5%.

It doesn't matter where the children came from. Women, men, cloning, whatever. What matters is that they exist.

One would assume population growth for any healthy society. Carol Marcus even refers to such in her Genesis proposal. The problem of Gideon was runaway growth. And so on.

I mean, you could suppose that the Federation takes in new members because it is a United Federation of Space Vampires needing new blood as it slowly dies off, but unless you can provide some evidence of that then it is an idea going nowhere fast.

[Kane Starkiller]

You must be joking. Why would you even try to argue that? Even allowing for your bias it makes no sense.

I meant large as in large class of galaxies. "Large" and "modest" are subjective terms to begin with. It is amusing you accuse me of bias when you insist on using a vague term to contradict an explicit number given in other publications.

Also show evidence that galaxies are roughly the same in SW part of the universe as those in our own part. {...} You know, as well as I do, that NASA didn't explore the entire universe and can only speak about visible universe.

Argumentum ad ignorantium.

No, burden of proof fallacy. On your part. Since you and Praethomin are claiming that "modest" SW galaxy means that it's smaller than average galaxies surrounding it it's up to you to prove that average size of the galaxy there is the same as here. Not to mention you still haven't connected modest and below average.

The underlying point stands. We may assume any technology in active use will advance over time. Terraforming is active, given its use on Weytahn in the 2050's (completed by at least 2097 if not sooner) ("Cease Fire"[ENT2) and of course "Home Soil"[TNG1]. Genesis is clear evidence of continued interest in and use of terraforming technology in the 23rd Century, even if Genesis itself is a failure.

(Cars advance even if the Edsel was created.)

To demand proof of something so incredibly normal is abnormal.

I didn't say that terraforming is not still used merely that Genesis failed. We have seen terraforming in progress during TNG and it was clearly a far more modest and slower effort than Genesis. It utilized alagae growth to create an atmosphere and would take years. Not exactly esoteric technology.

You just claimed that one cannot discuss growth rate without discussing the rate of children per woman. Clearly you do not see the absurdity in that, so let me explain.

Growth rates can be calculated based solely on population at the beginning of a period and population at the end of a period.

In 2100 there are 500,000 persons. In 2200 there are 3,000,000 persons. The population goes up to a factor of 6 over the initial population in 100 years. The growth rate (using the common-sense 'formula' on Wikipedia) is:

Rate = 3,000,000 - 500,000 / 500,000
Rate = 2,500,000 / 500,000
Rate = 5

That's 500% increase over the century. (I know that confuses you, but just remember that if the population had doubled (i.e. increased to a value a factor of two of what it was), the new value would be 200% of the old one, but only representative of a 100% increase.

Annually, the rate would be 5%.

It doesn't matter where the children came from. Women, men, cloning, whatever. What matters is that they exist.

I suggest you read the thread before jumping in. The issue was the population of the Federation to begin with. Jedi Master Spock claimed that it must be high since growth would be high and then I asked him about fertility rates. In other words we don't know what is the population of the Federation in 2370, that's what is being discussed.
And by the way your calculation is completely off the mark as is your formula for population growth.
If the population grows by a factor of six in 100 years then annual growth rate is 1.8%. Conversely if population grew by 5% yearly it would increase from 500,000 to 67.5 million people.

One would assume population growth for any healthy society. Carol Marcus even refers to such in her Genesis proposal. The problem of Gideon was runaway growth. And so on.

I mean, you could suppose that the Federation takes in new members because it is a United Federation of Space Vampires needing new blood as it slowly dies off, but unless you can provide some evidence of that then it is an idea going nowhere fast.

I already pointed to the fact that all developed countries tend to have their fertility rate at or below replacement level. Germany, Japan are already beginning to experience population decline.

[Praeothmin]

You evaded my question. Show the connection between modest and not large or concede the point.

I've shown it many times, and everyone but you understood it.
I've used the dictionary, I've used our modern scientific knowledge, while you've used... what exactly to refute this?
Nothing except for your refusal of the very definition of the word.
In other words, you've failed spectacularly at rebutting my arguments and have only shown obtuseness in the face of my arguments.

You know, as well as I do, that NASA didn't explore the entire universe and can only speak about visible universe.

Then prove to me that the SW Galaxy is in the unknown part, or concede the point.
See, this can go both ways.
Again, I've come up with many arguments based on modern knowledge, and definition of a word found in higher canon, while you've shown... zip, nada, zero evidence to the contrary... :)

Failure is a failure.

Ah, but the cause of the failure is important in an analysis.
If you use an instrument I manufacture to test something, and your results fail, before you can tell me my instrument is bad, you first have to prove you know how to use the instrument, that there were no external causes for the failure, that the tests you were running were indeed the type of tests this instrument can do...
Reason of failure, very important... :)

That's a large chunk of text but you ignored my point: And if those people started predicting that US would loose WW2 or the Cold War we would not exactly take them seriously right? No matter what their IQ was.

Not if part of their predictions included strange aliens in the bermuda traingles causing the loss of many Nazi or Japanese ships, no...
But if they based their predictions on "verifiable" parameters and known constraints, we might...

Since you and Praethomin are claiming that "modest" SW galaxy means that it's smaller than average galaxies surrounding it it's up to you to prove that average size of the galaxy there is the same as here. Not to mention you still haven't connected modest and below average.

I have connected it many times in ways any but the most obtuse would understand.
Now, it's your turn Kane.
You have stated that the SW Galaxy isn't in the "know" parts of the Universe.
You must prove it.
Our scientists say that the universe should be the same everywhere based on what they've seen.
You are the one saying it probably isn't.
You must prove.

I sure hope you bring better arguments to prove this then you did refuting my arguments (oh wait, that shouldn't be hard, you brought none)... ;)

[Jedi Master Spock]

That's a large chunk of text but you ignored my point: And if those people started predicting that US would loose WW2 or the Cold War we would not exactly take them seriously right? No matter what their IQ was.

At the time? Yes, we would have, but only if their predictions were inherently plausible.

And that's not analagous to the situation we had here. Everything points to the FKR alliance being defeated without a series of unpredictable events, especially the closure of the wormhole.

Let me rephrase so we can stop the word games: you need to provide explicit evidence that a species is a member of the Federation before making such a claim. An individual or several individuals being citizens of the Federation is not evidence any more than Chinese Americans are evidence of China becoming the 51st state.

Which is why we can't be sure the Trill homeworld is a Federation member. It is, however, very likely.

We see, in the UN, a general assembly, corresponding to the Federation Council. How many assembly representatives are immigrants - or, for that matter, a member of anything but the most politically influential ethnic group within that nation?

Then what is the point of the political institution of "member species"? Does it even exist?

A good question. And I am of the opinion it most likely does not.

I haven't. As I've repeatedly pointed out to you, I believe in every post I've made in the last four pages. What I've claimed is that they by and large don't become members. As supported by the empirical evidence.

Then on what basis are you claiming that Picard only included homeworlds in his count?

As I just told you yet again, this is not my claim. My claim is that he only includes members in his count, and that the number of members that are not homeworlds of some species is going to be very small. Not necessarily non-existent; simply small. And for that, we have plenty of evidence.

How? You claimed that terraforming technologies are advancing and cited Genesis as an example. I pointed out that Genesis is completely useless as a terraforming tool.

I claimed terraforming technologies are an active and important field of study, receiving much funding.

"Home Soil" is much more explicit about what stage terraforming technology is at in TNG. IIRC, all that is required that the world be of appropriate size, orbital zone, and rotational period; from there, a completely barren world can be terraformed and ready for settlement within just a couple decades with a minimum of personnel.

My point was always that members do not mean only homeworlds and that there is no evidence that there are further significant planets beyond the 150 figure. That is all.

Except for the fact that a number of worlds not described as members have significant populations (Archer IV) or are described as important in some other way (Archanis IV, which changes hands in treaty, is almost certainly not a member of the Federation... and so on down the alphabet.)

In other words, your claim that all significant worlds are members falls flat, not only due to a lack of evidence, but a puzzling conjunction of evidence that suggests the existence of non-member worlds of some importance.

You evaded my request. What fertility rates are you expecting. Without that you can't begin to discuss the growth rate when growth rate depends directly on number of children per woman.

Sure we can. Besides, not all reproduction is even conventional.

Population growth rate is based on a large combination of factors - fertility, pre-fertility mortality, male/female ratios, generational length distributions, et cetera. Since every single one of those parameters would have to be guessed, we're better off simply guessing the one parameter based on the broadest and simplest possible generalizations we can make.

That doesn't mean looking at the assumptions from industrial societies with many cultural elements in common, in which overpopulation became a fashionable concern a generation ago.

And we can, as I've pointed out, play around with models varying that parameter, and "Statistical Probabilities" winds up telling us very interesting things about what that parameter means regarding the composition of the Federation's population.

What can't it do?

Are you forgetting what I posted earlier? There are three big things. One, you've stuck everything at the bottom of a gravity well. Two, there's a whole atmosphere/ionospehere/magnetosphere worth of interference. Three, it's a pain in the butt to look straight through (or shoot straight through) a planet.

These are the advantages of building a military base in a rock instead of on a planet's surface.

You continue to ignore my point that a fertile planet can be developed into a major colony, industrial center, food source or mining center.

All of these are useful in and of themselves outside of any "strategic" position - and better located away from hostile borders.

In addition to providing a military outpost.

Which, for the reasons provided above, would probably best be placed in high orbit.

Or food sources or mining colonies.

Which also brings us back to square one.

Episodes like DS9 "The Ship" show the Starfleet performing survey of a planet in Gamma Quadrant for traces of minerals in hopes of establishing a mining colony. Clearly there is a need for mining expansion and clearly any such planet closer to home would be valuable and fought over with or without a population pressure.

And yet there are so many planets out there. Which brings us back to my point, which is that the Federation and its rivals need to be making use of a great many planets.

How long were 13 American colonies under British control before rebelling? What was their population? What was the population of India when it was conquered and how long did it take for it to rebel?

And, had those colonies, or India, had 90% of their population wiped out a century before, would the rebellions have happened in the same way? I think not!

You continue to ignore there are many other important factors than population and you keep repeating that the results are identical when you provided no evidence. Federation is free in both scenarios but we don't know after how many years of struggle and how many further casualties.

I'm not. Population dynamics, however, are so basic and so important that two models converging independently with significantly different population numbers is difficult to make plausible.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Globally, we don't know the context of SW's galaxy, and there's a lot of the universe we didn't chart, did we?
That's enough unknown space, especially for a galaxy far, far away, to be in some special context. As long as it's a theory that works, it's fine.

We also have proof that developed and "rich" countries don't point to massive population growth. Maybe we could try to look at a middle ground form of Far West pop growth, but based on the advantages of high technology (although distant small colonies would surely not have access to resupply in all high tech goods and medicines as often as medium to major worlds).

It's also totally correct that aliens seen in a cosmopolitan Federation building are not necessarily members. They could be non-UFP ambassadors. However, the odds of seeing UFP aliens in UFP buildings are higher.

[Kane Starkiller]

I've shown it many times, and everyone but you understood it.
I've used the dictionary, I've used our modern scientific knowledge, while you've used... what exactly to refute this?
Nothing except for your refusal of the very definition of the word.
In other words, you've failed spectacularly at rebutting my arguments and have only shown obtuseness in the face of my arguments.

There is nothing to refute since you have no argument. You continue to claim that modest means below average without providing a shred of evidence. You continue to ignore the fact that modest is a subjective and not a scientific term and claim that it can be used to override explicit numbers provided by other sources.

Then prove to me that the SW Galaxy is in the unknown part, or concede the point.
See, this can go both ways.
Again, I've come up with many arguments based on modern knowledge, and definition of a word found in higher canon, while you've shown... zip, nada, zero evidence to the contrary... :)

Burden of proof fallacy. You claimed the word "modest" overrules explicit number from other sources therefore it's up to you to come up with all the necessary evidence to back your claim. So far you came up with nothing: a definition of word that is not scientific but vague and subjective and modern knowledge which is limited thus not sufficient for your claim that galaxies around SW galaxy would be of the same size.

Ah, but the cause of the failure is important in an analysis.
If you use an instrument I manufacture to test something, and your results fail, before you can tell me my instrument is bad, you first have to prove you know how to use the instrument, that there were no external causes for the failure, that the tests you were running were indeed the type of tests this instrument can do...
Reason of failure, very important... :)

This has nothing to do with my point. Bashir was banking the fate of the Federation on these people, they failed miserably. Therefore Bashir was naive and foolish. End of story.

Not if part of their predictions included strange aliens in the bermuda traingles causing the loss of many Nazi or Japanese ships, no...
But if they based their predictions on "verifiable" parameters and known constraints, we might...

Sure we might. I can just picture Roosevelt's personal doctor barging into the Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting with a couple of his mental patients presenting them with calculations of how the war will go. It might work for a Dr. Strangelove script but not in real life.

I have connected it many times in ways any but the most obtuse would understand.
Now, it's your turn Kane.
You have stated that the SW Galaxy isn't in the "know" parts of the Universe.
You must prove it.
Our scientists say that the universe should be the same everywhere based on what they've seen.
You are the one saying it probably isn't.
You must prove.

I sure hope you bring better arguments to prove this then you did refuting my arguments (oh wait, that shouldn't be hard, you brought none)... ;)

Again you attempt to switch the burden of proof. It's extremely simple: you claim that word "modest" overrides the explicit figure of 100,000ly stated elsewhere therefore it's up to you to provide any and all evidence necessary to back up your claim.

Except for the fact that a number of worlds not described as members have significant populations (Archer IV) or are described as important in some other way (Archanis IV, which changes hands in treaty, is almost certainly not a member of the Federation... and so on down the alphabet.)

In other words, your claim that all significant worlds are members falls flat, not only due to a lack of evidence, but a puzzling conjunction of evidence that suggests the existence of non-member worlds of some importance.

What evidence is there that Archer IV didn't become a member? If a world is important that doesn't mean it's a major developed world. Spratly Islands are important to China, that doesn't mean they have a population in the millions or trillion dollar class economy. You provided no evidence that there are major worlds in the Federation beyond the 150 count.

Sure we can. Besides, not all reproduction is even conventional.

Population growth rate is based on a large combination of factors - fertility, pre-fertility mortality, male/female ratios, generational length distributions, et cetera. Since every single one of those parameters would have to be guessed, we're better off simply guessing the one parameter based on the broadest and simplest possible generalizations we can make.

That doesn't mean looking at the assumptions from industrial societies with many cultural elements in common, in which overpopulation became a fashionable concern a generation ago.

And we can, as I've pointed out, play around with models varying that parameter, and "Statistical Probabilities" winds up telling us very interesting things about what that parameter means regarding the composition of the Federation's population.

In other words you are guessing. And not only do you admit you are guessing but you actually claim that it's better to not even consider all the individual factors that contribute to growth and just jump straight to growth and guess that. Hence you have no evidence and your claims about high population growth were just empty talk.
Not to mention that all the other factors like mortality or female/male imbalance can only lead to lower growth.
Furthermore what evidence do you have that it was the concern for overpopulation that lead to decline in fertility? Fertility actually fell below the replacement level in many developed countries and in many there are attempts to actually increase the fertility level.

Are you forgetting what I posted earlier? There are three big things. One, you've stuck everything at the bottom of a gravity well. Two, there's a whole atmosphere/ionospehere/magnetosphere worth of interference. Three, it's a pain in the butt to look straight through (or shoot straight through) a planet.

These are the advantages of building a military base in a rock instead of on a planet's surface.

They never heard of satellites and orbital telescopes in the Federation? Or orbital weapons platforms? Or patrol ships and actual space stations put in orbit of a planet? Besides Riker seemed to be very satisfied with the surface starbase in Encounter at Farpoint.

All of these are useful in and of themselves outside of any "strategic" position - and better located away from hostile borders.

If there are any, which you haven't proven.

Which also brings us back to square one.

No it doesn't since you haven't even attempted to outline per capita food or resource consumption for the Federation.

And yet there are so many planets out there. Which brings us back to my point, which is that the Federation and its rivals need to be making use of a great many planets.

How many is "so many"? How many of them have pleasant climate, fresh water availability or useful natural resources?

And, had those colonies, or India, had 90% of their population wiped out a century before, would the rebellions have happened in the same way? I think not!

And yet I have shown that even though American colonies had a much smaller population the rebellion did happen much sooner.

I'm not. Population dynamics, however, are so basic and so important that two models converging independently with significantly different population numbers is difficult to make plausible.

You keep claiming that population is important yet you haven't provided a shred of evidence to show how much population they needed in order to overthrow Dominion much less what Bashir considered reasonable.

[l33telboi]

Sure we might. I can just picture Roosevelt's personal doctor barging into the Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting with a couple of his mental patients presenting them with calculations of how the war will go.

You're still trying to compare the people who made the predictions to mental patients as we know them… after all this time? That's hardly valid, but then again that’s been said a number of times already without sinking in so I'm guessing it never will, but: They are still genetically engineered geniuses that were able to predict things that Starfleet intelligence was not. Trying to pass them off as nothing more then mental patients does nothing but show that you’re not all that rational in your arguments.

Like I said earlier, it’d be like comparing a Jedi to a hobo. Sure they’re both homeless, but does that mean they’re one and the same?

[2046]

"Large" and "modest" are subjective terms to begin with.

The words have meaning, especially if you compare to a set of such items as the words are describing.

It is amusing you accuse me of bias when you insist on using a vague term to contradict an explicit number given in other publications.

One is canon. The other is not. You are aware of this. Calling it bias on my part is dishonest.

Also show evidence that galaxies are roughly the same in SW part of the universe as those in our own part. {...} You know, as well as I do, that NASA didn't explore the entire universe and can only speak about visible universe.

Argumentum ad ignorantium.

No, burden of proof fallacy. On your part. Since you and Praethomin are claiming that "modest" SW galaxy means that it's smaller than average galaxies surrounding it it's up to you to prove that average size of the galaxy there is the same as here.

Did you not know that apparent galaxy size is used as a way to estimate distance? We check galaxies in clusters in faraway views against local galactic clusters to enable a distance estimate based on what would be a logical size given the comparison.

You're not arguing against us . . . you're arguing against the whole of astronomy.

Further, who said anything about having to compare it to its surrounding galaxies specifically? I don't recall that from the novelization.

The underlying point stands. We may assume any technology in active use will advance over time. Terraforming is active, given its use on Weytahn in the 2050's (completed by at least 2097 if not sooner) ("Cease Fire"[ENT2) and of course "Home Soil"[TNG1]. Genesis is clear evidence of continued interest in and use of terraforming technology in the 23rd Century, even if Genesis itself is a failure.

(Cars advance even if the Edsel was created.)

To demand proof of something so incredibly normal is abnormal.

I didn't say that terraforming is not still used merely that Genesis failed.

Irrelevant response. You suggested it was odd to use Genesis as an example of advancements being made in terraforming technology.

You just claimed that one cannot discuss growth rate without discussing the rate of children per woman. {snip}

I suggest you read the thread before jumping in.

I suggest you read the post before replying. I responded to a claim, a claim that you made.

And by the way your calculation is completely off the mark as is your formula for population growth.

The formula is not incorrect, though I was in a distracted rush at the end and got awfully sloppy with my application. I usually save such postings for later completion (usually forgetting or being more permanently distracted, hence my low posting rate). However, you were being so weird I rushed myself. My apologies to the readers, especially since I've demonstrated such calculations correctly so often before.

I already pointed to the fact that all developed countries tend to have their fertility rate at or below replacement level. Germany, Japan are already beginning to experience population decline.

At those specific places and at this specific time that is correct. However, there are numerous causal factors which you seem eager to ignore, including economics, no colonialism, and so on that are different in the Federation.

[Who is like God arbour]

Sure we might. I can just picture Roosevelt's personal doctor barging into the Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting with a couple of his mental patients presenting them with calculations of how the war will go.

You're still trying to compare the people who made the predictions to mental patients as we know them… after all this time? That's hardly valid, but then again that’s been said a number of times already without sinking in so I'm guessing it never will, but: They are still genetically engineered geniuses that were able to predict things that Starfleet intelligence was not. Trying to pass them off as nothing more then mental patients does nothing but show that you’re not all that rational in your arguments.

Like I said earlier, it’d be like comparing a Jedi to a hobo. Sure they’re both homeless, but does that mean they’re one and the same?

l33telboi, don't bother. It's irrelevant what you are saying. He will never accept it. It's irrelevant, that their mental disability only affect their personality, but not their intellect, adversely. It's irrelevant that they have already shown, that they are able to use their intellect to correctly analyse complex situations. It's irrelevant that the Augments haven't simply said, that the UfP will loose the war but have made exact and traceable calculations, which were checked by Bashir and send to Starfleet and that no one has found an error in them. And it's irrelevant that the correctness of their calculations is irrelevant because, if their extrapolated number of causalities would be magnitudes too high compared to what is possible at all, Bashir or Sisko or Starfleet would have noticed it at once - without checking their calculations before.
But Kane Starkiller will never admit, that his argument, why we should not accept, what the Augments have said, is nothing more than an ad hominem argument. Yes, they have mental problems. But that doesn't change the fact, that no one has found an error in their calculations or thinks, that their extrapolated number of causalities was magnitudes too high compared to what is possible at all.
But for Kane Starkiller, that is irrelevant. Because not only are all people in the Star Trek universe idiots, but we are too.