SDN: Industrial Capacity and Territorial Holdings

[Kane Starkiller]

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.

No one ever said mental patients can't have a very high IQ or be able to solve complex mathematical problems. We have such cases today. The issue is their reliability and they have none no matter how much you try to pretend that their mental disability doesn't matter.
Even taking real geniuses like Albert Einstein they still couldn't simply walk in and teach Eisenhower how best to execute the invasion of Normandy since that was simply not his field of expertise.
The same goes for Bashir, it's irrelevant how much of genius he is, he is a doctor and not a military strategist. That he thought he and his team of mental patients could lecture experts in fields where they had no education is only a sign of arrogance and ignorance certainly not genius.
You can try to twist that around any way you like the issue is clear.

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

I never said they didn't have meaning only that they didn't have mathematically defined meaning or that they had multiple meanings.

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

It's up to you whether you accept EU or not. That still doesn't make "modest" have a precise meaning.

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.

And this changes my point you can't know the size of the galaxy around SW how? Secondly anyone who claims that "modest" means smaller than Milky Way must prove that Milky Way is the type of galaxy SW one was compared to.

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

Since Genesis doesn't work then it obviously cannot be used as an example of advancements in terraforming. We saw an example of terraforming effort in TNG and it bears no resemblance to Genesis nor is there any trace of Genesis technology being used.

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.

Both Canada and Australia have large economies and plenty of available space. Yet their fertility rate is 1.6 and 1.8. Whether that will change in the future is unknown and Jedi Master Spock has absolutely no evidence human population growth will increase just because new planets are found.

[l33telboi]

No one ever said mental patients can't have a very high IQ or be able to solve complex mathematical problems. We have such cases today. The issue is their reliability and they have none no matter how much you try to pretend that their mental disability doesn't matter.

Even taking real geniuses like Albert Einstein they still couldn't simply walk in and teach Eisenhower how best to execute the invasion of Normandy since that was simply not his field of expertise.

You're right; it would be silly if Einstein started dictating military matters. Why? Because wasn't knowledgeable enough to do so. And that's the problem with your analogy. These 'mental patients' on the other hand already demonstrated that they actually were capable of outthinking Starfleet military on their own. In essence, a more fitting analogy would be having Einstein barging in and telling people the best way to execute the plan, after he already once had prepared a better plan when compared to what the military had come up with. It's not a case of a person being a little better at math, it's a case of a person demonstrating that he's better then the other guy in the relevant field.

And Albert Einstein, as quaint an analogy as he provides for, is still human when it came to thinking. These were literally superhuman when it came to thinking.

The same goes for Bashir, it's irrelevant how much of genius he is, he is a doctor and not a military strategist. That he thought he and his team of mental patients could lecture experts in fields where they had no education is only a sign of arrogance and ignorance certainly not genius.
You can try to twist that around any way you like the issue is clear.

No, you can make the claim that you're better then someone else without being arrogant. It can be the cold hard fact of the matter. And in this case these people clearly were, as they had already demonstrated themselves better when it came to planning and anticipating what the enemy was after. They ultimately went too far in their planning though, but that doesn’t change the fact that they did demonstrate that they were better then Starfleet.

Whatever the case, this entire thing is sort of a red herring. If you really want to make a case that these people weren't as smart as they thought in the relevant field, then do so. But don't claim that they're nothing but common 'mental patients', because I'll start calling the Republic bigwigs idiots for employing hobos as the generals of their armies if you do. My analogy would even be more fitting, because Jedi didn't know what they were doing and never proved themselves to be good in leading armies.

[PunkMaister]

At his point just about everything from SDN is nothing but a bad joke!

[Praeothmin]

At his point just about everything from SDN is nothing but a bad joke!

If it's the only contribution you'll bring to this thread, then why bother posting?
We already know you hate SDN, we've known for a long time, can you just stop the SDN bashing and contribute something useful?
Thanks!

There is nothing to refute since you have no argument.

Hum, seems you've got this backwards, Kane.
I've given you many arguments:
-Higher canon source says SW Galaxy "modest-sized";
-Shown science site that says scientists believe most galaxies in Universe are smaller then Milky Way and size of average galaxies;
-Shown definition of "modest" that means "limited", thus not big;
-Argued then that size of SW Galaxy cannot be close in size to "large" galaxy (Milky Way), and also because of "modest-sized", is probably smaller then average;
-Argued for approximate size of 15 to 30 thousand LY.

You, on the other hand, have presented the following arguments:
-"Nuh-hun!";
-"No, it's not!"
-"Modest isn't small" (presented without any counters or rebuttals);
-"I don't like the numbers you presented, lower canon says 120 000 LY" (with no argument as to why you prefer the number, or how it can go with the "modest-sized" comment in higher canon).

You continue to claim that modest means below average without providing a shred of evidence.

I've provided more evidence then you ever did.
Astronomy websites, deifnitions, arguments, while you provided... nothing...

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.

Oh no Kane, you're not getting off that easily.
I gave my estimates of the size of the SW Galaxy based on the arguments I presented.
You then came in and tried to shift the argument to:
"But who's to say it's even part of the known universe..."

Since I've presented science's theory that what we see is alike in the Universe (size of the galaxies), then it's up to you to present proof that it isn't.
The site I linked to says they are, you say they aren't.
Guess who I'll believe... :)

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.

This has everything to do with your point.
Just because you refuse it, doesn't invalidate its premise.
The reason for failure is just as important as anything else, as any investigator in an airplane crash would tell you.
If a plane crashes due to "unforeseable" reasons (such as a flock of birds flying through the engines during takeoff), then the pilots or mechanics will not be blamed.
Why?
Because of the reason for the plane's failure does not lie in their hands, but in "unpredictable" elements.
Same situation here, whether you want it or not.

It might work for a Dr. Strangelove script but not in real life.

But it did work... In DS9...

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.

And I have, to which your only counter was:
"but what if it's in a part where things are different?"
Scientists say they shouldn't be different, you say it could.
You brought it up, you prove it... :)

[2046]

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

I never said they didn't have meaning only that they didn't have mathematically defined meaning or that they had multiple meanings.

Irrelevant.

1. We have demonstrated that, per the entire science of astronomy, we have an idea of normal galaxy sizes in the universe. True, uber-galaxies may always be hiding just to the left of each deep-field camera shot, but to cling to that hope is an appeal to ignorance.

2. Further, you continue to claim that only the galaxies surrounding the Star Wars galaxy should be considered. This is your own addition to the canon statement and has no merit. Your wish for such a requirement to exist is not, itself, a requirement.

3. We have also demonstrated that the term "modest-sized" has meaning, and that this meaning clearly indicates a Star Wars galaxy that is not large. Our own galaxy is large. Yes, some are bigger, but not many. Most galaxies are far smaller -- what we call dwarfs -- and there are some even smaller.

The best way for you to argue the largest possible galaxy size is to argue against our methods of guessing a true size.

For instance, in the Local Group of 40 galaxies, even excluding anything below 10,000 light-years across, the average galaxy size of the remaining 13 is 36,500 light years (an estimate which holds for larger galaxies within 20 million light years).

I would therefore submit that the Star Wars galaxy is likely to be somewhere in the 30,000 light-year range, and given that I excluded most of the dwarf-and-smaller galaxies, I find that estimate to likely be too large.

Where you should come in is to argue against my numbers. You should not continue blindly and foolishly arguing against a point you cannot win. All you are doing is obfuscating, hand-waving, and generally making a nuisance of yourself when you try to throw up smokescreens against "modest-sized" that everyone understands the meaning of.

You should concede that point and seek bigger averages. You may not get up to Milky Way dimensions and almost certainly won't get up to the 200,000 light-year crap being bandied about at SDN, but you would at least be supporting a less dishonest position than the one you are supporting now.

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

Since Genesis doesn't work then it obviously cannot be used as an example of advancements in terraforming.

Illogical. You are moving the goalposts by looking at the results of Genesis and not its existence. You said of JMS: "You claimed that terraforming technologies are advancing and cited Genesis as an example."

You argue against the claim of advancing technology. Ergo your position is that there is no advancement being made in regards to terraforming, a technology in constant use throughout the Trek timeline. Such a position is absurd on its face, as is your assertion that Genesis cannot be used as an example of technological advancement.

(Indeed, that touches on the larger issue of whether failure is also advancement, which I would say is true to a large degree, but which you would evidently deny.)

An analogy for your argument is to point to the NX-01 and 1701-D. Both have warp flight capability, phasery thingies, and torpedoey thingies. You could claim that there is no significant technological advancement between the two. After all, even though we saw Mars being struck with comets in ENT, Andorian terraforming of waterless bodies in ENT, and all this compared to hydraulic resurfacing and terraforming stations and terraforming starships in TNG and DS9, you would clearly argue that all this is not evidence of advancement . . . merely different.

So I could point to a specific example of something that was supposed to do things a lot better . . . say, transwarp . . . as clear evidence of advancement being made. But "no," you would say, "later ships don't use transwarp, so we presume it failed, and thus no advancement is being made".

Don't you see the silliness there? You're basically arguing no significant technological difference between the NX-01 and 1701-D. And to do so you're denying that an attempted but failed advancement is proof of advancement being sought.

In any case, it makes clear to most reasonable readers that the Federation is interested in and exploring advances in terraforming, whether or not you accept that.

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.

Both Canada and Australia have large economies and plenty of available space. Yet their fertility rate is 1.6 and 1.8.

Economy size is not at issue. Hell, in the modern world having a small economy is a better indicator of high fertility.

But in any case we're not talking fertility. As you proved in your prior post, one can discuss population growth without reference to fertility. Remember your correction to my hasty math? :)

[Jedi Master Spock]

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.

It's possible it did - but not at all necessary, and in fact unlikely, since - as I've mentioned previously - all worlds described as members have the characteristic of being homeworlds.

I'll put it directly: Any claims about the number of major worlds in the Federation are strictly conjectural, and what little evidence we have fails to support your conjectures. You are making a significant claim when you say that the 150 worlds Picard refers to is equivalent to the number of major worlds in the Federation, and that claim is falling flat due to lack of support.

In other words you are guessing. And not only do you admit you are guessing

As I have this whole time.

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.

I've explained exactly why each of my assumptions have been made. You, in order to make a positive claim of low growth, need to support additional assumptions, and the evidence just isn't there.

Not to mention that all the other factors like mortality or female/male imbalance can only lead to lower growth.

Now this is downright false. If you're working on female fertility data, a higher female:male atio means higher population growth. Why do you assume the conventional heterosexual monogamous nuclear family is the only means of reproduction? That's a poor assumption. In fact, even assuming conventional pregnancy is the only statistically significant method of reproduction is undersupported.

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.

And in all cases, we've seen that public policy has a very significant impact on population dynamics.

Which brings me to the most famous case of long-term below-replacement level fertility: China, whose population will peak soon. Which still is an example of a developing country with low fertility rates. What's important is public policy and culture.

They never heard of satellites and orbital telescopes in the Federation? Or orbital weapons platforms?

They have. And you have to build all of those, instead of just putting a single self-enclosed starbase up.

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.

Surface starbases are very clearly the exception, rather than the rule. And I might mention that starbases are our main example of at least pseudomilitary installations. They are usually found in high orbit, and occasionally in deep space.

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

The main example we were discussing was the Vulcan-Andoraian one, in which case we did have a demonstrably hostile border.

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

Not the point I'm talking about. Go read back carefully. You generally want valuable infrastructure away from hostile borders.

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

The first two can be fixed via terraforming. The third is a reason for founding mining colonies but only applies for certain rare substances.

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

It also happened in a completely different fashion. Change one significant variable and everything changes.

You keep claiming that population is important

Major population changes - and even changes in population dynamics -are historical driving forces of great significance. I point you to the Black Death, China's OPC, overpopulation pressures, the relationship between Turkey and Germany, the US westward expansion, et cetera.

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.

That's because there isn't a particular population necessary to overthrow the Dominion. What there is in the model is a long term insensitivity to the casualties of the Dominion War, which is an indication that at least in the long term, the casualties don't represent a significant alteration.