SDN: Industrial Capacity and Territorial Holdings

[Kane Starkiller]

Except for the fact that he was talking specifically about the Federation and what it represented.

If someone was to ask you what are the USA, you would mention the 50 states and the federal district, and you wouldn't mention the countries where you're located and have influence as part of the USA, because they're not.
You wouldn't mention Iraq as part of the US, nor Panama, nor Afghanistan, even though you have influence and a military presence there, because they're not part of the US.
You won't talk about a US research station in Antartica, even though it is a US research station, because it is still not part of the US.

In other words, logic points a lot more to those 150 worlds to being the members of the Federation, then to being all the worlds where the Federation has a presence, whether as comercial or diplomatic...

I should have said major established Federation worlds. Obviously he wasn't including worlds outside of the Federation. My point is that there is no evidence 150 count only includes "member" worlds as opposed to all established colonies within the Federation.

This is oversimplifying things a bit Kane.
There's also the values espoused by the society in question.
Rural China doesn't necessarily have a higher education level then rural Bengladesh, but where in Bengladesh the gorvernment hasn't curtailed the birth rate, China did.
And in industrialized countries, we've grown away from family values, installed values that state that a successful woman cannot be one that stays at home, that we need to amass great material wealth to be happy (forcing both members of a couple to work), etc...

In a society where wealth has been downplayed, and where having families is encouraged (like the Federation), and where every basic need is taken care of, you'll have a lot more births then in modern America.
I know a lot of people who'd love to have kids, but they don't actually have the means to support them, so they wait until they do...

It has been observed that when a country attains a certain development and education level fertility rates drop. And literacy rate for Bangladesh, per CIA factbook, is 43% (31% for females) while literacy rate for China is 90% (86% female). PPP per capita for China is $6,100 while for Bangladesh it's $1,500 so yes China is far more developed and it's fertility rates reflect that.
Furthermore what makes you think that secularized Federation where women are far more prominent even in military organizations like Starfleet will suddenly have more children? Obviously it's always possible there was some cultural shift in the Federation but we can't know that. Everything we know about the population growth today points to a decrease in fertility.

The price is only steep for a ship lost in the middle of newhere and who doesn't know when they will be able to replenish fuel and energy sources.
Not for a Federation world or even a colony within reach of major worlds...

The point is that it costs more to cook with a replicator than the old fashioned way. Thus the idea that replicators will bring about a poverty free society is unfounded.

Their quirks did not stop them from having bright minds, just like some Autists will be great matematicians.
And by the way, the Feds won the war because the Bajoran Prophets sealed the wormhole and stemmed the tide or reinforcements the Dominion was expecting.
Please tell us how they should have predicted that... :)

Seeing as how the wormhole was known to be the only way for Dominion to enter the Alpha Quadrant and that it was populated by intelligent beings that was certainly a scenario the should have considered if they were anywhere near as good as they were claiming. My only point is that since we don't know what kind of assumptions they were making (and if you want to predict the future for 1000 years you must make quite a lot of them) we can't use their prediction attempts to determine the population.

What book is this?
Because the novelisation of ANH states that the galaxy is "modest", and since the Milky Way, at 100 000LY isn't a "modest" galaxy, in fact being a rather large one, I was under the impression that the SW galaxy was much smaller then this...

Inside the Worlds of Episode 1.
As I said "modest" is not an objective term and furthermore is not synonymous with "small."

[Jedi Master Spock]

I saw no evidence that 150 number Picard stated only includes member worlds and not, for example, all major established worlds.

And that would depend on your definition of "major." Which would be a sticky point...

... bringing us back to "member." Membership is the only remotely objective criterion by which Picard could filter from >1000 worlds to 150 worlds, given all the data on hand.

Take a look at Memory Alpha's lists. Now, we know of at least 40 species that are known to be part of the Federation, no ifs, ands, or buts. We have another 30 species whose membership in the Federation is highly probable, e.g., the Denobulans. Then we have another 45 non-destroyed, non-relocated, non-independent Federation colonies.

Then we can add in known pre-Federation Earth colonies, Vulcan colonies, Bajoran colonies, and come very close to 150 Federation worlds that have been identified onscreen.

Now, let's review a couple things. Kirk mentions a "thousand races" Cochrane could meet. Picard has made first contact - personally, in his career as a starship captain - with 27 species.

Memory Alpha identifies about 300 Alpha and Beta quadrant species explicitly. Many we have only seen one or two specimens of (including some members of the Federation!), so it's hardly a stretch to go from 40 known Federation species (with 70 more probable) to 150 (or nearly 150) total. In fact, it's expected, and when even poor cousins have a handful of colonies (e.g., Bajorans).

There is no evidence Kirk referred to only human colonies when talking to Cochrane. It would be like George Washington meeting a Navy Captain and asking him how the US is doing and the Captain only citing the current population of the original 13 colonies.
Not only do many have the population of under a million but a vast majority (if not all) planets referred to as colonies were basically a single village with a few hundred or maybe thousand people.
Not to mention the possibility we also discussed before: that many of the colonies were abandoned. After all majority of seen colonies were no more than a small settlement.

A significant fraction of colonies do get abandoned. But we have no reason to conclude that most are abandoned.

We already had this discussion here where I pointed out that human population growth is mostly unrelated to the amount of available space but to overall education level of the population. Hence most of developed countries have a below replacement fertility rate while places like Bangladesh have above replacement fertility rate even though it has half of the US population on a territory the size of Iowa.

Human population levels do many different things, and the figures get messier once you break things down into ideological and cultural subgroups. Human population on the whole appears to be trending towards a logistic model at this point in time, meeting what seems to be Earth's carrying capacity. Prior to that, it has primarily grown exponentially Births, deaths, migrations, and the shuffling around of food and resources is something that happens on a gross global scale.

Obviously replicators do not eliminate economic loss and they do have a steep energy price since it was cheaper to put up with Neelix' cooking and actually descend on planetary surface to restock then to use replicators.

A steep energy price that is usually easily met in civilization, when civilian fusion generators are cheap and widely available.

And just how hospitable were those worlds? How much arable land did they have and how much natural resources? A planet could be "habitable" as in support human life and still be 99% covered in sand dunes.

Hospitable enough to consider seriously the idea of planting a colony on one.

Again how many "M class" planets did their space encompass? How many of those "M class" planets were actually fertile resource rich worlds? Finally what difference does it make whether their own planets are overpopulated? Planets are still the source of food, energy and natural resources and would definitely be fought over.

Based on available space and densities, there should be hundreds of planets falling within the range of "comfortable for Andorians with some terraforming" and "comfortable for Vulcans with some terraforming."

Which is, of course, predicted by a bunch of mental patients and which was utterly bogus since Federation did in fact win the war.

Who we are nevertheless instructed to take seriously.

If they failed to even predict the next 2-3 years how could they possibly know there would be a rising 5 generations later and that it would specifically originate on Earth? There was an episode in which Weyoun stated that the first thing he plans to do after conquest is exterminate the population of Earth precisely to eliminate any possibility of an uprising.

Predicting the future is next to impossible. However, any serious attempt at simulating the future is going to make use of reasonable levels of population growth.

So, to recap. If Federation members have populations that grow at a normal exponential rate, we have a reasonably high population due to that growth. If we have a low population growth rate, the Federation recovering from 900 billion casualties in only five generations becomes patently absurd. It's a balancing act, and claiming the Federation's population is little over a trillion is very difficult to justify rigorously.

You assume that each senator represents a single system for which you have no evidence.

I make no such assumption. Although it is actually a reasonable conclusion given how Senators are introduced and desrcibed, I was speaking of explicit descriptions of the number of systems ruled by the Empire and the Republic.

[Kane Starkiller]

And that would depend on your definition of "major." Which would be a sticky point...

... bringing us back to "member." Membership is the only remotely objective criterion by which Picard could filter from >1000 worlds to 150 worlds, given all the data on hand.

The other objective criterion would be population and self sufficiency. A standard small settlement with a few hundred people could hardly be expected to get a seat at the council. A larger colony like Tasha Jar's for example is known to have a right to secede from Federation.

Take a look at Memory Alpha's lists. Now, we know of at least 40 species that are known to be part of the Federation, no ifs, ands, or buts. We have another 30 species whose membership in the Federation is highly probable, e.g., the Denobulans. Then we have another 45 non-destroyed, non-relocated, non-independent Federation colonies.

Then we can add in known pre-Federation Earth colonies, Vulcan colonies, Bajoran colonies, and come very close to 150 Federation worlds that have been identified onscreen.

Now, let's review a couple things. Kirk mentions a "thousand races" Cochrane could meet. Picard has made first contact - personally, in his career as a starship captain - with 27 species.

Memory Alpha identifies about 300 Alpha and Beta quadrant species explicitly. Many we have only seen one or two specimens of (including some members of the Federation!), so it's hardly a stretch to go from 40 known Federation species (with 70 more probable) to 150 (or nearly 150) total. In fact, it's expected, and when even poor cousins have a handful of colonies (e.g., Bajorans).

If you add up all known Federation homeworlds and colonies it doesn't come to 150. The assumption that all 150 worlds are members each of which also has several major colonies which are not included in the count is an unnecessarily generous.

A significant fraction of colonies do get abandoned. But we have no reason to conclude that most are abandoned.

Except for explicit statements by Picard, Sisko and Janeway which stated without any qualifications that Federation has 100-150 planets or worlds as opposed to Kirk's statement of over a 1000. We could assume that Kirk used a more wide filter so it's 150 major planets and 1000 small colonies that come and go but that is already being generous. Assuming further that 1000 colonies are just the ones belonging to Earth and that each of the 150 planets has 100 or 1000 colonies of it's own is completely unsupported.

Human population levels do many different things, and the figures get messier once you break things down into ideological and cultural subgroups. Human population on the whole appears to be trending towards a logistic model at this point in time, meeting what seems to be Earth's carrying capacity. Prior to that, it has primarily grown exponentially Births, deaths, migrations, and the shuffling around of food and resources is something that happens on a gross global scale.

Actually it's been quite consistent in how it falls close to or below replacement level for every developed country whether it's the highly populated Japan or Canada with very low population density. Meanwhile countries with low development like Somalia, Nigeria or Bangladesh tend to have high fertility rates regardless of widespread hunger and lack of arable land.
The point remains that you have no basis in claiming that human population will start growing rapidly just because they discovered additional territory.

A steep energy price that is usually easily met in civilization, when civilian fusion generators are cheap and widely available.

That doesn't change my point that replicators do not make a civilization prosperous but the other way around: you need a prosperous civilization to be able to afford wasting energy on replicators.

Hospitable enough to consider seriously the idea of planting a colony on one.

Which still tells us nothing about the availability of natural resources or the arable land.

Based on available space and densities, there should be hundreds of planets falling within the range of "comfortable for Andorians with some terraforming" and "comfortable for Vulcans with some terraforming."

"Some" being how costly and how long in duration? And of course how did you come up with hundreds number?

Who we are nevertheless instructed to take seriously.

Which tells as more about Bashir's gullibility than their abilities.

Predicting the future is next to impossible. However, any serious attempt at simulating the future is going to make use of reasonable levels of population growth.

Again: what information do you have about their assumptions? How do you know what population they considered to be sufficient for an uprising?

So, to recap. If Federation members have populations that grow at a normal exponential rate, we have a reasonably high population due to that growth. If we have a low population growth rate, the Federation recovering from 900 billion casualties in only five generations becomes patently absurd. It's a balancing act, and claiming the Federation's population is little over a trillion is very difficult to justify rigorously.

What would be "normal" exponential rate? At US growth rate of 0.883% humans would have 168 billion people by roughly 2375. At UK growth rate it would be 18 billion humans and at Germany's growth rate it would be 5.5 billion. As pointed out above you have no information on what population they considered sufficient for an uprising.

[Jedi Master Spock]

The other objective criterion would be population and self sufficiency. A standard small settlement with a few hundred people could hardly be expected to get a seat at the council. A larger colony like Tasha Jar's for example is known to have a right to secede from Federation.

Neither of which standard is particularly easy to gauge. A federation traditionally is made up of pieces; the UFP has members and a charter. Ergo, the most sensible interpretation of the line about the Federation being 150 worlds is that 150 worlds have signed onto the Federation charter as members.

Moreover, the line in ST:FC isn't the only one:

ST:FC (2373):
Lily: "How many planets are in this Federation?"
Picard: "Over one hundred and fifty, spread across eight thousand light years.'
"Battle Lines" (DS9, 2369):
Sisko: "The Federation is made up of over a hundred planets who have allied themselves for mutual scientific cultural and defensive benefits."

Now which is more likely... the Federation adding signatories as it searches desperately for allies during the Dominion War, sucking in nearby friendly civilizations, or the Federation undertaking massive colonization upgrade efforts during the Dominion War?

That isn't to rule out the possibility of colony planets possibly being signatories to the Federation charter, and therefore members in their own right... but I think it seems unlikely to happen often, given the delicate balance of power between different species in the Federation.

So let's review. The hypothesis is that by ST:FC, about 150 species have signed on. We've seen 70 in the shows that have probably signed on, most of those only in one episode. This would mean that there about 80 member species that we either haven't seen yet or that we've seen but Memory Alpha members have not identified as being probable Federation members. Completely plausible.

Your claim is that there are a certain number of colonies that are actually counted in this total, contrary to what we'd expect from the line and with no particular evidence for it. Possible, but in order for it to be significant, we need to have seen most of the species of the Federation.

If you add up all known Federation homeworlds and colonies it doesn't come to 150. The assumption that all 150 worlds are members each of which also has several major colonies which are not included in the count is an unnecessarily generous.

It comes quite close, actually. Count all the human, vulcan, and Bajoran colonies listed in M-A and you get to 90. Add in 40 known members, and you need to trim a lot from the "probable members" list, e.g., Denobulans and Bajorans. By "probable members," I'm talking about planets that you would usually guess to be in the Federation.

Take out the independent and abandoned colonies, include all the probable and known species members, and you're at 130 identified Federation worlds as of the ST:FC quote. Which is ridiculous, really, given how much screentime most of those worlds get, there are probably lots of unseen Federation worlds.

Most of which are only seen or mentioned once. Take a minute to think about the odds of us having seen, sporadically, coincidentally, that fraction of the Federation and its members via single sightings.

Except for explicit statements by Picard, Sisko and Janeway which stated without any qualifications that Federation has 100-150 planets or worlds as opposed to Kirk's statement of over a 1000. We could assume that Kirk used a more wide filter so it's 150 major planets and 1000 small colonies that come and go but that is already being generous. Assuming further that 1000 colonies are just the ones belonging to Earth and that each of the 150 planets has 100 or 1000 colonies of it's own is completely unsupported.

That already existed at the time. And in Kirk's time, the Federation has fewer members. If I were to guess based on the TNG era growth rates and the starting member list, probably only 20-30.

Actually it's been quite consistent in how it falls close to or below replacement level for every developed country whether it's the highly populated Japan or Canada with very low population density. Meanwhile countries with low development like Somalia, Nigeria or Bangladesh tend to have high fertility rates regardless of widespread hunger and lack of arable land.
The point remains that you have no basis in claiming that human population will start growing rapidly just because they discovered additional territory.

I'm not claiming it will start growing rapidly. I'm claiming the human population, as a whole, will continue an exponential growth rate. That colonists tend to reproduce rapidly has been documented in many cases of colonization, e.g., the Americas.

That doesn't change my point that replicators do not make a civilization prosperous but the other way around: you need a prosperous civilization to be able to afford wasting energy on replicators.

Or can you? A single replicator can replace a wide array of more specialized equipment.

Which still tells us nothing about the availability of natural resources or the arable land.

Not nothing, but very little. And that's the theme of the subject - we have little information, and what little we have needs to be reconciled carefully.

"Some" being how costly and how long in duration? And of course how did you come up with hundreds number?

There are several thousand stars within 100 LY of Earth.

The cluster in question in "Justice" is probably either a large open cluster, with perhaps a couple tens of thousands of stars at most, or a globular cluster, with possibly a couple hundred thousand stars, but unfavorable conditions for planetary formation (because those are older population stars). In either case, we presume the Drake equation to have a very high coefficient of habitable planets per star in the ST universe.

Which tells as more about Bashir's gullibility than their abilities.

If you're going to tell me Bashir is supposed to be dumb enough to assume that reproduction rates will magically go through the roof under Dominion rule, I'm going to tell you that's an exercise in absurdity. The point of the estimates is that they're supposed to be plausible.

Again: what information do you have about their assumptions? How do you know what population they considered to be sufficient for an uprising?

When the population hasn't even returned to its previous value, it certainly isn't recovered. And that's the key point; five generations later, things have recovered, to the point where it doesn't make a difference whether or not the Dominion killed off 900 billion people.

What would be "normal" exponential rate? At US growth rate of 0.883% humans would have 168 billion people by roughly 2375. At UK growth rate it would be 18 billion humans and at Germany's growth rate it would be 5.5 billion. As pointed out above you have no information on what population they considered sufficient for an uprising.

As pointed out above, there's no way you could consider the subject territories "recovered" from the invasion when they haven't even gotten back to their previous value.

Now, here's some numbers for you, as you seem to have no clue what you're talking about. Five human generations is about a century. Assume the human population to be 10 billion two hundred years before, as they were almost only on Earth, and to recover back to their previous value in 100 years.

Assume, generously, the human population takes casualties in proportion to the total Federation population in spite of being among the most militaristic of the Federation membership, and has a constant growth rate, consistent with being nowhere near their carrying capacity. Also assume other members reproduce at a similar rate, which is also being generous to you.

We have, in order for that to be the case, human population to be reduced by the fraction equal to (1+r)^100, meaning they take casualties equal to 10 bn * [(1+r)^200 - (1+r)^100] and the Federation's total population is equal to 900 bn * (1+r)^200 / [(1+r)^200 - (1+r)^100] ). In this model, the higher the human growth rate, the lower the Federation population has to be to meet the minimum conditions of the Jack Pack's model.

Got that? Lower population growth rates mean a slower recovery time for the human population, which means a Federation that is less human and more alien, since it can't have taken as many casualties. Higher population growth rates imply a higher Federation population to start with. Humans taking a higher percentage of casualties (as I expect) mean a higher Federation population.

The Federation could rule as little as 1 trillion. It could rule quite a few more. With the exception of possibly having to deal with Gideon, I think the whole 1-10 trillion range is plausible. 900 billion would still be an incredible death toll if it killed one out of ten non-Gideonite Federation citizens.

Less than 1 trillion and we run into absurdity via the Jack Pack's estimates - your population needs to increase by 60% every generation to recover in five. More than 10 trillion and they better be mostly living on Gideon and similar obscure overpopulated planets. IMO.

[l33telboi]

In regards to the current debate between Kane and JMS.

When it comes to the 150 worlds, I too thought this referred to 'major worlds' rather then 'member worlds' previously. But realizing that the Federation is made up of at least 40 species, the 150 number is much more likely to reflect homeworlds of the different species, rather then just major worlds. Indeed it’s a little strange that we’ve managed to see almost a third of all the Federation species in just the span of the various series.

On the issue of population growth, saying that there's one thing and one thing only that decides a country's population growth seems like a gross simplification. Sure, education will have an impact. When people become aware of contraception and given a means to actually act on that knowledge, you’re going to get a lot people wanting to bump uglies without the risk of becoming a parent. But to say that it ends there seems like wishful thinking. Generally I'd agree that a place like the Federation should have a far larger population growth then the modern world, considering the economic stability the people have. If you don't need to worry about providing for a child then it should boost baby-production by quite a bit. And there should be far less accidental deaths as medical technology has improved. And far less deaths caused by war and violence. All adding greatly to how quickly a population grows.

I think the worst bit of this debate is trying to use Voyager as an example of how replicators are expensive to use. The ship is completely cut-off from its supply-base, which makes the whole thing seem questionable at best. And replicators are used to do far more then just replicate food. They make clothing, spare parts for the ship, medical instruments, etc. Those things you can't find by landing on a planet, so it would only make sense to actually try to ease the drain on replicators by gathering normal food, because that's the one thing you can find in abundance on the right planets. Far harder to find a planet that has starfleet tricorders growing on trees. And I also point out that they didn't stop using replicators for food, they simply used Neelix's cooking to augment it. And all he operated was a small galley. All in all, replicators are used too commonly and for too mundane purposes to be assumed to be expensive.

And last but not least - trying to downplay the genetically enhanced humans who made the predictions on how the war against the Dominion would go by calling them 'mental patients' does nothing but undermine ones credibility. Because anyone who's seen the episode knows that they outsmarted both Federation and Dominion higher-ups multiple times, using a whole lot less resources. And saying the prediction of how the Dominion war is an indication of them not being as bright as they were supposed to be is also... questionable, at best. The only reason the Dominion lost was because the Prophets (entities living outside our own space-time) decided to magic away the Dominion reinforcements.

All in all, the 900 billion dead figure does establish a minimum when it comes to Federation population. You can argue the specifics on how that translates to total population, but that's about it.

[Kane Starkiller]

Neither of which standard is particularly easy to gauge. A federation traditionally is made up of pieces; the UFP has members and a charter. Ergo, the most sensible interpretation of the line about the Federation being 150 worlds is that 150 worlds have signed onto the Federation charter as members.

Moreover, the line in ST:FC isn't the only one:

ST:FC (2373):
Lily: "How many planets are in this Federation?"
Picard: "Over one hundred and fifty, spread across eight thousand light years.'
"Battle Lines" (DS9, 2369):
Sisko: "The Federation is made up of over a hundred planets who have allied themselves for mutual scientific cultural and defensive benefits."

Now which is more likely... the Federation adding signatories as it searches desperately for allies during the Dominion War, sucking in nearby friendly civilizations, or the Federation undertaking massive colonization upgrade efforts during the Dominion War?

That isn't to rule out the possibility of colony planets possibly being signatories to the Federation charter, and therefore members in their own right... but I think it seems unlikely to happen often, given the delicate balance of power between different species in the Federation.

So let's review. The hypothesis is that by ST:FC, about 150 species have signed on. We've seen 70 in the shows that have probably signed on, most of those only in one episode. This would mean that there about 80 member species that we either haven't seen yet or that we've seen but Memory Alpha members have not identified as being probable Federation members. Completely plausible.

Your claim is that there are a certain number of colonies that are actually counted in this total, contrary to what we'd expect from the line and with no particular evidence for it. Possible, but in order for it to be significant, we need to have seen most of the species of the Federation.

You have said nothing new here. There is still not a shred of evidence that 150 only includes member planets or that there are any significant colonies outside of the 150 count. All you did was repeat your assumption that because there are 40 known species in the Federation there must be at least 150 in total.

It comes quite close, actually. Count all the human, vulcan, and Bajoran colonies listed in M-A and you get to 90. Add in 40 known members, and you need to trim a lot from the "probable members" list, e.g., Denobulans and Bajorans. By "probable members," I'm talking about planets that you would usually guess to be in the Federation.

Take out the independent and abandoned colonies, include all the probable and known species members, and you're at 130 identified Federation worlds as of the ST:FC quote. Which is ridiculous, really, given how much screentime most of those worlds get, there are probably lots of unseen Federation worlds.

Most of which are only seen or mentioned once. Take a minute to think about the odds of us having seen, sporadically, coincidentally, that fraction of the Federation and its members via single sightings.

I never said that every single insignificant colony with a few people would be included in Picard's count. This, however, does not immediately mean he actually only included species homeworlds only. We really have no evidence either way.

That already existed at the time. And in Kirk's time, the Federation has fewer members. If I were to guess based on the TNG era growth rates and the starting member list, probably only 20-30.

That is the problem: 90% of your argument about Fedration size and scope are pure guesses.

I'm not claiming it will start growing rapidly. I'm claiming the human population, as a whole, will continue an exponential growth rate. That colonists tend to reproduce rapidly has been documented in many cases of colonization, e.g., the Americas.

Americas were colonized at a time when Europeans themselves had a much higher fertility growth. This tells us nothing.

Or can you? A single replicator can replace a wide array of more specialized equipment.

How wide an array? And at what energy cost?

Not nothing, but very little. And that's the theme of the subject - we have little information, and what little we have needs to be reconciled carefully.

But not by using pure guesswork and that's exactly what you have been doing so far. You simply guess that all colonies have abundant natural resources so you can claim that there must be a large population pressure.

There are several thousand stars within 100 LY of Earth.

The cluster in question in "Justice" is probably either a large open cluster, with perhaps a couple tens of thousands of stars at most, or a globular cluster, with possibly a couple hundred thousand stars, but unfavorable conditions for planetary formation (because those are older population stars). In either case, we presume the Drake equation to have a very high coefficient of habitable planets per star in the ST universe.

Again you showed no evidence for your claim but mere guesswork.

If you're going to tell me Bashir is supposed to be dumb enough to assume that reproduction rates will magically go through the roof under Dominion rule, I'm going to tell you that's an exercise in absurdity. The point of the estimates is that they're supposed to be plausible.

Bashir was most definitely dumb in that episode what with him willing to gamble the fate of the Federation over predictions by a bunch of mental patients.

When the population hasn't even returned to its previous value, it certainly isn't recovered. And that's the key point; five generations later, things have recovered, to the point where it doesn't make a difference whether or not the Dominion killed off 900 billion people.

They said that an uprising will occur on Earth five generations from the start of the occupation. They never said anything about population recovering. In fact their scenario was based on Federation surrender where no one would die.

As pointed out above, there's no way you could consider the subject territories "recovered" from the invasion when they haven't even gotten back to their previous value.

Now, here's some numbers for you, as you seem to have no clue what you're talking about. Five human generations is about a century. Assume the human population to be 10 billion two hundred years before, as they were almost only on Earth, and to recover back to their previous value in 100 years.

Assume, generously, the human population takes casualties in proportion to the total Federation population in spite of being among the most militaristic of the Federation membership, and has a constant growth rate, consistent with being nowhere near their carrying capacity. Also assume other members reproduce at a similar rate, which is also being generous to you.

We have, in order for that to be the case, human population to be reduced by the fraction equal to (1+r)^100, meaning they take casualties equal to 10 bn * [(1+r)^200 - (1+r)^100] and the Federation's total population is equal to 900 bn * (1+r)^200 / [(1+r)^200 - (1+r)^100] ). In this model, the higher the human growth rate, the lower the Federation population has to be to meet the minimum conditions of the Jack Pack's model.

Got that? Lower population growth rates mean a slower recovery time for the human population, which means a Federation that is less human and more alien, since it can't have taken as many casualties. Higher population growth rates imply a higher Federation population to start with. Humans taking a higher percentage of casualties (as I expect) mean a higher Federation population.

The Federation could rule as little as 1 trillion. It could rule quite a few more. With the exception of possibly having to deal with Gideon, I think the whole 1-10 trillion range is plausible. 900 billion would still be an incredible death toll if it killed one out of ten non-Gideonite Federation citizens.

Less than 1 trillion and we run into absurdity via the Jack Pack's estimates - your population needs to increase by 60% every generation to recover in five. More than 10 trillion and they better be mostly living on Gideon and similar obscure overpopulated planets. IMO.

1. I don't remember anyone saying that Federation will recover in five generations merely that an uprising will start.

2. You still showed no evidence about what they thought was sufficient population for an uprising.

[l33telboi]

That is the problem: 90% of your argument about Fedration size and scope are pure guesses.

Not so much guesses as estimations on what's most likely based on available evidence. By comparison you seem to be trying to get the lowest figures possible and when that's not possible you hide behind a wall requiring absolute proof of everything the opposition says, calling everything else guesses. You even go so far as to invent unknowns where there are none.

Naturally that'd all be fine and dandy just as long as you followed the same rules when arguing for your side - but I think we both know that you don't. Almost everything I've ever seen on SW is based on a string of assumptions - everything from BDZs to industrial capacity, and they usually come in direct contradiction with canonical material.

All in all debate that requires absolute proof like that is an exercise in futility, because nothing could ever be decided.

[Jedi Master Spock]

You have said nothing new here. There is still not a shred of evidence that 150 only includes member planets or that there are any significant colonies outside of the 150 count. All you did was repeat your assumption that because there are 40 known species in the Federation there must be at least 150 in total.

You're still overlooking an important clarification I've made. We have 40 identified species members beyond any doubt. We also have an additional 30 probable members, including 9 identified applicants (e.g., Bajor), 2 former members of the pre-Federation Coalition of Planets (e.g., Denobula), and another 19 species that have been observed working for the Federation in an official capacity and seem to be probable members (e.g., the Trill).

I - and Memory Alpha - aren't pulling these additional 30 probable members out of a hat, and I'm not kidding when I say most members only appear onscreen a few times. (E.g., Arcadians appear only in STIV).

I never said that every single insignificant colony with a few people would be included in Picard's count. This, however, does not immediately mean he actually only included species homeworlds only. We really have no evidence either way.

Except that the Federation is comprised of members. So if you're talking about the composition of the Federation, or about the Federation as an alliance, you need to talk about worlds signed onto the Federation charter.

That is the problem: 90% of your argument about Fedration size and scope are pure guesses.

They are guesses, but informed guesses. I can provide reasons for them.

Americas were colonized at a time when Europeans themselves had a much higher fertility growth. This tells us nothing.

No, it tells us what to expect on the frontiers. If you prefer to talk about levels of development, colonies will be less developed in their early stages.

How wide an array? And at what energy cost?

Anything from dessert to phasers, and at an energy cost that a fusion generator can readily meet.

But not by using pure guesswork and that's exactly what you have been doing so far. You simply guess that all colonies have abundant natural resources

I don't.

so you can claim that there must be a large population pressure.

Actually, given the technology levels, I think the natural resources of planets are not especially relevant to population growth on them. Remember, on one of the most hostile planets we've seen colonized, the population had grown to 15,000 from the survivors of a single crash landed TOS era ship.

Again you showed no evidence for your claim but mere guesswork.

I showed evidence. Ignore it at your peril. From "Justice," we have a parameter for the ratio of stars to colonizable planets - on the order of 1% at worst, and more likely 10%.

From modern astronomy, we know that within the radius of Regulus from Earth, there are over 3400 stars (there are probably a couple thousand too dim to make the catalog). Two 100 LY spheres located in the near neighborhood of Earth is a much larger volume - 240,000 cubic parsecs. In that volume, we expect to see 20,000-30,000 stars - so if the cluster of "Justice" is an open cluster, we expect several thousand colonizable planets, as an open cluster is unlikely to contain more than 20,000-30,000 stars.

If it's a globular cluster, and modern astronomers are wrong about them being very poor environments for planet formation, then we still expect a couple hundred colonizable planets (~0.01) between Vulcan and Andor's sphere of influence. Even if 90% of them are already inhabited, Vulcans and Andorians coming into conflict over colonizable worlds strongly suggests population pressure and - most particularly - multiple colonies. Colonies that, by the time of ST:FC, would be several centuries old.

Bashir was most definitely dumb in that episode what with him willing to gamble the fate of the Federation over predictions by a bunch of mental patients.

Bashir is most certainly not dumb. Unwise, sometimes, but this is not a question of his judgment. This is a question of his having passed Bio 101 or Macro 101 or Math Models for Dummies 001, and Bashir is a highly educated character.

In order for him to be suckered, the population dynamics have to work out.

They said that an uprising will occur on Earth five generations from the start of the occupation. They never said anything about population recovering. In fact their scenario was based on Federation surrender where no one would die.

Try again:

Either way we're in for five generations of Dominion rule.

According to their model, it made no difference in the long term whether the Federation fought or surrendered. The only difference was having 900 billion deaths now.

Now, speaking of evidence, do you have anything to back up your claim that Picard is talking about every major colony world in addition to homeworlds? Because I've seen nothing from you to support that claim.

[Praeothmin]

My point is that there is no evidence 150 count only includes "member" worlds as opposed to all established colonies within the Federation.

There may be very little direct evidence of this, but there's a lot more circumstancial evidence of it then of the contrary, as JMS has demonstrated.

It has been observed that when a country attains a certain development and education level fertility rates drop.

In a society with our current values, I have to partially agree with you.
As I said previously, being a home mom is still looked down upon in modern society, whereas in less develloped countries (or even rural areas in develloped countries), where values are more family oriented, this is revered, and thus encouraged.
Of course, in the case of really underdevelloped countries, the lack of education makes them less able to understand the stress having all those babies is having on their ressources.

One thing I also mentioned is that in our modern world, where everything costs a lot, some couples will wait until they have better financial means before they have children.
I can give you the example of the province of Quebec, which had a birth rate of 1.47 children per couple before 2006.
In 2006, our provencial government instaured measures to give better financial support to families, so within 2 years the birthrate went up to 1.7 children per couple, and it still seems to go up.

So in a society that has eliminated poverty on Earth (and I see no reason to assume that it iins't the same in a lot of the major Federation members), and which seems to accept children even aboard starships (so that career moms can flourish), I see no reason to assume that their birth rate is anything like ours.

And literacy rate for Bangladesh, per CIA factbook, is 43% (31% for females) while literacy rate for China is 90% (86% female). PPP per capita for China is $6,100 while for Bangladesh it's $1,500 so yes China is far more developed and it's fertility rates reflect that.

Ok, thanks for the info.

The point is that it costs more to cook with a replicator than the old fashioned way.

I don't agree.
As l33telboi and I have explained, it has nothing to do with cost, and everything with fuel availability.
And as l33telboi also showed, the replicators aren't just used for food, and food is the ressource most easily procured on compatible worlds, so if you're going to cut back on some energy consumption, it will be on food.
Voyager, because of its situation (being far from "unlimited" fuel sources such as Starbases), isn't a good example.

Seeing as how the wormhole was known to be the only way for Dominion to enter the Alpha Quadrant and that it was populated by intelligent beings that was certainly a scenario the should have considered if they were anywhere near as good as they were claiming.

Seeing as how, apart from Sisko, few people had ever had any contact with them and that they had never affected the lives of an entire population of beings that adored and revered them, I don't see why they should have been considered in any scenario, except as an "iffy" unknown at best.
They had absolutely no reasons to consider them.
To claim otherwise is to try to find any reason to discredit them...

As I said "modest" is not an objective term and furthermore is not synonymous with "small."

Really?
Here's a definition of modest that I found online, at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/modest site:
modest   /ˈmɒdɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mod-ist] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. having or showing a moderate or humble estimate of one's merits, importance, etc.; free from vanity, egotism, boastfulness, or great pretensions.
2. free from ostentation or showy extravagance: a modest house.
3. having or showing regard for the decencies of behavior, speech, dress, etc.; decent: a modest neckline on a dress.
4. limited or moderate in amount, extent, etc.: a modest increase in salary.

I've highlighted number four, because this is the definition one can apply when talking about the "extent" (i.e. size) of a Galaxy.
Something limited, IMO, cannot be bigger then the average.
Average-sized galaxies are 15 to 30 thousand LY.
So a "modest" Galaxy must not be too big...

[Mr. Oragahn]

Based on what exactly?

Normal population dynamics. As a population of anything reproduces, it usually reproduces exponentially until it starts to approach its carrying capacity, at which point it diverges from an exponential curve and we start to see logistic behavior.

"Ensigns of Command" probably shows somewhere around a 4% annual average growth rate under hostile conditions, but it shouldn't be considered typical in any way.

A quick look at the growth rates for Europe (highest average quality of life) would actually prove this idea erroneous.
North America is hindered by Mexico, but you can pick the USA and Canada, or Japan.

Not only it's disputable that growth rates would go up, but all the time spent moving in ships and building colonies is all the more time lost capitalizing on already populated and developped older colonies.

Not really. It may be an economic loss - whatever that means in a replicator economy - but since cold sleep went out of fashion, transit time hasn't cut from reproduction. In fact, a subculture that mainly reproduces in space is showcased in ENT.

It doesn't matter. In pure probabilities, you limit the combinations and chances of mating when you divide population numbers.

I'd agree on the idea that any new colony would only see people moving away again several generations later on, but they'd require quite some large ships to do so, otherwise they'd rely on small crafts, and thus make quite smaller colonies.

OK, so here's the pattern I suggest is typical. Large fast ships start major colonies, as the E-D did in "Justice" (as DiCenso pointed out, the ship has a rated capacity of over ten thousand) and probably start getting a large number of immigrants from the core worlds once the first generation proves that the planet isn't lethal and sets up the basic infrastructure.

Starting around the third generation or so, frontier types start feeling crowded, and might establish new colonies nearby using smaller, slower ships. These colonies will start with a smaller population and not as much support, and have a higher failure rate.

Then there are also ad hoc colonies that weren't planned ahead of time.

Moving people around on ships, putting them on worlds where everything has to be built, and then redividing these populations into smaller groups and landing them on even more remote planets with even more work to do is not going to boost numbers much.
I think it would even hinder reproduction rates to such a point you'd get below the rates you'd obtain if you let people on fewer and already established and organized worlds.

We happen to see the most prohiminent cities in Trek and their expansion in relation to the surrounding environment.
It's like looking at New York or Tokyo while having a good sight of the country around. You would immediately know that on the average, the largest cities tend to look like X, with a given urbanization spread that looks like Y, with so much wilder lands aroud.

Except that if you looked at New York and Tokyo, Mexico City would throw you for a loop. And that's a major city, too.

You should add it to the sample, not treat as an exception. I just forgot about it, but while NYC is not that much smaller than MC, the whole metropolis absolutely dwarves that of MC.
Same if you'd consider Saitama, Chiba and else for the complete urbanized area in Kanto, comes under NY's, but also completely tramples Mexico's, just as much as the greater area around Tokyo comes far far on top when it comes to population numbers, and New York is the metropolitan area in the USA with the most people.

Looking at New York city would not prepare you for the population density of Wyoming, either. A United States with population densities more typical of the Northeastern states could have a population exceeding China - yet without seeming much more crowded at the few points we've seen.

China --which would be a better indicator than India, if only for the question of wealth-- is only highly populated because of its large territory with inhabitable lands.
When you look around for population densities, you'd go for Europe, you'd find Paris, with greater urbanized areas than NY, with albeit a smaller greater urban area by a few thousand square kms, that is, not much. So basically, New York, Mexico City, Tokyo and Paris, plus their glued larger urbanized areas --any alien wouldn't know where a city starts and where another one begins-- would have a relatively similar pool of huge urban zones.

It could also easily be less populated. You might look at Russia as a whole compared with the European bit of it.

Picking a country in such a way is meaningless, since frontiers would be unknown as we're considering the point of view of an alien who'd just stare at urban landscapes. If that alien were to look at Moscow, it would fit with other examples I cited, and that's the point.
The largest cities, examples of your population demographics in relatively more or less developped countries, are all within the same ballpark.

When you look at Vulcan, you see an obvious clean state, an advanced society, but a very low population density, and not a single clue pointing to greater Vulcan population centers at all.
Same for the Andorians.

What happened to Gideon is intriguing, although it's an oddity on its own, very special.
If it was part of the UFP, I could argue that nuking the surface of this world woud cut off a major and high percentage of the overall UFP population.

I assume Gideon has substantially reduced its population, one way or another.

They're healthy individuals. If population has been drastically reduced, which I doubt, it could only be through massive genocide, which the UFP would reject.

However, it helps point out another problem with guessing populations; it's very easy for only a handful of extraordinarily heavily populated planets to throw the total off.

Indeed. But it's an extreme outlier. We could be talking of an ecunemopolis here.
As much as for Star Wars, people don't judge averages based on Coruscant. Now, sure, the adhesion of Gideon would clearly boost numbers up dramatically, but could also, on its own, explain the 900 billion casualties.

It does. Inhabitable worlds are rare. The closer the better for securized and fast exchange of goods and resources. It's also easier to plant a colony here, much more enjoyable, etc.

So rare, that in "Justice," there were over three thousand known worlds that the Federation could plant colonies on within in a single star cluster? That's an impressive total for the Drake equation.

They were known. Now, were they inhabited?
More importantly, were those worlds terraformed?
Because it's rather easy to settle a colony. You can put a base on an asteroid for all we care, really.

Think carefully about Vulcans and Andorians. Regulus (77 LY away) was near the Andorian-Vulcan border, and Vulcan is quite close to Earth (16 LY); if Andoria and Vulcan are similar distances from their mutual borders (a reasonable assumption) they should be between 100 and 200 light years apart. So when we're thinking of Andorians and Vulcans competing for scarce habitable worlds, we're talking about a region containing over ten thousand stars. Andoria is a winter world with a lot of water (mostly frozen); Vulcan is a searing desert world.

In order for conflict over "scarce" colony worlds to even remotely plausible, we need to have population pressure.

You can have a population pressure if you have to place ten people on a small island with four coconut trees.

Despite their expansion, Vulcans and Andorians would start from low population numbers.

EDIT: I realized that I'm almost asking the same questions as Kane regarding some of your points. Feel free to cut through it, I'll bell you if I think there's something that needs to be addressed.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Except for the fact that he was talking specifically about the Federation and what it represented.

If someone was to ask you what are the USA, you would mention the 50 states and the federal district, and you wouldn't mention the countries where you're located and have influence as part of the USA, because they're not.

Mostly because outside of the USA, these presences, bases and else are extremely minor.

You wouldn't mention Iraq as part of the US, nor Panama, nor Afghanistan, even though you have influence and a military presence there, because they're not part of the US.

The influence is a bigger topic, because I'm not sure the Federation has an influence on non Federation worlds like the USA/CIA has a strong influence on certain nations.
In the end, that influence is not changing population numbers much. There's no official affiliation.

You won't talk about a US research station in Antartica, even though it is a US research station, because it is still not part of the US.

More likely because all lands and waters are claimed by countries safe for a few.

There's also the values espoused by the society in question.
Rural China doesn't necessarily have a higher education level then rural Bengladesh, but where in Bengladesh the gorvernment hasn't curtailed the birth rate, China did.
And in industrialized countries, we've grown away from family values, installed values that state that a successful woman cannot be one that stays at home, that we need to amass great material wealth to be happy (forcing both members of a couple to work), etc...

In a society where wealth has been downplayed, and where having families is encouraged (like the Federation), and where every basic need is taken care of, you'll have a lot more births then in modern America.
I know a lot of people who'd love to have kids, but they don't actually have the means to support them, so they wait until they do...

Then we need to tackle this subtopic as well.

Let's look at family examples throughout the whole Trek. Unfortunately, my lightweight experience of these series doesn't allow me to look at people beyond the classical Starfleet personnel, who are not necessarily in the most favourable conditions to build families, even if around early TNG, they carried them aroud in their ships.

[Mr. Oragahn]

You have said nothing new here. There is still not a shred of evidence that 150 only includes member planets or that there are any significant colonies outside of the 150 count. All you did was repeat your assumption that because there are 40 known species in the Federation there must be at least 150 in total.

You're still overlooking an important clarification I've made. We have 40 identified species members beyond any doubt. We also have an additional 30 probable members, including 9 identified applicants (e.g., Bajor), 2 former members of the pre-Federation Coalition of Planets (e.g., Denobula), and another 19 species that have been observed working for the Federation in an official capacity and seem to be probable members (e.g., the Trill).

I - and Memory Alpha - aren't pulling these additional 30 probable members out of a hat, and I'm not kidding when I say most members only appear onscreen a few times. (E.g., Arcadians appear only in STIV).

I never said that every single insignificant colony with a few people would be included in Picard's count. This, however, does not immediately mean he actually only included species homeworlds only. We really have no evidence either way.

Except that the Federation is comprised of members. So if you're talking about the composition of the Federation, or about the Federation as an alliance, you need to talk about worlds signed onto the Federation charter.

I'm not too clear on the 150 thing. How many times has it been pronounced?
What do we have besides this? Kirk's 1000 colonies?

Even if there were 80 species, or 100 species, claiming 150 as major worlds instead of member worlds would still allow more than enough homeworlds for all of them, and thus citing 150 as major planets would obviously, and by default, include all member worlds, which would represent a fraction of that 150.

Y/N?

[l33telboi]

Even if there were 80 species, or 100 species

The point is: If we've actually seen 40 species even though all we've been given is a very limited look, then in all likelyhood the Federation should have more then 150 species in it.

[Kane Starkiller]

You're still overlooking an important clarification I've made. We have 40 identified species members beyond any doubt. We also have an additional 30 probable members, including 9 identified applicants (e.g., Bajor), 2 former members of the pre-Federation Coalition of Planets (e.g., Denobula), and another 19 species that have been observed working for the Federation in an official capacity and seem to be probable members (e.g., the Trill).

I - and Memory Alpha - aren't pulling these additional 30 probable members out of a hat, and I'm not kidding when I say most members only appear onscreen a few times. (E.g., Arcadians appear only in STIV).

I never disputed there are 40 identified species. What I do dispute is the unfounded leap from 40 species to 150 species. There could be 150 species and there could be 41.

Except that the Federation is comprised of members. So if you're talking about the composition of the Federation, or about the Federation as an alliance, you need to talk about worlds signed onto the Federation charter.

Yes I know that Federation is comprised of members , the question is who is included in the membership? You are claiming only homeworlds are memberships and no major colony no matter how developed is. Seeing as how Tasha Jar's colony had the right to secede it is obvious that even planets created by the Federation have autonomy and would likely be included into the count.

They are guesses, but informed guesses. I can provide reasons for them.

I would rather you provide some evidence. Quibbling over whether guesses are "informed" or "uninformed" doesn't change anything.

No, it tells us what to expect on the frontiers. If you prefer to talk about levels of development, colonies will be less developed in their early stages.

You still provided no evidence that fertility rates of European settlers suddenly jumped when they reached America as opposed to already being higher than those of current Europeans and Americans.

Anything from dessert to phasers, and at an energy cost that a fusion generator can readily meet.

Which hardly encompasses every piece of equipment. What does "easily" mean? You keep ignoring the fact that Voyager demonstrated: many things are more cheaply done the old fashioned way than using replicators. Kira also was convinced Bajor would become food exporter after it's soil is cleaned. With widespread replicators how would this be possible unless replicating food costs more?

Actually, given the technology levels, I think the natural resources of planets are not especially relevant to population growth on them. Remember, on one of the most hostile planets we've seen colonized, the population had grown to 15,000 from the survivors of a single crash landed TOS era ship.

They can use their technology to overcome adversity sure. It doesn't change the fact that a planet rich with natural resources and arable land will provide conditions for a much larger economy than a barren one regardless of technology.

I showed evidence. Ignore it at your peril. From "Justice," we have a parameter for the ratio of stars to colonizable planets - on the order of 1% at worst, and more likely 10%.

From modern astronomy, we know that within the radius of Regulus from Earth, there are over 3400 stars (there are probably a couple thousand too dim to make the catalog). Two 100 LY spheres located in the near neighborhood of Earth is a much larger volume - 240,000 cubic parsecs. In that volume, we expect to see 20,000-30,000 stars - so if the cluster of "Justice" is an open cluster, we expect several thousand colonizable planets, as an open cluster is unlikely to contain more than 20,000-30,000 stars.

If it's a globular cluster, and modern astronomers are wrong about them being very poor environments for planet formation, then we still expect a couple hundred colonizable planets (~0.01) between Vulcan and Andor's sphere of influence. Even if 90% of them are already inhabited, Vulcans and Andorians coming into conflict over colonizable worlds strongly suggests population pressure and - most particularly - multiple colonies. Colonies that, by the time of ST:FC, would be several centuries old.

Federation has colonized Moon and Mars. What makes you think that only Earth like planets would be considered acceptable to them and that Data wouldn't include other planets in that count? Not that it matters since you still haven't shown how acceptable for colonization means plenty of arable land and natural resources. That is the whole point: some planets will be much more suitable than others as well as in a better strategic locations therefore they will be fought over regardless of the population.

Bashir is most certainly not dumb. Unwise, sometimes, but this is not a question of his judgment. This is a question of his having passed Bio 101 or Macro 101 or Math Models for Dummies 001, and Bashir is a highly educated character.

In order for him to be suckered, the population dynamics have to work out.

Again you assume that population count was considered important by either Bashir or the patients without providing a shred of evidence. Seeing as how Jem'Hadar would have total space superiority and no qualms about exterminating unruly populations there are far more important considerations than population. Unfortunately they never go into any details.

Now, speaking of evidence, do you have anything to back up your claim that Picard is talking about every major colony world in addition to homeworlds? Because I've seen nothing from you to support that claim.

I never said I did have evidence. Picard simply gives the number of "planets" in the Federation when he answers Lilly. We actually don't even know whether he includes Jupiter or Saturn in the count. But I assume he, at the very least, filtered out any uninhabited planets and the outposts with a few hundred people. You go even further and assume that he actually only included homeworlds and nothing else regardless of how developed. Therefore you use more assumptions than me and are more generous than necessary considering Picard's statement.

In a society with our current values, I have to partially agree with you.
As I said previously, being a home mom is still looked down upon in modern society, whereas in less develloped countries (or even rural areas in develloped countries), where values are more family oriented, this is revered, and thus encouraged.
Of course, in the case of really underdevelloped countries, the lack of education makes them less able to understand the stress having all those babies is having on their ressources.

One thing I also mentioned is that in our modern world, where everything costs a lot, some couples will wait until they have better financial means before they have children.
I can give you the example of the province of Quebec, which had a birth rate of 1.47 children per couple before 2006.
In 2006, our provencial government instaured measures to give better financial support to families, so within 2 years the birthrate went up to 1.7 children per couple, and it still seems to go up.

So in a society that has eliminated poverty on Earth (and I see no reason to assume that it iins't the same in a lot of the major Federation members), and which seems to accept children even aboard starships (so that career moms can flourish), I see no reason to assume that their birth rate is anything like ours.

Obviously I can't know whether there was some kind of cultural shift somewhere in the future. What I was refuting is Jedi Master Spock's claim that fertility rates will naturally increase just because we discovered more planets. I'm saying that there is no evidence for that and that currently fertility rates are more connected to the level of development.

I don't agree.
As l33telboi and I have explained, it has nothing to do with cost, and everything with fuel availability.
And as l33telboi also showed, the replicators aren't just used for food, and food is the ressource most easily procured on compatible worlds, so if you're going to cut back on some energy consumption, it will be on food.
Voyager, because of its situation (being far from "unlimited" fuel sources such as Starbases), isn't a good example.

When I say "cost" I'm not necessarily talking about money. I'm talking about energy cost which in turn will increase the wear and tear on the generators which in turn will have greater wear and tear on the power supply grid etc etc. I never disputed that Voyager was low on fuel merely that it demonstrated it's easier to get food the old fashioned way. Therefore a company that grows food the old fashioned way would actually have a competitive advantage over a company that does it with replicators as far as energy costs are concerned.

Seeing as how, apart from Sisko, few people had ever had any contact with them and that they had never affected the lives of an entire population of beings that adored and revered them, I don't see why they should have been considered in any scenario, except as an "iffy" unknown at best.
They had absolutely no reasons to consider them.
To claim otherwise is to try to find any reason to discredit them...

Their failure to predict the future more than a few years when they claimed to be able to predict Federation's golden age lasting thousands of years discredits them without any help from me. Again wormhole is the only thing that connects Dominion to the Alpha Quadrant and if they are so good (they did claim to be able to figure out Damar killed Ziyal from his eye movement or something after all) they should've at least take it into consideration.

Really?
Here's a definition of modest that I found online, at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/modest site:
modest   /ˈmɒdɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mod-ist] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. having or showing a moderate or humble estimate of one's merits, importance, etc.; free from vanity, egotism, boastfulness, or great pretensions.
2. free from ostentation or showy extravagance: a modest house.
3. having or showing regard for the decencies of behavior, speech, dress, etc.; decent: a modest neckline on a dress.
4. limited or moderate in amount, extent, etc.: a modest increase in salary.

I've highlighted number four, because this is the definition one can apply when talking about the "extent" (i.e. size) of a Galaxy.
Something limited, IMO, cannot be bigger then the average.
Average-sized galaxies are 15 to 30 thousand LY.
So a "modest" Galaxy must not be too big...

"In your opinion" cannot be bigger than average sized? Well there you go it's your opinion. I would hope you would agree that your opinion should not outweigh the explicit statements of the diameter of SW galaxy in other sources.

[l33telboi]

Quibbling over whether guesses are "informed" or "uninformed" doesn't change anything.

Oh but it does. Usually, no matter what the debate is about, there are some assumptions and estimations involved. Sometimes there are less of them, sometimes more. The point being that when that happens, the more reasonable estimate is considered true, or rather, closer to the truth.

So when you say there are 41 races, people immediately recognize that it's about as likely as getting hit by a meteor on your way to work.

And if we were to flip your kind of methodology over and apply it to Star Wars, then you'd effectively lose pretty much everything. Because almost everything in Star Wars is derived from assumptions based on the Death Star. Fleet sizes, firepower, etc. All you'd have to say is: "You have no proof." and it’d effectively kill any attempt at debate.

When I say "cost" I'm not necessarily talking about money. I'm talking about energy cost which in turn will increase the wear and tear on the generators which in turn will have greater wear and tear on the power supply grid etc etc.

And all those points are moot when it comes to Voyager because it's cut off from its supply-base, as has already been pointed out. Your argument is akin to saying modern earth doesn't have the power to cheaply re-charge mobile-phone batteries, judging by the fact that a guy stranded on an uninhabited island can't charge his battery and instead resorts to other ways of communication while he conserves battery-strength.

many things are more cheaply done the old fashioned way than using replicators.

Then you need to provide examples of this.

Kira also was convinced Bajor would become food exporter after it's soil is cleaned. With widespread replicators how would this be possible unless replicating food costs more?

Because replicated food tends to all taste the same. There are frequent mentions of people in Trek preferring real food to that of replicated stuff because of the diversity this adds to a meal.

"In your opinion" cannot be bigger than average sized?

It's actually also the ANH novelization’s opinion. And the thing about that is that... it's not easily brushed aside. If someone is standing in front of a car, looking at it, and then saying "My, that's a big car." Then normal people would take this to mean that he thinks the car is big compared to other cars. Same applies to the issue of galaxies here.

Personally I tend to disregard the statement because it’s just C-level canon, and thus the newer material takes precedence over them.