SDN: Industrial Capacity and Territorial Holdings

[Mike DiCenso]

Before posting more stuff, I'd like to point out that nowhere in Bashir's club's estimation, there's been any proof that the war would last less than a generation.

Unless I missed a piece of script, of course.

Actually there is possible time frame from Sisko:

Even if I knew what was going to
happen with one hundred percent
certainty, I still wouldn't ask an
entire generation of people to
give up their freedom.

Why would Sisko put it this way, if the fighting in the calculations was expected to last many generations? This also fits in well with the 40 billion dead mentioned in the alternate timeline of "Yesterday's Enterprise" [TNG, Season 3], which was the result of just fighting between the Federation and Klingon Empire for about 20 or so years. Savagery of the Dominion and it's far greater scope resulting in two orders of magnitude greater casualties.
-Mike

[Kane Starkiller]

Well, allow me to use your type of arguing then:
We have no proof that they didn't, and that the scenarion they presented wasn't simply the most likely to happen due to the current situation at the moment of their planning.
Meaning that, in view of the failed efforts to close off the wormhole, the most likely scenario to happen didn't involve the wormhole to be closed...

They obviously didn't since they were asking Bashir to push for Federation surrender based on one particular scenario. Yet, as we have seen, their scenario already fails a couple of years in the future. Hence Bashir was extremely foolish to listen to them regardless of their population estimates.

Why not another part where the Galaxies are smaller then?
This is cherry picking.

You are claiming that ITW is contradicted by "modest" line in the novel. Prove it then.

Perhaps, but again I've shown you that "modest" cannot mean a 120 000 LY galaxy either... :)

So you admit you haven't shown how modest implies an explicit number but still maintain it must be lower than 120,000ly? Interesting.

It's possible, just not particularly plausible. (It also conflicts with the quasi-canonical background information, of course, in many cases.)

I'm not interested in non canonical information but I would be interested in your explanation of why is it not plausible that immigrant species enter politics in the Federation.

Not at all. It's like looking at a bunch of US island possessions and then concluding its quite rare for one to become a state. It may be possible (Hawaii is a US state now) but it's quite rare.

In the case of the Federation, we've seen roughly a hundred colonies started by Federation members. Some are independent, but none are ever referred to as Federation members within the canon. We've also had roughly forty worlds explicitly identified as members, and quite a few more identified as applicants. In all cases where we have information, member and prospective member worlds are not colonies.

I don't see what is the difference between your analogy and mine. In both cases we have territories that became states. How many of the seen colonies have more than a few hundred or a few thousand people?

In several posts, including the last one. It's an argument I've been hoping you'd try to develop more than you have, but I addressed it anyway.

Could you quote yourself? I really can't seem to find it.

Actually, since colonization is actively proceeding through this entire era, largely successfully, it is absurd to assume the Federation shrank by a factor of six while adding new members and becoming much more powerful.

No one said Federation shrank by a factor of six merely that there is a possibility colonies were abandoned. Again most colonies seen had a few hundred or a few thousand people. Not exactly firmly established.

40 members is assuming:

* Of all planets seen applying for Federation membership, only Coridan was actually admitted.
* None of the various species seen serving in official Federation capacities are Federation members.
* To wit, in other words, Trill and Bajor are assumed to be not Federation members.
* No other species that we have seen are Federation members.
* In spite of having seen many Federation member species only once or twice onscreen, we have seen all Federation members.


None of these assumptions is reasonable or justified.

Let me reiterate: You're arguing “X is possible, too, so not Y.” I'm returning with “This is why X is implausible. This is why Y is plausible.” You're not countering my arguments at all this way.

You are misrepresenting my argument. While there is no evidence of more than 40 species my argument can work equally well with 143 species. I never said how many major planets are there. In fact, from what we have seen, there could be very few major planets which are not homeworlds or possibly none at all. My point was always that there is no evidence of further major planets beyond 150.

It is implicit. The Federation has grown relative to the ever-expanding Klingon Empire.

Again you'll have to be more specific than that.

And my point is that almost all of them display a roughly logistic population curve, and more importantly, so does the planet as a whole.

Logistic population growth model assumes that population growth rate will be limited by something: natural resources, population density etc. But the limiting factor could be of social and cultural nature, not wanting to have more than 1 or two children for example. In any case you failed to support your argument that we would see higher growth with discovery of new planes.

If location is important, you'll establish your military base on a rock. As the Federation did to keep an eye on the Romulans after the war. (“Balance of Terror.”)

Yes but if there is a choice you'll always try to get a rock that just happens to be a fertile planet.

It's not stupid - it's simply arrogant. Foolish, perhaps, but it's the sort of mistake naive smart people make. Assuming radical changes in reproduction rates is not.

Who said anything about assuming radical changes in reproduction? You showed zero evidence about their population or population growth assumptions. Furthermore you claim to have intimate knowledge of what Bashir considered sufficient population. You don't.

In a word? Yes. If you flip a coin forty times, and it comes up heads every time, it would be very optimistic to hope for better than a 2% chance of getting tails. Even if you throw out all the “homeworld” references, i.e., the species we know are members but whose homeworld we haven't talked about onscreen, throw out the mere probable members, we still have enough to claim that it's not a coincidence. Having fewer than a hundred homeworlds out of the 150+ members and yet having seen no non-homeworld members is highly improbable.

If we're really thinking about explicitly identified planets, we should further include all the cases where a world has been observed to apply to the Federation and the eventual result is not clear, since they clearly could have become Federation members. In this case, we have something like 20, and statistically speaking, we are advised not to hope for the existence of more than a half dozen or so non-homeworld members of the Federation.

Obviously each homeworld inside the Federation will be a member. That doesn't mean each member is a homeworld nor does it mean Picard included only homeworlds when talking to Lilly.

With good reasons.

What you consider good reasons but without providing evidence.

Bashir's criteria for a plausible model that doesn't differ five generations out ignoring population is silly. Particularly as the immense casualty count is what he focuses on.

Yet again you fail to show what Bashir considered to be a sufficient population to mount a rebellion against Dominion.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I'm not interested in non canonical information but I would be interested in your explanation of why is it not plausible that immigrant species enter politics in the Federation.

It's not particularly plausible that a given person happens to be an individual immigrant. If a large number of immigrants of a particular species joined the Federation, we could have the situation of having more species than homeworlds, meaning the Federation "member species" count could exceed the Federation "member planet" count.

I don't see what is the difference between your analogy and mine. In both cases we have territories that became states. How many of the seen colonies have more than a few hundred or a few thousand people?

Archer IV had hundreds of millions pretty early, but most colonies have low population.

Could you quote yourself? I really can't seem to find it.

Sure.

I have, actually. The complete lack of any canonical mention of a Federation colony being considered a member world establishes it as rare at best. As I have stated; I have also provided perfectly logical motivations for such.

Your claim to a reduced number of member species therefore, in its strongest form, taps the claim that colonies may become members of the alliance. However, we know of no colony world identified as a Federation member, out of a minimum of 40 Federation members.

I would not be surprised if in theory a colony world could qualify for membership, and it may even have happened a couple times. However, it's not likely to have happened many times, due to the political considerations. ("You're just aiming for more representation in (GOVERNING BODY) - we have just as many citizens on our home planet as you do on your three colonies you're claiming as independents!")

However, in favor of conflating planetary members and member species, no fully canonically explicitly identified member has been a colony planet. (The quasi-canonical Federation Day data from a prop but not seen onscreen, is the closest exception, identifying Alpha Centauri Colony as a founding member. This information does not match with the portrayals of the founding of the Federation in Enterprise.)


I've also mentioned the very logical political difficulty in admitting colonies as members. These are both good reasons for rejecting your hypothesis that some significant number of colony worlds are included in the count of 150.

In fact, all the evidence in favor of your claim of colonies being included in the member count mentioned so far - the quasi-canonical "Federation Day" album - has been brought up by me. So I'll give you your next-best piece of data:

Memory Beta refers to a total of eleven human, or partially human, planets as Federation members. Out of a total of 175 total identified Federation members.

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.

No one said Federation shrank by a factor of six merely that there is a possibility colonies were abandoned. Again most colonies seen had a few hundred or a few thousand people. Not exactly firmly established.

That possibility is remarkably unlikely given the continual search for new colonies, continual expansion, and continuing advances in terraforming technology. Still an absurdity to claim that Kirk and Picard are talking about the same kind of planet.

You are misrepresenting my argument.

No more than you misrepresent mine.

While there is no evidence of more than 40 species my argument can work equally well with 143 species. I never said how many major planets are there. In fact, from what we have seen, there could be very few major planets which are not homeworlds or possibly none at all. My point was always that there is no evidence of further major planets beyond 150.

If that's really the sum total of your claim, then you have no place arguing against me. You need to have a claim that actually contradicts my claim, rather than making vague objections. Regarding major worlds outside the homeworlds, I've simply stated that data is insufficient.

And yet - Archer IV. Major planet, not a homeworld, never referred to as a member in any literature. Even the apocryphal, AFAIK. What you're saying here is that you have nothing with which to dispute my assessment and my actual argument, which is that the total number of species that are members of the Federation should be very close to "over 150" as of ST:FC.

After two hundred years or more, the population of any colony world, between immigration and natural population growth, could increase very substantially. That's a real probability we need to account for before claiming 900 billion is too high.

Again you'll have to be more specific than that.

In YE, an alternate timeline exists where the Klingon Empire and Federation go to war. This goes very badly for the Federation, which grows much more slowly as a result. By the late TNG era, the Federation is mightier than the Empire, and in some timelines at least, the Klingon Empire becomes a part of the Federation several generations later.

Logistic population growth model assumes that population growth rate will be limited by something: natural resources, population density etc. But the limiting factor could be of social and cultural nature, not wanting to have more than 1 or two children for example. In any case you failed to support your argument that we would see higher growth with discovery of new planes.

That was not my argument. As I've pointed out multiple times. What I've pointed out is that there is no global carrying capacity restricting growth.

If we should make any assumption, it is that humanity grows at its normal "unrestricted" rate, rather than the arbitrary rate of any particular country, or the slowing rate seen globally as the population approaches the presumed carrying capacity of Earth.

Yes but if there is a choice you'll always try to get a rock that just happens to be a fertile planet.

Actually, gravity wells and atmosphere make it harder to shoot at enemy ships, so... no.

Who said anything about assuming radical changes in reproduction? You showed zero evidence about their population or population growth assumptions. Furthermore you claim to have intimate knowledge of what Bashir considered sufficient population. You don't.

Yet again you fail to show what Bashir considered to be a sufficient population to mount a rebellion against Dominion.

I do not claim to know what population levels Bashir thinks are necessary to mount a rebellion against the Dominion. However, in order for the models to produce identical results five generations out while remaining plausible, the casualties being ably recovered in that time is a necessary precondition. Anything short of that means that a large number of highly implausible things should be happening in the model.

Reductio ad absurdum; since the model is canonically a plausible model, 900 billion casualties represents a recoverable fraction of the Federation population on the five generation timescale.

Obviously each homeworld inside the Federation will be a member. That doesn't mean each member is a homeworld nor does it mean Picard included only homeworlds when talking to Lilly.

As I explained to you at great length, it is highly unlikely that any significant number of colonies are included in that total, for political reasons, for statistical reasons, for logical reasons.

What you consider good reasons but without providing evidence.

But I have provided evidence.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Before posting more stuff, I'd like to point out that nowhere in Bashir's club's estimation, there's been any proof that the war would last less than a generation.

Unless I missed a piece of script, of course.

Actually there is possible time frame from Sisko:

Even if I knew what was going to
happen with one hundred percent
certainty, I still wouldn't ask an
entire generation of people to
give up their freedom.

Why would Sisko put it this way, if the fighting in the calculations was expected to last many generations? This also fits in well with the 40 billion dead mentioned in the alternate timeline of "Yesterday's Enterprise" [TNG, Season 3], which was the result of just fighting between the Federation and Klingon Empire for about 20 or so years. Savagery of the Dominion and it's far greater scope resulting in two orders of magnitude greater casualties.
-Mike

Sisko says he won't sacrifice one generation to Dominion domination, when addressing an estimation which, in any scenario, involved at the very least five generations of domination.

Therefore my claim still stands (that the UFP's pop does not necessarily even reach 900 billions), and we understand that Sisko was speaking in solemn and board terms.

[Kane Starkiller]

It's not particularly plausible that a given person happens to be an individual immigrant. If a large number of immigrants of a particular species joined the Federation, we could have the situation of having more species than homeworlds, meaning the Federation "member species" count could exceed the Federation "member planet" count.

Of course I never said that a person is an individual immigrant.

Archer IV had hundreds of millions pretty early, but most colonies have low population.

What is the source for the population number?

Sure.

How does this address my argument that colonies could become members? You simply state that we never hear a colony being addressed as member. That would be like saying that we never hear a US territory being addressed as a state. Of course not. Once it becomes a state it is no longer a territory.

That possibility is remarkably unlikely given the continual search for new colonies, continual expansion, and continuing advances in terraforming technology. Still an absurdity to claim that Kirk and Picard are talking about the same kind of planet.

What is the evidence for the continual search for colonies as opposed to simply colonizing planets they stuck their flag into many years ago? What evidence is there for continual expansion? What evidence is there for advances in terraforming technology?

If that's really the sum total of your claim, then you have no place arguing against me. You need to have a claim that actually contradicts my claim, rather than making vague objections. Regarding major worlds outside the homeworlds, I've simply stated that data is insufficient.

And yet - Archer IV. Major planet, not a homeworld, never referred to as a member in any literature. Even the apocryphal, AFAIK. What you're saying here is that you have nothing with which to dispute my assessment and my actual argument, which is that the total number of species that are members of the Federation should be very close to "over 150" as of ST:FC.

After two hundred years or more, the population of any colony world, between immigration and natural population growth, could increase very substantially. That's a real probability we need to account for before claiming 900 billion is too high.

I do not need a claim that contradicts yours since you never provided any evidence for your claim in the first place: that 150 only includes homeworlds. Nor have you provided evidence for the population of Archer IV. Nor have I claimed that 900 billion is too high. Merely that there is no evidence that the population is much larger than that number.

In YE, an alternate timeline exists where the Klingon Empire and Federation go to war. This goes very badly for the Federation, which grows much more slowly as a result. By the late TNG era, the Federation is mightier than the Empire, and in some timelines at least, the Klingon Empire becomes a part of the Federation several generations later.

Even if we assume that Federation is more powerful than Klingon Empire by late TNG, which you haven't proven, what does this have to do with the growth of the Federation? Economic growth and technological innovation could make it more powerful without the need for population or territorial growth.

That was not my argument. As I've pointed out multiple times. What I've pointed out is that there is no global carrying capacity restricting growth.

If we should make any assumption, it is that humanity grows at its normal "unrestricted" rate, rather than the arbitrary rate of any particular country, or the slowing rate seen globally as the population approaches the presumed carrying capacity of Earth.

And what is "normal unrestricted" rate? That is how many children per woman?

Actually, gravity wells and atmosphere make it harder to shoot at enemy ships, so... no.

No one is stopping them from constructing space stations in high orbit. It doesn't change the fact that in addition to being a military outpost it can be used as a source of food and natural resources.

I do not claim to know what population levels Bashir thinks are necessary to mount a rebellion against the Dominion. However, in order for the models to produce identical results five generations out while remaining plausible, the casualties being ably recovered in that time is a necessary precondition. Anything short of that means that a large number of highly implausible things should be happening in the model.

Reductio ad absurdum; since the model is canonically a plausible model, 900 billion casualties represents a recoverable fraction of the Federation population on the five generation timescale.

Who said the results would be identical? All we know that in both cases "Federation is in for 5 generations of Dominion rule".

As I explained to you at great length, it is highly unlikely that any significant number of colonies are included in that total, for political reasons, for statistical reasons, for logical reasons.

Actually I only need one.

[Praeothmin]

They obviously didn't since they were asking Bashir to push for Federation surrender based on one particular scenario. Yet, as we have seen, their scenario already fails a couple of years in the future.

Ok, then "prove it", to use one of your favorite expression.
"They obviously didn't"?
Nothing was obvious.
Hindsight is always 20/20 as the saying goes, but what I'm saying is that when they made the prediction, they factored everything they knew (which means next to nothing about the aliens in the wormhole), and after eliminating the least probable scenarios, they used the most probable using data they had at that time.
See, this is as plausible as anything you've said, but since you don't prove a thing either (when you demand proof of us for our arguments), I guess I'll stick with my explanation, because I like it better (the same reason you stick with yours)...
Except mine is also more logical... :)

You are claiming that ITW is contradicted by "modest" line in the novel. Prove it then.

I can't do anymore then explain the actual definition of modest, I've shown you the link where it was said that the Milky Way is a "typical Large Galaxy" (and if I hadn't, then here it is: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 1205a.html ).

So you admit you haven't shown how modest implies an explicit number but still maintain it must be lower than 120,000ly? Interesting.

Ok, here goes then:
Average size of galaxies in our Galaxy cluster: about 10 000 LY.
Do you need a definition of the word "average" as well?
Large = 100 000 LY, our Milky Way.
Guess what, since "modest means to be "limited", then the SW galaxy is less then 10 000 LY accross.
But wait, Galaxies in our cluster are about 10 times smaller then the Milky Way, so there can be other clusters with slightly larger galaxies, getting the average size of the Universes galaxies up a bit.
Then let's say that the average size of galaxies in our Universe is between 15 and 30 thousand LY.
That would put the "modest" SW Galaxy at smaller then 15 000 LY.
There are your numbers.
I'll use the upper limit for your SW galaxy because you want a number, and I want to be generous:
The SW Galaxy is 15 000 LY accross.
There you go.

I can't be any clearer Kane.
You do with this as you wil, I'm done arguing with a brick wall.

[Kane Starkiller]

Ok, then "prove it", to use one of your favorite expression.
"They obviously didn't"?
Nothing was obvious.
Hindsight is always 20/20 as the saying goes, but what I'm saying is that when they made the prediction, they factored everything they knew (which means next to nothing about the aliens in the wormhole), and after eliminating the least probable scenarios, they used the most probable using data they had at that time.
See, this is as plausible as anything you've said, but since you don't prove a thing either (when you demand proof of us for our arguments), I guess I'll stick with my explanation, because I like it better (the same reason you stick with yours)...
Except mine is also more logical... :)

They explicitly state that whether Federation surrenders or not Federation is in for 5 generations of Dominion rule. Thus obviously they didn't predict the scenario in which the wormhole is closed. Not to mention that wormhole is merely an example of how unexpected events can completely skew the prediction even a few years after it is made. Thus anyone claiming to be able to predict it for 5 generations is full of it. And yet Bashir took it in with a spoon. They were incompetent and Bashir was foolish and naive. That's all there is to it.

I can't do anymore then explain the actual definition of modest, I've shown you the link where it was said that the Milky Way is a "typical Large Galaxy" (and if I hadn't, then here it is: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 1205a.html ).

And you haven't linked modest to average or typical.

Ok, here goes then:
Average size of galaxies in our Galaxy cluster: about 10 000 LY.
Do you need a definition of the word "average" as well?
Large = 100 000 LY, our Milky Way.
Guess what, since "modest means to be "limited", then the SW galaxy is less then 10 000 LY accross.
But wait, Galaxies in our cluster are about 10 times smaller then the Milky Way, so there can be other clusters with slightly larger galaxies, getting the average size of the Universes galaxies up a bit.
Then let's say that the average size of galaxies in our Universe is between 15 and 30 thousand LY.
That would put the "modest" SW Galaxy at smaller then 15 000 LY.
There are your numbers.
I'll use the upper limit for your SW galaxy because you want a number, and I want to be generous:
The SW Galaxy is 15 000 LY accross.
There you go.

I can't be any clearer Kane.
You do with this as you wil, I'm done arguing with a brick wall.

Since when is SW galaxy located in our Galactic cluster? What does "average" have to do with "modest"?

[Praeothmin]

And you haven't linked modest to average or typical.

Same link.
You just have to read the part that states:
"Most of the galaxies in the universe are actually smaller than the Milky Way. For example, most of the dozens of galaxies in our Local Group are at least ten times smaller in diameter."

Most, meaning "tha majority", meaning we can rerive an average from this example.

Since when is SW galaxy located in our Galactic cluster? What does "average" have to do with "modest"?

Good question.
Never said it was.
But the same link above also states that most of the galaxies in the universe are smaller then ours.
This still makes the average Galaxy smaller then 100 000 LY accross, which still makes a modest Galaxy even smaller then that.
No matter how you try to twist this Kane, the SW Galaxy, according to the ANH novelization, is smaller then ours.
How much smaller is the actual question.

With these precisions, I'm done.

I won't even respond to the Bashir part of your post, because you're prepeated the same arguments many times already, and they're still no more valid then the first time you mentioned them.
Plus, while you request proof, you provide none.
So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, as we have many times in the past... :)

[Kane Starkiller]

Same link.
You just have to read the part that states:
"Most of the galaxies in the universe are actually smaller than the Milky Way. For example, most of the dozens of galaxies in our Local Group are at least ten times smaller in diameter."

Most, meaning "tha majority", meaning we can rerive an average from this example.

I still await for your evidence that modest means average or below average. Average is actually a scientific term, modest is not.

Good question.
Never said it was.
But the same link above also states that most of the galaxies in the universe are smaller then ours.
This still makes the average Galaxy smaller then 100 000 LY accross, which still makes a modest Galaxy even smaller then that.
No matter how you try to twist this Kane, the SW Galaxy, according to the ANH novelization, is smaller then ours.
How much smaller is the actual question.

With these precisions, I'm done.

I won't even respond to the Bashir part of your post, because you're prepeated the same arguments many times already, and they're still no more valid then the first time you mentioned them.
Plus, while you request proof, you provide none.
So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, as we have many times in the past... :)

You still haven't shown why modest means below average nor have you shown that modest referred to it's diameter as opposed it's volume, number of starts or eve total mass which will include dark matter.
I did provide evidence: EP1 ITW, EP2 ITW both explicitly stating that SW galaxy is approximately 100,000ly in diameter. You have nothing to counter that except for your insistence that "modest" means "below average" and that it actually referred to diameter.
I repeated my argument with Bashir since you constantly ignored it, as if it's difficult to comprehend why one is made to look foolish if he wishes to surrender based on long range predictions by a bunch of mental patients.

[Mr. Oragahn]

You still haven't shown why modest means below average nor have you shown that modest referred to it's diameter as opposed it's volume, number of starts or eve total mass which will include dark matter.
I did provide evidence: EP1 ITW, EP2 ITW both explicitly stating that SW galaxy is approximately 100,000ly in diameter. You have nothing to counter that except for your insistence that "modest" means "below average" and that it actually referred to diameter.
I repeated my argument with Bashir since you constantly ignored it, as if it's difficult to comprehend why one is made to look foolish if he wishes to surrender based on long range predictions by a bunch of mental patients.

Citing EU is useless here, since the point is to know if the EU was correct to assert that the SW galaxy is as wide as ours.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Of course I never said that a person is an individual immigrant.

Really?

Why would you expect someone would explicitly point out that an individual representing a planet where he is not indigenous species? In fact why wouldnt it be possible that a number of species currently treated as "member species" because they have been seen in Federation politics couldn't be immigrants?

Which is exactly why I pointed out this would mean the "member species" could actually exceed 150. Unless you were referring to fairly individual immigrants.

In any event, the probability is quite low that what you're describing has any significant effect one way or another.

What is the source for the population number?

Archer's future personnel file from the main-timeline 23rd century in "In a Mirror, Darkly." Same place we learn Archer eventually becomes President of the Federation.

How does this address my argument that colonies couald become members? You simply state that we never hear a colony being addressed as member. That would be like saying that we never hear a US territory being addressed as a state. Of course not. Once it becomes a state it is no longer a territory.

The distinction between a homeworld and a colony is even more clear. We've seen member worlds identified. None are colonies; all are homeworlds. We've seen colony worlds identifed. None are identified as members. Is it clear yet?

What is the evidence for the continual search for colonies as opposed to simply colonizing planets they stuck their flag into many years ago?

That would also require a distinction between what Kirk and Picard are saying.

What evidence is there for continual expansion? What evidence is there for advances in terraforming technology?

I refer you to Project Genesis and any number of episodes referencing colonies. In particular "Justice," which we've talked about recently.

I do not need a claim that contradicts yours

In order to argue successfully against me, you need to be making a claim that contradicts, in some fashion, my claim

since you never provided any evidence for your claim in the first place: that 150 only includes homeworlds.

Since such is not my claim, I have no interest in proving it.

My claim is that any other inclusions within the member world count are insignificant, and thus the number of member species is at or very close to the total number cited - i.e., "over 150."

Nor have you provided evidence for the population of Archer IV.

I'm hardly the first person to talk about Archer IV in this thread.

Nor have I claimed that 900 billion is too high. Merely that there is no evidence that the population is much larger than that number.

And since I'm arguing simply that anything less than 1 trillion is highly implausible, and even a population of one trillion is stretching the limits of plausibility per "Statistical Probabilities," you're again failing to adequately address my points.

Even if we assume that Federation is more powerful than Klingon Empire by late TNG, which you haven't proven, what does this have to do with the growth of the Federation? Economic growth and technological innovation could make it more powerful without the need for population or territorial growth.

This is true - however, it's part of a coherent whole. Sisko says merely over one hundred, Picard several years later says over 150. We continuously hear of new members applying but almost never hear of old members leaving. Et cetera.

And what is "normal unrestricted" rate? That is how many children per woman?

Beats me. The best guess for an "unrestricted rate" for a diverse global population is a bit over 2%. As is usual, population growth will happen at radically different rates in different segments of the population, but that's a better guess than any other as to how the human population grows when not limited by various environmental factors.

No one is stopping them from constructing space stations in high orbit. It doesn't change the fact that in addition to being a military outpost it can be used as a source of food and natural resources.

Food, perhaps. But food is a small fraction of the cost of operating a military facility, and in the quantities required by a military outpost, is easily produced in a hydroponics lab. Natural resources? It's easier to mine asteroids than planets, which I assume is why we see asteroid mining operations.

Who said the results would be identical? All we know that in both cases "Federation is in for 5 generations of Dominion rule".

Bashir did. Or rather, that in the long term, it made no difference. From the script:

BASHIR
I understand how you feel, sir.
I don't like it any more than you
do. But it's the best option. We
ran dozens of different scenarios.
Even if something unlikely were to
happen that tilted the scales in
our favor -- say an anti-Dominion
coup on Cardassia -- we'd still
lose this war.

SISKO
(incredulous)
That doesn't mean we should just
give up and roll over.

BASHIR
If we fight, we'll take over nine
hundred billion casualties. If we
surrender, no one dies. Either
way we're in for five generations
of Dominion rule.
(the good news)
Eventually a rebellion will form,
centered on Earth. It'll start to
spread, and within another
generation, it'll succeed in
overthrowing the Dominion. The
Alpha Quadrant will unite in a
new, stronger Federation that'll
last thousands of years.
(beat)
Since we can't win, why not
surrender and save as many lives
as we can?

So, let's review. Dozens of different scenarios. Fighting strongly suggests a minimum of 900 billion casualties before eventual loss. (Note the "over" in there. It's quite possible that other scenarios involved substantially more losses.)

However, the most likely simulated loss scenario and the scenario differing only by an immediate surrender have converged after five generations. Precisely as I included.

Actually I only need one.

You need many more, however, in order to make any claim that contradicts my claim. I have stated repeatedly that it is quite likely the Federation charter doesn't restrict membership to natural species homeworlds, but that it is also highly unlikely that more than a couple of colony worlds in unusual circumstances have become actual members of the Federation (like Earth or Vulcan are).

[Mike DiCenso]

Before posting more stuff, I'd like to point out that nowhere in Bashir's club's estimation, there's been any proof that the war would last less than a generation.

Unless I missed a piece of script, of course.

Actually there is possible time frame from Sisko:

Even if I knew what was going to
happen with one hundred percent
certainty, I still wouldn't ask an
entire generation of people to
give up their freedom.

Why would Sisko put it this way, if the fighting in the calculations was expected to last many generations? This also fits in well with the 40 billion dead mentioned in the alternate timeline of "Yesterday's Enterprise" [TNG, Season 3], which was the result of just fighting between the Federation and Klingon Empire for about 20 or so years. Savagery of the Dominion and it's far greater scope resulting in two orders of magnitude greater casualties.
-Mike

Sisko says he won't sacrifice one generation to Dominion domination, when addressing an estimation which, in any scenario, involved at the very least five generations of domination.

Therefore my claim still stands (that the UFP's pop does not necessarily even reach 900 billions), and we understand that Sisko was speaking in solemn and board terms.

Not necessarily, more likely Sisko would cite those five generations, not one specific one that has to give up it's freedom in surrendering to avoid the 900 billion-plus deaths that will occur according to the scenarios run by the Jack Pack. In order to save the 900 billion-plus a generation has to give up it's freedom rather than fight.
-Mike

[Praeothmin]

I still await for your evidence that modest means average or below average. Average is actually a scientific term, modest is not.

I've presented the definition of the word "modest", I've shown evidence that the average Galaxy is smaller then the Milky Way, even gave you the link that says so (multiple times).
Yet you refuse that evidence, an ask for more?
You won't get more, since even if I were to dig real deep and long, I know you'd find another way to twist whatever I said in order for the SW galaxy to be the size the ITW say, even though nothing onscreen makes it necessary to be 120 000 LY, and that a higher canon book says it is a modest Galaxy.
I'll just add this:
I doubt very much that "modest" refers to density or Star Count, since the Empire has spread on over 1000000 systems (so it should be at least equal to ours in terms of density).
So I have no issues accepting a small (less then 15 000 LY0, but highly dense SW Galaxy.

Edit:
Here's the actual quote in the novel, graciously provided by WILGA:

Page 163:

Vader stared at the motley array of stars displayed on the conference-room map while Tarkin and Admiral Motti conferred nearby. Interestingly, the first use of the most powerful destructive machine ever constructed had seemingly had no influence at all on that map, which in itself represented only a tiny fraction of this section of one modest-sized galaxy.

I think it's clear they're talking about the diameter and not the density or mass...

You have nothing to counter that except for your insistence that "modest" means "below average" and that it actually referred to diameter.

I have shown the definition of modest, which clearly means "small" (i.e., limited).
You have yet to show a definition which indicates "modest" to mean large, in any sense of the way.

I repeated my argument with Bashir since you constantly ignored it, as if it's difficult to comprehend why one is made to look foolish if he wishes to surrender based on long range predictions by a bunch of mental patients.

I didn't ignore it, I've tried to qualify what has been done by these "mental patients".
I've even brought up autism, which allows people to perform exceedingly in one area, while being seemingly out of touch with the real world.
Are you saying we should ignore what these people have to offer, because they are mental patients?
You haven't shown anything which proves your point.
In fact, as I have reapeated many times, the Federation would not have won unless for the help provided by those unknow and unreadable aliens living in the Wormhole.
So had those aliens not intervened, the Federation would have more then likely lost (they stated many times how desperate their situation was, and how close to losing they actually were).
So no, you have proven nothing, or shown no reason to believe that Bashir is a fool (in this situation, Because Bashir has acted foolish in the past) or that these "mental patients" are a fraud.

Wow, it's a good thing I had decided not to continue debating... :)

[Mr. Oragahn]

Actually there is possible time frame from Sisko:

Even if I knew what was going to
happen with one hundred percent
certainty, I still wouldn't ask an
entire generation of people to
give up their freedom.

Why would Sisko put it this way, if the fighting in the calculations was expected to last many generations? This also fits in well with the 40 billion dead mentioned in the alternate timeline of "Yesterday's Enterprise" [TNG, Season 3], which was the result of just fighting between the Federation and Klingon Empire for about 20 or so years. Savagery of the Dominion and it's far greater scope resulting in two orders of magnitude greater casualties.
-Mike

Sisko says he won't sacrifice one generation to Dominion domination, when addressing an estimation which, in any scenario, involved at the very least five generations of domination.

Therefore my claim still stands (that the UFP's pop does not necessarily even reach 900 billions), and we understand that Sisko was speaking in solemn and board terms.

Not necessarily, more likely Sisko would cite those five generations, not one specific one that has to give up it's freedom in surrendering to avoid the 900 billion-plus deaths that will occur according to the scenarios run by the Jack Pack. In order to save the 900 billion-plus a generation has to give up it's freedom rather than fight.
-Mike

Sisko's statement cannot be anything but a general statement of principles.
In either cases --and that's nothing you can argue against really-- there's at least five generations of domination.
So Sisko's statement cannot fit unless we estimate he picked just one generation for the example, as "I wouldn't sacrifice one single generation, even less five or six."

That leaves all the time needed to have a conflict span several generations, and thus when looking for a conservative figure, the max pop of the UFP needs not to be of 900 billions.

EDIT: correcting the broken link.
EDIT: fuck you typos, die a horrible cold death!

[Kane Starkiller]

Of course I never said that a person is an individual immigrant.

Really?

Why would you expect someone would explicitly point out that an individual representing a planet where he is not indigenous species? In fact why wouldnt it be possible that a number of species currently treated as "member species" because they have been seen in Federation politics couldn't be immigrants?

Which is exactly why I pointed out this would mean the "member species" could actually exceed 150. Unless you were referring to fairly individual immigrants.

In any event, the probability is quite low that what you're describing has any significant effect one way or another.

Again where did I claim he is an individual immigrant as in the only member of his species being Federation citizen? I mean "individual" as in person not individual as in the only one if his species.
How many immigrants would there need to be before that species is considered "member"?

Archer's future personnel file from the main-timeline 23rd century in "In a Mirror, Darkly." Same place we learn Archer eventually becomes President of the Federation.

The fine text can actually be read? I could make out the larger text on the right but of course this could be due to *cough* lower quality of my copy of the episode.

The distinction between a homeworld and a colony is even more clear. We've seen member worlds identified. None are colonies; all are homeworlds. We've seen colony worlds identifed. None are identified as members. Is it clear yet?

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

I refer you to Project Genesis and any number of episodes referencing colonies. In particular "Justice," which we've talked about recently.

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

In order to argue successfully against me, you need to be making a claim that contradicts, in some fashion, my claim

since you never provided any evidence for your claim in the first place: that 150 only includes homeworlds.

Since such is not my claim, I have no interest in proving it.

My claim is that any other inclusions within the member world count are insignificant, and thus the number of member species is at or very close to the total number cited - i.e., "over 150."

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

And since I'm arguing simply that anything less than 1 trillion is highly implausible, and even a population of one trillion is stretching the limits of plausibility per "Statistical Probabilities," you're again failing to adequately address my points.

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

This is true - however, it's part of a coherent whole. Sisko says merely over one hundred, Picard several years later says over 150. We continuously hear of new members applying but almost never hear of old members leaving. Et cetera.

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

Beats me. The best guess for an "unrestricted rate" for a diverse global population is a bit over 2%. As is usual, population growth will happen at radically different rates in different segments of the population, but that's a better guess than any other as to how the human population grows when not limited by various environmental factors.

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

Food, perhaps. But food is a small fraction of the cost of operating a military facility, and in the quantities required by a military outpost, is easily produced in a hydroponics lab. Natural resources? It's easier to mine asteroids than planets, which I assume is why we see asteroid mining operations.

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

Bashir did. Or rather, that in the long term, it made no difference. From the script:

BASHIR
I understand how you feel, sir.
I don't like it any more than you
do. But it's the best option. We
ran dozens of different scenarios.
Even if something unlikely were to
happen that tilted the scales in
our favor -- say an anti-Dominion
coup on Cardassia -- we'd still
lose this war.

SISKO
(incredulous)
That doesn't mean we should just
give up and roll over.

BASHIR
If we fight, we'll take over nine
hundred billion casualties. If we
surrender, no one dies. Either
way we're in for five generations
of Dominion rule.
(the good news)
Eventually a rebellion will form,
centered on Earth. It'll start to
spread, and within another
generation, it'll succeed in
overthrowing the Dominion. The
Alpha Quadrant will unite in a
new, stronger Federation that'll
last thousands of years.
(beat)
Since we can't win, why not
surrender and save as many lives
as we can?

So, let's review. Dozens of different scenarios. Fighting strongly suggests a minimum of 900 billion casualties before eventual loss. (Note the "over" in there. It's quite possible that other scenarios involved substantially more losses.)

However, the most likely simulated loss scenario and the scenario differing only by an immediate surrender have converged after five generations. Precisely as I included.

What is your evidence they converge? He states that either way they are in for five generations of Dominion rule but "eventually" a rebellion will form centered on Earth. Will this rebellion be equally effective in all cases? Will this eventual war of independence last the same amount of time in all scenarios? Apparently in all scenarios the rebellion is centered on Earth which means they obviously thought Earth more important than any number of casualties.

You need many more, however, in order to make any claim that contradicts my claim. I have stated repeatedly that it is quite likely the Federation charter doesn't restrict membership to natural species homeworlds, but that it is also highly unlikely that more than a couple of colony worlds in unusual circumstances have become actual members of the Federation (like Earth or Vulcan are).

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

I've presented the definition of the word "modest", I've shown evidence that the average Galaxy is smaller then the Milky Way, even gave you the link that says so (multiple times).
Yet you refuse that evidence, an ask for more?
You won't get more, since even if I were to dig real deep and long, I know you'd find another way to twist whatever I said in order for the SW galaxy to be the size the ITW say, even though nothing onscreen makes it necessary to be 120 000 LY, and that a higher canon book says it is a modest Galaxy.
I'll just add this:
I doubt very much that "modest" refers to density or Star Count, since the Empire has spread on over 1000000 systems (so it should be at least equal to ours in terms of density).
So I have no issues accepting a small (less then 15 000 LY0, but highly dense SW Galaxy.

Edit:
Here's the actual quote in the novel, graciously provided by WILGA:

Page 163:

Vader stared at the motley array of stars displayed on the conference-room map while Tarkin and Admiral Motti conferred nearby. Interestingly, the first use of the most powerful destructive machine ever constructed had seemingly had no influence at all on that map, which in itself represented only a tiny fraction of this section of one modest-sized galaxy.

I think it's clear they're talking about the diameter and not the density or mass...

I have shown the definition of modest, which clearly means "small" (i.e., limited).
You have yet to show a definition which indicates "modest" to mean large, in any sense of the way.

Yes you have provided the definition of the word modest and that definition had nothing to do with the word average. Therefore you have not shown how modest has anything to do with average or below average.
Nor have you provided any evidence that limited means small and naturally there is nothing in the definition that links limited with small. You simply invented these connections.

I didn't ignore it, I've tried to qualify what has been done by these "mental patients".
I've even brought up autism, which allows people to perform exceedingly in one area, while being seemingly out of touch with the real world.
Are you saying we should ignore what these people have to offer, because they are mental patients?
You haven't shown anything which proves your point.
In fact, as I have reapeated many times, the Federation would not have won unless for the help provided by those unknow and unreadable aliens living in the Wormhole.
So had those aliens not intervened, the Federation would have more then likely lost (they stated many times how desperate their situation was, and how close to losing they actually were).
So no, you have proven nothing, or shown no reason to believe that Bashir is a fool (in this situation, Because Bashir has acted foolish in the past) or that these "mental patients" are a fraud.

Wow, it's a good thing I had decided not to continue debating... :)

Are autistic people generally locked up in a mental institution? No one said we should ignore them but we obviously should take whatever they say as unreliable. How do you know that Federation would not have won without the wormhole? Are you now claiming you can predict the future?
And again you accuse me of not proving that these guys were a fraud when I have, the fact that you make excuse for them doesn't change that.
This is your argument:
"No these people weren't a fraud they could actually predict the future for 1000 of years but they actually failed to predict it for even a couple years but that doesn't actually matter because no one could predict that wormhole and if it wasn't for that wormhole I'm sure that everything else would be correct even though I have no evidence for it".