Star Trek: Star Charts

[Wrath]

It is kinda odd the population of earth in 2370 is supposed to be at 1970s-levels

not that low when you consider every star fleet officer has to have had a parent or several family members killed by freak accidents.

[Uraniun235]

Is it really beyond comprehension that we might at some point decide to hold down the human population living on Earth, rather than try and cram as many people on this mudball as possible?

[Aeolus]

Does it give the populations of the Earth? Id be really curious to hear that.

Earth: 4.2 Billion (Human) 8.1 million (Cetacean)

Moon: 50.2 Million

Mars: 133.8 Million

1) Odd for so low an overall federation population, I would have estimated it at ~4 trillion myself

2) that Earth population is REALLY fucking low for what you would expect

3) We count fucking dolphins as part of the population in the future? And they outnumber us? Time to bring back Tuna fishing.

Not really the Earth is a "paridise" and the Federation seems to go for lot's of small colonys

[Aeolus]

Just bought the book Star Trek: Star Charts by Geoffrey Mandel.

It has some very good maps of the 4 quadrants and information included, here are a few.

Number of Member: 183 (2378)
Number of Affiliates: 7,128
Area: 8,000 Cubic Light Years
Population: 985 Billion (2370 census)


Has anyone else got a copy of this book, and could it be used in any debates?

It occurs to me, didn't DS9 say they could expect to tkae 900 billion dead and still win? Rather conflicting.

No they said the war would end up killing 500 billion lives. And that the Federation Alliance would eventually lose. But in the long run They would end up assimilating the Dominion. (Sort of like the Han absorbing the Mongols I guess)

[Aeolus]

Affluent societies generally seem to stop growing because of income, I suspect. Not everyone is rich enough to afford kids (and rich people tend to have plenty of kids), but not everyone is so poor they cant afford protection (poor people also tend to have lots of kids. Its the middle class that doesnt seem to have as many kids as the rest, probably because of the cost of having kids and the ease of not getting pregnant. It might be interesting to do a study to see whether its true or not that affluent nations stop growing because of the availability of birth control and the cost of raising children.

You have it backwards. The rich have few kids. The poor many

[Dalton]

Please don't resurrect dead threads unless you have something useful and substantial to add.