Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Colozining planets in Sc-fi genres (disscussion)
  • Subject: Colozining planets in Sc-fi genres (disscussion)
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Colozining planets in Sc-fi genres (disscussion)
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?

It has always bugged me when races go from planet to planet colonizing and don't sit down and settle on a planet, I just feel that it would be more stable to have fewer worlds with higher population than hundreds of worlds with a few million each.

It always drives me to no ends when they call them "colonies", while i understand the reasoning behind that i don't see the prime logic. I do get you have to spread out to find more resources and such, but why don't they ever just focus on a few worlds at a time?

This is why i loved reading cryptum, to see that the forerunners had 3 million fertile worlds not just colonies.


Discuss please?

  • 05.10.2011 1:22 PM PDT

Never say you're bored. Never say you're satisfied with the world. Never stop doubting or questioning things. Always wonder. Always think. But always take time to drop your guard, you don't have to be smart all the time.

Agreed,besides, it is much more logical.

For example; what if a rebellion started, the planets wouldn't be that fortified and easy pickings.

  • 05.10.2011 1:34 PM PDT

Don't worry, you're still your mom's favorite Bnet member.

The UNSC got greedy. Earth was so overpopulated that when resources arrived from other planets Earth just wanted more and more. And instead of just sucking one planet dry they wanted to expand.

  • 05.10.2011 1:50 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?


Posted by: MegaMuffin16
The UNSC got greedy. Earth was so overpopulated that when resources arrived from other planets Earth just wanted more and more. And instead of just sucking one planet dry they wanted to expand.


I just don't think that is very logical nor productive.


Is it better to have 10 planets going at 25 percent or 3 going about 75?

  • 05.10.2011 1:55 PM PDT


Posted by: grey101

Posted by: MegaMuffin16
The UNSC got greedy. Earth was so overpopulated that when resources arrived from other planets Earth just wanted more and more. And instead of just sucking one planet dry they wanted to expand.


I just don't think that is very logical nor productive.


Is it better to have 10 planets going at 25 percent or 3 going about 75?

the second one

  • 05.10.2011 1:59 PM PDT


Posted by: grey101

Posted by: MegaMuffin16
The UNSC got greedy. Earth was so overpopulated that when resources arrived from other planets Earth just wanted more and more. And instead of just sucking one planet dry they wanted to expand.


I just don't think that is very logical nor productive.


Is it better to have 10 planets going at 25 percent or 3 going about 75?


Its not logical, but since when was human nature logical?

Look at the New World. Millions came over because the chance of a new, better life was irresistable. Seperated by 1,000 years, yes, but we're still human then and are still now and unto the future.

  • 05.10.2011 2:00 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?


Posted by: ROBERTO jh

Posted by: grey101

Posted by: MegaMuffin16
The UNSC got greedy. Earth was so overpopulated that when resources arrived from other planets Earth just wanted more and more. And instead of just sucking one planet dry they wanted to expand.


I just don't think that is very logical nor productive.


Is it better to have 10 planets going at 25 percent or 3 going about 75?


Its not logical, but since when was human nature logical?

Look at the New World. Millions came over because the chance of a new, better life was irresistable. Seperated by 1,000 years, yes, but we're still human then and are still now and unto the future.


So you think that this is an accurate portrayal?

It honestly angers me because i work with efficiency in mind and this goes against that on every level.

To be honest they should have maxed out the sol system before even thinking about leaving. With slipspace they could just mine the Oort cloud, THAT would truly be an unlimited amount of supplies.

  • 05.10.2011 2:05 PM PDT

Have you seen my mind anywhere? I seem to have lost it...

0x0 x0x 0x0 000 000 x0x 000
x0x 0x0 0x0 0xx 000 0x0 000
x0x x0x x00 0xx 0x0 x0x 0x0

I have seen you future

Maybe the way colonization was set up was that companies had the ability to purchase planets. Each interested corporation would set up its own colony and run it as it saw fit.

This would explain why there are so many colonies. It is still illogical, with the massive project that is terraforming an entire planet.

  • 05.10.2011 2:07 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?


Posted by: CTN 0452 9
Maybe the way colonization was set up was that companies had the ability to purchase planets. Each interested corporation would set up its own colony and run it as it saw fit.

This would explain why there are so many colonies. It is still illogical, with the massive project that is terraforming an entire planet.


It is somewhat like that in red faction and mass effect also.

  • 05.10.2011 2:11 PM PDT

The 800 colonizes theory is very different than what you think.
Out of the 800, those include asteroids, moons, etc...Not all of them were planets, and some were even just science laboratories on barren planets. 23 billion people on 800 planets? You're kidding me.

  • 05.10.2011 2:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?


Posted by: mojeda101
The 800 colonizes theory is very different than what you think.
Out of the 800, those include asteroids, moons, etc...Not all of them were planets, and some were even just science laboratories on barren planets. 23 billion people on 800 planets? You're kidding me.



no body ever brought that up and while i am aware of that it wasn't what i was talking about.

I was talking about general sc-fi (hence the title). I have always considered the 800 to include asteroids and such. though i feel like cryptum took a more understandable approach by saying the flood infected (and i am para phrasing) 15 systems and hundreds of worlds.


In my mind that is better understood than flat out saying a number.

  • 05.10.2011 2:17 PM PDT


Posted by: grey101

Posted by: ROBERTO jh

Posted by: grey101

Posted by: MegaMuffin16
The UNSC got greedy. Earth was so overpopulated that when resources arrived from other planets Earth just wanted more and more. And instead of just sucking one planet dry they wanted to expand.


I just don't think that is very logical nor productive.


Is it better to have 10 planets going at 25 percent or 3 going about 75?


Its not logical, but since when was human nature logical?

Look at the New World. Millions came over because the chance of a new, better life was irresistable. Seperated by 1,000 years, yes, but we're still human then and are still now and unto the future.


So you think that this is an accurate portrayal?

It honestly angers me because i work with efficiency in mind and this goes against that on every level.

To be honest they should have maxed out the sol system before even thinking about leaving. With slipspace they could just mine the Oort cloud, THAT would truly be an unlimited amount of supplies.


Believe me, I understand. Titan--Saturns moon--could power earth for more then a million years. If oil=money, then it literally rains money there.

But if two scientists like Syhaw and Fujikiwa walked up to you and handed you the keys to the galaxy, would you just sit by and stay in your little neighborhood of a Solar System and not do anything?

Humans are naturally explorers, and naturally illogical. We had the technology to get to Alpha Centauri in a few minutes to an hour. And not only that, could terraform any planet AND could make the trip back for more supplies. I sure as hell would sign up for that trip.

  • 05.10.2011 2:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?


Posted by: ROBERTO jh

Posted by: grey101

Posted by: ROBERTO jh

Posted by: grey101

Posted by: MegaMuffin16
The UNSC got greedy. Earth was so overpopulated that when resources arrived from other planets Earth just wanted more and more. And instead of just sucking one planet dry they wanted to expand.


I just don't think that is very logical nor productive.


Is it better to have 10 planets going at 25 percent or 3 going about 75?


Its not logical, but since when was human nature logical?

Look at the New World. Millions came over because the chance of a new, better life was irresistable. Seperated by 1,000 years, yes, but we're still human then and are still now and unto the future.


So you think that this is an accurate portrayal?

It honestly angers me because i work with efficiency in mind and this goes against that on every level.

To be honest they should have maxed out the sol system before even thinking about leaving. With slipspace they could just mine the Oort cloud, THAT would truly be an unlimited amount of supplies.


Believe me, I understand. Titan--Saturns moon--could power earth for more then a million years. If oil=money, then it literally rains money there.

But if two scientists like Syhaw and Fujikiwa walked up to you and handed you the keys to the galaxy, would you just sit by and stay in your little neighborhood of a Solar System and not do anything?

Humans are naturally explorers, and naturally illogical. We had the technology to get to Alpha Centauri in a few minutes to an hour. And not only that, could terraform any planet AND could make the trip back for more supplies. I sure as hell would sign up for that trip.



I fully understand all of that i really do.


I just will never be able to understand why they wouldn't eventually start atleast colonizing a tight area of space instead of scattering blindly like roaches.

  • 05.10.2011 2:23 PM PDT

And another thing. Saying you like how the Forerunners had "worlds" instead of "colonies" is, ironically, illogical.

The Forerunners didn't just spring up on 3million worlds with near immeasurable technology from the get go. They had colonies before they had a galactic empire. Like humanity, they took small steps first off of one world and expanded their wings to become a galactic super power.

Saying you like one but not the other is a logical contradiction. In fact, I'd think you'd hate the Forerunners for having more colonies (which this ultimately comes down too) then both the Covenant and UNSC had ships combined.

  • 05.10.2011 2:27 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?


Posted by: ROBERTO jh
And another thing. Saying you like how the Forerunners had "worlds" instead of "colonies" is, ironically, illogical.

The Forerunners didn't just spring up on 3million worlds with near immeasurable technology from the get go. They had colonies before they had a galactic empire. Like humanity, they took small steps first off of one world and expanded their wings to become a galactic super power.

Saying you like one but not the other is a logical contradiction. In fact, I'd think you'd hate the Forerunners for having more colonies (which this ultimately comes down too) then both the Covenant and UNSC had ships combined.


it is the fact that they said "worlds" instead of anything else. I understand at one point they had to be colonies but over time they maxed them out to be considered "worlds" which would be like upgrading a territory to a state in a sense.

Naturally you will say that the forerunners had the time to do this, but i have seen in other sc-fi that even with hundreds of years- eons some planets are still called "colonies". which bugs the FK outta me.

  • 05.10.2011 2:31 PM PDT

Don't worry, you're still your mom's favorite Bnet member.

Posted by: grey101
So you think that this is an accurate portrayal?

It honestly angers me because i work with efficiency in mind and this goes against that on every level.

To be honest they should have maxed out the sol system before even thinking about leaving. With slipspace they could just mine the Oort cloud, THAT would truly be an unlimited amount of supplies.
Think about how low the human population was when millions flocked to the New World. When we started colonizing space human population is so high Earth literally cannot sustain us all. The idea of moving to a new planet and starting fresh was probably highly attractive. And when countries conquered this new land, they didn't populate all of it. They set up towns on the coast and just owned everything in between. I'm sure the same idea was done with planets.

Granted, it would have been a lot smarter to just colonize one planet and call it a day, but even Reach I think was entirely populated (or controlled by corporations, shipyards, testing facilities etc). Remember not every fertile world humanity controlled was a colony, some were just military outposts. Plus, Halo would be a much different story if the UNSC only controlled >10 worlds.

[Edited on 05.10.2011 6:22 PM PDT]

  • 05.10.2011 6:22 PM PDT

"Wort wort wort!"

Every minority ever would want their own planet, ie. Ender's Game Hundred Worlds.

  • 05.10.2011 6:35 PM PDT

Didact's Reprisal -
Now is the time of our unworlding
One final effort is all that remains
And I am not afraid
We shall fulfill our promise
We fight for the grace of the Mantle
And this time none of you will be left behind

Expanding like that has pros along with the obvious cons. More planets can mean more resources and possible strategic footholds. In addition, increased amount of territories provides a higher population growth rate allowing in the long run to establish stronger colonies/worlds in the future.

Of course, political instability and inability to defend territories may happen with overexpansion. You see it in the Halo universe, and you see a more realistic example in the Roman empire.

  • 05.10.2011 8:56 PM PDT

"Concise and devoid of elegance...what I have come to expect from human communication"-Endless Summer

Earth was overpopulated...we needed room. Then the politicians and companies got greedy.

  • 05.10.2011 9:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag: tsassi
  • user homepage:

It's actually good for nature. If humanity would actually require two Earths today, I can imagine the situation in five hundred years. Low population is good for the planet and there are less problems with resources running out when you have as many planets as possible. It's all for resources.

  • 05.10.2011 9:11 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Senior Heroic Member

BLAM!

^ This seems like the most likely explanation for the low populations amongst the UNSC's colonies.

[Edited on 05.12.2011 9:56 AM PDT]

  • 05.12.2011 9:56 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Fin
  • user homepage:

"but you already knew that, I mean, how couldn't you?

Only when no Human brick is left atop another, shall we be satisfied with your destruction.


Posted by: grey101
It has always bugged me when races go from planet to planet colonizing and don't sit down and settle on a planet, I just feel that it would be more stable to have fewer worlds with higher population than hundreds of worlds with a few million each.


High population density isn't usually a great thing, people like having a bit of space.
I'm sure most people if asked would like to have a great big house with a great big garden rather than live in a small flat in a massive high-rise. It's something you can see in modern housing developments today, high-rises are going out of fashion in favour of lots of smaller buildings covering a larger area.

Low planetary populations also means that there is more land available for agriculture, which is immensely important, as you can get metals and minerals from virtually anywhere but crops need a complex biosphere and ecosystem.

Add to this the benifit of the planets having a more "natural environment" feel (even if terraformed) due to not being overcrowded and you'll find it would be a much more pleasant place to live.


It always drives me to no ends when they call them "colonies", while i understand the reasoning behind that i don't see the prime logic. I do get you have to spread out to find more resources and such, but why don't they ever just focus on a few worlds at a time?


Well, if it's main 'purpose' is to produce and export goods (say, food) to a more major world, or indeed the homeworld, then it is absolutely a colony. Just compare it to the old colonial powers in Europe importing goods from their world-wide colonies.

Most Sci-fi I can think of would only refer to worlds as "Colonies" if they were recently colonised. (Exception being battlestar galactica, but they do a lot of weird things there.)

Also, you haven't played many strategy games have you? Go play something like Sins of a Solar Empire. :p
Expansion is always important, it lets you discover new things, gain new resources, and means your people are less at risk of getting wiped out should some nearby star do something nastily explosive.
Or in the case of bad guys appearing it means you can more easily run away and hide/rebuild to counterattack.


This is why i loved reading cryptum, to see that the forerunners had 3 million fertile worlds not just colonies.


I thought that number was surprisingly low for a supposedly galaxy-spanning civilisation, but then they do make their own worlds too.

[Edited on 05.12.2011 10:41 AM PDT]

  • 05.12.2011 10:40 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?

I own many strategy games including sins of a solar empire.

And the forerunners controlled the orion arm, not the galaxy.

  • 05.12.2011 1:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Do not waste your tears, I was not born to watch the world grow dim. Life is not measured in years, but by the deeds of men.

Posted by: goldhawk
We should know better, because we are better.

I believe the reason we colonized all the planets was their existence. We see a planet that could support life and we jump to the challenge. I think that it is human nature to take on any challenge and I'm sure that there was more than a little political incentive for terraforming a planet.

  • 05.12.2011 3:01 PM PDT

Posted by:ScubaToaster
Posted by: HipiO7
This man, this man right here put it so eloquently that I actually cancelled my own 2000+ word long post.
/slow clap for respect


:)
The person who said participating is important, not winning, obviously never won anything.

I'd guess the more planets you have colonized improves the options you'd later have to terraform the planet later on. By having a small colony on different planets, that population can study and analize the local biosphere and study the geography much more efficiently than a simply survey made by orbit.

Plus, these studies later help find resources that are almost certainly needed. Colonization is more because of resources than for population in universes like Halo.

  • 05.12.2011 3:02 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2