The Triumph of Christianity

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why limit ourselves to one?

Is this a serious answer? In any event, it doesn't really address the issue, does it?

[Ben Kenobi]

Sure it does. You are assuming that we are limited by the constraints of the Earth, and I'm saying that this is not always going to be so.

Why should we be so shortsighted? Folks 50 years ago weren't.

[Kontiki]

So to you, the practical path is to continue to multiply infinitely and constantly ship excess population off to other planets? Are you even slightly aware of the rather massive issues with this?

[Barinthus]

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. As of this minute we have only one planet so therefore we should keep that in mind. Once it becomes a reality that we can expand to other planets, then fine, let population explode. However even by then we should maintain strict population controls. 5 million on this planet, 3 million on that one, and 1 million on that small one in the corner....

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned
All this time Christianity continue to spread in the western Empire. Partly because of the pacifism taught by the church, Romans increasingly refused to serve in the Army. As a result, the Army increasingly became composed of German mercenaries where only the officer corps were Roman citizens. This had the unfortunate effect of teaching the Germans how to properly arm themselves and fight so that the Roman advantage in weapons and training ceased to exist. The Romans could no longer defeat the German armies, who then overran Empire until the whole West was occupied by German and Goth forces.

So, in a way, Christianity helped bring about the collapse of the Roman Empire because its own citizens refused to join the Army. But equally important to the collapse of Empire were Diocletian's price controls and his edict tying people to their occupations.

Christianity wasn't the only reason for the decline in the Roman Army. One major reason was the shift in the ratio of mobile to fixed forces. In the 2nd century one of the emporers paid off some of his troops by granting them land along the Rhine border. The "limini" legions were paid in land and were committed to regional defence, they could not be mobilized for service in other provinces. By the 5th century the majority of legions were of this type, there were fewer than 7 mobile legions, and therefore under the threat of invasion Rome's ability to mount a defence was reduced.

I'm certain that disillusionment with a government that was increasingly seen as unstable, effete, and oppressive reduced enlistments also.

I wonder what fraction of the Roman population was Christain by the 5th century anyway? Even though Constantine had declared the empire Christain shortly before his death within a generation the old religion was back in place as the imperial favorite. At the beginning of the 5th century Christianity again became the state religion. These changes occurred due to the fortunes of imperial politics, but I don't know if they reflected the beliefs of the populace at large.

[Ned]

For those Europeans favoring population controls, are you facing any sort of humanitarian problems in your country due to expanding population? (I would like you to answer this question, and not some other question that involves places outside your country.)

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why limit ourselves to one?

No, no reason for that execpt for a minor problem or two. First problem is that the price to get somebody away from this planet is extreme - even with the newest thecnology you need at least five zeros per person, add to this, if this should be taken seriously, we are talking about millions of people, so the price of such a solution demands figures with at least 11 zeros. Second, where should they go ? At the moment - nowhere. I admit that in my version of Imperium galactica they have some fancy units that can terraform a planet relatively cheap, but i haven't heard that NASA or other similiar instititutions are planning such a thing. Other stars ? Nope, it will be Colombus repeated - small crew, result unknown.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Why should we be so shortsighted? Folks 50 years ago weren't.

Shure the were. Try to explain www to someone back in 1950 - at that time they thought that 30-40 computers (size thattime) was enough to cover any need of computation.

If progress in space technique was as rapid as computer thecnology, you might have a point but since this isn't the case, it would be crazy to rely on that.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned
For those Europeans favoring population controls, are you facing any sort of humanitarian problems in your country due to expanding population? (I would like you to answer this question, and not some other question that involves places outside your country.)

Often in american movies there are scenes from a courtroom where a witness are asked a question, and are only allowed to answer yes or no despite the fact that both of these answers will be a lie. I don't know if that has anything to do with real world, but your question is in the same class.

Shurely, f.ex. denmark could take a coulple or three more million citizens, but that is not the question. Other countries could do the same, but at what price ? And would it solve the problem ? High, and no.

[Ben Kenobi]

So to you, the practical path is to continue to multiply infinitely and constantly ship excess population off to other planets? Are you even slightly aware of the rather massive issues with this?

The argument is only one of rate. I see nothing wrong with a monotonically increasing population doing just this. What you are trying to say is that you believe the rate of increase will outstrip other things, and I do not believe this to be the case.

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. As of this minute we have only one planet so therefore we should keep that in mind. Once it becomes a reality that we can expand to other planets, then fine, let population explode. However even by then we should maintain strict population controls. 5 million on this planet, 3 million on that one, and 1 million on that small one in the corner....

Why would there be a desire to colonise other planets if there are no population pressures on Earth?

Why do you also presume that a declining population will immediately reverse this trend?

Neither we have proof of. No nation has sustained a steady growth after declining below replacement levels.

[Ben Kenobi]

Barinthus: Do you believe people ought to be able to have children without the approval of the state?

[Ben Kenobi]

Technology crushed Malthus, and it will also crush the neo Malthusians.

No, no reason for that execpt for a minor problem or two. First problem is that the price to get somebody away from this planet is extreme - even with the newest thecnology you need at least five zeros per person, add to this, if this should be taken seriously, we are talking about millions of people, so the price of such a solution demands figures with at least 11 zeros.

Do you think, given a stable colony another planet, that transport technology will not also improve to increase our lift capacity to make such transports economical?

I agree, with the current model, that space travel is prohibitively costly, but there is no reason why our current model should remain.

Second, where should they go ? At the moment - nowhere. I admit that in my version of Imperium galactica they have some fancy units that can terraform a planet relatively cheap, but i haven't heard that NASA or other similiar instititutions are planning such a thing. Other stars ? Nope, it will be Colombus repeated - small crew, result unknown.

What do you think it was like during the Age of Discovery? We have lost that sense of travel, and adventure. There will be people signing up just for the chance to do this.

And what happened once Columbus successfully returned? Look at the New World. Why couldn't we do the same again in space?

Shure the were. Try to explain www to someone back in 1950 - at that time they thought that 30-40 computers (size thattime) was enough to cover any need of computation.

Yes, but they dreamed. What dreams do we have today?

If progress in space technique was as rapid as computer thecnology, you might have a point but since this isn't the case, it would be crazy to rely on that.

Malthus said the same as you. Yet, who was right, the folks who looked at all this newfangled agricultural tools, or Malthus?

[Ben Kenobi]

BC:

It can also be shown historically that population density drastically increases productivity.

So why are you afraid of putting more people in Denmark?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The argument is only one of rate. I see nothing wrong with a monotonically increasing population doing just this. What you are trying to say is that you believe the rate of increase will outstrip other things, and I do not believe this to be the case.

Then you'll have no problem showing me mathematically how it's possible.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Barinthus: Do you believe people ought to be able to have children without the approval of the state?

Well I am not entirely comfortable with relegating the decision of whom can have children to the state but for a while I felt it was the only solution other than to exterminate a large number of people.

Then I realized that the population growth can be brought under control if we were to eliminate the Third World (by elevating them to the First World by massive improvements in their infrastructure, and so on), the global population growth will fall. Slower but more 'natural.' There will be no need for state getting involved unless the population has dropped so low that there is a need to reverse the trend.