Technological decline

David Johnson writes:
>Hans Rancke [email removed] writes:
>
>>You asked for an explanation of
>>how come Gram dominated Saxnoth when Saxnoth was more powerful than Gram. I
>>suggested that maybe Gram had been a higher tech level recently (and/or
>>Sacnoth lower) due to an econo-technological cycle effect. You _claimed_
>>that this wasn't possible. Since then I've been arguing that they are.
>
>I'm worried we're getting a little acrimonious here.

I'm sorry you think so. I haven't felt acrimonious in this debate (until
today; but I will get to that later), and I regret if I've given any such
impression.

>>What factual record? We have _one_, count them, one, complete listing of
>>world UWPs for the Spinward Marches, the one first published in _Spinward
>>Marches Campaign_ and since reprinted (with the UWPs _unchanged_) in
>>_Imperial Encyclopedia_ and _Megatraveller Journal_ #3
>
>I accept this.  And it *is* a factual record.  From *Supplement 3: The
>Spinward Marches* to *MegaTraveller Journal* #3 we have a period of about
>fifteen years of elapsed time.  Clearly there were some changes in this
>data (you've mentined the allegiance codes) so the fact that UWP changes
>weren't made *must* be assumed to be intentional.  (Although I *suspect*
>there *was* no intention, as in much of what's appeared over the years.)

If you're really prepared to argue that all the population levels and
population multipliers in the Spinward Marches could possibly remain intact
for 15 years of peaceful development, much less Vargr raids galore, then
I'm dropping out of that discussion. Think about what you're saying for
just a moment. No world increased it's population by as much as 10%? No
world lost as much as 10% in a raid? They all remained at _exactly_ the
same population? Every single one of them?

>Now [WARNING: I don't have TNE!] it's my understanding that there were some
>significant UWP changes for the the Regina subsector material presented in
>*TNE*.  Clearly, this is intentional as well.  Whether it is *reconcilable*
>with any of the pre-TNE material is another matter.

You don't need TNE. I'm talking CT and MegaT. I've ignored TNE because I
anticipated the argument that the years from 1120 to 1200 represent rather
unusual circumstances.

>I don't think it's that certain.  Yes, there may have been cycles but as
>it stands the records show fifteen years of stagnation and *no* evidence of
>any down turn.

There's no way all 400 worlds in the Spinward Marches could have had their
population level totally stagnant for 15 years. some of them, sure. Not
even most of them, but some. Since the data in _Imperial Encyclopedia_
and _Megatraveller JOurnal 3_ dosen't show these changes, the data on
population must derive from the same census. Perhaps no new census was
made between 1105 and 1120. Other parts of the UPP may have been updated.
But as far as the population data goes, the three sources is one and the
same.

>Let's remember all this is occurring in a 2D universe!  How's that for a
>suspension of disbelief?

Put's quite a strain on it. That's why I don't need any more.

>Seriously, I, too, find the rate of technological advancement inscrutably
>slow but can rationalize it as a legacy of Vilani culture.

Good for you. I can't. Not for the Marches, whose culture in most every
Traveller publication to date has been shown to be overwhelmingly solomani-
style, and certainly not for the Sword Worlds who are spcifically _said_
to be Solomani-derived.

>>If the planet at any future date
>>becomes poorer, its economic level would decline to EL A again. Its
>>technology should decline as a consequence, since the planet obviously
>>cannot afford to maintain the technology (if it could, it would have had
>>TL B in under EL A in the first place).
>
>This is what grates with my economic and technological sensibilities.  You,
>yourself, have maintained that *maintenance* of a particular level of
>technology is easier than *advancing* into a new level.

Sure. That's propably why we haven't seen any technological downturns in
the wake of economic downturns here on Earth. I admit that there will be
a cushioning effect so that you could propably maintain TL B for a while,
since the investment in the factories and tools have been made. But
factories have to be maintained too. And if noone can afford to buy the
stuff the factories produce, why maintain them? And how? Try imagining
economic boom cycles scaled to an interplanetary population, rather than
a single planet population. If a depression is severe enough, the
factories will close.

>Technological
>capability may be tied to economic capability but it is not directly so.
>Economies fluctuate all the time.  Technological fluctuation occurs much
>less frequently and is a much more *serious* event.  I maintain that a
>*severe* economic downturn would be required to produce a significant (in
>terms of a tech level change) technological downturn.

How severe? That's the whole point, isn't it? A planet with billions of
inhabitants may be difficult to affect... but maybe not too dificult if
you have even more billions of people to do it.

Recall that our only
>modern example where this sort of event *might* have happened is during the
>Great Depression.

Seems to me I've heard about factories in third-world countries that have
closed down after the parent company has pulled out. Admittedly I can't
quote any examples.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     [email removed]
- ------------
        "A  subsector  official  pompously states that the
        subsector  armed  forces  have  four Kinunir class
        ships in service,  each with enough troop strength
        to put down any military operations that threathen
        the peace of the Imperium."

                        ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir