Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

[Christopher]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

Hmm... can't unthink this idea now. I rather like it; it fits the facts we have and explains thing in the least complex way possible. And I could believe that the seeming technological plateau of the universe is the point where single planets run out of R&D potential. Well' date=' to use a [i']Civilization[/i] the game reference, where the research times get ridiculous for the resources of a single planet.

I agree this idea has merit and I repped Vondi for it.

 

How you put it specifically it sounds a lot closer to the traveller universe (where every planet is pretty much on it's own, because reinforcements are always 2 weeks away).

[Markdoc]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

The USSR' date=' OTOH, declined about 10 percent in population between 1940 and 1946, and took almost a decade to get back to pre-war levels. But then, I guess you could say they're an extreme case.[/quote']

 

Right - it took them 8 years to get back to their pre-war population: hardly a significant effect on population pressure, and they are a pretty extreme example. You can find others - Cambodia under Pol Pot is another. But in no case do I know of a war that even made a single generation's dent in population numbers, so there's no way you could describe it as having a significant effect on population density. Long before a population suffers significant degradation, its will and capacity to fight war is almost certain to collapse, because their military is only a small part of the total population - even in the most militaristic modern cultures.

 

cheers, Mark

[Lucius]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

War, huh? What is it good for?

 

Apparently, not even good for killing off enough people to make much difference.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary noticed that people are still having sex. It's really not surprising, it's just what one expects. The four horsemen riding out to contain them, but people are still having sex and nothing can restrain them.

[Markdoc]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

In general' date=' I agree. But your position is too black and white for me. I would note that the greatest world-changing 'civilian' innovation to take the world by storm in the last twenty years is the internet - which was a pentagon project in the beginning. The first working radar was also a military project. And the jet engine. Its also been at the fore of communications satellites, etc. There's more crossover between military and civilian innovation than is immediately apparent because the military's information, logistical, and technical needs often have application outside the military. Which is not to say that the military isn't focused on killing people and breaking things, or that war is good for technological advancement, or that most non-weapons advances the military brings happen during war. Most of these are peace time innovations as the military prepares for war - not something it develops while fighting.[/quote']

 

I think your last sentence makes the point. The jet engine was developed before the war and the first jet aircraft flew before it too. Radar was also developed before the war and so on. These were all supported - at least in part - by the military, but only because there wasn't a war on. The Brit.s, for example, made less progress with jets during the war than they did in the few years before it, because once the war started, they were pouring resources into proven technology. The Germans, of course, did the opposite, but that's largely due to the Fuhrer's personal mania for technology: the Luftwaffe wanted to use those resources on conventional planes and they might have been better off if they had.

 

Likewise, the US ended up developing the atomic bomb, because despite the ground-breaking work done by British (and expatriate German!) scientists, Churchill felt that the UK could not afford to waste resources on a speculative new weapon, when they were short of funds to buy the weapons they needed, right then.

 

I think the misapprehension that wars increase technological development comes about because wars encourage mass adaption and speedy refinement of existing technologies and because militaries - with their large budgets for technology development - foster technology during periods of peace: at least in part because they have to spend it on something!

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

Bold added by me. Those figures are nice, but have a mayor flaw:

This is the time to cancel out the losses. What you need to compare it to, is how how the population would have been without the war. Only there you see the real price of war in human lives.

 

Actually you can see that by simply graphing population figures - WW2 amounts to a minimal blip: a minor pause (far less than a quarter of one generation) in the upwards march of population. I work with population analyses a lot in my work - it's a commonly acknowledged truth that war does not - and has never - done anything significant to reduce population. Had WW2 never happened, it's likely that the population of Europe today would be more or less the same as it is now. We can actually quantify it.

Here's a nifty graph that makes exactly my point: it compares the population density of Ireland and Europe. You can see two things. First, that the effect of WW2 on European population density was utterly negligible - it neither affected the overall population nor the rate of growth significantly.

In contrast, the potato famine had a drastic effect on Ireland's population density.

Famine and disease: that's what creates population changes. War is a pretty poor relation in that arena.

 

You can look at it another way: about 40 million people died in Europe during WW2 - out of a population of about 560 million. That's substantial - about 7% - but at Europe's growth rate back then (roughly 5% in 1946: falling to 2-3% per year thereafter) that represents the loss of ... 2-3 years growth. That's it. Essentially Europe replaced its lost population in 2 years and kept growing at a faster than prewar rate thereafter. Many population biologists have made the argument that WW" actually increased the population of Europe - and with good reason - for a generation after the war, population growth was significantly higher than in the generation before the war (though of course that might have happened anyway, it still argues against a war-driven decrease in population).

 

Cheers, Mark

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

It's worth noting that the influenza epidemic of 1919 killed more people in Europe than World War 1 did. And until World War 2, a military man in wartime was more likely to die of disease than (direct) enemy action.

 

Star Wars describes a galactic civilization with somewhere in excess of a million inhabited planets. If the average population was merely a million, that's still a total population of 1,000,000,000,000 sentients. The Imperial Army must number in the billions; the Imperial Starfleet must have tens of thousands of Star Destroyers...

[megaplayboy]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

It's worth noting that the influenza epidemic of 1919 killed more people in Europe than World War 1 did. And until World War 2, a military man in wartime was more likely to die of disease than (direct) enemy action.

 

Star Wars describes a galactic civilization with somewhere in excess of a million inhabited planets. If the average population was merely a million, that's still a total population of 1,000,000,000,000 sentients. The Imperial Army must number in the billions; the Imperial Starfleet must have tens of thousands of Star Destroyers...

 

Actually, the city-world/Capital of Coruscant by itself has a population of 1,000,000,000,000. I'd peg the average population as likely closer to a billion, which is roughly the population density of Earth in the early 19th Century. You'd have to go back to about 10,000 BCE to get a human population as low as a million for Earth.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

Coruscant is an impossible planet anyhow.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

Actually' date=' the city-world/Capital of Coruscant [i']by itself[/i] has a population of 1,000,000,000,000. I'd peg the average population as likely closer to a billion, which is roughly the population density of Earth in the early 19th Century. You'd have to go back to about 10,000 BCE to get a human population as low as a million for Earth.

 

I intentionally 'lowballed' my estimate. Of course, some of the 'habitable' planets are mining colonies with more droids than people... I don't imagine that Tantoine has a billion, or 'The Forest Moon of Endor'. But you have a point. Make the average population a billion (U.S. billion, not European), and you get a population in the 1,000,000,000,000,000*s, with a military in the 10's of Billions soldiers and hundreds of thousands Star Destroyers... Which makes me wonder where The Fleet was during The Battle of Endor's Moon. Lucas thinks too small...

[megaplayboy]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

I intentionally 'lowballed' my estimate. Of course' date=' some of the 'habitable' planets are mining colonies with more droids than people... I don't imagine that Tantoine has a billion, or 'The Forest Moon of Endor'. But you have a point. Make the average population a billion (U.S. billion, not European), and you get a population in the 1,000,000,000,000,000*s, with a military in the 10's of Billions soldiers and hundreds of thousands Star Destroyers... Which makes me wonder where The Fleet was during The Battle of Endor's Moon. Lucas thinks too small...[/quote']

 

Probably out patrolling, refueling, training and maintenance/repairs. IIRC it used to be the case that only 1/3 of US/USSR ballistic missile subs were out at sea at any given time.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

Coruscant is an impossible planet anyhow.

 

So's Trantor, but the city-planet is a sci-fi trope--what can you do?

[Christopher]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

I think the misapprehension that wars increase technological development comes about because wars encourage mass adaption and speedy refinement of existing technologies and because militaries - with their large budgets for technology development - foster technology during periods of peace: at least in part because they have to spend it on something!

Perhaps the fact that the application was made on broad scale did improve it? I mean we have a lot of technology right now taht is just to expensive to mass produce. But war gives you a reason to mass produce those things, thus benefitting your ability to continue mass producing them and similar things after the war.

 

Star Wars describes a galactic civilization with somewhere in excess of a million inhabited planets. If the average population was merely a million' date=' that's still a total population of 1,000,000,000,000 sentients. The Imperial Army must number in the billions; the Imperial Starfleet must have tens of thousands of Star Destroyers...[/quote']

Star Wars D6 fluff gave a number of around 70.000 (and even noted that seeing a Tie fighter is common, seing a SD is not). But they also still had Acclamators, Lancers, Victorys and Nebulon-B frigates.

A SD is a nice battleship/carrier, but you don't have lot's of battleships/carriers - you have a few and a lot of support/smaller vessels that don't need that much fuel.

 

Which makes me wonder where The Fleet was during The Battle of Endor's Moon. Lucas thinks too small...

Making certain the people you noticed where not actively rebelling? Or that the rebels where attacking those planets? And evne just 16 SD's and one SSD (afaik what they used there - a full sector fleet) is a hell of lot of Firepower.

Also I heard that in his books the battle of endor was way bigger. The Rebel fleet in orbit of sollust was reported to be "so big you could not see both ends at the same time", wich is much bigger then they showed in the movies (and could show with the budget).

[Clonus]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

I intentionally 'lowballed' my estimate. Of course' date=' some of the 'habitable' planets are mining colonies with more droids than people... I don't imagine that Tantoine has a billion, or 'The Forest Moon of Endor'. But you have a point. Make the average population a billion (U.S. billion, not European), and you get a population in the 1,000,000,000,000,000*s, with a military in the 10's of Billions soldiers and hundreds of thousands Star Destroyers... Which makes me wonder where The Fleet was during The Battle of Endor's Moon. Lucas thinks too small...[/quote']\

 

Well there are two considerations there. One is that with an entire galaxy to patrol, no matter how big the Imperial Navy is, it isn't big enough. The other is that is traps need to be inviting, not obvious suicide.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

Perhaps the fact that the application was made on broad scale did improve it? I mean we have a lot of technology right now taht is just to expensive to mass produce. But war gives you a reason to mass produce those things, thus benefitting your ability to continue mass producing them and similar things after the war.

 

 

Star Wars D6 fluff gave a number of around 70.000 (and even noted that seeing a Tie fighter is common, seing a SD is not). But they also still had Acclamators, Lancers, Victorys and Nebulon-B frigates.

A SD is a nice battleship/carrier, but you don't have lot's of battleships/carriers - you have a few and a lot of support/smaller vessels that don't need that much fuel.

 

 

Making certain the people you noticed where not actively rebelling? Or that the rebels where attacking those planets? And evne just 16 SD's and one SSD (afaik what they used there - a full sector fleet) is a hell of lot of Firepower.

Also I heard that in his books the battle of endor was way bigger. The Rebel fleet in orbit of sollust was reported to be "so big you could not see both ends at the same time", wich is much bigger then they showed in the movies (and could show with the budget).

 

IF we treat the movies as 'war stories' told later, then we can make a lot of good excuses (no sarcasm, really) why the battles seem undersized: G. Lucas didn't have the budget to do it right, he had bad source material, he had an axe to grind, it was period propaganda, he was a unreliable narrator, etc.

As I see it...

1. The Alliance launches a series of raids all over the Empire, in order to get the Imperial Fleet to scatter to deal with them. Imperial Fleet acts like this worked, to set the trap.

2. The Alliance then throws everything it can reasonably get at the Endor system with the goal of destroying the inoperative Death Star and killing the Emperor, hoping to throw the Empire into chaos. But, as we saw, the Death Star II was partially operational and a big chunk of the Imperial Fleet blocking the Alliance Navy's escape.

3. And, as we saw in the movie, it all falls apart. With the Emperor's death and the Death Star's destuction, chaos is caused resulting in a major Alliance victory.

4. Now, a long time later, GLucas films these critical battles. But he doesn't have enough funds... do you know how much it costs to lease a Imperial Star Destroyer? He was lucky to be able to afford the five shown! So, he makes the battle smaller than it was. Think of the movie "Battle of Britain", which leased out the only 5 flyable Hawker Hurricanes left in the world! And used Spanish built aircraft for the Germans. And so on. Historian geeks point out the errors ("Those are model VIIc T.I.E. fighters, which weren't available until 7 years after this battle! The Rebel Alliance used Incom T-65's, sure, but not at the Battle of Yavin! Everyone knows that Darth Vader was really left handed!")

 

Now that I've given my impression of the famous Chinese philosopher, Ahn Doo Long, I'll shut up.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

All that technological stagnation, and we never see paper. Never see so much as a Post-It note!

[Vondy]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

Of course, we could all be getting carried away in terms of scale.

 

George Lucas is not known for his discriminating sense of proportion or deep world-building. He likes to throw impossibly huge numbers around because they sound impressive. I propose he's full of fish tales. And some of his characters aren't any more reliable than he is.

 

Obi Wan says, "For over a thousand generations the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic..."

 

Sounds like a myth. Or popular sentiment. Or propaganda. And no one could call Obi Wan a reliable witness. How much of this was just his point of view?

 

Darth Sidious' contrary "A thousand years" is more realistic – and no canon resolution is provided.

 

I propose Lucas doesn't know – or care – how old the Republic is. He's said himself his world and his widow are centered on the life of Anakin-Vader and that he doesn't concern himself with the “parallel universe.”

 

Well, not beyond making a profit...

 

And then there's the number of planets. I went through all of the scripts with CTL+F searching for planet, system, and world. Guess what: in the original three movies no one mentions how many systems there are. The only references are in the prequels - well after EU fan-wank made up big numbers - and the prequel references are... unbelievable.

 

On screen there have only been 34 named planets and 47 named systems in the movies AND the clone wars televisions how. And in Lucas' production notes for AOTC he writes "There is unrest in the Galactic Senate several hundred solar systems have declared their intentions to leave the Republic."

 

But then he gets carried away...

 

Dooku says of the worlds that have joined the separatists, "Thousands. And more are leaving the Republic every day."

 

In another cut scene, "As I explained to you earlier, I'm quite convinced that ten thousand more systems will rally to our cause with your support, gentlemen."

 

Before he did that the improbable scale of the SW universe was drawn from the EU materials and novelizations – the latter of which Lucas admits vary from his movies because he didn't keep the writers on a tight leash. Ergo, they didn't count.

 

The question is... is Dooku serious – or is it possible he's given to hyperbole, propaganda, and poetic exaggeration to make a point?

 

In my book this guy is no better than Kenobi!

 

I prefer Lucas' production notes - and suspect he doesn't know or care how many worlds there are in his universe. He named fewer than 50 in the movies and fewer than 20 appeared on screen - that's all of the SW universe he needed. The massive scale is superfluous to the actual events and and story - so who needs it?

 

Based on “several hundred solar systems” joining the separatists – and giving the republic a run for its money – its entirely reasonable to assume a more “realistic” republic of “a thousand worlds.”

 

Ahem.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

It's still canon, though. If you're complaining about the ridiculousness of Star Wars, you might as well complain about birds flying.

 

Having said that...change it if it'll better fit your own story/campaign.

[Vondy]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

It's still canon' date=' though.[/quote']

 

Its canon that he said it, but that doesn't mean what he said was factual.

 

Ergo,

 

"Participants and eyewitnesses may misunderstand events or distort their reports (deliberately or unconsciously) to enhance their own image or importance."

 

Or,

 

"Original material may be ... prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be."

 

When Caesar contradicts secondary sources - do we believe him?

 

Am I being ridiculous? No more than the scriptwriter was!

[Ragitsu]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

Its canon that he said it, but that doesn't mean what he said was factual.

 

Ergo,

 

"Participants and eyewitnesses may misunderstand events or distort their reports (deliberately or unconsciously) to enhance their own image or importance."

 

Or,

 

"Original material may be ... prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be."

 

Am I being ridiculous? No more than the scriptwriter was!

When Caesar contradicts secondary sources - do we believe him?

 

When it comes to canon, I usually tend to go with what came first, unless there is overwhelming word by the creator that contradicts otherwise. If there's a "tie", see my following sentence (on whether or not Han Solo shot at Greedo first, for example).

 

But ultimately...I choose what resonates best with me when it comes to gaming, canon or no.

 

(I'm no fan of retcons, unless they are absolutely needed).

[Clonus]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

. The massive scale is superfluous to the actual events and and story - so who needs it?

 

Mustering the resources required to build an artificial object about the size of Phobos, is one reason why the Empire needs grandiose scale. As in fact is the Empire having sufficient resources that it can afford to make a rich, advanced, and well populated planet go explodey as a demonstration of force even though it was undefended and posed no military threat. If the Empire was only a thousand systems, most of them not nearly so populous, then it would have just taken a big bite out of it's own tax base

 

(But yeah, I'm prepared to accept that when Kenobi said "generations" he meant "graduating classes of new Jedi" or something.)

[Badger]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

Its not just about plot-device drive travel times.

 

The equation also requires supply and demand economics and galactic scale macro-infrastructure logistical planning. Ergo, compatability! Just because one planet develops a new technology doesn't mean every other planet can afford to adopt it or that the materials needed to produce the product for 10,000 worlds is easily obtained - or exists in such quantities to start with. Or that they intend to share!

 

As a result, a combination of local alliances and simple wealth will dilineate how far many technologies can spread despite know how. You also have another problem: if not everyone can adopt your advanced technology it can't become a 'galactic standard.' Some outer planets, poor planets, etcetera - perhaps even many - won't be able to interface with you. As a result, you are likely to see a galaxy-wide technology base that is lower what many wealthy, advanced planets have in place.

 

You also have a cultural question about the republic. It was a weak republic with strong planetary rights. When the clone wars erupted it hadn't had a standing army in almost a thousand years! It had a navy and relied on the Jedi as peace-keepers and negotiators to settle disputes between worlds. You don't even have to go to novels, comics, and video games for this. Its laid out in the films (and broadened by 'the clone wars' tv show that lucas says is canon).

 

The Trade Confederation invasion of Naboo, said to be over Republic taxation, let alone the hullabaloo about creating a clone army in the senate, and the sepratists consisting of groups who wanted laissez-fair economic policy and no interference, makes the republic's aversion strong central government clear. I would put money on the republic having a ton of bureaucrats and very little real power. I mean, these people had major conflicts with the Sith and Mandalorians in their history that almost brought the republic down (and there is a mention of a "dark age of the sith" 1,000 years before) and still had an ethos that "centralized army is bad."

 

That kind of thinking means planets are maintaining their own militias and system defense forces, though how strong those are probably depends on what "neighborhood" they are on or why they wan them - the trade confederation had a force strong enough to repossess planets! Its starting to sound not like a central government, but a somewhat more robust united nations! Heck, look how easily the separatists under Dooku attacked Corsucant!

 

I would bet the republic navy was small and underfunded - a hermaphrodite coast guard and peace-keeping force that could be brought in to solve localized problems if the senate could agree, but not one suited to fighting a full-scale war. This despite their previous wars - 1,000 years is a long time to forget in. I suspect, with that much peace, investment in the republic's military research and infrastructure was not a priority. Let alone powerful, wealthy, advanced planets not necessarily wanting the republic to take the money and edge that comes with having their own, local, competitive, profitable military industries.

 

And that takes us back to technology: most planets were not going to give up their trade secrets, technological edges, and relative autonomy to the Republic without Sidious' manufactured crisis driving them to it, which is why he had to manufacture the crisis in the first place. The aliens who created the clone army gave the republic the clones - not the technology to make more themselves. And none of this even takes into account the cultural mores and attitudes towards assorted technologies and integration of individual planets.

 

Something the size of the republic - especially when it is weak and decentralized - is of ludicrous scale and faces all the logistical problems inherent in that ludicrousness. The republic standard tech base will always lag behind what many individual - fractious - words possess.

 

The Old Republic as UN? No wonder it could do nothing right.

[Badger]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

You mean you don't wax your chest???

 

I dont, the ladies like manly chest hair, or they did till I got chest hair.

[Badger]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

Plus the Cold War, natch, which may not have seen a lot of open fighting but lives were lost and there was plenty of war-by-proxy - a buttload of insurrections, destabilizations, territorial disputes, skirmishes, provocations, intrusions, uprisings, interventions, confrontations, rebellions and out-and-out incidents.

 

And for post-1945 non-Americans, there were (in total lack of order):

 

The four wars between India and Pakistan( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India-Pakistan_Wars );

The Sino-Indian War ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War );

The Indonesian Invasion of East Timor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_invasion_of_East_Timor );

The closing stages of the Chinese Civil War ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War );

China's "incorporation" of Tibet ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_%281950%29 );

The Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konfrontasi );

The Middle East and Africa in general (w-a-y too many to mention);

A bunch of other stuff I haven't even thought of just now.

 

56 years of peace? Depends where you stand.

 

Well, I did read somewhere that since 3500 BC we have only had 292 years WITHOUT at least 1 recorded war going on somewhere (and I wonder how many of those years were in ancient times when we just didnt have a record of a war that did take place.)

 

This was from some Almanac in the 1980s, so I imagine things have remarkably changed. But, the point is there is a conflict going on somewhere, all the time.

[Badger]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

Well' date=' they do call them storm troopers, and some of the Imperial pomp and circumstance does look like something straight out of a Riefenstahl film. And the Sith coming to power is based on deception and a swift purge of internal political enemies(the Jedi order and some politicians as well). The Empire is not averse to committing atrocities, either. But I think that's about as far as a valid comparison should go. Otherwise it gets a little ridiculous.[/quote']

 

True, you could also make a good case for the Old Republic/Empire being a lot like Roman Republic/Empire.

 

It was a generic evil, atrocious dictatorship that did mind-boggling abominable things. We have many historical cases of in our past.

[Badger]

Re: Star Wars: Technological Stagnation?

 

Coruscant is an impossible planet anyhow.

 

Damn straight

 

Who'd want to live on a planet that is a world wide Hong Kong? My rural self is screaming in agony at the thought.