_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford

[Lynn McGuire]

_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/

Book number three of a three books series. I read the excellent printed
and bound MMPB. I doubt that there will be any more books in the series
since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.

This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi. The
story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space travel,
have become dangerous for space ship passage.

The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of man-made
climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth uninhabitable in
the 21st century. Man-made climate change theory is junk science and
paying homage to it is premature at this time.

My rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars (2 reviews)

Lynn

[David Johnston]

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
   https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent printed
and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books in the series
since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.  The
story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space travel,
have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of man-made
climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth uninhabitable in
the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse. But a depopulating catastrophe is an excellent
way to move your science fiction universe into the state where
interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books in
the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory is
junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an excellent
way to move your science fiction universe into the state where
interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.

Lynn

[David Johnston]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books in
the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory is
junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't. And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into the
capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into the
capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth. I do not think that this is true, people
would leave on their own if they could. The cost, and inability, is
irrelevant to that desire.

In a hundred years, the cost and inability to move people off the planet
may be a moot point. The real question is, where to ?

Lynn

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into the
capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth. I do not think that this is true, people
would leave on their own if they could. The cost, and inability, is
irrelevant to that desire.
In a hundred years, the cost and inability to move people off the planet
may be a moot point. The real question is, where to ?
Lynn

I think people won't want to leave Earth without deciding that!

[David Johnston]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:00:55 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Doesn't really work that way. China and India are both more
"populous" than the US or Europe, and have older civilizations, but
they have not been dominant.

[David Johnston]

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:00:55 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Doesn't really work that way. China and India are both more
"populous" than the US or Europe, and have older civilizations, but
they have not been dominant.

They were dominant for a very long time. The Europeans only overtook
them because they were so dominant that the Europeans wanted to come to
them for trade and ended up traveling the world looking for better
routes to get there while they had no interest in venturing far afield.
The same thing does not apply to an Earth that is actually founding
colonies. Now it's possible for such an Earth to just lose interest but
unless you are set unimaginably far in the future all you'll still end
up with all the well-developed populous and powerful worlds being the
ones that were initially close to Earth and hospitable. Still Earth
centered.

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:19:07 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:00:55 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Doesn't really work that way. China and India are both more
"populous" than the US or Europe, and have older civilizations, but
they have not been dominant.

They were dominant for a very long time.

Who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The Europeans only overtook
them because they were so dominant that the Europeans wanted to come to
them for trade

The US engaged in a lot of trade with Africa during the early 1800s.
Does that make Africa "dominant"? I'm sorry but you are conflating
"having a valuable good to sell" and "representing a large potential
market" with "being dominant".

Post by David Johnston
and ended up traveling the world looking for better
routes to get there while they had no interest in venturing far afield.

So if they didn't "venture afield" then who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The same thing does not apply to an Earth that is actually founding
colonies.

So by you logic Hong Kong, India and the US are dominated by England,
the Phillippines are dominated by Spain, Brazil is dominated by
Portugal, and so on.

Post by David Johnston
Now it's possible for such an Earth to just lose interest but
unless you are set unimaginably far in the future all you'll still end
up with all the well-developed populous and powerful worlds being the
ones that were initially close to Earth and hospitable. Still Earth
centered.

Yeah, until one of them turns into Rome/the US/Manticore.

[David Johnston]

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:19:07 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:00:55 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Doesn't really work that way. China and India are both more
"populous" than the US or Europe, and have older civilizations, but
they have not been dominant.

They were dominant for a very long time.

Who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The Europeans only overtook
them because they were so dominant that the Europeans wanted to come to
them for trade

The US engaged in a lot of trade with Africa during the early 1800s.
Does that make Africa "dominant"? I'm sorry but you are conflating
"having a valuable good to sell" and "representing a large potential
market" with "being dominant".

Post by David Johnston
and ended up traveling the world looking for better
routes to get there while they had no interest in venturing far afield.

So if they didn't "venture afield" then who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The same thing does not apply to an Earth that is actually founding
colonies.

So by you logic Hong Kong, India and the US are dominated by England,

Britain was the dominant world power for quite a long time

Post by J. Clarke
the Phillippines are dominated by Spain, Brazil is dominated by
Portugal, and so on.

Post by David Johnston
Now it's possible for such an Earth to just lose interest but
unless you are set unimaginably far in the future all you'll still end
up with all the well-developed populous and powerful worlds being the
ones that were initially close to Earth and hospitable. Still Earth
centered.

Yeah, until one of them turns into Rome/the US/Manticore.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:19:07 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:00:55 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Doesn't really work that way. China and India are both more
"populous" than the US or Europe, and have older civilizations, but
they have not been dominant.

They were dominant for a very long time.

Who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The Europeans only overtook
them because they were so dominant that the Europeans wanted to come to
them for trade

The US engaged in a lot of trade with Africa during the early 1800s.
Does that make Africa "dominant"? I'm sorry but you are conflating
"having a valuable good to sell" and "representing a large potential
market" with "being dominant".

Post by David Johnston
and ended up traveling the world looking for better
routes to get there while they had no interest in venturing far afield.

So if they didn't "venture afield" then who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The same thing does not apply to an Earth that is actually founding
colonies.

So by you logic Hong Kong, India and the US are dominated by England,

Britain was the dominant world power for quite a long time

If you don't count, oh, five other European countries
for a start.

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:59:51 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:19:07 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:00:55 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Doesn't really work that way. China and India are both more
"populous" than the US or Europe, and have older civilizations, but
they have not been dominant.

They were dominant for a very long time.

Who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The Europeans only overtook
them because they were so dominant that the Europeans wanted to come to
them for trade

The US engaged in a lot of trade with Africa during the early 1800s.
Does that make Africa "dominant"? I'm sorry but you are conflating
"having a valuable good to sell" and "representing a large potential
market" with "being dominant".

Post by David Johnston
and ended up traveling the world looking for better
routes to get there while they had no interest in venturing far afield.

So if they didn't "venture afield" then who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The same thing does not apply to an Earth that is actually founding
colonies.

So by you logic Hong Kong, India and the US are dominated by England,

Britain was the dominant world power for quite a long time

If you count about a hundred years "quite a long time".

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
the Phillippines are dominated by Spain, Brazil is dominated by
Portugal, and so on.

Post by David Johnston
Now it's possible for such an Earth to just lose interest but
unless you are set unimaginably far in the future all you'll still end
up with all the well-developed populous and powerful worlds being the
ones that were initially close to Earth and hospitable. Still Earth
centered.

Yeah, until one of them turns into Rome/the US/Manticore.

[m***@sky.com]

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:19:07 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:00:55 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Doesn't really work that way. China and India are both more
"populous" than the US or Europe, and have older civilizations, but
they have not been dominant.

They were dominant for a very long time.

Who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The Europeans only overtook
them because they were so dominant that the Europeans wanted to come to
them for trade

The US engaged in a lot of trade with Africa during the early 1800s.
Does that make Africa "dominant"? I'm sorry but you are conflating
"having a valuable good to sell" and "representing a large potential
market" with "being dominant".

Post by David Johnston
and ended up traveling the world looking for better
routes to get there while they had no interest in venturing far afield.

So if they didn't "venture afield" then who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The same thing does not apply to an Earth that is actually founding
colonies.

So by you logic Hong Kong, India and the US are dominated by England,

Britain was the dominant world power for quite a long time

Post by J. Clarke
the Phillippines are dominated by Spain, Brazil is dominated by
Portugal, and so on.

Post by David Johnston
Now it's possible for such an Earth to just lose interest but
unless you are set unimaginably far in the future all you'll still end
up with all the well-developed populous and powerful worlds being the
ones that were initially close to Earth and hospitable. Still Earth
centered.

Yeah, until one of them turns into Rome/the US/Manticore.

Unfortunately for Hornblower in Space, Britain had geographical advantages that determined its strategy - geographical advantages that don't have an obvious equivalent in space.

1) Even before it gained control of the seas, the English channel sheltered Britain from most risk of invasion from the continent. It could therefore make as much or as little trouble on the continent as it wanted, while still having the option to retreat back across the channel if things got too hot for it. In particular, it had the incentive to put much more of its resource into a Navy and much less into a standing Army.

2) A large Navy, plus good ports and a blocking position translates into the ability to blockade ports in the continent and make commercial as well as military use of those ports less attractive, hence the predominance over Holland, and the rise to command of the seas.

Unless you have an FTL technology which gives travel between the stars a very non-uniform difficulty, no one planet is likely to have this sort of a positional advantage.

[J. Clarke]

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:19:07 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:00:55 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Doesn't really work that way. China and India are both more
"populous" than the US or Europe, and have older civilizations, but
they have not been dominant.

They were dominant for a very long time.

Who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The Europeans only overtook
them because they were so dominant that the Europeans wanted to come to
them for trade

The US engaged in a lot of trade with Africa during the early 1800s.
Does that make Africa "dominant"? I'm sorry but you are conflating
"having a valuable good to sell" and "representing a large potential
market" with "being dominant".

Post by David Johnston
and ended up traveling the world looking for better
routes to get there while they had no interest in venturing far afield.

So if they didn't "venture afield" then who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The same thing does not apply to an Earth that is actually founding
colonies.

So by you logic Hong Kong, India and the US are dominated by England,

Britain was the dominant world power for quite a long time

Post by J. Clarke
the Phillippines are dominated by Spain, Brazil is dominated by
Portugal, and so on.

Post by David Johnston
Now it's possible for such an Earth to just lose interest but
unless you are set unimaginably far in the future all you'll still end
up with all the well-developed populous and powerful worlds being the
ones that were initially close to Earth and hospitable. Still Earth
centered.

Yeah, until one of them turns into Rome/the US/Manticore.

Unfortunately for Hornblower in Space, Britain had geographical advantages that determined its strategy - geographical advantages that don't have an obvious equivalent in space.
1) Even before it gained control of the seas, the English channel sheltered Britain from most risk of invasion from the continent. It could therefore make as much or as little trouble on the continent as it wanted, while still having the option to retreat back across the channel if things got too hot for it. In particular, it had the incentive to put much more of its resource into a Navy and much less into a standing Army.
2) A large Navy, plus good ports and a blocking position translates into the ability to blockade ports in the continent and make commercial as well as military use of those ports less attractive, hence the predominance over Holland, and the rise to command of the seas.
Unless you have an FTL technology which gives travel between the stars a very non-uniform difficulty, no one planet is likely to have this sort of a positional advantage.

And how exactly did that "positional advantage" help them in India,
China, and the New World?

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:19:07 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:00:55 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Doesn't really work that way. China and India are both more
"populous" than the US or Europe, and have older civilizations, but
they have not been dominant.

They were dominant for a very long time.

Who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The Europeans only overtook
them because they were so dominant that the Europeans wanted to come to
them for trade

The US engaged in a lot of trade with Africa during the early 1800s.
Does that make Africa "dominant"? I'm sorry but you are conflating
"having a valuable good to sell" and "representing a large potential
market" with "being dominant".

Post by David Johnston
and ended up traveling the world looking for better
routes to get there while they had no interest in venturing far afield.

So if they didn't "venture afield" then who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The same thing does not apply to an Earth that is actually founding
colonies.

So by you logic Hong Kong, India and the US are dominated by England,

Britain was the dominant world power for quite a long time

Post by J. Clarke
the Phillippines are dominated by Spain, Brazil is dominated by
Portugal, and so on.

Post by David Johnston
Now it's possible for such an Earth to just lose interest but
unless you are set unimaginably far in the future all you'll still end
up with all the well-developed populous and powerful worlds being the
ones that were initially close to Earth and hospitable. Still Earth
centered.

Yeah, until one of them turns into Rome/the US/Manticore.

Unfortunately for Hornblower in Space, Britain had geographical advantages that determined its strategy - geographical advantages that don't have an obvious equivalent in space.
1) Even before it gained control of the seas, the English channel sheltered Britain from most risk of invasion from the continent. It could therefore make as much or as little trouble on the continent as it wanted, while still having the option to retreat back across the channel if things got too hot for it. In particular, it had the incentive to put much more of its resource into a Navy and much less into a standing Army.
2) A large Navy, plus good ports and a blocking position translates into the ability to blockade ports in the continent and make commercial as well as military use of those ports less attractive, hence the predominance over Holland, and the rise to command of the seas.
Unless you have an FTL technology which gives travel between the stars a very non-uniform difficulty, no one planet is likely to have this sort of a positional advantage.

And how exactly did that "positional advantage" help them in India,
China, and the New World?

It gave the natural incentive to build a massive navy and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 23:07:22 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:19:07 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:00:55 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Doesn't really work that way. China and India are both more
"populous" than the US or Europe, and have older civilizations, but
they have not been dominant.

They were dominant for a very long time.

Who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The Europeans only overtook
them because they were so dominant that the Europeans wanted to come to
them for trade

The US engaged in a lot of trade with Africa during the early 1800s.
Does that make Africa "dominant"? I'm sorry but you are conflating
"having a valuable good to sell" and "representing a large potential
market" with "being dominant".

Post by David Johnston
and ended up traveling the world looking for better
routes to get there while they had no interest in venturing far afield.

So if they didn't "venture afield" then who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The same thing does not apply to an Earth that is actually founding
colonies.

So by you logic Hong Kong, India and the US are dominated by England,

Britain was the dominant world power for quite a long time

Post by J. Clarke
the Phillippines are dominated by Spain, Brazil is dominated by
Portugal, and so on.

Post by David Johnston
Now it's possible for such an Earth to just lose interest but
unless you are set unimaginably far in the future all you'll still end
up with all the well-developed populous and powerful worlds being the
ones that were initially close to Earth and hospitable. Still Earth
centered.

Yeah, until one of them turns into Rome/the US/Manticore.

Unfortunately for Hornblower in Space, Britain had geographical advantages that determined its strategy - geographical advantages that don't have an obvious equivalent in space.
1) Even before it gained control of the seas, the English channel sheltered Britain from most risk of invasion from the continent. It could therefore make as much or as little trouble on the continent as it wanted, while still having the option to retreat back across the channel if things got too hot for it. In particular, it had the incentive to put much more of its resource into a Navy and much less into a standing Army.
2) A large Navy, plus good ports and a blocking position translates into the ability to blockade ports in the continent and make commercial as well as military use of those ports less attractive, hence the predominance over Holland, and the rise to command of the seas.
Unless you have an FTL technology which gives travel between the stars a very non-uniform difficulty, no one planet is likely to have this sort of a positional advantage.

And how exactly did that "positional advantage" help them in India,
China, and the New World?

It gave the natural incentive to build a massive navy;

Nice notion. Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 23:07:22 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:19:07 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:00:55 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Doesn't really work that way. China and India are both more
"populous" than the US or Europe, and have older civilizations, but
they have not been dominant.

They were dominant for a very long time.

Who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The Europeans only overtook
them because they were so dominant that the Europeans wanted to come to
them for trade

The US engaged in a lot of trade with Africa during the early 1800s.
Does that make Africa "dominant"? I'm sorry but you are conflating
"having a valuable good to sell" and "representing a large potential
market" with "being dominant".

Post by David Johnston
and ended up traveling the world looking for better
routes to get there while they had no interest in venturing far afield.

So if they didn't "venture afield" then who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The same thing does not apply to an Earth that is actually founding
colonies.

So by you logic Hong Kong, India and the US are dominated by England,

Britain was the dominant world power for quite a long time

Post by J. Clarke
the Phillippines are dominated by Spain, Brazil is dominated by
Portugal, and so on.

Post by David Johnston
Now it's possible for such an Earth to just lose interest but
unless you are set unimaginably far in the future all you'll still end
up with all the well-developed populous and powerful worlds being the
ones that were initially close to Earth and hospitable. Still Earth
centered.

Yeah, until one of them turns into Rome/the US/Manticore.

Unfortunately for Hornblower in Space, Britain had geographical advantages that determined its strategy - geographical advantages that don't have an obvious equivalent in space.
1) Even before it gained control of the seas, the English channel sheltered Britain from most risk of invasion from the continent. It could therefore make as much or as little trouble on the continent as it wanted, while still having the option to retreat back across the channel if things got too hot for it. In particular, it had the incentive to put much more of its resource into a Navy and much less into a standing Army.
2) A large Navy, plus good ports and a blocking position translates into the ability to blockade ports in the continent and make commercial as well as military use of those ports less attractive, hence the predominance over Holland, and the rise to command of the seas.
Unless you have an FTL technology which gives travel between the stars a very non-uniform difficulty, no one planet is likely to have this sort of a positional advantage.

And how exactly did that "positional advantage" help them in India,
China, and the New World?

It gave the natural incentive to build a massive navy;

Nice notion. Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

The English settlement of the New World was done by religious extremists
without Royal Navy support, so not applicable.

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 21:35:12 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 23:07:22 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:19:07 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:00:55 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Doesn't really work that way. China and India are both more
"populous" than the US or Europe, and have older civilizations, but
they have not been dominant.

They were dominant for a very long time.

Who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The Europeans only overtook
them because they were so dominant that the Europeans wanted to come to
them for trade

The US engaged in a lot of trade with Africa during the early 1800s.
Does that make Africa "dominant"? I'm sorry but you are conflating
"having a valuable good to sell" and "representing a large potential
market" with "being dominant".

Post by David Johnston
and ended up traveling the world looking for better
routes to get there while they had no interest in venturing far afield.

So if they didn't "venture afield" then who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The same thing does not apply to an Earth that is actually founding
colonies.

So by you logic Hong Kong, India and the US are dominated by England,

Britain was the dominant world power for quite a long time

Post by J. Clarke
the Phillippines are dominated by Spain, Brazil is dominated by
Portugal, and so on.

Post by David Johnston
Now it's possible for such an Earth to just lose interest but
unless you are set unimaginably far in the future all you'll still end
up with all the well-developed populous and powerful worlds being the
ones that were initially close to Earth and hospitable. Still Earth
centered.

Yeah, until one of them turns into Rome/the US/Manticore.

Unfortunately for Hornblower in Space, Britain had geographical advantages that determined its strategy - geographical advantages that don't have an obvious equivalent in space.
1) Even before it gained control of the seas, the English channel sheltered Britain from most risk of invasion from the continent. It could therefore make as much or as little trouble on the continent as it wanted, while still having the option to retreat back across the channel if things got too hot for it. In particular, it had the incentive to put much more of its resource into a Navy and much less into a standing Army.
2) A large Navy, plus good ports and a blocking position translates into the ability to blockade ports in the continent and make commercial as well as military use of those ports less attractive, hence the predominance over Holland, and the rise to command of the seas.
Unless you have an FTL technology which gives travel between the stars a very non-uniform difficulty, no one planet is likely to have this sort of a positional advantage.

And how exactly did that "positional advantage" help them in India,
China, and the New World?

It gave the natural incentive to build a massive navy;

Nice notion. Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

The English settlement of the New World was done by religious extremists
without Royal Navy support, so not applicable.

So the Royal Navy was not involved in the attempt to keep the
"religious extremists" from kicking out their British masters?

[Default User]

Post by J. Clarke
So the Royal Navy was not involved in the attempt to keep the
"religious extremists" from kicking out their British masters?

Sheesh. How about trimming quotes a bit?


Brian

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by Default User

Post by J. Clarke
So the Royal Navy was not involved in the attempt to keep the
"religious extremists" from kicking out their British masters?

Sheesh. How about trimming quotes a bit?

Yes, please do this.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 2/22/2018 6:06 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
...

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler
The English settlement of the New World was done by religious extremists
without Royal Navy support, so not applicable.

So the Royal Navy was not involved in the attempt to keep the
"religious extremists" from kicking out their British masters?

Which time ? I'm not sure how much involved the Royal Navy was in the
late 1700s. But they sure were involved in the War of 1812.

Lynn

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 21:35:12 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 23:07:22 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:19:07 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:00:55 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Doesn't really work that way. China and India are both more
"populous" than the US or Europe, and have older civilizations, but
they have not been dominant.

They were dominant for a very long time.

Who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The Europeans only overtook
them because they were so dominant that the Europeans wanted to come to
them for trade

The US engaged in a lot of trade with Africa during the early 1800s.
Does that make Africa "dominant"? I'm sorry but you are conflating
"having a valuable good to sell" and "representing a large potential
market" with "being dominant".

Post by David Johnston
and ended up traveling the world looking for better
routes to get there while they had no interest in venturing far afield.

So if they didn't "venture afield" then who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The same thing does not apply to an Earth that is actually founding
colonies.

So by you logic Hong Kong, India and the US are dominated by England,

Britain was the dominant world power for quite a long time

Post by J. Clarke
the Phillippines are dominated by Spain, Brazil is dominated by
Portugal, and so on.

Post by David Johnston
Now it's possible for such an Earth to just lose interest but
unless you are set unimaginably far in the future all you'll still end
up with all the well-developed populous and powerful worlds being the
ones that were initially close to Earth and hospitable. Still Earth
centered.

Yeah, until one of them turns into Rome/the US/Manticore.

Unfortunately for Hornblower in Space, Britain had geographical advantages that determined its strategy - geographical advantages that don't have an obvious equivalent in space.
1) Even before it gained control of the seas, the English channel sheltered Britain from most risk of invasion from the continent. It could therefore make as much or as little trouble on the continent as it wanted, while still having the option to retreat back across the channel if things got too hot for it. In particular, it had the incentive to put much more of its resource into a Navy and much less into a standing Army.
2) A large Navy, plus good ports and a blocking position translates into the ability to blockade ports in the continent and make commercial as well as military use of those ports less attractive, hence the predominance over Holland, and the rise to command of the seas.
Unless you have an FTL technology which gives travel between the stars a very non-uniform difficulty, no one planet is likely to have this sort of a positional advantage.

And how exactly did that "positional advantage" help them in India,
China, and the New World?

It gave the natural incentive to build a massive navy;

Nice notion. Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

The English settlement of the New World was done by religious extremists
without Royal Navy support, so not applicable.

So the Royal Navy was not involved in the attempt to keep the
"religious extremists" from kicking out their British masters?

I don't think the religious extremists were ever a threat to the British
monarchy.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 2/22/2018 8:59 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
...

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler
The English settlement of the New World was done by religious extremists
without Royal Navy support, so not applicable.

So the Royal Navy was not involved in the attempt to keep the
"religious extremists" from kicking out their British masters?

I don't think the religious extremists were ever a threat to the British
monarchy.

Including the one who cut off King Charles's head in 1649 ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

Lynn

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Lynn McGuire
...

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler
The English settlement of the New World was done by religious extremists
without Royal Navy support, so not applicable.

So the Royal Navy was not involved in the attempt to keep the
"religious extremists" from kicking out their British masters?

I don't think the religious extremists were ever a threat to the British
monarchy.

Including the one who cut off King Charles's head in 1649 ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell
Lynn

Wasn't Chuck the religious extremist? "Divine right of kings."

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Lynn McGuire
...

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dimensional Traveler
The English settlement of the New World was done by religious extremists
without Royal Navy support, so not applicable.

So the Royal Navy was not involved in the attempt to keep the
"religious extremists" from kicking out their British masters?

I don't think the religious extremists were ever a threat to the British
monarchy.

Including the one who cut off King Charles's head in 1649 ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell
Lynn

Wasn't Chuck the religious extremist? "Divine right of kings."

There were many. I believe that Mary was the worst as she was burning
protestants.

Lynn

[m***@sky.com]

(trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
Unfortunately for Hornblower in Space, Britain had geographical advantages that determined its strategy - geographical advantages that don't have an obvious equivalent in space.
1) Even before it gained control of the seas, the English channel sheltered Britain from most risk of invasion from the continent. It could therefore make as much or as little trouble on the continent as it wanted, while still having the option to retreat back across the channel if things got too hot for it. In particular, it had the incentive to put much more of its resource into a Navy and much less into a standing Army.
2) A large Navy, plus good ports and a blocking position translates into the ability to blockade ports in the continent and make commercial as well as military use of those ports less attractive, hence the predominance over Holland, and the rise to command of the seas.
Unless you have an FTL technology which gives travel between the stars a very non-uniform difficulty, no one planet is likely to have this sort of a positional advantage.

And how exactly did that "positional advantage" help them in India,
China, and the New World?

It gave the natural incentive to build a massive navy;

Nice notion. Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

Britain attained command of the seas after Trafalgar in 1805. Wikipedia says "The British victory spectacularly confirmed the naval supremacy that Britain had established during the eighteenth century and was achieved in part through Nelson's departure from the prevailing naval tactical orthodoxy" If you want a guide to the growth of the Empire, I recommend "Britain's Imperial Century, 1815-1914: A Study of Empire and Expansion (Cambridge Commonwealth Series)" by Ronald Hyam. This tells a complex and somewhat accidental story without any particular ideological bias, except for a slight attachment to a theory that the force that impelled many Brits to go out into the empire was a search for a less restrained sex life. I think one of the foundations present at the start of the revolutionary wars was that Britain had a large pool of merchant seamen to draw on, having gained an ascendancy over their principle rivals, the Dutch.

[J. Clarke]

Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
Unfortunately for Hornblower in Space, Britain had geographical advantages that determined its strategy - geographical advantages that don't have an obvious equivalent in space.
1) Even before it gained control of the seas, the English channel sheltered Britain from most risk of invasion from the continent. It could therefore make as much or as little trouble on the continent as it wanted, while still having the option to retreat back across the channel if things got too hot for it. In particular, it had the incentive to put much more of its resource into a Navy and much less into a standing Army.
2) A large Navy, plus good ports and a blocking position translates into the ability to blockade ports in the continent and make commercial as well as military use of those ports less attractive, hence the predominance over Holland, and the rise to command of the seas.
Unless you have an FTL technology which gives travel between the stars a very non-uniform difficulty, no one planet is likely to have this sort of a positional advantage.

And how exactly did that "positional advantage" help them in India,
China, and the New World?

It gave the natural incentive to build a massive navy;

Nice notion. Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

Britain attained command of the seas after Trafalgar in 1805. Wikipedia says "The British victory spectacularly confirmed the naval supremacy that Britain had established during the eighteenth century"

So according to your source, that supremacy was achieved before 1800,
contradicting your assertion. The "eighteenth century" was 1700-1799.
And that "command" managed a draw with Germany in

Post by m***@sky.com
"and was achieved in part through Nelson's departure from the prevailing naval tactical orthodoxy" If you want a guide to the growth of the Empire, I recommend "Britain's Imperial Century, 1815-1914: A Study of Empire and Expansion (Cambridge Commonwealth Series)" by Ronald Hyam. This tells a complex and somewhat accidental story without any particular ideological bias, except for a slight attachment to a theory that the force that impelled many Brits to go out into the empire was a search for a less restrained sex life. I think one of the foundations present at the start of the revolutionary wars was that Britain had a large pool of merchant seamen to draw on, having gained an ascendancy over their principle rivals, the Dutch.

The rest of this pretty much supports my viewpoint. The Brits were
large and in charge for about a century and now they're back to their
little island.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by J. Clarke
The rest of this pretty much supports my viewpoint. The Brits were
large and in charge for about a century and now they're back to their
little island.

That's one way of looking at it. Conan Doyle's seems equally valid:

"All is very well with me, Bertrand," said she. "The blessed
hour of sight has come round to me again."

"I could see it come! I could see it come!" he exclaimed,
passing his fingers through his hair with the same perplexed
expression as before.

"This is untoward, Sir Tristram," he said at last. "And I
scarce know in what words to make it clear to you, and to
your fair wife, and to Sir Nigel Loring, and to these other
stranger knights. My tongue is a blunt one, and fitter to
shout word of command than to clear up such a matter as
this, of which I can myself understand little. This, however,
I know, that my wife is come of a very sainted race, whom
God hath in His wisdom endowed with wondrous powers, so
that Tiphaine Raquenel was known throughout Brittany ere
ever I first saw her at Dinan. Yet these powers are ever
used for good, and they are the gift of God and not of the
devil, which is the difference betwixt white magic and
black."

"Perchance it would be as well that we should send for
Father Stephen," said Sir Tristram.

"It would be best that he should come," cried the Hospitaller.

"And bring with him a flask of holy water," added the knight
of Bohemia.

"Not so, gentlemen," answered Sir Bertrand. "It is not
needful that this priest should be called, and it is in my
mind that in asking for this ye cast some slight shadow or
slur upon the good name of my wife, as though it were still
doubtful whether her power came to her from above or below.
If ye have indeed such a doubt I pray that you will say so,
that we may discuss the matter in a fitting way."

"For myself," said Sir Nigel, "I have heard such words fall
from the lips of this lady that I am of the opinion that
there is no woman, save only one, who can be in any way
compared to her in beauty and in goodness. Should any
gentleman think otherwise, I should deem it great honor to
run a small course with him, or debate the matter in whatever
way might be most pleasing to him."

"Nay, it would ill become me to cast a slur upon a lady who
is both my guest and the wife of my comrade-in-arms," said
the Seneschal of Villefranche. "I have perceived also that
on her mantle there is marked a silver cross, which is
surely sign enough that there is nought of evil in these
strange powers which you say that she possesses."

This argument of the seneschal's appealed so powerfully to
the Bohemian and to the Hospitaller that they at once
intimated that their objections had been entirely overcome,
while even the Lady Rochefort, who had sat shivering and
crossing herself, ceased to cast glances at the door, and
allowed her fears to turn to curiosity.

"Among the gifts which have been vouchsafed to my wife,"
said Du Guesclin, "there is the wondrous one of seeing into
the future; but it comes very seldom upon her, and goes as
quickly, for none can command it. The blessed hour of sight,
as she hath named it, has come but twice since I have known
her, and I can vouch for it that all that she hath told me
was true, for on the evening of the Battle of Auray she
said that the morrow would be an ill day for me and for
Charles of Blois. Ere the sun had sunk again he was dead,
and I the prisoner of Sir John Chandos. Yet it is not every
question that she can answer, but only those--"

"Bertrand, Bertrand!" cried the lady in the same muttering
far-away voice, "the blessed hour passes. Use it, Bertrand,
while you may."

"I will, my sweet. Tell me, then, what fortune comes upon
me?"

"Danger, Bertrand-deadly, pressing danger-which creeps upon
you and you know it not."

The French soldier burst into a thunderous laugh, and his
green eyes twinkled with amusement. "At what time during
these twenty years would not that have been a true word?"
he cried. "Danger is in the air that I breathe. But is this
so very close, Tiphaine?"

"Here-now-close upon you!" The words came out in broken,
strenuous speech, while the lady's fair face was writhed
and drawn like that of one who looks upon a horror which
strikes the words from her lips. Du Guesclin gazed round
the tapestried room, at the screens, the tables, the abace,
the credence, the buffet with its silver salver, and the
half-circle of friendly, wondering faces. There was an utter
stillness, save for the sharp breathing of the Lady Tiphaine
and for the gentle soughing of the wind outside, which
wafted to their ears the distant call upon a swine-herd's
horn.

"The danger may bide," said he, shrugging his broad shoulders.
"And now, Tiphaine, tell us what will come of this war in
Spain."

"I can see little," she answered, straining her eyes and
puckering her brow, as one who would fain clear her sight.
"There are mountains, and dry plains, and flash of arms and
shouting of battle-cries. Yet it is whispered to me that
by failure you will succeed."

"Ha! Sir Nigel, how like you that?" quoth Bertrand, shaking
his head. "It is like mead and vinegar, half sweet, half
sour. And is there no question which you would ask my lady?"

"Certes there is. I would fain know, fair lady, how all
things are at Twynham Castle, and above all how my sweet
lady employs herself."

"To answer this I would fain lay hand upon one whose thoughts
turn strongly to this castle which you have named. Nay, my
Lord Loring, it is whispered to me that there is another
here who hath thought more deeply of it than you."

"Thought more of mine own home?" cried Sir Nigel. "Lady, I
fear that in this matter at least you are mistaken."

"Not so, Sir Nigel. Come hither, young man, young English
squire with the gray eyes! Now give me your hand, and place
it here across my brow, that I may see that which you have
seen. What is this that rises before me? Mist, mist, rolling
mist with a square black tower above it. See it shreds out,
it thins, it rises, and there lies a castle in green plain,
with the sea beneath it, and a great church within a bow-shot.
There are two rivers which run through the meadows, and
between them lie the tents of the besiegers."

"The besiegers!" cried Alleyne, Ford, and Sir Nigel, all
three in a breath.

"Yes, truly, and they press hard upon the castle, for they
are an exceeding multitude and full of courage. See how
they storm and rage against the gate, while some rear
ladders, and others, line after line, sweep the walls with
their arrows. There are many leaders who shout and beckon,
and one, a tall man with a golden beard, who stands before
the gate stamping his foot and hallooing them on, as a
pricker doth the hounds. But those in the castle fight
bravely. There is a woman, two women, who stand upon the
walls, and give heart to the men-at-arms. They shower down
arrows, darts and great stones. Ah! they have struck down
the tall leader, and the others give back. The mist thickens
and I can see no more."

"By Saint Paul!" said Sir Nigel, "I do not think that there
can be any such doings at Christchurch, and I am very easy
of the fortalice so long as my sweet wife hangs the key of
the outer bailey at the head of her bed. Yet I will not
deny that you have pictured the castle as well as I could
have done myself, and I am full of wonderment at all that
I have heard and seen."

"I would, Lady Tiphaine," cried the Lady Rochefort, "that
you would use your power to tell me what hath befallen my
golden bracelet which I wore when hawking upon the second
Sunday of Advent, and have never set eyes upon since."

"Nay, lady," said du Guesclin, "it does not befit so great
and wondrous a power to pry and search and play the varlet
even to the beautiful chatelaine of Villefranche. Ask a
worthy question, and, with the blessing of God, you shall
have a worthy answer."

"Then I would fain ask," cried one of the French squires,
"as to which may hope to conquer in these wars betwixt the
English and ourselves."

"Both will conquer and each will hold its own," answered
the Lady Tiphaine.

"Then we shall still hold Gascony and Guienne?" cried Sir
Nigel.

The lady shook her head. "French land, French blood, French
speech," she answered. "They are French, and France shall
have them."

"But not Bordeaux?" cried Sir Nigel excitedly.

"Bordeaux also is for France."

"But Calais?"

"Calais too."

"Woe worth me then, and ill hail to these evil words! If
Bordeaux and Calais be gone, then what is left for England?"

"It seems indeed that there are evil times coming upon your
country," said Du Guesclin. "In our fondest hopes we never
thought to hold Bordeaux. By Saint Ives! this news hath
warmed the heart within me. Our dear country will then be
very great in the future, Tiphaine?"

"Great, and rich, and beautiful," she cried. "Far down the
course of time I can see her still leading the nations, a
wayward queen among the peoples, great in war, but greater
in peace, quick in thought, deft in action, with her people's
will for her sole monarch, from the sands of Calais to the
blue seas of the south."

"Ha!" cried Du Guesclin, with his eyes flashing in triumph,
"you hear her, Sir Nigel?-and she never yet said word which
was not sooth."

The English knight shook his head moodily. "What of my own
poor country?" said he. "I fear, lady, that what you have
said bodes but small good for her."

The lady sat with parted lips, and her breath came quick
and fast. "My God!" she cried, "what is this that is shown
me? Whence come they, these peoples, these lordly nations,
these mighty countries which rise up before me? I look
beyond, and others rise, and yet others, far and farther
to the shores of the uttermost waters. They crowd! They
swarm! The world is given to them, and it resounds with the
clang of their hammers and the ringing of their church
bells. They call them many names, and they rule them this
way or that but they are all English, for I can hear the
voices of the people. On I go, and onwards over seas where
man hath never yet sailed, and I see a great land under new
stars and a stranger sky, and still the land is England.
Where have her children not gone? What have they not done?
Her banner is planted on ice. Her banner is scorched in the
sun. She lies athwart the lands, and her shadow is over the
seas. Bertrand, Bertrand! we are undone for the buds of her
bud are even as our choicest flower!" Her voice rose into
a wild cry, and throwing up her arms she sank back white
and nerveless into the deep oaken chair.

"It is over," said Du Guesclin moodily, as he raised her
drooping head with his strong brown hand. "Wine for the
lady, squire! The blessed hour of sight hath passed."

[D B Davis]

J. Clarke <***@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by J. Clarke
The Brits were
large and in charge for about a century and now they're back to their
little island.

LOL. Back to their own little City on their little island, firmly in the
saddle, so to speak...

The City of London

London's economic importance cannot be underestimated. In terms
of industries, it is the financial sector which is the most
important. Although creative, media, technology and
manufacturing industries all operate from London, it is the
financial services sector which dominates them all. Most of
the banking, underwriting and trading markets that operate in
the capital are base in the City of London.

http://www.uncsbrp.org/

London's Finance Industry

London has been the financial hub of the United Kingdom and a
major trade and business centre since the Middle Ages. Today
the city competes with New York City for the status of the
world's major financial centre.

Other emerging financial centres of the world such as Hong
Kong and Shanghai gain ground, but cannot hope to displace
London as the world's premier financial city in the near
future. ...

http://www.uncsbrp.org/finance.htm

Don't let the City-Manhattan "competition" fool you. It's a clubby
little relationship best described as a partnership in everything but
name. The City's the senior partner and Manhattan's the junior partner.
Take the FX market, for instance. The FX market is the largest
market in the world. The City controls about 36% of the FX market while
Manhattan controls 18% of it.

Thank you,

--
Don

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by D B Davis
The City of London
London's economic importance cannot be underestimated.
http://www.uncsbrp.org/

It's not easy. But I bet Donald Trump can do it.

[J. Clarke]

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by J. Clarke
The Brits were
large and in charge for about a century and now they're back to their
little island.

LOL. Back to their own little City on their little island, firmly in the
saddle, so to speak...
The City of London
London's economic importance cannot be underestimated. In terms
of industries, it is the financial sector which is the most
important. Although creative, media, technology and
manufacturing industries all operate from London, it is the
financial services sector which dominates them all. Most of
the banking, underwriting and trading markets that operate in
the capital are base in the City of London.
http://www.uncsbrp.org/
London's Finance Industry
London has been the financial hub of the United Kingdom and a
major trade and business centre since the Middle Ages. Today
the city competes with New York City for the status of the
world's major financial centre.
Other emerging financial centres of the world such as Hong
Kong and Shanghai gain ground, but cannot hope to displace
London as the world's premier financial city in the near
future. ...
http://www.uncsbrp.org/finance.htm
Don't let the City-Manhattan "competition" fool you. It's a clubby
little relationship best described as a partnership in everything but
name. The City's the senior partner and Manhattan's the junior partner.
Take the FX market, for instance. The FX market is the largest
market in the world. The City controls about 36% of the FX market while
Manhattan controls 18% of it.

We were talking about _dominance_. "Financial centers" don't provide
much dominance of anything but pieces of paper.

[David Johnston]

Post by J. Clarke
We were talking about _dominance_. "Financial centers" don't provide
much dominance of anything but pieces of paper.

Dominating those pieces of paper is a rather important thing.
Of course the reason why the reason why the United States overtook
Britain in terms of military and cultural ascendency is because it had
more land area and grew to have a lot more people. When it's Earth
versus colonies in space the colonies probably won't have significantly
more land and Earth has a big head start in population. Eventually some
colonies would overtake it, but it would take a long time.

[Bernard Peek]

Post by David Johnston

We were talking about _dominance_.  "Financial centers" don't provide
much dominance of anything but pieces of paper.

Dominating those pieces of paper is a rather important thing.

Particularly those pretty green ones.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

We were talking about _dominance_.  "Financial centers" don't provide
much dominance of anything but pieces of paper.

Dominating those pieces of paper is a rather important thing.

Particularly those pretty green ones.

The pieces of paper are a counter. In our current time when people
become wealthy by manipulating the values of pieces of paper we forget
that. But they are a counter, they have no inherent worth.

[David Johnston]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

We were talking about _dominance_.  "Financial centers" don't provide
much dominance of anything but pieces of paper.

Dominating those pieces of paper is a rather important thing.

Particularly those pretty green ones.

The pieces of paper are a counter. In our current time when people
become wealthy by manipulating the values of pieces of paper we forget
that.

No. We don't. We also know that borders aren't physical obstacles and
races are defined by culture. And we know these things matter anyway.

[J. Clarke]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:35:51 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
We were talking about _dominance_. "Financial centers" don't provide
much dominance of anything but pieces of paper.

Dominating those pieces of paper is a rather important thing.
Of course the reason why the reason why the United States overtook
Britain in terms of military and cultural ascendency is because it had
more land area and grew to have a lot more people.

China had more land area and more people. So did India. There's more
to dominance than land area and population.

Post by David Johnston
When it's Earth
versus colonies in space the colonies probably won't have significantly
more land and Earth has a big head start in population. Eventually some
colonies would overtake it, but it would take a long time.

[David Johnston]

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:35:51 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
We were talking about _dominance_. "Financial centers" don't provide
much dominance of anything but pieces of paper.

Dominating those pieces of paper is a rather important thing.
Of course the reason why the reason why the United States overtook
Britain in terms of military and cultural ascendency is because it had
more land area and grew to have a lot more people.

China had more land area and more people. So did India.

China was the richest and most powerful nation in the world but simply
lacked the technology and inclination to expand much farther than it
already had. But an Earth that colonizes the stars by definition has
both the technology and the inclination. Unless it runs into equally or
more powerful aliens it will take a long time to stop being the center
of human civilization...barring a catastrophe that takes it out of the
game.


There's more

Post by J. Clarke
to dominance than land area and population.

There is, yes. But not a lot more.

[D B Davis]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by J. Clarke
The Brits were
large and in charge for about a century and now they're back to their
little island.

LOL. Back to their own little City on their little island, firmly in the
saddle, so to speak...
The City of London
London's economic importance cannot be underestimated. In terms
of industries, it is the financial sector which is the most
important. Although creative, media, technology and
manufacturing industries all operate from London, it is the
financial services sector which dominates them all. Most of
the banking, underwriting and trading markets that operate in
the capital are base in the City of London.
http://www.uncsbrp.org/
London's Finance Industry
London has been the financial hub of the United Kingdom and a
major trade and business centre since the Middle Ages. Today
the city competes with New York City for the status of the
world's major financial centre.
Other emerging financial centres of the world such as Hong
Kong and Shanghai gain ground, but cannot hope to displace
London as the world's premier financial city in the near
future. ...
http://www.uncsbrp.org/finance.htm
Don't let the City-Manhattan "competition" fool you. It's a clubby
little relationship best described as a partnership in everything but
name. The City's the senior partner and Manhattan's the junior partner.
Take the FX market, for instance. The FX market is the largest
market in the world. The City controls about 36% of the FX market while
Manhattan controls 18% of it.

We were talking about _dominance_. "Financial centers" don't provide
much dominance of anything but pieces of paper.

Those pieces (bits) of paper empower America to pay for ten billion
dollar aircraft carriers. Those bits enable America afford a thousand
foreign military bases. Those bits allow America to surreptitiously
balance its books with a twenty-one trillion dollar "plug" to cover
unauthorized expenditures. [1]
And where does all of that loot come from? Government squeezes
people harder than the Squeezer in "The Logic of Empire" (RAH). You
pay a little more for a little less each day.

"The sinews of war are infinite money." - Marcus Tullius Cicero

Here's some excerpts from "Logic" to help you better appreciate
financial dominance.

... without it he could not /get to sleep/. Three nights of
self-recrimination and fretting, three days of fatigue-drugged
uselessness under the unfriendly eye of the Pusher, and he had
signed for his bottle with the rest, even though dully aware
that the price of the bottle had washed out more than half a
day's microscopic progress towards freedom. ...

... It cost more to make a crop than the crop fetched in
Adonis - at least it did after the interest was paid. ...

Note.

1. http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/msu-scholars-find-21-trillion-in-unauthorized-government-spending-defense-department-to-conduct/

Thank you,

--
Don

[J. Clarke]

Post by D B Davis

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by J. Clarke
The Brits were
large and in charge for about a century and now they're back to their
little island.

LOL. Back to their own little City on their little island, firmly in the
saddle, so to speak...
The City of London
London's economic importance cannot be underestimated. In terms
of industries, it is the financial sector which is the most
important. Although creative, media, technology and
manufacturing industries all operate from London, it is the
financial services sector which dominates them all. Most of
the banking, underwriting and trading markets that operate in
the capital are base in the City of London.
http://www.uncsbrp.org/
London's Finance Industry
London has been the financial hub of the United Kingdom and a
major trade and business centre since the Middle Ages. Today
the city competes with New York City for the status of the
world's major financial centre.
Other emerging financial centres of the world such as Hong
Kong and Shanghai gain ground, but cannot hope to displace
London as the world's premier financial city in the near
future. ...
http://www.uncsbrp.org/finance.htm
Don't let the City-Manhattan "competition" fool you. It's a clubby
little relationship best described as a partnership in everything but
name. The City's the senior partner and Manhattan's the junior partner.
Take the FX market, for instance. The FX market is the largest
market in the world. The City controls about 36% of the FX market while
Manhattan controls 18% of it.

We were talking about _dominance_. "Financial centers" don't provide
much dominance of anything but pieces of paper.

Those pieces (bits) of paper empower America to pay for ten billion
dollar aircraft carriers.

The goverment funds aircraft carriers by selling financial instruments
in "financial centers"? Do tell.

Post by D B Davis
Those bits enable America afford a thousand
foreign military bases.

The goverment funds aircraft carriers by selling financial instruments
in "financial centers"? Do tell.

Post by D B Davis
Those bits allow America to surreptitiously
balance its books with a twenty-one trillion dollar "plug" to cover
unauthorized expenditures. [1]

Still nothing to do with "financial centers".

Post by D B Davis
And where does all of that loot come from? Government squeezes
people harder than the Squeezer in "The Logic of Empire" (RAH). You
pay a little more for a little less each day.

Yeah, I feel squeezed real bad.

Post by D B Davis
"The sinews of war are infinite money." - Marcus Tullius Cicero
Here's some excerpts from "Logic" to help you better appreciate
financial dominance.
... without it he could not /get to sleep/. Three nights of
self-recrimination and fretting, three days of fatigue-drugged
uselessness under the unfriendly eye of the Pusher, and he had
signed for his bottle with the rest, even though dully aware
that the price of the bottle had washed out more than half a
day's microscopic progress towards freedom. ...
... It cost more to make a crop than the crop fetched in
Adonis - at least it did after the interest was paid. ...
Note.
1. http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/msu-scholars-find-21-trillion-in-unauthorized-government-spending-defense-department-to-conduct/
Thank you,

A bottle of Glenlivet costs me about an hour's pay. Maybe Heinlein
struggles to pay for liquor but people with real jobs don't.

[D B Davis]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis
Those pieces (bits) of paper empower America to pay for ten billion
dollar aircraft carriers.

The goverment funds aircraft carriers by selling financial instruments
in "financial centers"? Do tell.

How does the government debt issued to purchase aircraft carriers end up
in pension funds?

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis
Those bits allow America to surreptitiously
balance its books with a twenty-one trillion dollar "plug" to cover
unauthorized expenditures. [1]

Still nothing to do with "financial centers".

How does government issue twenty-one trillion dollars of debt?

Post by J. Clarke
A bottle of Glenlivet costs me about an hour's pay. Maybe Heinlein
struggles to pay for liquor but people with real jobs don't.

Why can't people with real jobs purchase 2" X 4" lumber that actually
measures 2" X 4"?

Note.

1. http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/msu-scholars-find-21-trillion-in-unauthorized-government-spending-defense-department-to-conduct/

Thank you,

--
Don

[J. Clarke]

Post by D B Davis

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis
Those pieces (bits) of paper empower America to pay for ten billion
dollar aircraft carriers.

The goverment funds aircraft carriers by selling financial instruments
in "financial centers"? Do tell.

How does the government debt issued to purchase aircraft carriers end up
in pension funds?

If the pension funds did not buy it directly from the government then
they bought it from someone else who bought it directly from the
government.

Post by D B Davis

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis
Those bits allow America to surreptitiously
balance its books with a twenty-one trillion dollar "plug" to cover
unauthorized expenditures. [1]

Still nothing to do with "financial centers".

How does government issue twenty-one trillion dollars of debt?

It prints pieces of paper that say "I O U 21 trillion dollars" and
sells them to someone for something under 21 trillion dollars.

More seriously, government debt is sold directly--the Treasury holds
auctions periodically. No "financial centers" involved unless you
want to count the treasury building as a "financial center". If you
don't know how this stuff actually works you shouldn't be
pontificating about it.

Post by D B Davis

Post by J. Clarke
A bottle of Glenlivet costs me about an hour's pay. Maybe Heinlein
struggles to pay for liquor but people with real jobs don't.

Why can't people with real jobs purchase 2" X 4" lumber that actually
measures 2" X 4"?

Because it's easier to say tubafor than it is to say
"oneanahalfbythreeananhalf". Try repairing your house using lumber
that is actually 2 x 4 inches and see how well it fits.

However if you think that lumber standards have anything to do with
finance you really are clueless.

[Greg Goss]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis
Why can't people with real jobs purchase 2" X 4" lumber that actually
measures 2" X 4"?

Because it's easier to say tubafor than it is to say
"oneanahalfbythreeananhalf". Try repairing your house using lumber
that is actually 2 x 4 inches and see how well it fits.
However if you think that lumber standards have anything to do with
finance you really are clueless.

The 1913 house I grew up in was built in several stages.
1) 3 BR up, living dining kitchen down; plus outhouse.
2) Add new kitchen and bathroom on back. Old kitchen is ground floor
MBR
3) Add mudroom and bath to side of #2 and re-roof. Old bath is
laundry and workshop.
4) Add two bedrooms to side of core house.

When my father was doing #4, he commented on the nuisance of mating up
his 1.5x2.5 new walls with the true, planed, 2x4s of the core house.

[D B Davis]

<snip>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis
Those bits allow America to surreptitiously
balance its books with a twenty-one trillion dollar "plug" to cover
unauthorized expenditures. [1]

Still nothing to do with "financial centers".

How does government issue twenty-one trillion dollars of debt?

It prints pieces of paper that say "I O U 21 trillion dollars" and
sells them to someone for something under 21 trillion dollars.
More seriously, government debt is sold directly--the Treasury holds
auctions periodically. No "financial centers" involved unless you
want to count the treasury building as a "financial center". If you
don't know how this stuff actually works you shouldn't be
pontificating about it.

Where do primary dealers sell government debt?

Note.

1. http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/msu-scholars-find-21-trillion-in-unauthorized-government-spending-defense-department-to-conduct/

Thank you,

--
Don

[J. Clarke]

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis
Those bits allow America to surreptitiously
balance its books with a twenty-one trillion dollar "plug" to cover
unauthorized expenditures. [1]

Still nothing to do with "financial centers".

How does government issue twenty-one trillion dollars of debt?

It prints pieces of paper that say "I O U 21 trillion dollars" and
sells them to someone for something under 21 trillion dollars.
More seriously, government debt is sold directly--the Treasury holds
auctions periodically. No "financial centers" involved unless you
want to count the treasury building as a "financial center". If you
don't know how this stuff actually works you shouldn't be
pontificating about it.

Where do primary dealers sell government debt?

Who cares? They bought it from the government, if they don't want to
keep it that's their problem.

[D B Davis]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis
Those bits allow America to surreptitiously
balance its books with a twenty-one trillion dollar "plug" to cover
unauthorized expenditures. [1]

Still nothing to do with "financial centers".

How does government issue twenty-one trillion dollars of debt?

It prints pieces of paper that say "I O U 21 trillion dollars" and
sells them to someone for something under 21 trillion dollars.
More seriously, government debt is sold directly--the Treasury holds
auctions periodically. No "financial centers" involved unless you
want to count the treasury building as a "financial center". If you
don't know how this stuff actually works you shouldn't be
pontificating about it.

Where do primary dealers sell government debt?

Who cares? They bought it from the government, if they don't want to
keep it that's their problem.

The world's largest markets in the City provide the lion's share of
liquidity when non-sovereigns sell their government debt holdings.
Liquidity matters because no one will buy government debt at auction
unless they know that they can liquidate later it if need be.

Note.

1. http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/msu-scholars-find-21-trillion-in-unauthorized-government-spending-defense-department-to-conduct/

Thank you,

--
Don

[David Johnston]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis

Post by J. Clarke
We were talking about _dominance_. "Financial centers" don't provide
much dominance of anything but pieces of paper.

Those pieces (bits) of paper empower America to pay for ten billion
dollar aircraft carriers.

The goverment funds aircraft carriers by selling financial instruments
in "financial centers"? Do tell.

Post by D B Davis
Those bits enable America afford a thousand
foreign military bases.

The goverment funds aircraft carriers by selling financial instruments
in "financial centers"? Do tell.

Yes it does. That's what the ever-exploding national debt is.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by D B Davis

Post by J. Clarke
We were talking about _dominance_. "Financial centers" don't provide
much dominance of anything but pieces of paper.

Those pieces (bits) of paper empower America to pay for ten billion
dollar aircraft carriers.

The goverment funds aircraft carriers by selling financial instruments
in "financial centers"? Do tell.

T-Bills, Bonds, TIPS, need one continue?

[David Johnston]

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 23:07:22 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:19:07 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:00:55 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Doesn't really work that way. China and India are both more
"populous" than the US or Europe, and have older civilizations, but
they have not been dominant.

They were dominant for a very long time.

Who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The Europeans only overtook
them because they were so dominant that the Europeans wanted to come to
them for trade

The US engaged in a lot of trade with Africa during the early 1800s.
Does that make Africa "dominant"? I'm sorry but you are conflating
"having a valuable good to sell" and "representing a large potential
market" with "being dominant".

Post by David Johnston
and ended up traveling the world looking for better
routes to get there while they had no interest in venturing far afield.

So if they didn't "venture afield" then who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The same thing does not apply to an Earth that is actually founding
colonies.

So by you logic Hong Kong, India and the US are dominated by England,

Britain was the dominant world power for quite a long time

Post by J. Clarke
the Phillippines are dominated by Spain, Brazil is dominated by
Portugal, and so on.

Post by David Johnston
Now it's possible for such an Earth to just lose interest but
unless you are set unimaginably far in the future all you'll still end
up with all the well-developed populous and powerful worlds being the
ones that were initially close to Earth and hospitable. Still Earth
centered.

Yeah, until one of them turns into Rome/the US/Manticore.

Unfortunately for Hornblower in Space, Britain had geographical advantages that determined its strategy - geographical advantages that don't have an obvious equivalent in space.
1) Even before it gained control of the seas, the English channel sheltered Britain from most risk of invasion from the continent. It could therefore make as much or as little trouble on the continent as it wanted, while still having the option to retreat back across the channel if things got too hot for it. In particular, it had the incentive to put much more of its resource into a Navy and much less into a standing Army.
2) A large Navy, plus good ports and a blocking position translates into the ability to blockade ports in the continent and make commercial as well as military use of those ports less attractive, hence the predominance over Holland, and the rise to command of the seas.
Unless you have an FTL technology which gives travel between the stars a very non-uniform difficulty, no one planet is likely to have this sort of a positional advantage.

And how exactly did that "positional advantage" help them in India,
China, and the New World?

It gave the natural incentive to build a massive navy;

Nice notion. Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

Post by J. Clarke

and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

[Default User]

Post by David Johnston
They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

To be fair, I'll complain about lack of snippage from you as well.


Brian

[D B Davis]

<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

Historic fleet size seems a difficult nut to crack. Perhaps the military
secrecy back in the day makes it so. This data comes from a 2004 book.
Caveat emptor: read the footnotes at the link.

Ships of the line

Year GBR FRA NLD ESP DNK RUS
1790 145 73 48 72 32 58
1795 123 56 28 76 30 61
1800 127 44 16 66 28 67
1805 136 41 15 40 20 47
1810 152 46 13 28 2 43
1815 126 52 19 16 2 48

Cruisers

Year GBR FRA NLD ESP DNK RUS
1790 131 64 36 46 16 52
1795 160 65 30 51 13 40
1800 158 43 6 41 9 34
1805 160 35 10 26 11 16
1810 183 31 7 17 0 14
1815 151 31 14 15 3 21

Source: The Command of the Ocean, N.A.M Rodger (Allen Lane, 2004)
derived from data by Prof. J.Glete

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/6235/comparison-of-naval-fleet-strengths-during-the-napoleonic-wars

Thank you,

--
Don

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

Historic fleet size seems a difficult nut to crack. Perhaps the military
secrecy back in the day makes it so. This data comes from a 2004 book.
Caveat emptor: read the footnotes at the link.
Ships of the line
Year GBR FRA NLD ESP DNK RUS
1790 145 73 48 72 32 58
1795 123 56 28 76 30 61
1800 127 44 16 66 28 67
1805 136 41 15 40 20 47
1810 152 46 13 28 2 43
1815 126 52 19 16 2 48
Cruisers
Year GBR FRA NLD ESP DNK RUS
1790 131 64 36 46 16 52
1795 160 65 30 51 13 40
1800 158 43 6 41 9 34
1805 160 35 10 26 11 16
1810 183 31 7 17 0 14
1815 151 31 14 15 3 21
Source: The Command of the Ocean, N.A.M Rodger (Allen Lane, 2004)
derived from data by Prof. J.Glete
https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/6235/comparison-of-naval-fleet-strengths-during-the-napoleonic-wars

The comparison I find most interesting on that page is ships lost.
The number for French ships captured is terrifying.

[J. Clarke]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:17:48 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 23:07:22 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:19:07 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:00:55 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking point.
The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Doesn't really work that way. China and India are both more
"populous" than the US or Europe, and have older civilizations, but
they have not been dominant.

They were dominant for a very long time.

Who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The Europeans only overtook
them because they were so dominant that the Europeans wanted to come to
them for trade

The US engaged in a lot of trade with Africa during the early 1800s.
Does that make Africa "dominant"? I'm sorry but you are conflating
"having a valuable good to sell" and "representing a large potential
market" with "being dominant".

Post by David Johnston
and ended up traveling the world looking for better
routes to get there while they had no interest in venturing far afield.

So if they didn't "venture afield" then who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The same thing does not apply to an Earth that is actually founding
colonies.

So by you logic Hong Kong, India and the US are dominated by England,

Britain was the dominant world power for quite a long time

Post by J. Clarke
the Phillippines are dominated by Spain, Brazil is dominated by
Portugal, and so on.

Post by David Johnston
Now it's possible for such an Earth to just lose interest but
unless you are set unimaginably far in the future all you'll still end
up with all the well-developed populous and powerful worlds being the
ones that were initially close to Earth and hospitable. Still Earth
centered.

Yeah, until one of them turns into Rome/the US/Manticore.

Unfortunately for Hornblower in Space, Britain had geographical advantages that determined its strategy - geographical advantages that don't have an obvious equivalent in space.
1) Even before it gained control of the seas, the English channel sheltered Britain from most risk of invasion from the continent. It could therefore make as much or as little trouble on the continent as it wanted, while still having the option to retreat back across the channel if things got too hot for it. In particular, it had the incentive to put much more of its resource into a Navy and much less into a standing Army.
2) A large Navy, plus good ports and a blocking position translates into the ability to blockade ports in the continent and make commercial as well as military use of those ports less attractive, hence the predominance over Holland, and the rise to command of the seas.
Unless you have an FTL technology which gives travel between the stars a very non-uniform difficulty, no one planet is likely to have this sort of a positional advantage.

And how exactly did that "positional advantage" help them in India,
China, and the New World?

It gave the natural incentive to build a massive navy;

Nice notion. Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

You're acting like their navy had the same superiority over France
that the US Navy today has over, well, everybody. It didn't. It was
a little bigger with no signfiicant technological advantages.

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

You mean Canada and its large expanses of snow?

[David Johnston]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
And how exactly did that "positional advantage" help them in India,
China, and the New World?

It gave the natural incentive to build a massive navy;

Nice notion. Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

You're acting like their navy had the same superiority over France
that the US Navy today has over, well, everybody. It didn't. It was
a little bigger with no signfiicant technological advantages.

A future Earth with interstellar colonies if considered analogous to
colonial Britain /has no equivalent to France/. Britain had no head
start versus France because France was not a British colony. Of course
the more accurate analogy would probably be to all of Western Europe
combined.

[J. Clarke]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:41:11 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
And how exactly did that "positional advantage" help them in India,
China, and the New World?

It gave the natural incentive to build a massive navy;

Nice notion. Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

You're acting like their navy had the same superiority over France
that the US Navy today has over, well, everybody. It didn't. It was
a little bigger with no signfiicant technological advantages.

A future Earth with interstellar colonies if considered analogous to
colonial Britain /has no equivalent to France/. Britain had no head
start versus France because France was not a British colony. Of course
the more accurate analogy would probably be to all of Western Europe
combined.

Which is beside the point. British dominance was not the result of an
all-powerful navy. It was good, no doubt about that, but it didn't
have the opposition hopelessly ouclassed like the modern US navy does.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:17:48 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 23:07:22 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:19:07 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:00:55 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any

more books

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the

loose ends.

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space

opera with psi.

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for

FTL space

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate

change theory

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into

the state

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if

they could

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big

sticking point.

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire

The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert into
the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a

plot device

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Doesn't really work that way. China and India are both more
"populous" than the US or Europe, and have older civilizations, but
they have not been dominant.

They were dominant for a very long time.

Who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The Europeans only overtook
them because they were so dominant that the Europeans wanted to come to
them for trade

The US engaged in a lot of trade with Africa during the early 1800s.
Does that make Africa "dominant"? I'm sorry but you are conflating
"having a valuable good to sell" and "representing a large potential
market" with "being dominant".

Post by David Johnston
and ended up traveling the world looking for better
routes to get there while they had no interest in venturing far afield.

So if they didn't "venture afield" then who did they dominate?

Post by David Johnston
The same thing does not apply to an Earth that is actually founding
colonies.

So by you logic Hong Kong, India and the US are dominated by England,

Britain was the dominant world power for quite a long time

Post by J. Clarke
the Phillippines are dominated by Spain, Brazil is dominated by
Portugal, and so on.

Post by David Johnston
Now it's possible for such an Earth to just lose interest but
unless you are set unimaginably far in the future all you'll still end
up with all the well-developed populous and powerful worlds being the
ones that were initially close to Earth and hospitable. Still Earth
centered.

Yeah, until one of them turns into Rome/the US/Manticore.

Unfortunately for Hornblower in Space, Britain had geographical

advantages that determined its strategy - geographical advantages that
don't have an obvious equivalent in space.

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
1) Even before it gained control of the seas, the English channel

sheltered Britain from most risk of invasion from the continent. It
could therefore make as much or as little trouble on the continent as it
wanted, while still having the option to retreat back across the channel
if things got too hot for it. In particular, it had the incentive to put
much more of its resource into a Navy and much less into a standing
Army.

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
2) A large Navy, plus good ports and a blocking position

translates into the ability to blockade ports in the continent and make
commercial as well as military use of those ports less attractive, hence
the predominance over Holland, and the rise to command of the seas.

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by m***@sky.com
Unless you have an FTL technology which gives travel between the

stars a very non-uniform difficulty, no one planet is likely to have
this sort of a positional advantage.

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
And how exactly did that "positional advantage" help them in India,
China, and the New World?

It gave the natural incentive to build a massive navy;

Nice notion. Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

You're acting like their navy had the same superiority over France
that the US Navy today has over, well, everybody. It didn't. It was
a little bigger with no signfiicant technological advantages.

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

You mean Canada and its large expanses of snow?

Vast.. tracts of land.

[Bernard Peek]

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Quite well for a while.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

[J. Clarke]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

So how much do they control _now_?

The argument presented is that Earth will always be dominant. I do
not find the history of England to be compelling support for that
argument.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

So how much do they control _now_?
The argument presented is that Earth will always be dominant. I do
not find the history of England to be compelling support for that
argument.

They don't control that much right now. However they spread their language,
law and parlimentary democracy to a good bit of the world, managed Imperial
decline more peacefully than not, enjoy close ties with a most of
the former Empire (including us..) and are a still rich First World country.

Dominant? No. Superpower? No. Great Power? Maybe. Consequential? Sure.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

So how much do they control _now_?
The argument presented is that Earth will always be dominant. I do
not find the history of England to be compelling support for that
argument.

They don't control that much right now. However they spread their language,
law and parlimentary democracy to a good bit of the world, managed Imperial
decline more peacefully than not, enjoy close ties with a most of
the former Empire (including us..) and are a still rich First World country.
Dominant? No. Superpower? No. Great Power? Maybe. Consequential? Sure.

On a per capita basis they are on par with France. That's kind of
middle of the road for an industrialized nation.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

So how much do they control _now_?
The argument presented is that Earth will always be dominant. I do
not find the history of England to be compelling support for that
argument.

They don't control that much right now. However they spread their language,
law and parlimentary democracy to a good bit of the world, managed Imperial
decline more peacefully than not, enjoy close ties with a most of
the former Empire (including us..) and are a still rich First World country.
Dominant? No. Superpower? No. Great Power? Maybe. Consequential? Sure.

On a per capita basis they are on par with France. That's kind of
middle of the road for an industrialized nation.

So it has worked out pretty well for them..

Which is the question I was actually answering.

As for the second part, I think having created the Anglosphere gives them
intangibles that France doesn't have.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

So how much do they control _now_?
The argument presented is that Earth will always be dominant. I do
not find the history of England to be compelling support for that
argument.

They don't control that much right now. However they spread their language,
law and parlimentary democracy to a good bit of the world, managed Imperial
decline more peacefully than not, enjoy close ties with a most of
the former Empire (including us..) and are a still rich First World country.
Dominant? No. Superpower? No. Great Power? Maybe. Consequential? Sure.

On a per capita basis they are on par with France. That's kind of
middle of the road for an industrialized nation.

So it has worked out pretty well for them..

Only if you count being a third rate power with little real influence
in the world "worked out pretty well".

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Which is the question I was actually answering.
As for the second part, I think having created the Anglosphere gives them
intangibles that France doesn't have.

Such as?

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two

largest fleets

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and

ability to go to

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

So how much do they control _now_?
The argument presented is that Earth will always be dominant. I do
not find the history of England to be compelling support for that
argument.

They don't control that much right now. However they spread their language,
law and parlimentary democracy to a good bit of the world, managed Imperial
decline more peacefully than not, enjoy close ties with a most of
the former Empire (including us..) and are a still rich First World country.
Dominant? No. Superpower? No. Great Power? Maybe. Consequential? Sure.

On a per capita basis they are on par with France. That's kind of
middle of the road for an industrialized nation.

So it has worked out pretty well for them..

Only if you count being a third rate power with little real influence
in the world "worked out pretty well".

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Which is the question I was actually answering.
As for the second part, I think having created the Anglosphere gives them
intangibles that France doesn't have.

Such as?

Well, for one thing, 371 million people speaking their language and doing
business in it vs 76 million.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by David Johnston

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two

largest fleets

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and

ability to go to

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

So how much do they control _now_?
The argument presented is that Earth will always be dominant. I do
not find the history of England to be compelling support for that
argument.

They don't control that much right now. However they spread their language,
law and parlimentary democracy to a good bit of the world, managed Imperial
decline more peacefully than not, enjoy close ties with a most of
the former Empire (including us..) and are a still rich First World country.
Dominant? No. Superpower? No. Great Power? Maybe. Consequential? Sure.

On a per capita basis they are on par with France. That's kind of
middle of the road for an industrialized nation.

So it has worked out pretty well for them..

Only if you count being a third rate power with little real influence
in the world "worked out pretty well".

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Which is the question I was actually answering.
As for the second part, I think having created the Anglosphere gives them
intangibles that France doesn't have.

Such as?

Well, for one thing, 371 million people speaking their language and doing
business in it vs 76 million.

In that case Spain is more influential than England. However more
people speak Mandarin than both put together.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by David Johnston

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two

largest fleets

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and

ability to go to

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

So how much do they control _now_?
The argument presented is that Earth will always be dominant. I do
not find the history of England to be compelling support for that
argument.

They don't control that much right now. However they spread their

language,

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by David Johnston

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
law and parlimentary democracy to a good bit of the world, managed Imperial
decline more peacefully than not, enjoy close ties with a most of
the former Empire (including us..) and are a still rich First World

country.

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by David Johnston

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Dominant? No. Superpower? No. Great Power? Maybe.

Consequential? Sure.

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by David Johnston

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke
On a per capita basis they are on par with France. That's kind of
middle of the road for an industrialized nation.

So it has worked out pretty well for them..

Only if you count being a third rate power with little real influence
in the world "worked out pretty well".

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Which is the question I was actually answering.
As for the second part, I think having created the Anglosphere gives them
intangibles that France doesn't have.

Such as?

Well, for one thing, 371 million people speaking their language and doing
business in it vs 76 million.

In that case Spain is more influential than England. However more
people speak Mandarin than both put together.

Actually, I forgot to add in the English as a second language speakers
which takes it up to a billion+. And Mandarin speakers are essentially
all clumped together.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by David Johnston

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two

largest fleets

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and

ability to go to

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

So how much do they control _now_?
The argument presented is that Earth will always be dominant. I do
not find the history of England to be compelling support for that
argument.

They don't control that much right now. However they spread their

language,

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by David Johnston

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
law and parlimentary democracy to a good bit of the world, managed Imperial
decline more peacefully than not, enjoy close ties with a most of
the former Empire (including us..) and are a still rich First World

country.

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by David Johnston

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Dominant? No. Superpower? No. Great Power? Maybe.

Consequential? Sure.

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by David Johnston

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke
On a per capita basis they are on par with France. That's kind of
middle of the road for an industrialized nation.

So it has worked out pretty well for them..

Only if you count being a third rate power with little real influence
in the world "worked out pretty well".

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Which is the question I was actually answering.
As for the second part, I think having created the Anglosphere gives them
intangibles that France doesn't have.

Such as?

Well, for one thing, 371 million people speaking their language and doing
business in it vs 76 million.

In that case Spain is more influential than England. However more
people speak Mandarin than both put together.

Actually, I forgot to add in the English as a second language speakers
which takes it up to a billion+. And Mandarin speakers are essentially
all clumped together.

That would be news to the ones I work with.

[Greg Goss]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Well, for one thing, 371 million people speaking their language and doing
business in it vs 76 million.

In that case Spain is more influential than England. However more
people speak Mandarin than both put together.

I think you're missing the distinction betwee CAN speak it than speak
it as a first tongue.

I think ESL beats spanish easily.

[David DeLaney]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
As for the second part, I think having created the Anglosphere gives them
intangibles that France doesn't have.

Such as?

Well, YOU'RE using their language, for one.

Dave, and you think learning any other would be faintly uncivilized

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:45:02 -0600, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
As for the second part, I think having created the Anglosphere gives them
intangibles that France doesn't have.

Such as?

Well, YOU'RE using their language, for one.

An accident of birth.

Post by David DeLaney
Dave, and you think learning any other would be faintly uncivilized

While I have no talent for languages and will at my age probably never
achieve any real fluency, I am as time permits working on Spanish,
Polish, and Japanese. What leads you to believe that I would find
learning another language to be uncivilized?

[James Nicoll]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
As for the second part, I think having created the Anglosphere gives them
intangibles that France doesn't have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_internationale_de_la_Francophonie

[David Johnston]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

So how much do they control _now_?
The argument presented is that Earth will always be dominant.

No. It isn't. The actual argument is that you'd have to go far into the
future to get to the point where Earth isn't the most dominant
world...unless it got taken down by some kind of catastrophe or runs
into more advanced aliens.

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 18:19:03 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

So how much do they control _now_?
The argument presented is that Earth will always be dominant.

No. It isn't. The actual argument is that you'd have to go far into the
future to get to the point where Earth isn't the most dominant
world...unless it got taken down by some kind of catastrophe or runs
into more advanced aliens.

If you count a human lifetime "far into the future".

[David Johnston]

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 18:19:03 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

So how much do they control _now_?
The argument presented is that Earth will always be dominant.

No. It isn't. The actual argument is that you'd have to go far into the
future to get to the point where Earth isn't the most dominant
world...unless it got taken down by some kind of catastrophe or runs
into more advanced aliens.

If you count a human lifetime "far into the future".

A human lifetime? You imagine that startup colonies are going to
overtake the mother planet in a single human lifetime?

[Bernard Peek]

Post by J. Clarke

No.  It isn't. The actual argument is that you'd have to go far into the
future to get to the point where Earth isn't the most dominant
world...unless it got taken down by some kind of catastrophe or runs
into more advanced aliens.

If you count a human lifetime "far into the future".

A human lifetime?  You imagine that startup colonies are going to
overtake the mother planet in a single human lifetime?

It's feasible but unlikely. It would need an empty Earth-type planet and
the political will to exploit it ruthlessly.

It took America 500 years to overtake the UK. It started with a lower
population but more land area. It also required the UK to lose control
of its empire, largely as a result of the money it paid America for help
in WWII. The colonies would still have become independent but possibly
tied tighter to the UK than they are in the Commonwealth. The new empire
might be somewhat similar to the European Union now, with an economy
about the size of the US but with better growth prospects.

A colony world is going to start with a lower population but only about
the same land area. But a federated state formed from a few colony
worlds could exceed the output of Earth quite quickly. Facing an extreme
shortage of manpower they would automate to a greater degree. Fully
automated land-reclamation, mining and farming, fully automated
manufacture of farm machinery. Within that first lifetime they would be
selling agricultural products back to Earth and selling automation
technology. Whether they would just sell asparagus and caviar or also
cabbage, potatoes and corn would depend on freight costs.

Settlers would include a lot of the people that currently telework. So
sometime in that first lifetime a new Microsoft would be formed. With a
bigger internal market than Earth's.

The colonies might also take a significant chunk of the worldwide
tourist business, again depending on freight costs.

I think it's possible that the colonies' total economies might outstrip
Earth in a single lifetime but pretty certain that they would do it in
two. The main factor would be changes in shipping technologies. Fully
automated processes could have effectively zero financial costs so only
the time spent in-transit would matter to human traffic and not at all
to cabbages and corn.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by J. Clarke

No.  It isn't. The actual argument is that you'd have to go far into the
future to get to the point where Earth isn't the most dominant
world...unless it got taken down by some kind of catastrophe or runs
into more advanced aliens.

If you count a human lifetime "far into the future".

A human lifetime?  You imagine that startup colonies are going to
overtake the mother planet in a single human lifetime?

It's feasible but unlikely. It would need an empty Earth-type planet and
the political will to exploit it ruthlessly.
It took America 500 years to overtake the UK. It started with a lower
population but more land area. It also required the UK to lose control
of its empire, largely as a result of the money it paid America for help
in WWII. The colonies would still have become independent but possibly
tied tighter to the UK than they are in the Commonwealth. The new empire
might be somewhat similar to the European Union now, with an economy
about the size of the US but with better growth prospects.

The UK "dominated the world" for about a hundred years. The same for
the US. I'm not going to live long enough to see it but it will be
interesting to see how long China will do it.

Post by Bernard Peek
A colony world is going to start with a lower population but only about
the same land area. But a federated state formed from a few colony
worlds could exceed the output of Earth quite quickly. Facing an extreme
shortage of manpower they would automate to a greater degree. Fully
automated land-reclamation, mining and farming, fully automated
manufacture of farm machinery. Within that first lifetime they would be
selling agricultural products back to Earth and selling automation
technology. Whether they would just sell asparagus and caviar or also
cabbage, potatoes and corn would depend on freight costs.
Settlers would include a lot of the people that currently telework. So
sometime in that first lifetime a new Microsoft would be formed. With a
bigger internal market than Earth's.
The colonies might also take a significant chunk of the worldwide
tourist business, again depending on freight costs.
I think it's possible that the colonies' total economies might outstrip
Earth in a single lifetime but pretty certain that they would do it in
two. The main factor would be changes in shipping technologies. Fully
automated processes could have effectively zero financial costs so only
the time spent in-transit would matter to human traffic and not at all
to cabbages and corn.

Cabbages and corn aren't going to be much good after transiting
sublight from just about anywhere to Earth.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 2/24/2018 7:43 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
...>> It took America 500 years to overtake the UK. It started with a lower

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek
population but more land area. It also required the UK to lose control
of its empire, largely as a result of the money it paid America for help
in WWII. The colonies would still have become independent but possibly
tied tighter to the UK than they are in the Commonwealth. The new empire
might be somewhat similar to the European Union now, with an economy
about the size of the US but with better growth prospects.

The UK "dominated the world" for about a hundred years. The same for
the US. I'm not going to live long enough to see it but it will be
interesting to see how long China will do it.

The USA has been dominating the world since the middle of World War II.
That domination is not over yet nor do I see the USA being replaced soon.

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:54:27 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
...>> It took America 500 years to overtake the UK. It started with a lower

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek
population but more land area. It also required the UK to lose control
of its empire, largely as a result of the money it paid America for help
in WWII. The colonies would still have become independent but possibly
tied tighter to the UK than they are in the Commonwealth. The new empire
might be somewhat similar to the European Union now, with an economy
about the size of the US but with better growth prospects.

The UK "dominated the world" for about a hundred years. The same for
the US. I'm not going to live long enough to see it but it will be
interesting to see how long China will do it.

The USA has been dominating the world since the middle of World War II.
That domination is not over yet nor do I see the USA being replaced soon.

The only way it's not going to happen in this century is if China
decides to go back to staring at their navels or gets hit by an
asteroid or some such. Think Japan, only 10 times the size and never
been nuked.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Lynn McGuire
...>> It took America 500 years to overtake the UK. It started with a lower

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek
population but more land area. It also required the UK to lose control
of its empire, largely as a result of the money it paid America for help
in WWII. The colonies would still have become independent but possibly
tied tighter to the UK than they are in the Commonwealth. The new empire
might be somewhat similar to the European Union now, with an economy
about the size of the US but with better growth prospects.

The UK "dominated the world" for about a hundred years. The same for
the US. I'm not going to live long enough to see it but it will be
interesting to see how long China will do it.

The USA has been dominating the world since the middle of World War II.
That domination is not over yet nor do I see the USA being replaced soon.

Isn't Lynn continually claiming that USA collapse is going to happen any day now due to debt?

[David Johnston]

Post by Lynn McGuire
...>> It took America 500 years to overtake the UK. It started with a lower

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek
population but more land area. It also required the UK to lose control
of its empire, largely as a result of the money it paid America for help
in WWII. The colonies would still have become independent but possibly
tied tighter to the UK than they are in the Commonwealth. The new empire
might be somewhat similar to the European Union now, with an economy
about the size of the US but with better growth prospects.

The UK "dominated the world" for about a hundred years.

But how long was it richer and more powerful than its colonies?


The same for

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
the US.  I'm not going to live long enough to see it but it will be
interesting to see how long China will do it.

The USA has been dominating the world since the middle of World War II.
That domination is not over yet

<shrug> The United States is already abdicating it's leadership role.
Doesn't mean anyone else will take it up

[m***@sky.com]

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 18:19:03 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

So how much do they control _now_?
The argument presented is that Earth will always be dominant.

No. It isn't. The actual argument is that you'd have to go far into the
future to get to the point where Earth isn't the most dominant
world...unless it got taken down by some kind of catastrophe or runs
into more advanced aliens.

If you count a human lifetime "far into the future".

I reckon one of the colonies would eventually overhaul Earth, if there are a large number of colonies. Some (probably large) proportion of the colonies will be taking risks (probably larger than Earth would take, though that doesn't actually matter for this argument). Most of those risks will end in failure. A few of the risks will pay off, and sooner or later one of them will pay off well enough to overhaul Earth.

As for the timescale, if a human lifetime is 100 years, that takes us from 2018 back to 1918 - and one of the few pieces of conventional wisdom that "Britain's Imperial Century" does agree with is that the First World War gravely injured the Empire, by killing off a generation of leaders who died as young officers, leading from the front - so 100 years can kill off an empire.

[David Johnston]

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 18:19:03 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston

Nice notion.  Except the Royal Navy was not much bigger than the
French navy in 1792.

Which in other words means "it was the larger of the two largest fleets
on the planet".

There was also a critical difference in that the British navy was far
better trained.

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

So how much do they control _now_?
The argument presented is that Earth will always be dominant.

No. It isn't. The actual argument is that you'd have to go far into the
future to get to the point where Earth isn't the most dominant
world...unless it got taken down by some kind of catastrophe or runs
into more advanced aliens.

If you count a human lifetime "far into the future".

I reckon one of the colonies would eventually overhaul Earth, if there are a large number of colonies. Some (probably large) proportion of the colonies will be taking risks (probably larger than Earth would take, though that doesn't actually matter for this argument). Most of those risks will end in failure. A few of the risks will pay off, and sooner or later one of them will pay off well enough to overhaul Earth.
As for the timescale, if a human lifetime is 100 years, that takes us from 2018 back to 1918 - and one of the few pieces of conventional wisdom that "Britain's Imperial Century" does agree with is that the First World War gravely injured the Empire, by killing off a generation of leaders who died as young officers, leading from the front - so 100 years can kill off an empire.

Except it actually took a bit more than 300 years for the American
colonies to overtake Britain, and Britain had less of a head start than
Earth would.

[David DeLaney]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek
At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

J. Clarke has fallen into contrarian mode, almost as hard to penetrate as
Terry's trolltypeface.

I suggest that J. Clarke look where on Earth English, and its mild descendants,
they be spoke as a first language.

Now add in places where they are widely used as a second language.

It's impressive even at this very moment.

I'm sure J. is trying to angle for some definition of 'controlled' or
'dominated' that includes army bases every ten miles, or right of High Middle
and Lone Justice, or something else that doesn't include culture or economics,
two subjects which he has shown himself not to understand very well in the
past.

Dave, meanwhile the rest of the world is feeling the impulse to laugh at him
and is asking itself "who IS that, anyway?"

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:43:42 -0600, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek
At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Um, pretty well?

J. Clarke has fallen into contrarian mode, almost as hard to penetrate as
Terry's trolltypeface.
I suggest that J. Clarke look where on Earth English, and its mild descendants,
they be spoke as a first language.
Now add in places where they are widely used as a second language.
It's impressive even at this very moment.
I'm sure J. is trying to angle for some definition of 'controlled' or
'dominated' that includes army bases every ten miles, or right of High Middle
and Lone Justice, or something else that doesn't include culture or economics,
two subjects which he has shown himself not to understand very well in the
past.
Dave, meanwhile the rest of the world is feeling the impulse to laugh at him
and is asking itself "who IS that, anyway?"

I use "dominate" in a fairly conventional sense, the ability to coerce
others into doing your will.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 2/23/2018 6:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
...

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston
They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Sir Isaac Newton went bankrupt as an older man because he invested his
entire fortune into a company formed by the monarchy to duplicate the
Asian trade success and exploit South America. It failed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/10848995/How-not-to-invest-like-Sir-Isaac-Newton.html

Lynn

[William Hyde]

Post by Lynn McGuire
...

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Bernard Peek

Post by David Johnston
They dominated large expanses of it for centuries.

At one point Britain controlled a third of the Earth's surface.

And how did that work out for them?

Sir Isaac Newton went bankrupt as an older man because he invested his
entire fortune

When he died a few years later he left an estate of 32,000 pounds. As your article says, he lost 20,00 pounds in the south sea bubble. Not even half his fortune.

Given that he inherited farms with an income of 600 per year, and gave away a lot of money in his last years, I'd say that overall he did well, thanks in part to his salary as the master of the mint.

Though he had sheep-farming in his blood, he was terrible at it. When he inherited his farms he ran them into the ground. After a couple of years he let his mother run them, and she made them profitable again.

Post by Lynn McGuire
into a company formed by the monarchy

No, by the government. The idea was due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Robert Harley, though he was forced out long before the bubble, not Queen Anne. The power in the country lay with parliament. Cromwell had strongly hinted at that, and 1688 made it even clearer.

There was a similar bubble in France at the time. Some painful lessons about markets were being (partially) learned.


To briefly revert to the topic, this was also not a time of British naval dominance. In the war of the Spanish Succession the British army did very well but the navy did not distinguish itself. The reverse of the usual pattern for that century.

to duplicate the

Post by Lynn McGuire
Asian trade success and exploit South America. It failed.

Corruption and incompetence had a lot to do with it, of course. It never really traded much, became involved with manipulating government debt.

Post by Lynn McGuire
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/10848995/How-not-to-invest-like-Sir-Isaac-Newton.html

Fairly accurate.

William Hyde

[David DeLaney]

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 23:07:22 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

Seems to have worked fine in Canada and the Caribbean.

Are you, perhaps, using the paradigm that if it didn't happen to or in the USA
it's not worth talking about?

Dave, their strong naval tradition most certainly helped with India

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:33:12 -0600, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 23:07:22 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler
and strong
maritime tradition, which gave rise to the mindset and ability to go to
far away places and interfere in other people's business.

So how did that work out in the New World?

Seems to have worked fine in Canada and the Caribbean.

Neither of which are controlled by Britain anymore. Hell, a good bit
of Canada has even rejected the language.

Post by David DeLaney
Are you, perhaps, using the paradigm that if it didn't happen to or in the USA
it's not worth talking about?

No, I am using the paradigm that England is a tiny little island with
no military to speak of and a ho-hum economy that doesn't dominate
much of anything anymore. Shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three
generations.

Post by David DeLaney
Dave, their strong naval tradition most certainly helped with India

[Greg Goss]

Post by m***@sky.com
Unless you have an FTL technology which gives travel between the stars a very non-uniform difficulty, no one planet is likely to have this sort of a positional advantage.

Of course there's a wildly popular series that started out literally
as Hornblower in Space (the hero of the series even has the HH
initials). Her home system has a major "non-uniform difficulty".

[Greg Goss]

Post by David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
Yeah, that wasn't my statement. As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful. Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

The same thing does not apply to an Earth that is actually founding
colonies. Now it's possible for such an Earth to just lose interest but
unless you are set unimaginably far in the future all you'll still end
up with all the well-developed populous and powerful worlds being the
ones that were initially close to Earth and hospitable. Still Earth
centered.

Unless you make it severely damaged. In Asimov's empire, the earth
was rendered (eventuallty discovered to be deliberate) uninhabitable.

In the Honorverse, Earth resumed its dominance after a major war of
genetic supermen and gengineered diseases. The first-gen colony
worlds jumped in to fix things and Earth resumed dominance. Dominance
could just as easily shifted to one of the other first-gen colonies
like Beowulf.

Centuries of complacency contrasted to the desperation of war has
allowed the tech dominance (at least) to shift to a pair of empires
outside the league periphery.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with
psi. The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL
space travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking
point. The mere ability to move some people offworld does not convert
into the capacity to move vast quantities of people inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot device
to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement.  As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful.  Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Not really. Earth is too far away from the center of the galaxy.
Another planet, possibly named Trantor, closer to the center of the
galaxy will become dominant over time.

A good read about this is _The Forever Hero_.

Lynn

[David Johnston]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more
books in the series since this book fairly closed all of the
loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with
psi. The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL
space travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change
theory is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.
Lynn

The other half wouldn't.  And "if they could" is a big sticking
point. The mere ability to move some people offworld does not
convert into the capacity to move vast quantities of people
inexpensively.

I was replying to your statement that Ms. Bedford needed a plot
device to get people off the Earth.

Yeah, that wasn't my statement.  As long as Earth is the oldest, most
populous, most developed world, it most most likely be the most
powerful.  Thus you end up with an Earth centered setting with the
colony worlds on the periphery.

Not really.  Earth is too far away from the center of the galaxy.
Another planet, possibly named Trantor, closer to the center of the
galaxy will become dominant over time.

But not everyone wants to set their series hundreds of thousands of
years into the future.

A good read about this is _The Forever Hero_.
Lynn

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books in
the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory is
junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.

More accurately, half the population would like to make the other half
leave the planet.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series.  I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB.  I doubt that there will be any more books
in the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory
is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse.  But a depopulating catastrophe is an
excellent way to move your science fiction universe into the state
where interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

Half of the Earth's population would leave the planet if they could
right now.

More accurately, half the population would like to make the other half
leave the planet.

That could be true also.

Lynn

[David DeLaney]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lynn McGuire
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of man-made
climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth uninhabitable in
the 21st century.  Man-made climate change theory is junk science

So's the EMP apocalypse. But a depopulating catastrophe is an excellent
way to move your science fiction universe into the state where
interstellar civilization is no longer Earth centered.

I know Lynn has a rather large bee in his bonnet about this, so won't actually
listen, or integrate this.

Last week was setting a couple of record high temperatures for February, here
in Knoxville; mid-to-upper 70s.

To-day turned out to be Bradford Pear Tree Bloom day. I do not recall it EVER
being as early as February before.

Dave, not just one or two isolated trees eithert; the usual "surprise! the
hill are dotted with ice-cream trees" first day.

[Default User]

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series. I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB. I doubt that there will be any more books in
the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century. Man-made climate change theory is
junk science and paying homage to it is premature at this time.

But you're okay with psionics and FTL? Because those are real science?



Brian

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Default User

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series. I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB. I doubt that there will be any more books in
the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century. Man-made climate change theory is
junk science and paying homage to it is premature at this time.

But you're okay with psionics and FTL? Because those are real science?

They don't threaten his paycheck.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Default User

Post by Lynn McGuire
_Nimbus (A Psi-Tech Novel) _ by Jacey Bedford
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0756411890/
Book number three of a three books series. I read the excellent
printed and bound MMPB. I doubt that there will be any more books in
the series since this book fairly closed all of the loose ends.
This is the best of the best SF genre for me, space opera with psi.
The story concerns the the fact that the Folds, used for FTL space
travel, have become dangerous for space ship passage.
The booked was flawed for me though by the constant mention of
man-made climate change supposedly almost rendering the Earth
uninhabitable in the 21st century. Man-made climate change theory is
junk science and paying homage to it is premature at this time.

But you're okay with psionics and FTL? Because those are real science?
Brian

Because psionics and FTL are part of the common fantasy universe.

Lynn