From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.misc
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 01:04:28 EST

In article <1992Dec16.203355.9636@ac.dal.ca> mabw0164@ac.dal.ca writes:

>In article <1992Dec12.111320.19982@newstand.syr.edu>, 
>pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
>
>> On a planet, resources are limited enough that other factors will far
>> outweigh that of simply having room.  (i.e. arable soil, access to seaports
>> strategic mineral resources, &c...)
>
>How would this be different in a star-faring civilization? Homesystems 
>might be depleted enough that expansion is necessary for maintenance of
>supplies and raw materials. The pollution and destruction resulting from
>the technological development needed to initiate star travel might make
>expansion necessary just to offset these problems.

Look at the original post.  We are dealing with civlizations a little
more advanced than this.

>Also, assuming a homeworld at point A and a major colony at point B, it
>might be necessary to maintain a minor colony at point C in order to 
>resupply ships running between A and B, because the distance is to far
>for an uninterrupted journey. C then becomes strategically important.

Yes, but what is your motivation for having colonies in the first place?

	1) lebenstraum (sp?)
	2) industrial base to support defense
	3) like to collect systems
	4) insure immortality of the species

You can eliminate the need for #2 by taking on a nomadic lifestyle,
and in doing so insure #4.  As for #1, anyone with common sense can 
see that birth control is cheaper than the alternatives.

>> Territory has ceased to be an issue, really, for the major powers on Sol 3.
>> Our most pressing issues today are political, economic, societal, and
>> technological.  Besides, as you point out, there's less room on Sol 3,
>> so there is no opportunity for potentially infinite disparities in the power
>> of one 'empire' over another.
>
>Don't kid yourself. Wars are still being fought for territory today and are
>likely to be for some time to come. 

Yes, for many millenia to come.  But those conflicts seem very petty and 
regressive don't they?  Perhaps not to those embroiled in them, perhaps.
I still don't see what bearing they have on the point I was making.

>Because the major powers don't go at it
>tooth and nail doesn't mean they've given up on territory; they just go at
>it differently. All these little brushfire wars we've had since WWII were
>going on for a reason.  

First off, the cold war is over (for the time being).  Second, 
if one considers the BEST ways to insure safety and security,
IMHO one will come to the same conclusions as I.  Granted, not
everyone does things this way.  (Hardly anyone, in fact.)

[the cold war and various territorial conflicts of that type explained]
>presently under his umbrella of power. Direct confrontation is neither wanted
>nor needed.

Your last statement supports my point.  

>The reasons empires come into existence are pretty fundamental, and distance
>has rarely been a limiting problem. What has been a problem has been the 
>age of the empire. After a certain period of time, it collapses from internal
>problems attributed in part to the complacency of the population of the 
>founding state.
>
>Empires have been formed, and successfully, in areas and times where travel 
>from the capital to its furthermost borders was measured in months, and the
>mode of transportation was limited to foot, horse and sail. So distance is not
>as big a problem as you might think. Responsible governors would do quite well

If one assumes NO FTL, time and distance become very intimately related, 
and both get really flipping BIG -- to the extent that the accumulation
of material resources becomes impractical.  Ask yourself WHY an empire
would form on such a scale.

>> Lastly, the advantages of NOT settling down anywhere are enormous.
>
>You'll have to elaborate on that last one.

Remember, we are assuming the civilization in question has reached the
pinnacle of technology.  (But you have to have wealth and security to afford
enlightenment, yes?)

So why would anyone want to control territory?  As I mentioned above:

	1) Likes to collect planets
	2) Security.  Get wide enough defensive perimeters to
	   insure that no one can get to you without your being
	   ready for them.
	3) Wealth & Power.  Control the resources of many worlds.
	4) living space

Once we get to the tech levels I am talking about, only 2 remains
significant.  But security is better served by abandoning territory.
Who could possibly fight a war with a well-established nomadic
civlization?  How would you know if you won?  What is there to fight 
over anyways?

Key concept is that the power of a particular group in space is
limited by their opportunities to expand.  On a planet, space is
limited, but once you get to starfaring, expansion is potentially
unlimited.  What is most significant then is the 2nd-order control of
resources.  Not how much you have, but how fast you can get more.
This, in turn is limited by the speed of light.  Any life can
replicate itself -- potentially can growing exponentially.  But in the
end we are held to cubic expansion.

By abandoning the concept of contiguous territory, a group effectively
gains more room in which to grow.  In addition, the world-ships of
this civilization will be able to travel farther and faster than any
system- colonization scheme would be able to.  It would be exceedingly
difficult to hunt down every world-ship, and no-one would want to.
This civlization would be immortal, and none of its members would ever
have to harm another being.  Thus any 'truly enlightened' race would
seek out this lifestyle.

Lastly, the members of this civilization would lead lives of
incredible novelty.  With modern medicine and time dilation, such a
cosmic gypsy could expect to come across dozens, if not hundreds of
new star systems and species in a lifetime.  (See Larry Niven's
"Bigger Than Worlds" from _A Hole in Space_  He mentions this business.
He calls it "macro-life.")

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc