Group Populations over time
2 posters
Page 1 of 1
Group Populations over time
by Pokermind Fri Oct 02, 2015 10:58 pm
Dilandu gives the following estimates for population growth of the 1847 Americans:
1850 - 10000 (start point)
1875 - 20000
1900 - 40000
1925 - 80000
1942 - about 100000
And the Empire of the New Britain Isles:
1750 – about 1000 imperials around
1770 – about 2000 imperials around
1790 – about 4000 imperials around
1810 – about 8000 imperials around
1830 – about 16000 imperials around
1850 – about 32000 imperials around
1870 – about 64000 imperials around
1890 – about 128000 imperials around
1910 – about 356000 imperials around
1930 – about 712000 imperials around
But starting with 12 females we add 24 females and 25 males or each female produces 2 females and 2.08333333 males so the next generation would be 48 females the next 96 females, then 192 females then, 384 females then, 768 females thus six generations say 20 years each that's 120 years or 1855 to get a population of about 2500 This don't look good.
So if trade begins in say 1745 using say fish or Gri-Kakaa oil for barter we get say 100 couples above the 12 our first generation would be producing 224 females. and by 1785 448 females and 1805 896 females. Thus using your estimate population 1000 people in aproximately 1790 would be about 128,000 in 1930. However assume a 2.5 increase due to bastards of the indentured women that begins in the 1850s we would have:
1870 - about 8,000
1890 - about 20,000
1900 - about 50,000
1910 - about 125,000
1930 - about 312,500
so the 1940 population of about 390,625 or about 28,000 males of military age Assuming 10,000 for troops and 100 men per company that's 100 companies, 33 brigades, 10 regiments, or 5 divisions.
1850 - 10000 (start point)
1875 - 20000
1900 - 40000
1925 - 80000
1942 - about 100000
And the Empire of the New Britain Isles:
1750 – about 1000 imperials around
1770 – about 2000 imperials around
1790 – about 4000 imperials around
1810 – about 8000 imperials around
1830 – about 16000 imperials around
1850 – about 32000 imperials around
1870 – about 64000 imperials around
1890 – about 128000 imperials around
1910 – about 356000 imperials around
1930 – about 712000 imperials around
But starting with 12 females we add 24 females and 25 males or each female produces 2 females and 2.08333333 males so the next generation would be 48 females the next 96 females, then 192 females then, 384 females then, 768 females thus six generations say 20 years each that's 120 years or 1855 to get a population of about 2500 This don't look good.
So if trade begins in say 1745 using say fish or Gri-Kakaa oil for barter we get say 100 couples above the 12 our first generation would be producing 224 females. and by 1785 448 females and 1805 896 females. Thus using your estimate population 1000 people in aproximately 1790 would be about 128,000 in 1930. However assume a 2.5 increase due to bastards of the indentured women that begins in the 1850s we would have:
1870 - about 8,000
1890 - about 20,000
1900 - about 50,000
1910 - about 125,000
1930 - about 312,500
so the 1940 population of about 390,625 or about 28,000 males of military age Assuming 10,000 for troops and 100 men per company that's 100 companies, 33 brigades, 10 regiments, or 5 divisions.
Pokermind- Posts : 199
Join date : 2015-07-02
Age : 70
Re: Group Populations over time
by Dilandu Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:02 am
Yes, and this is not even counting the navy. Which is relatively big - at least about 40-50 steam and sailships - and each needed about 300-700 crewmembers to operate. I.e. there is a demographic problem in the Empire; it's really hard to understand, how they could manage to mantain this size of forces.
Hm...
Assuming that all initial imperials were relatively healthy, and thus no real-world ilnesses were transferred, and assuming that no Destroyermen's world ilnesses could quickly adapt to humans - as i recall, the lemurs are far enough from humans to not share the same ilnesses - we couldm probably, assume the much higher child survival rate, at least initially. Let's assume that from average 7-8 childrens per woman - 5-6 survived.
It would gave us 36 females and 37 males in first generation, 108 and 111 in the second.
Hm...
Assuming that all initial imperials were relatively healthy, and thus no real-world ilnesses were transferred, and assuming that no Destroyermen's world ilnesses could quickly adapt to humans - as i recall, the lemurs are far enough from humans to not share the same ilnesses - we couldm probably, assume the much higher child survival rate, at least initially. Let's assume that from average 7-8 childrens per woman - 5-6 survived.
It would gave us 36 females and 37 males in first generation, 108 and 111 in the second.
Dilandu- Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 35
Re: Group Populations over time
by Pokermind Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:32 pm
Taylor Anderson chimed on the population discussion on his Technical Discussion with:
On October 03, 2015 Taylor says:
I glanced back at your formula for coming up with these numbers and it dawned on me that you were basing it upon several possibly faulty assumptions–some of which may be my fault, and others that I am not at liberty to expand upon yet. In regard to the Impie population though, I must admit I was quite rushed when I looked at your earlier estimate, and focused more on another part of the post, I believe. Since then I have considered and realized you were basing it upon a much more conservative rate of increase than I. In spite of everything else, there has been little hunger anywhere–the primary cause of high child mortality–whereas all the cultures thus far encountered historically bred like rabbits. Not only was modern contraception unavailable, they NEEDED to, to provide a large familial labor pool. Not to mention, the Impies at least, would’ve considered it their duty to increase the population. And the Doms multiplied at such a rate that they were willing to sell or SACRIFICE females! And the funny thing is, it wouldn’t even take a long sustained “baby boom” to create an exponential jump in population. But even if the Impies, for example, produced offspring at the historical (traditional family) norm, I’d certainly average the increase at greater than 2.5.
And don’t forget the colonial frontier. Higher mortality, compensated for by “tryin’ harder.”
And the Doms would have a significantly larger population than that, much more spread out. There was obviously a rather large pre-historic crossover (from a highly populous source, at the time.) Possibly more than one. And it is just assumed that it was a mere fishing village or something, but the “Czechs” have established that all crossovers need not take place at sea . . .
As to the 1847 Americans, I know I have left you very little to speculate WITH as yet, but that WILL change in the upcoming book. A LOT of things will be resolved, to a degree at least, in the next one. And Alexey, you assume constant warfare between the Doms and ’47s. That is not borne out even by available information. Constant animosity, perhaps . . . And you also assume they were badly defeated simply because they left central Mexico. If that were the case, why would the Doms resent them so, and refer to them as “Los Diablos Del Norte?” I suppose they might still resent the desecration of their ancient seat of power, but they “disengaged” themselves as well, down to New Granada. Why? You WILL soon know!
I don’t think I’m “spoiling” anything here, but merely looking objectively (with perhaps a BIT more insight) Ha! at available information.
Pokermind- Posts : 199
Join date : 2015-07-02
Age : 70
Re: Group Populations over time
by Dilandu Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:40 pm
And i'm recalculated:
Well, i considered that, but thus the average birth per women in 1770 was about 7-8. And i assumed that half of the childrens survived to maturity, so the population duplication was about one per 20 years.
If we assume that of 7-8 childrens 5-6 lived to maturity…
Well, this could gave us exactly 3,5 millions per 1940. Assuming that we started in 1740, and every women produced 5 childrens who lived to maturity, half of them girls:
Year: Womens: Childrens (only who survived)
1740 – 12 60
1760 – 30 150
1780 – 75 375
1800 – 187 937
1820 – 468 2343
1840 – 1171 5859
1860 – 2929 14648
1880 – 7324 36621
1900 – 18310 91552
1920 – 45776 228881
1940 – 114440 572204
Combining the last three numbers in “Childrens” count we would have about 892639 imperials born from 1900 to 1940.
This is the calculation without considering the Dom’s “help”
Well, i considered that, but thus the average birth per women in 1770 was about 7-8. And i assumed that half of the childrens survived to maturity, so the population duplication was about one per 20 years.
If we assume that of 7-8 childrens 5-6 lived to maturity…
Well, this could gave us exactly 3,5 millions per 1940. Assuming that we started in 1740, and every women produced 5 childrens who lived to maturity, half of them girls:
Year: Womens: Childrens (only who survived)
1740 – 12 60
1760 – 30 150
1780 – 75 375
1800 – 187 937
1820 – 468 2343
1840 – 1171 5859
1860 – 2929 14648
1880 – 7324 36621
1900 – 18310 91552
1920 – 45776 228881
1940 – 114440 572204
Combining the last three numbers in “Childrens” count we would have about 892639 imperials born from 1900 to 1940.
This is the calculation without considering the Dom’s “help”
Dilandu- Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 35
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|