What does "GD" stand for in the UED SCBW Cinematic?

[mr. peasant]

But seeing as how they are in a new system and unlikely to ever return to Earth, it wouldn't have made much sense on maintaining an Earth-based time system. Since the length of a day is traditionally seen as the time between two sunrises, it would have been somewhat silly/strange for a day to be seen as anything other (whether longer or shorter) as it would eventually lead to being awake at night and going to bed at sunrise. Moreover, measuring a year based on one's current planet's rotation around the sun is also important as it makes it easier for the average person to keep track of seasons. Timekeeping is about function.

Consequently, I think different planets will have different calenders with one providing a 'standardized time'. As Tarsonis was the hub of intellect in the Confederacy, it would make sense they would have adopted that as the standard.

[MattII]

Because their basis of time (the Earth's around the sun) is the same as our current one. In the K-Sector, they don't have that. They would measure it based on the rotation of one of their planets (likely Tarsonis) around their sun, which would give a different time.

Again, that's a UED broadcast, not a K-Sector broadcast, they're basing it on earth years.

[mr. peasant]

Again, that's a UED broadcast, not a K-Sector broadcast, they're basing it on earth years.

My point exactly. If the Terran's timeline is to be believed, the UPL was formed 270 years ago and the year is 2501 A.D. during the Brood War. However, based on the UED report, the year is 872 G.D.. My theory is that the new calender is based from when the UPL was first created and so there is a 600 year discrepancy between the two calenders; i.e. the K-Sector Terrans' measure of time is much slower than that of Earth. This would explain why they could seemingly reach a population count of billions in 200 years from a colony size of 40,000.


Incidentally, I think I know what G.D. stands for: Galactic Date

[n00bonicPlague]

"Hey Sarge -- what's the year?"

"It's 852 God Dammit!"

[MattII]

[QUOTE=mr. peasant;19007]My point exactly. If the Terran's timeline is to be believed, the UPL was formed 270 years ago and the year is 2501 A.D. during the Brood War. However, based on the UED report, the year is 872 G.D.. My theory is that the new calender is based from when the UPL was first created and so there is a 600 year discrepancy between the two calenders; i.e. the K-Sector Terrans' measure of time is much slower than that of Earth.[quote]

You'll then also have to explain why Jim Raynor looks, as far as I can tell, about 30 in SC/BW, when he should look closer to 96, if your theory is correct.

This would explain why they could seemingly reach a population count of billions in 200 years from a colony size of 40,000.

An annual growth of 6% would give almost 3.7 Billion in 200 years, or almost 1.15 Billion in 180, so you don't need a huge time, just a steady growth.

[mr. peasant]

You'll then also have to explain why Jim Raynor looks, as far as I can tell, about 30 in SC/BW, when he should look closer to 96, if your theory is correct.

This looks 30??



My point is that the Terrans' measure of time may not be entirely reliable. For instance, they may not have converted to a new annual system straightaway.

An annual growth of 6% would give almost 3.7 Billion in 200 years, or almost 1.15 Billion in 180, so you don't need a huge time, just a steady growth.

Have you any idea how high an annual growth of 6% is? Wikipedia estimates our current growth rate at 1.18%. Even at its peak, it was only 2.20%. At its highest, it took 300 years (17th century to 20th century) to increase the human population by ten times and that had the advantage of a drastic increase in longevity along with advancements in medicine and sanitation.

[Kimera757]

At its highest, it took 300 years (17th century to 20th century) to increase the human population by ten times and that had the advantage of a drastic increase in longevity along with advancements in medicine and sanitation.[

With the possible exception of longevity, all those factors would have been going for the terrans (at least those of Tarsonis), including nearly empty planets and plenty of colonies once they got FTL travel.

In other words, we're looking at a situation that never existed on Earth.

This looks 30??

Still younger than 96.

This is a silly argument anyway. Blizzard isn't going to distort time; that just makes things more confusing for the audience.

[mr. peasant]

With the possible exception of longevity, all those factors would have been going for the terrans (at least those of Tarsonis), including nearly empty planets and plenty of colonies once they got FTL travel.

In other words, we're looking at a situation that never existed on Earth.

Actually, life expectancy drops when arriving in a new environment due to susceptibility to new diseases and the dangers of pioneering. As for medical and sanitation advancements, there won't be any on par with breakthroughs such as (relatively) clean water and antibiotics which prevented people from dying from cholera and small wounds.

The only breakthroughs left that would be on par with those in reducing mortality would be a cure for all cancers, eradication of all diseases and the modification/slowing of the aging process.

Still younger than 96.

New medical breakthrough that slow the aging process.

This is a silly argument anyway. Blizzard isn't going to distort time; that just makes things more confusing for the audience.

Hence why I said it's the mother of all speculations. It's highly unlikely yet possible, plausible and resolves several other issues/inconsistencies of lore.

[MattII]

This looks 30??

34 and a heavy drinker, maybe.

My point is that the Terrans' measure of time may not be entirely reliable. For instance, they may not have converted to a new annual system straightaway.

That would knock, maybe half-a-year to a year off, given tht they'd have to sort out the seasons pretty quick for farming.

Have you any idea how high an annual growth of 6% is? Wikipedia estimates our current growth rate at 1.18%. Even at its peak, it was only 2.20%. At its highest, it took 300 years (17th century to 20th century) to increase the human population by ten times and that had the advantage of a drastic increase in longevity along with advancements in medicine and sanitation.

In the 1950-2000 period it more than doubled. You try the same thing again with those advancements already in place, and with the assumption of fairly boundless resources.

Actually, life expectancy drops when arriving in a new environment due to susceptibility to new diseases and the dangers of pioneering.

That assumes there 'are' diseases which affect us (by no means a certainty), and that there aren't shiploads of equipment to hand (there was).

As for medical and sanitation advancements, there won't be any on par with breakthroughs such as (relatively) clean water and antibiotics which prevented people from dying from cholera and small wounds.

it was the advances themselves which saved lives, not the rate at which they were discovered, so saying that we'll all die out because we aren't making any new advancements is totally whacked.

The only breakthroughs left that would be on par with those in reducing mortality would be a cure for all cancers, eradication of all diseases and the modification/slowing of the aging process.

Remember the ship was sent out in the 2269, I'd assume we'd made a few advances by then, including perhaps curing some cancers.

New medical breakthrough that slow the aging process.

The very same you were arguing against?

Hence why I said it's the mother of all speculations. It's highly unlikely yet possible, plausible and resolves several other issues/inconsistencies of lore.

I'll hardly call it plausible, and I'd be interested to know exactly what other issues it solves.

[mr. peasant]

[QUOTE=MattII;19170]In the 1950-2000 period it more than doubled. You try the same thing again with those advancements already in place, and with the assumption of fairly boundless resources.

Precisely. That means, the annual growth rate was on average 1.4%; a long way off from your 6%. At 6%, the population would double in 12 years, not 50.

That assumes there 'are' diseases which affect us (by no means a certainty), and that there aren't shiploads of equipment to hand (there was).

Considering the planets the Terrans colonized had their own ecosystems, habitats and native wildlife, there's a high probability that there would be some risk of diseases. Moreover, the dangers of pioneering that I'm talking about are those associated with the work that needs to be done to set up basic infrastructure and resource gathering.

it was the advances themselves which saved lives, not the rate at which they were discovered, so saying that we'll all die out because we aren't making any new advancements is totally whacked.

That's not what I'm saying at all! What I am saying is that without major breakthroughs in healthcare, the population growth rate isn't going to dramatically increase.

Remember the ship was sent out in the 2269, I'd assume we'd made a few advances by then, including perhaps curing some cancers.

The very same you were arguing against?

Just a reminder that by token of living longer, it would reason that people would look younger despite being chronologically older.

I'll hardly call it plausible, and I'd be interested to know exactly what other issues it solves.

Issues like how the Terrans could reach a population count of billions from an original count of 32,000 (8,000 died in a crash). Assuming the population is also 3.2 billion (which it is most certainly much, much higher), that would mean the Terrans have somehow increased their population by a hundred thousand fold in 200 years.