(urth) BSG Spoiler

James Wynn crushtv at gmail.com
Sun Mar 22 19:45:01 PDT 2009

>The Ingalls did not have their choice of the entire underpopulated world to
>settle in.  The Colonials could have settled in places like Hawaii, where
>living was so easy that historically the white exploiters could not attract
>native laborers for any length of time.

Even in places like Hawaii or the Amazon rain forests, making a living
is apparently a very specialized trick. Lots of people stranded in the
Amazon have perished unnaturally--probably all of those who did not
manage to find a rope out of there. Have you seen the TV show
'Survivor'? Sometimes the constants have a lot of experience as
hunters and in outdoor activities, but no one seems to make it through
a month without losing a noticeable amount of weight even with an
initial supply of starchy staples.

But if any colonists settled in Hawaii, as far as I could tell from
the map, that was not the sort of places they focused on as a rule.
They settled in _populated_ places like Africa, the eastern Asia, and
the Middle East: in other words, they settled in regions where
evidence of early man has been found. However, to the eye of people
with the right skills, these were seen as fertile areas. Kansas and
Minnesota were seen as a bountifully fertile lands. Prerepublic Texas
was invariably described that way although the undeveloped state would
look like only a wilderness to me.

But as I said, while unrealistic, the colonists' method of settlement
was the only part of the conclusion that I didn't mind at all. It made
perfect sense to me. They could have provided some exposition to
explain better how it would work successfully, and they could have
better rationalized the existence of humanity on an unknown planet.
But considering the mess that was the rest of the episode...


More information about the Urth mailing list