![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldDavid Weber and Steve White's 1992 novel Crusade is one book of many that depicts a colony, isolated from the main body of progressive human space, that has quickly developed into a formidable threat to said community. While offshoot societies which quickly outpace the source are attractive, how likely are they?
Economic growth, crudely speaking, comes about as technology advances, as the labour force grows, and as capital enters. How a small isolated colony could develop enough advanced technology to outshoot much larger populations escapes me, given the small R&D base likely available to newly established colonies. The labour force might grow quickly, possibly even very quickly, but the need to adequately house, feed, educate, and socialize new generations will remain both pressing and expensive. As for capital, if a colony's cut off from investors of any size, where can it get the funds that it needs? Small countries have quickly outgrown larger and more established countries in the past--the United Kingdom's advantage over France comes to mind, as does the United States' over any of the countries of Europe--but these dynamic countries were deeply immersed in global trade and cultural networks. A United States hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world after 1783 could not have become the power that it is now.
Barring unlikely events--the discovery of relic alien technology, say, or the implementation of something like full nanotechnology impossible to implement in the main body of civilization--the only way that I can see a lost colony advancing significantly would be in collaboration with other communities. A leading position would have to come through the lead community's retention of a critical technological edge of some kind, perhaps of spaceflight, something that could create much greater economies of scale. Even then full parity would be difficult, especially if this cluster remains isolated indefinitely. Something would have to give.
Economic growth, crudely speaking, comes about as technology advances, as the labour force grows, and as capital enters. How a small isolated colony could develop enough advanced technology to outshoot much larger populations escapes me, given the small R&D base likely available to newly established colonies. The labour force might grow quickly, possibly even very quickly, but the need to adequately house, feed, educate, and socialize new generations will remain both pressing and expensive. As for capital, if a colony's cut off from investors of any size, where can it get the funds that it needs? Small countries have quickly outgrown larger and more established countries in the past--the United Kingdom's advantage over France comes to mind, as does the United States' over any of the countries of Europe--but these dynamic countries were deeply immersed in global trade and cultural networks. A United States hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world after 1783 could not have become the power that it is now.
Barring unlikely events--the discovery of relic alien technology, say, or the implementation of something like full nanotechnology impossible to implement in the main body of civilization--the only way that I can see a lost colony advancing significantly would be in collaboration with other communities. A leading position would have to come through the lead community's retention of a critical technological edge of some kind, perhaps of spaceflight, something that could create much greater economies of scale. Even then full parity would be difficult, especially if this cluster remains isolated indefinitely. Something would have to give.
