It seems whenever the Trade Federation blockades a planet from trade, the inhabitants suffer greatly. Frequently running out of food and even water. This even happens on the home worlds of some species. Do these species rely so heavily on trade that they're unable to support their population without it? They must have developed their food and water sources and distribution networks over a long time. The planets are surely habitable enough to produce food and water since the species has lived and evolved there.
-
You aren't thinking big enough. Think of Coruscant for example, obviously they need momentous amounts of trade to sustain their population with food and water. Additionally, blockades aren't just meant to "starve out" a population, they are there to prevent trade which in turn would cripple economies. Even if a world's farmers could produce enough food, what would they be paid with? Eventually the entire economy of the planet would shatter, including agriculture.– NominSimCommented Sep 22, 2012 at 19:01
-
1I agree this could be the case with the planets that are all city, but there are planets that are not in the same situation. For example, The Clone Wars, season 3 episode 3. The Twi'lek planet is very simple, yet they are running out of food and water due to a blockade. Is the down-vote because I wasn't "thinking big enough" or because the question is unclear or not useful?– HouseCommented Sep 22, 2012 at 19:07
-
3Wasn't my down vote...but you are ignoring the fact that the reason that they place a blockade around a planet in the first place is to cripple the economy of the planet. You can't just one moment be relying on off-world trade, and the next turn into a self-sustaining populace.– NominSimCommented Sep 22, 2012 at 22:48
-
@NominSim Good point. I imagine planets that were self sufficient wouldn't of had a blockade placed around them, because it wouldn't have the desired effect.– HouseCommented Sep 23, 2012 at 2:06
-
2Scary thought: a planet that needs to import millions of tons of food and water must be exporting a similar amount of sewage, if the biosphere is to be relatively stable.– John OCommented Sep 23, 2012 at 2:38
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
It doesn't really matter what drives the blockaded planet's economy. Once a planet becomes dependent on off-world income, it is just that: Dependent. A blockade could easily become a disaster.
Here are two examples:
If a planet has a booming economy from off-planet trade (let's say they export minerals and import food & water), it could easily become dependent on that income to sustain a population greater than the natural food & water supplies available on the planet. A sustained trade blockade would prevent the transfer of minerals into food supplies.
If a planet has a booming agricultural economy, a blockade could disrupt the off planet resources required to sustain it.
answered Sep 22, 2012 at 21:13
-
Agricultural economies may have economic collapse, but generally that doesn't lead to starvation on-world. It may lead to nationalization, but seldom starvation.– aramisCommented Sep 25, 2012 at 0:42
-
@aramis True...But logistics also come into play. You'd have storage issues. Where do you put the crops once your storage areas are full of produce that you can't sell? Commented Sep 25, 2012 at 2:35
-
2you ferment them. Beer and wine are easy to make - and easy to store. wood alcohol provides ready fuel for heating, cooking, and power. A world scale is unlikely to lack the ability to package foods. As I said - starvation should NOT be an issue on agri-worlds. And on a world scale, monoculture is stupid - the natural range will result in too many potential pathogens spreading like wildfire. (Think potato famine.)– aramisCommented Sep 25, 2012 at 7:07
-
-
1@aramis - And what if you're relying on off-world supplies of food to feed your population? Nationalise whatever you like, if your planet is a primary producer of something non-edible then you're in big trouble if the food shipments stop coming.– ValorumCommented Dec 6, 2014 at 1:20
Any civilization rising to a specific level is overspecialized and dependent on infrastructure that is quite fragile.
If today we on earth lose, for example, access to just a couple of technologies (not necessarily obvious ones, e.g. some complicated chemical industries/processes) or specific rare materials (e.g. rare earths), within a year many of our supply processes would be irrevocably broken, and tons of people would die of starvation even though we would have as much food-producing territory as today.
And remember that only a handful of planets produce things such as droids, and probably other heavy equipment, or rare resources (as random SW examples, bacta and Tibana gas, though the latter is mostly used for weapons).
answered Sep 22, 2012 at 21:31
When you have intragalactic trade worlds have the option to be come highly specialised, which is favourable for economic reasons (you end up with a monopoly in resource X, essentially). Even with worlds that could sustain plentiful harvests you might produce biofuel, or grassland for a particular animal etc.
As an analogy, consider on of the worlds from the 40K universe, which is on the same scale as the SW one I would say. They have entire worlds devoted to what is essentially Kudzu, it just covers the whole world, literally. This is for, I think biofuel.
If that planet had been blockaded, and the sector relied on it for biofuel, everyone would suffer. Kudzu is not good human food, and other planets need that fuel!
Yes, it could sustain itself, but the infrastructure just isn't there to accommodate that sort of change right away.
answered Sep 22, 2012 at 22:15
