>> You don't have to be a statistician, you just need enough math to make it plausible. <<
For the opening sequence, yes. But I've taken the math as far as I can. To generate numbers for subsequent years, I'd need progressive statistics -- equations that would tell how many people each year moved from one age group to another.
>> For example, a desingning a non-industrialized society with half the people younger than fifteen <<
That's easy, because you can do it with geometry instead of just numbers. Just pick a pattern, explore its effects on society, and mimic that.
To make that sort of thing complicated, you have do something unusual like adding a third column for an extra sex/gender role.
>> or flipping gender ratios from ~1:~1:~0.05 to 1:9:1 in order to facilitate really different gender norms <<
Admittedly a little trickier.
I had to think about how I wanted the numbers to fall in Daughters of the Apocalypse, not just in the beginning, but to create desired end results. The initial prompt specified a major reversal of social power and demographic representation, so I had to work out not just the what would need to happen but a reasonable explanation for it.
Sometimes you can't get all the numbers you need. When I was setting up Crystal Wood, I wanted to know what percentage of the world's trees were wind-pollinated. Most if not all evergreens are, but from there it gets patchier. However, I was able to determine that most if not all of the dominant tree species in North America, and probably most of the rest of the world, are wind-pollinated. The exceptions seem to be tropical rainforests where it's only popular among emergent or ridge-dwelling trees. So this was a case of "close enough is good enough" -- losing the oaks along would butcher the terrestrial biosphere, before even wiping out all the taiga. :/
>> is much more detailed and realistic than what a lot if writers manage, even if the math is rather mor improvisational than anytjing.<<
True. That's because I write from the core out, and most people write from the surface in. I start with either an idea or a form (those two are interchangeable in order without affecting quality of results), then I do the other one, then I work through the rest in order. I'll latch onto something in a prompt or a science article and think, "And then what happens?" When I'm worldbuilding, I start with the planet or other surface, continents, climate, ecosystems, etc. If I'm riffing a variation of our world, I define the linchpin, like the Grunge or the Glaze, which determines a lot about how that alternate world develops from there.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Re: *laugh*
Date: 2023-12-23 05:37 am (UTC)For the opening sequence, yes. But I've taken the math as far as I can. To generate numbers for subsequent years, I'd need progressive statistics -- equations that would tell how many people each year moved from one age group to another.
>> For example, a desingning a non-industrialized society with half the people younger than fifteen <<
That's easy, because you can do it with geometry instead of just numbers. Just pick a pattern, explore its effects on society, and mimic that.
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/references/population-pyramids-by-region
To make that sort of thing complicated, you have do something unusual like adding a third column for an extra sex/gender role.
>> or flipping gender ratios from ~1:~1:~0.05 to 1:9:1 in order to facilitate really different gender norms <<
Admittedly a little trickier.
I had to think about how I wanted the numbers to fall in Daughters of the Apocalypse, not just in the beginning, but to create desired end results. The initial prompt specified a major reversal of social power and demographic representation, so I had to work out not just the what would need to happen but a reasonable explanation for it.
Sometimes you can't get all the numbers you need. When I was setting up Crystal Wood, I wanted to know what percentage of the world's trees were wind-pollinated. Most if not all evergreens are, but from there it gets patchier. However, I was able to determine that most if not all of the dominant tree species in North America, and probably most of the rest of the world, are wind-pollinated. The exceptions seem to be tropical rainforests where it's only popular among emergent or ridge-dwelling trees. So this was a case of "close enough is good enough" -- losing the oaks along would butcher the terrestrial biosphere, before even wiping out all the taiga. :/
>> is much more detailed and realistic than what a lot if writers manage, even if the math is rather mor improvisational than anytjing.<<
True. That's because I write from the core out, and most people write from the surface in. I start with either an idea or a form (those two are interchangeable in order without affecting quality of results), then I do the other one, then I work through the rest in order. I'll latch onto something in a prompt or a science article and think, "And then what happens?" When I'm worldbuilding, I start with the planet or other surface, continents, climate, ecosystems, etc. If I'm riffing a variation of our world, I define the linchpin, like the Grunge or the Glaze, which determines a lot about how that alternate world develops from there.