nations of the Incatena

[Civil War Bugle]

It seems to be implied that the various planets vary as to how many sovereign states are located on each one. Mars and briefly Okura are one state, and I take it that Homeland either does not have any states or likes to act as though it has none. New Bharat's settlement is new enough not to have splintered off. Are there any noteworthy trends re statehood, among the various planets where your Incatena pages don't comment on it?

The thought entered my mind when I wondered how much Sihor dominates its solar system from a political point of view, and then thought that the broad contrast between planets might possibly derive principally from whether humans can live on a given planet without significant terraforming.

[Raphael]

and then thought that the broad contrast between planets might possibly derive principally from whether humans can live on a given planet without significant terraforming.

Interesting. I kind of guess "settled" planets are more likely to be politically united than "species origin" planets.

[zompist]

I'd say that the Incatena views "nations" differently than we do today, based on the model of the Douane, which is a world government with "nations" as members. The EU is a good example, though the specifics of government are different. The Incatena, in turn, expects that entire planets would be members.

Colonization without FTL is a huge undertaking, best organized by a coalition of states, or a whole planet. E.g. Okura was settled from another planet, Qeng, which was itself settled by multiple Asian nations. It began as linguistically separate colonies, which developed into nations. Settlers face a technological cliff— they unavoidably start out way below the standard of living of the home planet. So the "national" level may be far more important, for a long time, than the planetary level.

I'd agree that worlds with a compatible biosphere will get settled faster. Sihor is an example, and so is Okura. These had plants and oxygen atmospheres, so they could expand like colonies did in the Americas: individuals can move to the frontier and start farming. Planets like Euko are more like Antarctica or the Moon: everything has to be built from scratch, cooperatively.

[BGMan]

and then thought that the broad contrast between planets might possibly derive principally from whether humans can live on a given planet without significant terraforming.

Interesting. I kind of guess "settled" planets are more likely to be politically united than "species origin" planets.

It would make total sense, considering Earth history and considering the Americas, or especially Australia, compared to Eur-afr-asia.