[__]

Economic realism would do more than just satisfy the nitpicking nerds, too. It would have real artistic value in the form of more verisimilitude in the setting and social atmosphere. I suspect it would affect even economically illiterate readers/viewers, if only on a subconscious level.

For example, something that bugged me about the re-imagined "Battlestar Galatica" series was that a group of only 38,000 survivors, apparently with no more automation technology than the real world, and under constant military threat, have a humming specialized economy. It includes arms manufacturing, ore processing, and even illegal niche industries like child prostitution. It can do these things in addition to maintaining and operating a fleet of sophisticated spacecraft, running intensive military operations, and feeding, clothing, and sheltering everyone. It usually feels more like a population of half a million than 38,000.

But some of the episodes feature shortages of labor or resources, and I like it when this happens. It seems more real. It's easier to empathize with the characters because I can better feel the bleakness of their situation and their challenges seem less contrived.

[gaius]

Those sorts of constraints are what sets hard sci-fi apart from space opera. And in the hands of a skilled writer, economic and technological constraints are powerful tools for storytelling. In Star Trek how does Starfleet know how many starships it can build!?