UT, war, and logistics

[Frost]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

This has made me wonder if casual cannibalism is rare because of the bounty a planetary ecology enjoys. If that is true then I would want to look at the carrying capacity of orbitals/generation ships/outposts and their robustness. If it is less than a planetary ecology then it may not be so casual. I think the idea of having some separation would be normal but the realities of warfare may make it easier to justify.

I don't think that this matters one way or the other. The existence of viable habitats and outposts implies a minimum level of resources equal to or greater than at least the poorest terrestrial environments. So at least for a human population you don't get a significantly weakened cannibalism taboo.

[dcarson]

One SF story had bodies being recycled into organics for gardens and parks. The grass clippings, flowers etc. end up going into the general organic recycling so they become food one step removed but the symbolism gives the reverence for the dead.

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by Frost

I don't think that this matters one way or the other. The existence of viable habitats and outposts implies a minimum level of resources equal to or greater than at least the poorest terrestrial environments. So at least for a human population you don't get a significantly weakened cannibalism taboo.

Why do you think that a habitat would have resources equal to or greater than bad terrestrial biomes?

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Conservation of energy.

What powers the nanos? Photosynthesis? If they are running on the chemical energy in the corpses then they will be about as useful for producing food as decay organism are. If they aren't, why not run them on something inoffensive, such as air and water?

I would want this to happen fast so what ever energy source allows that is fine.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

Why do you think that a habitat would have resources equal to or greater than bad terrestrial biomes?

In general, if you can maintain any significant level of technology, food just isn't that significant a problem; it doesn't take that much energy.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

I would want this to happen fast so what ever energy source allows that is fine.

The problem is if they're good at putting energy into things, they shouldn't need to start with such good materials.

If you're willing to dump in bunches of energy, you can raise edible algae pretty fast without using corpses at all.

[Frost]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

Why do you think that a habitat would have resources equal to or greater than bad terrestrial biomes?

For me the critical term here is viable.

Based upon patterns of human settlement I think that it is not unreasonable to conclude that the poorest terrestrial biomes will not support large scale human settlement without constant outside support.

Logically a habitat will have to have access to a higher level of resources to provide a viable environment for long term settlement by human beings. If this standard can't be met then you simply will not see habitats in any number or existing for any length of time.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Frost

For me the critical term here is viable.

Based upon patterns of human settlement I think that it is not unreasonable to conclude that the poorest terrestrial biomes will not support large scale human settlement without constant outside support.

Logically a habitat will have to have access to a higher level of resources to provide a viable environment for long term settlement by human beings. If this standard can't be met then you simply will not see habitats in any number or existing for any length of time.

Unless there is a pressing desire to settle those habitats. If this world is the only place in thirty parsecs with unobtanium, it may very well be worth it to import foods for a harvesting operation. Life there will probably be more like that on an oil rig than a colony, but it will happen if the people who can fund it decide it would profit them to do so.

[Frost]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Unless there is a pressing desire to settle those habitats. If this world is the only place in thirty parsecs with unobtanium, it may very well be worth it to import foods for a harvesting operation. Life there will probably be more like that on an oil rig than a colony, but it will happen if the people who can fund it decide it would profit them to do so.

I don't think that this contradicts my basic point.

Your 'unobtanium rigs' will be small temporary habitats with transient populations entirely dependent on outside support. They will only exist where there is a specific need and then only for as long as the need remains. In short for the purposes of this discussion they are largely irrelevant.

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by Frost

For me the critical term here is viable.

Based upon patterns of human settlement I think that it is not unreasonable to conclude that the poorest terrestrial biomes will not support large scale human settlement without constant outside support.

Logically a habitat will have to have access to a higher level of resources to provide a viable environment for long term settlement by human beings. If this standard can't be met then you simply will not see habitats in any number or existing for any length of time.

The problem I see with that analysis is that even the worst of terrestrial biomes (arguably Antarctica) shares water and air and other materials with all the rest of the biomes. Due to size alone we keep an atmosphere. This is not the case with a habitat/ship/ark etc. Keeping a shirtsleeve environment is likely to be costly and need constant supervision. Here if there is a blight we don't notice a drop in O2. It may not be that way in space. That may not make it non-viable but it would cause some change in perspective.

For a couple billion years we have had not much added to this terrestrial habitat. There is plenty for life here and not much of it gets away. But one that is a tiny fraction of Earth's size is probably going to have to watch out for losses if it wants to stay as a closed or nearly closed environment. If you are part of that habitat pretty soon you have a debt to that habitat which is why the dead would be cycled back through the Environmental and Ag departments. Recovery of water and minerals if nothing else. Sure you can pick up fresh material but that costs money or time and effort that the habitat/vessel may not have.

The specific case of military forces reducing the fallen to rations could be viewed as a means to return what belongs to the habitat with the minimum of effort and fuss. Devoid of most of the water (arguably the easiest thing to get in space) the rest of it packs down fairly small and will go back on a transport or in returning troops.