Prison Planets

[Hotfoot]

Sadly, no, life expectancy for women would likely be much longer. The criminals will want to keep the women around, because while it will have to be co-ed, the simple fact remains that men are far more likely to commit violent crimes. Why kill the woman you just raped when you can keep her chained up in your bedroom (or what have you). It's either that or go back to Bubba. We're talking about people who know they're going to be here for a long time, not Reavers.

What's even worse is if a woman brings a child to term. Imagine what will happen when the tribes of pedophiles (or the ones in service to others) get news of this. There's no excuse for that shit.

But yes, this sort of prison pretty much obliterates any sort of "Justice" or "Fair Punishment".

Now what the debate seems to be going into is what Walper thinks is fair punishment for various sorts of crimes, and what he would do with lesser offenders (the true source of prison overpopulation).

[Comrade Tortoise]

How will they not find them?

I knew you were an idiot Walper, I didnt think for a minute that you were that stupid. There are X number of people and Y amount of habitable space. Y happens to be several orders of magnitued the area taken up by X. Hmm... How the fucik are people supposed to feed themselves if they dont know where the food is, or if they are thousands of miles from it?
You dumb fuck

Kinda hard to do since it will be impossible for them to intercept all food packages.

Thaniks for contradicting yourself.

Now, if we think about this, I know it will be hard for you, but please try. A gang does not have total control over the world They have local control. They control a certain amount of space. So, they control all food drops within that space. They will fight neighbors for control over their space, and thus the food resources contained therein.

Was it that hard?

Why? What is it about "food all over the place" that makes people starve?

Because they cant possibly find it all, and when they do, it will be under the control of a local feudal lord. Assmuncher.

Actually, instead you could just make your point without referencing the movie at all or insisting I watch it.

Hotfoot used it as an example. Try using google to research his initial point. SOmalia. And the conflict therein

Depends on the cost to benefit ratio, and what you have to work with. Which requires more work will depend on what you have to work with.

Not really. No matter how you look at it. The opportunity cost of using asteroids is less. The logistics costs are less. And the security is increased.

Where livable is isn't a "on/off" proposition, CT. It's a matter of degrees. People live in harsh and unforgiving climates all over the place, and can live much easier if receiving outside (though restricted) resources.

If humans can live on it at all, and advanced civ can be built on it given even modest effort. The areas where we still have nomad tribes can easily be converted into densly inhabited areas. Especially when there is terraforming tech.

How does the spacecraft being capabe of aerial drops make the shield useless? Whether you drop from orbit or air, the shield can still exist and still needs to be dropped initially (assuming technological means doesn't make even that unnecessary).

The drops of food and WATER would have to be constant. WHich means holes in the shield, all the time. And also a HUGE cost.

If gangs want to sqaubble over who pisses where, that's their problem. After all, it's a planet we're talking about.

It is more than that. They will fight over food and water rights from your resource drops. They will fight over land, women, smart people.

Yes, mobs of hundreds of criminals will charge at machine gun armed soldiers who could mow them down at will. Rolling Eyes

Are you aware of the concept that a man with a gun can control a crowd with a pistol? Why do you think that is, even if he only has only eight bullets?

Those people have something to lose. These criminals dont.

So Comrade Tortoise thinks I'm an unfeeling sociopath. I'll be sure to let you know when I give a shit.

If it looks like a duck.

[Robert Walper]

Now what the debate seems to be going into is what Walper thinks is fair punishment for various sorts of crimes, and what he would do with lesser offenders (the true source of prison overpopulation).

Which means I'm branching off topic. So in the interestes in not doing that further, I'll just concede the "barbaric planetary prison" concept.

So, back on topic, what is it that makes one square kilometer of planetary surface prison more inefficient than one square kilometer asteroid prison?

Right off the bat gravity strikes me as a serious issue. One can establish a prison on a useless rock large enough that produces natural gravity, or a smaller useless rock that doesn't.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Now what the debate seems to be going into is what Walper thinks is fair punishment for various sorts of crimes, and what he would do with lesser offenders (the true source of prison overpopulation).

Which means I'm branching off topic. So in the interestes in not doing that further, I'll just concede the "barbaric planetary prison" concept.

So, back on topic, what is it that makes one square kilometer of planetary surface prison more inefficient than one square kilometer asteroid prison?

Right off the bat gravity strikes me as a serious issue. One can establish a prison on a useless rock large enough that produces natural gravity, or a smaller useless rock that doesn't.

Not what the OP says. And nice attempt at strawmaning our position. The debate is whether entire planet wise prisons are more efficient/better than a series of asteroid prisons.

[SirNitram]

Only an imbecile would think a world would ever be 'useless'. If it has air, it has plant life. If it has plant life, it has farming potential.

[Hotfoot]

Which means I'm branching off topic. So in the interestes in not doing that further, I'll just concede the "barbaric planetary prison" concept.

Actually, it means you've completely lost the grasp of the original topic, if you even had it in the first place.

So, back on topic, what is it that makes one square kilometer of planetary surface prison more inefficient than one square kilometer asteroid prison?

Right off the bat gravity strikes me as a serious issue. One can establish a prison on a useless rock large enough that produces natural gravity, or a smaller useless rock that doesn't.

That's even more off topic than you were drifting before, Walp. At least earlier you were talking about something along the lines of the OP. The question this thread asks is if it is practical to just set aside ENTIRE PLANETS as prisons. I think, thus far, the answer is "no". Anything a prison planet could do, designated prisons as a part of a normal world can most likely do better.

[Robert Walper]

Not what the OP says. And nice attempt at strawmaning our position. The debate is whether entire planet wise prisons are more efficient/better than a series of asteroid prisons.

You'd have to provide the gravity, atmosphere and food for the asteroids to make operating them practical. A planet, even a poor one, could easily provide all of the above.

[Robert Walper]

That's even more off topic than you were drifting before, Walp. At least earlier you were talking about something along the lines of the OP. The question this thread asks is if it is practical to just set aside ENTIRE PLANETS as prisons. I think, thus far, the answer is "no". Anything a prison planet could do, designated prisons as a part of a normal world can most likely do better.

Except for keeping prisons away from the general population, which most people tend to like. Furthermore escaping into society is far easier when it's relatively next door as opposed to off planet. Asteroid prisons would do both, but require far more maintenance than a planetary one (artificial gravity, artificial atmosphere, food shipments, etc).

And there's the extremely simple number crunching. According to this source, the United States had 1 in 142 residents incarcerated in 2002.

Now take some science fiction universe, say Star Wars. A million worlds, each with a population of a billion persons (a generous under estimation I'm sure, since I'm ignoring worlds like Coruscant that alone has trillions). We'll assume they have only half the crime rate. Apply the criminal to resident ratio, and you end up with over 3.5 trillion persons that need to be incarcerated. Even going with those million worlds having relatively 'primitive' societies such as ours, you actually multiple that number to over 18 trillion.

Even magnitudes smaller civilizations, say like Star Trek with a mere 150 worlds at Earth populations, would still (at half the above stated crime rate) need to incarcerate over 3 billion individuals.

Sounds very practical to dedicate a planet or two to these types of populations rather than havesting many thousands of asteroids to do the same job. Even assuming you make any asteroid capable of housing ten thouand inmates, you still need over three hundred thousand of them to accomodate the crime population for the 'small' Trek civilization. Each one needing artificial gravity, atmsphere shipments, food shipments, etc. Where as a single planet could perform the same job.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Except for keeping prisons away from the general population, which most people tend to like. Furthermore escaping into society is far easier when it's relatively next door as opposed to off planet. Asteroid prisons would do both, but require far more maintenance than a planetary one (artificial gravity, artificial atmosphere, food shipments, etc).

Actually, food could easily be produced on sight, it doesnt have to be tasty food. A gruel with some carbohydrates proteins and vitams would do the trick, and that could easily be synthesized on site in such a civilization

Artificial gravity I recon would be dirt cheap, and if it isnt, medications to halt the negative effects would be cheaper.

O2 can be made with shitloads of algea grown on membranes and exposed to the light of the sun, focusesed ever so gently by parabolic lenses. And security is in the form of blast doors and airlocks, controlled from a central hub. Wth maybe 10 actual guards per prison for headcounts and breaking up fights between inmates.

Contrast this to a monumentally cruel prison world where you need literally millions of daily food shipments (in the SW pson world) are at least thousands in a ST prison world. Where you have to power the reactors for planetary shields. Dedicate the logistics required to feed them via shipments (because apparantly, you dont want them having access to any sor of technology). Dedicate at least thousands if not hundreds of thousands of armed guards in order to keep the world fromb being a deathtrap for the prisoners.

[Robert Walper]

Except for keeping prisons away from the general population, which most people tend to like. Furthermore escaping into society is far easier when it's relatively next door as opposed to off planet. Asteroid prisons would do both, but require far more maintenance than a planetary one (artificial gravity, artificial atmosphere, food shipments, etc).

Actually, food could easily be produced on sight, it doesnt have to be tasty food. A gruel with some carbohydrates proteins and vitams would do the trick, and that could easily be synthesized on site in such a civilization

While I'm all for not giving prisoners the luxury of lavish meals, you're still going to need to feed your actual workers. And all this can be accomplished on a planet as well.

Artificial gravity I recon would be dirt cheap, and if it isnt, medications to halt the negative effects would be cheaper.

Instead of employing artificial gravity or medications, utilize a natural gravity field which eliminates that expense altogether. That would be more efficient.

Not to mention lack of gravity is going to make guard's and worker's lives hell. And it doesn't matter how cheap artificial gravity systems are, natural gravity fields are more reliable, free of expense, maintenance and potential failure.

O2 can be made with shitloads of algea grown on membranes and exposed to the light of the sun, focusesed ever so gently by parabolic lenses.

Basically, having to devote further resources, efforts and maintenance for breathable atmosphere. Something a planet, again, can do for free.

And security is in the form of blast doors and airlocks, controlled from a central hub. Wth maybe 10 actual guards per prison for headcounts and breaking up fights between inmates.

And why can't this be employed on planets? The planet doesn't have to be just "one large prison"...it can support many thousands of self sufficient and contained units. Even divided as per your example into different catagories (ie: minimum security, medium security, maximum security, etc). Your guard numbers don't change, nor do your prisoner numbers.

You're simply putting them all on one place, which has benefits. Imagine if there is a breakout in a prison unit. The current guards can call for help from other prison units, getting armed assistance quickly rather than trying to radio for help and hoping some police spacecraft is in range.

Contrast this to a monumentally cruel prison world where you need literally millions of daily food shipments (in the SW pson world) are at least thousands in a ST prison world. Where you have to power the reactors for planetary shields. Dedicate the logistics required to feed them via shipments (because apparantly, you dont want them having access to any sor of technology). Dedicate at least thousands if not hundreds of thousands of armed guards in order to keep the world fromb being a deathtrap for the prisoners.

Since we're no longer arguing the cruel prison world idea...

A planetary body can accomplish everything your asteroid prisons can, and be vastly cheaper in the process, since you don't need artificial gravity systems and can have free breathable atmosphere.

Frankly, the asteroid prison idea is much like suggesting you make underwater prisons instead of just making one on a distant island.

[Hotfoot]

Except for keeping prisons away from the general population, which most people tend to like. Furthermore escaping into society is far easier when it's relatively next door as opposed to off planet. Asteroid prisons would do both, but require far more maintenance than a planetary one (artificial gravity, artificial atmosphere, food shipments, etc).

What people LIKE and what is practical tend to be two different things though. Given how much screaming you did earlier about setting aside emotional arguments and looking at the logic behind it, this makes little sense. Take in mind as well that Guards will often have families, and making them work excessively far from them will reduce willing guards from your employ.

If you have a society where large portions of the population already are living in orbital colonies (read: space stations), it's not much of a stretch to put prisoners there as well. If the station is large enough (which it most likely is), then it can have its own hydroponics bay. Food shipments can come in to supplement the stores, as well as provide higher-quality meals to the guards.

Meanwhile, there's little evidence that conventional prisons don't work. Yes, ground-based prisons work quite well. However, there is no impetus to change the method of existing prisons from guards running the place to letting the prisoners run the place. You can argue that prisoners DO run some jails, or that some guard populations are tremendously corrupt, but that's a failing of humans within the system, not the system itself.

And there's the extremely simple number crunching. According to this source, the United States had 1 in 142 residents incarcerated in 2002.

Good. Now we're getting somewhere. Next question: why consolodate the prisoner population to a single world? Why not keep them outnumbered and overpowered on their home worlds? Why pay for expensive shipping to another star when you can cart them down to the local jail.

Consider, for a moment, that your standard jail cell is not nearly as large as an apartment building. This means that for the same space you could put a residential complex, you can put a prison which houses many more prisoners per cubic meter than a respective apartment complex. Some additional space is required at the periphery of the property in order to maintain security, but that space is negligable. Meanwhile, as far as zoning goes, well, you keep prisons away from residential zones. Make sure there are police stations nearby on all the major points, and you're set.

So you've got a number with which to figure out population. Now you need to provide a reason why it would be beneficial to dedicate the resources of an entire planet towards incarcerating these individuals. Even if you only have a small number of guards in orbit to watch the situation, how did they get there? How long is their deployment? Do they have families? Are they military? Clearly once you've hit this scale you can forget about driving to and from work, which is going to make hiring guards even more difficult than it is today.

Now take some science fiction universe, say Star Wars. A million worlds, each with a population of a billion persons (a generous under estimation I'm sure, since I'm ignoring worlds like Coruscant that alone has trillions). We'll assume they have only half the crime rate. Apply the criminal to resident ratio, and you end up with over 3.5 trillion persons that need to be incarcerated. Even going with those million worlds having relatively 'primitive' societies such as ours, you actually multiple that number to over 18 trillion.

And 18 trillion divided by a million is 18 million. Say you have ten thousand prisons spread over the world, you'd need each prison to hold a whopping 1,800 individual offenders. Increase that number by half again in order to account for transient offenders, and you're good to go.

Even magnitudes smaller civilizations, say like Star Trek with a mere 150 worlds at Earth populations, would still (at half the above stated crime rate) need to incarcerate over 3 billion individuals.

Again, a distributed local prison system is still far superior to finding a planet, terraforming it, and getting nothing useful out of it other than a place to dump the criminal elements of our societies.

Sounds very practical to dedicate a planet or two to these types of populations rather than havesting many thousands of asteroids to do the same job. Even assuming you make any asteroid capable of housing ten thouand inmates, you still need over three hundred thousand of them to accomodate the crime population for the 'small' Trek civilization. Each one needing artificial gravity, atmsphere shipments, food shipments, etc. Where as a single planet could perform the same job.

Never mind that aside from the wank-tech genesis torpedo, terraforming in pretty much ANY sci-fi universe worth believing is a long, arduous process that can take years, if not centuries. Also, while a world with a local prison system (perhaps sending their worst offenders to high-security "federal" asteroid prisons), allows a world to continue producing goods and services useful to the society at large. A prison planet, espcially one without a guard population, offers nothing, not even food.

Thus, using the model we've supplied, a planet that keeps its local criminal population stored in local planetside or orbital facilities can continue producing without any significant loss, and in fact the planets that would have otherwise been put aside for prisoner use may now be exploited by the society at large and used for, if nothing else, food production.

[Robert Walper]

Except for keeping prisons away from the general population, which most people tend to like. Furthermore escaping into society is far easier when it's relatively next door as opposed to off planet. Asteroid prisons would do both, but require far more maintenance than a planetary one (artificial gravity, artificial atmosphere, food shipments, etc).

What people LIKE and what is practical tend to be two different things though. Given how much screaming you did earlier about setting aside emotional arguments and looking at the logic behind it, this makes little sense. Take in mind as well that Guards will often have families, and making them work excessively far from them will reduce willing guards from your employ.

If necessary, hire individuals without families. Plenty of those. Even individuals with families are known to take long term jobs where they won't see them for quite some time.

Never mind your arguement assumes the travel time between worlds must be long.

If you have a society where large portions of the population already are living in orbital colonies (read: space stations), it's not much of a stretch to put prisoners there as well.

Do you even realize how stupid it is to suggest we should put effort into placing criminals within general populations as opposed to shipping them out?

If the station is large enough (which it most likely is), then it can have its own hydroponics bay. Food shipments can come in to supplement the stores, as well as provide higher-quality meals to the guards.

And why couldn't a planet provide this independently, with lesser need to artificially fuel these efforts?

Meanwhile, there's little evidence that conventional prisons don't work. Yes, ground-based prisons work quite well. However, there is no impetus to change the method of existing prisons from guards running the place to letting the prisoners run the place. You can argue that prisoners DO run some jails, or that some guard populations are tremendously corrupt, but that's a failing of humans within the system, not the system itself.

So planet based prisons are already a sure thing. How does this hinder my arguement?

And there's the extremely simple number crunching. According to this source, the United States had 1 in 142 residents incarcerated in 2002.

Good. Now we're getting somewhere. Next question: why consolodate the prisoner population to a single world?

Why do we consolodate prisoners into single facilities?

Why not keep them outnumbered and overpowered on their home worlds?

Tell that to the families that lose loved ones to an escaping criminal(s).

Honestly, I can't belief you're seriously suggesting that having the criminal population surrounded by innocents is a good thing. The more you can isolate the criminal elements of society, the easier it'll be to control (or perhaps treat) them.

Why pay for expensive shipping to another star when you can cart them down to the local jail.

Why pay expensive shipping to cart them to asteroid/space station prisons? And then you have to use local resources continously to keep them in supply. A prison planet would required an established design and infrastruture, prisoners and workers. After that, it's home free, it pays it's own bills.

Consider, for a moment, that your standard jail cell is not nearly as large as an apartment building. This means that for the same space you could put a residential complex, you can put a prison which houses many more prisoners per cubic meter than a respective apartment complex. Some additional space is required at the periphery of the property in order to maintain security, but that space is negligable. Meanwhile, as far as zoning goes, well, you keep prisons away from residential zones. Make sure there are police stations nearby on all the major points, and you're set.

And what's wrong with this on a planetary scale? As I've illustrated with interstellar population numbers, you're just taking land (a planet) and setting it aside for incarceration. This is no different than your zoning example, with the exception the prison planet is far more secure than your neighborhood prison building, because a planet is vastly more difficult to get off of. Distributed prison systems and/or asteroids/space stations cannot indendepently support themselves, which a planet can.

So you've got a number with which to figure out population. Now you need to provide a reason why it would be beneficial to dedicate the resources of an entire planet towards incarcerating these individuals.

Because the size of the criminal population would justify the expenditure. How was that in any way unclear? You think billions or trillions of criminals cannot be made to effectively utilize the resources of a planet?

Even if you only have a small number of guards in orbit to watch the situation, how did they get there?

Transportation.

How long is their deployment?

Depends upon the civilization's technological means and scheduling system in place.

Do they have families?

I don't see why some of them wouldn't, nor do I see how that's relevent.

Are they military?

It could be a military operation. Troops after all can be expected to be deployed for years at a time. And considering it would be guard duty, that's a relatively easy assignment in comparison to, say, combat.

Clearly once you've hit this scale you can forget about driving to and from work, which is going to make hiring guards even more difficult than it is today.

Based upon what? We haven't established any type limit on how long or short trips to and fro planets takes. It could very well be a trip like "driving to and from work". Or it could be like today's oil riggers who spend alternating weeks on a full time oil rig. Even if the trip does take a long time, and the scheduling calls for long assignments, this is nothing new in the working field for people.

Now take some science fiction universe, say Star Wars. A million worlds, each with a population of a billion persons (a generous under estimation I'm sure, since I'm ignoring worlds like Coruscant that alone has trillions). We'll assume they have only half the crime rate. Apply the criminal to resident ratio, and you end up with over 3.5 trillion persons that need to be incarcerated. Even going with those million worlds having relatively 'primitive' societies such as ours, you actually multiple that number to over 18 trillion.

And 18 trillion divided by a million is 18 million. Say you have ten thousand prisons spread over the world, you'd need each prison to hold a whopping 1,800 individual offenders. Increase that number by half again in order to account for transient offenders, and you're good to go.

So you have prisons spread throughout your society, which is by definition a higher security risk. Most people don't object to paying a little extra for additional security, especially if the benefit is having dangerous criminals so isolated and secure you can virtually be certain they won't be interfering with the general population again.

Even magnitudes smaller civilizations, say like Star Trek with a mere 150 worlds at Earth populations, would still (at half the above stated crime rate) need to incarcerate over 3 billion individuals.

Again, a distributed local prison system is still far superior to finding a planet, terraforming it, and getting nothing useful out of it other than a place to dump the criminal elements of our societies.

Who said anything about terraforming a planet? Just find one suitable in the first place.

And what makes "distributed prison systems" more 'useful' than a singular one that offers vastly higher security and capacity?

Sounds very practical to dedicate a planet or two to these types of populations rather than havesting many thousands of asteroids to do the same job. Even assuming you make any asteroid capable of housing ten thouand inmates, you still need over three hundred thousand of them to accomodate the crime population for the 'small' Trek civilization. Each one needing artificial gravity, atmsphere shipments, food shipments, etc. Where as a single planet could perform the same job.

Never mind that aside from the wank-tech genesis torpedo, terraforming in pretty much ANY sci-fi universe worth believing is a long, arduous process that can take years, if not centuries.

Strawman. My arguement does not require the terraforming of a planet. Merely finding one suitable to the purpose in mind.

Also, while a world with a local prison system (perhaps sending their worst offenders to high-security "federal" asteroid prisons), allows a world to continue producing goods and services useful to the society at large.

Which then has to send resources to said asteroid/space station prisons, where as a planetary prison could provide all of it's own necessities.

A prison planet, espcially one without a guard population, offers nothing, not even food.

A prison building, especially one without a guard population, offers nothing, not even food.

See how your statement is uttler pointless?

A planetary prison can provide it's own necessities (all it would need is prisoners and workers). Distributed prison systems and asteroid/space station cannot.

With a large enough population to justify the planetary sized prison, the efficiency is extremely high. Thousands of planets can send their entire criminal population to a prison world and not need lift a finger to take care of them.

Thus, using the model we've supplied, a planet that keeps its local criminal population stored in local planetside or orbital facilities can continue producing without any significant loss, and in fact the planets that would have otherwise been put aside for prisoner use may now be exploited by the society at large and used for, if nothing else, food production.

You seem to be failing to grasp that it doesn't matter where the criminals are kept, they will, at minimum, require the same amount of resources.

Distributed prison systems on populated worlds contribute nothing, tax local resources and are a higher security risk.

Asteroid/space station prisons require lifelines and additional resources beyond even the distributed prison system.

A planetary prison could provide all of it's own necessities and is far more isolated and secure.

[Comrade Tortoise]

While I'm all for not giving prisoners the luxury of lavish meals, you're still going to need to feed your actual workers. And all this can be accomplished on a planet as well.

Not with the model you have suggested. Wth an entire world devoted jst to housing prisoners. You still have to ship decent food to your guards, which cosats a hell of a lot more than shipping the small amounts in-system. because a lot of the shipping costs are fixed.

Instead of employing artificial gravity or medications, utilize a natural gravity field which eliminates that expense altogether. That would be more efficient.

Not to mention lack of gravity is going to make guard's and worker's lives hell. And it doesn't matter how cheap artificial gravity systems are, natural gravity fields are more reliable, free of expense, maintenance and potential failure.

So you attempt to cut costs on artificial gravity by shipping prisoners to a distant planet which is expensive (compared to the costs of shipping them locally) I mean, you have to fuel the ships, pay the crew by the hour, maintain the ships, which due to increased use have to be more rigorously maintained. You have to feed the crew on long voyages, you have to pay for THEIR artificial gravity systems, and because the operational lives of that sort of equipment is measured oftentimes in flight hours you will have to out and out replace those ships more often.

Basically, having to devote further resources, efforts and maintenance for breathable atmosphere. Something a planet, again, can do for free.

Save for the opportunity costs of not being able to use that planet for anything else. Like production of decent food for your civy population.

You're simply putting them all on one place, which has benefits. Imagine if there is a breakout in a prison unit. The current guards can call for help from other prison units, getting armed assistance quickly rather than trying to radio for help and hoping some police spacecraft is in range.

If there is an asteroid prison, all you need to do when there is a riot is get on the intercom, and inform them that they have 1 minute 30 seconds to get back in their cells before the airlocks on that level are blown. After that, the cell doors slam shut, anyone in their cells is fine, while those who are rioting are spaced.

The prisoners have that happen once, there will not be anohter riot. n And it can be done for free.

Basically, having to devote further resources, efforts and maintenance for breathable atmosphere. Something a planet, again, can do for free.

Algae is almost maint-free. The costs of doing it are orders of magnitude lower than maintaining even a single prison world's infastructure or even shipping food to the guards.

The problem with feeding, for example, a prison world is that you have too many prisoners on planet to feed them with food made locally. A prison for non-violent offenders on a core world, or an asteroid colony does not have that problem

[Comrade Tortoise]

If necessary, hire individuals without families. Plenty of those. Even individuals with families are known to take long term jobs where they won't see them for quite some time.

Never mind your arguement assumes the travel time between worlds must be long.

Depends on how badly one wants to violate the laws of physics

Do you even realize how stupid it is to suggest we should put effort into placing criminals within general populations as opposed to shipping them out?

Nice stawman. He didnt say that. he said put them in space stations. Didnt specify whether they would live directly with the local pop

And why couldn't a planet provide this independently, with lesser need to artificially fuel these efforts?

Because you are using it to house prisoners. And space for food production for your normal population is drastically reduced through the use of a planet.

So planet based prisons are already a sure thing. How does this hinder my arguement?

He isnt talking about prison worlds. he is talking about local prisons, like the one I have a few miles west of me'

Why do we consolodate prisoners into single facilities?

We dont, we spread them out

Tell that to the families that lose loved ones to an escaping criminal(s).

Honestly, I can't belief you're seriously suggesting that having the criminal population surrounded by innocents is a good thing. The more you can isolate the criminal elements of society, the easier it'll be to control (or perhaps treat) them.

Why ship them to another planet when it is demonstrably cheaper to isolate them in-system?

Why pay expensive shipping to cart them to asteroid/space station prisons? And then you have to use local resources continously to keep them in supply. A prison planet would required an established design and infrastruture, prisoners and workers. After that, it's home free, it pays it's own bills.

You would still need to keep them in supply on a planet. That planet could not produce anything. You use valuable resources, which can be used for other things, to house prisoners. That is problem 1. problem 2 is you have to ship prisoners to the world, which is orders of magnitude more expensive than shipping them locally. Problem 3 is that armed guards are required to control them. In an asteroid prison, the airlock and whether it is closed or open to space will control the prisoners.

Transportation.

Which is expensive compared to breaking up the fight with the threat of opening an airlock.

You can cantrol one asteroid prison with one well- trained sociopath.

Depends upon the civilization's technological means and scheduling system in place.

It was a question walper, answer it

Based upon what? We haven't established any type limit on how long or short trips to and fro planets takes. It could very well be a trip like "driving to and from work". Or it could be like today's oil riggers who spend alternating weeks on a full time oil rig. Even if the trip does take a long time, and the scheduling calls for long assignments, this is nothing new in the working field for people.

Costs are increased because of it though

So you have prisons spread throughout your society, which is by definition a higher security risk. Most people don't object to paying a little extra for additional security, especially if the benefit is having dangerous criminals so isolated and secure you can virtually be certain they won't be interfering with the general population again.

Just as isolated on a station or on an asteroid

Who said anything about terraforming a planet? Just find one suitable in the first place.

You dont have to... but worlds you dont have to terraform can be used for more worthwhile things

Which then has to send resources to said asteroid/space station prisons, where as a planetary prison could provide all of it's own necessities.

An astroid orison can be completely self sufficient. What are you doing, letting the prisoners out to farm? You have to have more workers that way, you have to pay and feed them. And all of that will be muh more expensive than having one sociopath per asteroid prison who maintains a small hydropaunic garden in his office.

A planetary prison can provide it's own necessities (all it would need is prisoners and workers). Distributed prison systems and asteroid/space station cannot.

Do you have any idea how easy it would be to manufacture genetically modified algae and use an algae soup to feed prisoners?

An asteroid can do that easily.

With a large enough population to justify the planetary sized prison, the efficiency is extremely high. Thousands of planets can send their entire criminal population to a prison world and not need lift a finger to take care of them.

I have already called bullshit on that numerous times.

How are they producing the food? Not for the prisoners but the guards as well. With each new rison building, each new shipment of criminals for a thousand worlds, the food production capacity of the planet will decrease drastically.

Asteroid/space station prisons require lifelines and additional resources beyond even the distributed prison system.

I have already shown that they dont

[Robert Walper]

While I'm all for not giving prisoners the luxury of lavish meals, you're still going to need to feed your actual workers. And all this can be accomplished on a planet as well.

Not with the model you have suggested. Wth an entire world devoted jst to housing prisoners. You still have to ship decent food to your guards, which cosats a hell of a lot more than shipping the small amounts in-system. because a lot of the shipping costs are fixed.

Let me clarify. The point here is to build an entirely self sufficient prison world, which frees up the "core worlds"(for lack of a better term) from having to supply or house said criminals. Basically it would be a massive prison that is self sufficient and does not require outside assistance once established.

Instead of employing artificial gravity or medications, utilize a natural gravity field which eliminates that expense altogether. That would be more efficient.

Not to mention lack of gravity is going to make guard's and worker's lives hell. And it doesn't matter how cheap artificial gravity systems are, natural gravity fields are more reliable, free of expense, maintenance and potential failure.

So you attempt to cut costs on artificial gravity by shipping prisoners to a distant planet which is expensive (compared to the costs of shipping them locally) I mean, you have to fuel the ships, pay the crew by the hour, maintain the ships, which due to increased use have to be more rigorously maintained. You have to feed the crew on long voyages, you have to pay for THEIR artificial gravity systems, and because the operational lives of that sort of equipment is measured oftentimes in flight hours you will have to out and out replace those ships more often.

All those costs would be easily compensated once the prison planet is up and running. Once established, you'd only need to ensure a worker supply. That's it.

Basically, having to devote further resources, efforts and maintenance for breathable atmosphere. Something a planet, again, can do for free.

Save for the opportunity costs of not being able to use that planet for anything else. Like production of decent food for your civy population.

The resources for supplying a criminal population have to come from somewhere, whether it's the core worlds or the prison world itself. The minimum resources said criminals would consume wouldn't change. The important difference being the prison world would be extremely secure and isolated, and self sufficient. Again, once established, you only need to ensure a supply of workers for it.

You're simply putting them all on one place, which has benefits. Imagine if there is a breakout in a prison unit. The current guards can call for help from other prison units, getting armed assistance quickly rather than trying to radio for help and hoping some police spacecraft is in range.

If there is an asteroid prison, all you need to do when there is a riot is get on the intercom, and inform them that they have 1 minute 30 seconds to get back in their cells before the airlocks on that level are blown. After that, the cell doors slam shut, anyone in their cells is fine, while those who are rioting are spaced.

You can accomplish the same effect by knocking out prisoners with sleeping gas on the planet prison facility. Would be more humane as well, since you can freely secure them when they are unconcious.

The prisoners have that happen once, there will not be anohter riot. n And it can be done for free.

Losing valueable atmosphere to space hardly qualifies as free.

Basically, having to devote further resources, efforts and maintenance for breathable atmosphere. Something a planet, again, can do for free.

Algae is almost maint-free.

'Almost', as opposed to a planetary atmosphere which is free.

The costs of doing it are orders of magnitude lower than maintaining even a single prison world's infastructure or even shipping food to the guards.

The problem with feeding, for example, a prison world is that you have too many prisoners on planet to feed them with food made locally.

We can feed a planetary population now. As I said, establish a self sufficient system where the planet can support itself. Whether the food is created locally or shipped, it's still the same stuff. It will simply be vastly cheaper to create it locally. The planet will definitely have excess (gruel for inmates), so it could even export goods.

A prison for non-violent offenders on a core world, or an asteroid colony does not have that problem

Why would a planetary prison have a problem supplying it's own food? You only need the technology, workers and infrastructure to do so. You need those regardless of what prison scale you're dealing with.

[Hotfoot]

If necessary, hire individuals without families. Plenty of those. Even individuals with families are known to take long term jobs where they won't see them for quite some time.

Yes, but it seriously diminishes your potential employee pool, even moreso than what we have today.

Never mind your arguement assumes the travel time between worlds must be long.

Consider the following:
It is easier to walk to work than to take the train
It is easier to take the train than it is to drive
It is easier to drive than it is to take a plane
It is easier to take a plane than to take a sub-orbital craft
It is easier to take a sub-orbital craft than to take an orbital craft
It is easier to take an orbital craft than an interplanetary craft
It is easier to take an interplanetary craft than an intersteller craft

Regardless of how advanced your society is, these tenants should almost always hold true. Total cost goes way up when you have to move people around between star systems on a regular basis.

Do you even realize how stupid it is to suggest we should put effort into placing criminals within general populations as opposed to shipping them out?

First off, I'm suggesting that, by and large, prison stations should be seperate structures (though stations should still have holding cells and police forces and such). However, the difference comes from the fact that a habitat is pretty much a living space. Sure, you can produce some things, like high-end materials, or research, but by and large they are little more than cities in space. Nothing is produced. Since there is no real production loss from assigning a particular station to prisoner containment, there is no net loss to the society as there would be from assigning an entire planet to prisoner containment.

When it comes to planetary matters, consider the fact that simply by removing the prisoners from the general population by, I don't know, PUTTING THEM IN JAIL, you have achieved your necessary goal. So long as you manage the prison populations and maintain proper security, you have little concern about a major break, and since the jails are spread out, it's a relatively simple matter for police forces to minimize the damage in the event of escapes.

And why couldn't a planet provide this independently, with lesser need to artificially fuel these efforts?

It can. Please, do continue reading. However, if space on the planet is already at a premium, then constructing such a station is a trivial cost compared to the potential gain from colonizing a new world.

So planet based prisons are already a sure thing. How does this hinder my arguement?

Because you're arguing for an entire planet set aside for nothing but prisoners, which is, quite frankly, retarded, because now you've got a planet's worth of resources that are entirely unavailable to you.

Why do we consolodate prisoners into single facilities?

I'm sorry, that's a fallacy. In order for that argument to be effective, we would have to take all of the prisoners in the world (or, for your sake, one nation) and put them in one giant facility.

Multiple facilities break up the total population over a very large area of space and make them relatively easy to manage and contain. Throwing prisoners into a large expanse of land simply does not work, and denies the society the use of that land for industry, trade, and so on. We can find little corners of worlds that nobody wants easily enough, it's MUCH harder to go and set aside an entire planet for nothing but containing prisoners. Well, unless you plan on turning it into a forced labor camp, but even then there are problems, as prisoners won't have the training and equipment of proper, commercial laborers.

Tell that to the families that lose loved ones to an escaping criminal(s).

Yes, because that happens SO damn often.

Honestly, I can't belief you're seriously suggesting that having the criminal population surrounded by innocents is a good thing. The more you can isolate the criminal elements of society, the easier it'll be to control (or perhaps treat) them.

Earth to Walp, I'm not saying "put prisons in residential areas", I'm saying there's no need to remove them from the planet. Meanwhile, the off chance of a prison break is miniscule compared to the people hurt by released offenders. Seriously, where do you get your perception of reality? Hollywood? How about citing some numbers for prison breaks and showing that they are a significant threat under the current system.

For someone who doesn't care for emotional arguments, you seem to be relying on them a hell of a lot.

Why pay expensive shipping to cart them to asteroid/space station prisons?

See above. Transorbital < Interplanetary < Interstellar

And what's wrong with this on a planetary scale? As I've illustrated with interstellar population numbers, you're just taking land (a planet) and setting it aside for incarceration. This is no different than your zoning example, with the exception the prison planet is far more secure than your neighborhood prison building, because a planet is vastly more difficult to get off of. Distributed prison systems and/or asteroids/space stations cannot indendepently support themselves, which a planet can.

Yes, it is different, because instead of taking worthless (or low-worth) areas of land on a planet, you are taking an ENTIRE planet (which is very valuable) and gaining nothing from it. In addition, you incur even worse costs for transport than to station/asteroid prisons, and you get pretty damn near nothing out of it. Meanwhile, a prison planet is nowhere near more secure. You'll need guards who literally live ON the planet, massively outnumbered by the prisoners. If you make the prisoners free-range like you've suggested in the past, the only way to describe the system is cruel and unusual. Meanwhile, all the same problems of supplying personnel to maintain the facilities exist, except that now you've got to ship them out from home planets to work on a world where 95% of the population is some sort of offender. This gets even worse if you've got worlds with different security levels. Good luck finding enough people to bring their families to guard the world of Child Molesters.

Because the size of the criminal population would justify the expenditure. How was that in any way unclear? You think billions or trillions of criminals cannot be made to effectively utilize the resources of a planet?

Not safely, no. The more freedom you give the prisoners, the more access to technology and tools, the more dangerous you make things. You start organizing planet-wide mining, farming, and industrial efforts, and now you really do have a planet of criminals, and backup is several light-years away. One revolt, and it's game over. They're self-sufficient, making guns, and getting ready to raise hell. Meanwhile a revolt in a conventional prison can be put down by SWAT if necessary.

Transportation.

No shit. They take the hyperbus every day? Who's footing this bill? How thin is your selection pool? Do you have to pull people from dozens of star systems to manage one planet? That's a lot of trips to make, and it's a constant expense, not just one time.

Depends upon the civilization's technological means and scheduling system in place.

You're right. And for anything less than Star Wars hyperdrive, it's bullshit. You mean to tell me that a significant number of people will willing work in a star system at best a full day away from their home, and at worst up to two weeks? Come on, that's pushing it.

I don't see why some of them wouldn't, nor do I see how that's relevent.

People with families are less willing to take jobs that take them away from their families for extended periods of time. You can counter with "but there are people that do", and that would be true, but the question is, would that be enough. Such people are already in high demand for other jobs, ones that may pay better than a prison guard's salary, and have more rewarding work. So right now, you're dealing with a bare fraction of the existing worker pool for guard duty. Enough that the entire concept may just be untenable.

It could be a military operation. Troops after all can be expected to be deployed for years at a time. And considering it would be guard duty, that's a relatively easy assignment in comparison to, say, combat.

So now prisons filled with civilians are being guarded by military troops? What happens when a war breaks out?

Based upon what? We haven't established any type limit on how long or short trips to and fro planets takes. It could very well be a trip like "driving to and from work". Or it could be like today's oil riggers who spend alternating weeks on a full time oil rig. Even if the trip does take a long time, and the scheduling calls for long assignments, this is nothing new in the working field for people.

Simple logic tells us that interstellar travel is ALWAYS going to be more expensive and arduous than a drive down the street. This is true now, and you can clearly see it's true in Star Wars. Luke owns a hovercar, but has to pay a ridiculous sum for starship travel.

Meanwhile, oil rigs are about cargo hauling. I don't think I should have to point out for you that the JOB is making sure the cargo gets from point A to point B, not to watch it while is sits at point B for a week. Your comparisons are getting worse and worse.

So you have prisons spread throughout your society, which is by definition a higher security risk. Most people don't object to paying a little extra for additional security, especially if the benefit is having dangerous criminals so isolated and secure you can virtually be certain they won't be interfering with the general population again.

Hah, that's funny. How many breakouts do we have per year, Walper? How about per decade? How big are those breakouts? How many people die?

Let's compare that to flaws in the legal system that let criminals get away with a crime only to commit one in the future, or when an offender serves his time and is released back into the population, only to offend again. Or even BETTER, let's compare riots and breakouts between smaller facilities and larger ones.

This isn't a "little" extra, Walp. It's denying the effective resources of a planet, PLUS high-end travel costs, high guard salaries, for a prison system in which if anything WERE to happen wrong, it would be a fuckup on a planetary scale.

Who said anything about terraforming a planet? Just find one suitable in the first place.

That assumes that they exist, are abundant, and haven't already been colonized. A bad assumption, given the proposed sizes of societies here.

And what makes "distributed prison systems" more 'useful' than a singular one that offers vastly higher security and capacity?

Easier containment of the prisoner population, shithead. You've yet to show how a HUGE fucking jail is somehow more secure than a small one. The larger a prisoner population gets, the more difficult it becomes to manage and contain it. If something goes wrong in a huge facility, it requires a similarly huge response, which takes longer to mobilize, which increases the damage done.

Strawman. My arguement does not require the terraforming of a planet. Merely finding one suitable to the purpose in mind.

Any pre-existing planets would still have to be acclamated to human-friendly conditions. Too many random variables exist to allow for perfectly Earth-like planets in every solar system, and any that are even remotely close will quickly be latched onto and colonized as fast as possible.

Which then has to send resources to said asteroid/space station prisons, where as a planetary prison could provide all of it's own necessities.

But nothing as useful to society as a fully colonized and industrial world.

A prison building, especially one without a guard population, offers nothing, not even food.

And yet the building is part of a larger system, with immediate access to the necessities by virture of BEING ON A PLANET THAT CAN PRODUCE THEM AND SUPPLY THEM CHEAPLY.

See how your statement is uttler pointless?

I'd ask something similar about your existance at this point.

A planetary prison can provide it's own necessities (all it would need is prisoners and workers). Distributed prison systems and asteroid/space station cannot.

Ahem. Bullshit, Walp. Now you're putting workers on this planet. Civilian workers, perhaps? A civilian population on a prison planet? Now you're having your cake and eating it.

With a large enough population to justify the planetary sized prison, the efficiency is extremely high. Thousands of planets can send their entire criminal population to a prison world and not need lift a finger to take care of them.

Patently false. They still need to supply the guards, the ships to transport the guards, the mechanics to maintain and repair the ships to transport the guards, the companies to funnel funds into making ships with no other purpose than to bring guards to the planet and back to their homes (along with, potentially, prisoners). You've got the costs of the guards themselves, which has to be paid for through taxes and is much higher due to the circumstances their job now puts them in. If you add civilian workers to the mix, the costs increase as well, and in addition to all that, instead of having an additional world to add substantial value to the economy, you've got nothing more than a money sink. Additionally, should there be a massive prison riot or somesuch, you've got to concern yourself with sending in troops to re-establish order, which costs more money, and oh yes, before I forget, let's not forget repairs to the facility, disaster aid (what, no earthquakes/storms on these planets?), medical supplies to the prison, and so on.

All of this is much, much more than if the prisons were local. Sure, a lot of the same things are all applied for prison buildings, but once again, transport by truck/train/boat/plane is PHENOMENALLY CHEAPER than transport by interstellar ship.

You seem to be failing to grasp that it doesn't matter where the criminals are kept, they will, at minimum, require the same amount of resources.

No, I understand that. What YOU are failing to grasp is that a intersteller ship WILL NEVER BE AS CHEAP AS A CAR, NOR WILL IT EVER BE AS CHEAP TO GO TO ANOTHER SOLAR SYSTEM AS IT IS TO GO TO ANOTHER CITY.

Distributed prison systems on populated worlds contribute nothing, tax local resources and are a higher security risk.

Bullshit, so what, and you've yet to prove that.

Asteroid/space station prisons require lifelines and additional resources beyond even the distributed prison system.

Yet still below that of a Planetary prison, something you fail to grasp.

A planetary prison could provide all of it's own necessities and is far more isolated and secure.

Isolated != Secure

[Comrade Tortoise]

You can accomplish the same effect by knocking out prisoners with sleeping gas on the planet prison facility. Would be more humane as well, since you can freely secure them when they are unconcious.

You cant do that with one person...

The resources for supplying a criminal population have to come from somewhere, whether it's the core worlds or the prison world itself. The minimum resources said criminals would consume wouldn't change. The important difference being the prison world would be extremely secure and isolated, and self sufficient. Again, once established, you only need to ensure a supply of workers for it.

And an asteroid with lower startup ant maintainence costs wouldnt also be?

You can fit over 6 billion prisoners inside one 6 km x 6km x 6km asteroid. You can do so securely, and provided you have a cubic kilometer of space inside the asteroid, you can use that to hang literally millions and millions of highly porous, coiled membranes upon which grow a highly nutritious, and prolific strain of green algae, which will provide both air processing and food. Havested for food and distributed to prisoners through an automated system.

As opposed to using the workers to grow their own food...

Losing valueable atmosphere to space hardly qualifies as free.

So long as there are prisoners breathing out Co2, the algae will be able to make upthe lost oxygen.

'Almost', as opposed to a planetary atmosphere which is free.

Actually, a planetary atmo is not free. Because if you say, house the prisoners of thousands of worlds on that planet, you will not be having many plants left. WHich means you will depleate your own oxygen. WHich means you will also have to rely on algae rooms.

We can feed a planetary population now. As I said, establish a self sufficient system where the planet can support itself. Whether the food is created locally or shipped, it's still the same stuff. It will simply be vastly cheaper to create it locally. The planet will definitely have excess (gruel for inmates), so it could even export goods.

Who the hell would eat it willingly? What are you feeding your workers?

Why would a planetary prison have a problem supplying it's own food? You only need the technology, workers and infrastructure to do so. You need those regardless of what prison scale you're dealing with.

You have to feed both yoru prisoners and your workers. And if you have to dvote an entire world to a prison, there isnt enough space left for anything else. How many times must I repeat myself. You will still have to ship food over long distances for your workers. Something I wouodnt need to do with my grnd total of MAYBE a few dozen employees per 6 billion inmates.*


**
There are two ways to control inmates when they need to get in their cells for lockdown... guards... or the application of a threat to blow the ailock. They will run back to their cells after it happens a few times and their fellow prisoner's corpses are left floating in space for them to see out of viewscrens/windows

[fgalkin]

So, let me get this straight. Walper's system has the following attributes:

It requrires a planetary shield generator maintained and protected
It requires huge amounts of food being dropped to certain areas constantly to feed the prisoners
All prisoner extractions are essentially small-scale military operations (Black Hawk Down, anyone?), which require men, resources, not to mention the fuel requirements of getting in and out to orbit (the most energy costly part of space travel) for EACH SINGLE PERSON.
There is no control over the prison population leading to the rise of warlordism
There must be a warship presence in the system in case the convicts kill all those troops sent out to extract the prisoners and use the ship to escape.
The system is absolutely barbaric and inefficient.
There is a massive opportunity cost in that the planet might have been used for farming and whatnot.

And yet, this is somehow supposed to be cheaper than simply building an asteroid prison?

Walpy, you live up to your reputation once more.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Hold on, I'm just thinking....

Did Australia work as penal colony? Moreover, can we use Australia as case study to determine the feasibility of a planetary penal colony? Based on scale, I guess they both are pretty much comparable. I mean, the civilization we're talking about is SW-scale, right?

[Hotfoot]

Problem is, Australia was never just a penal colony. Aside from the indiginous local population, there were several free colonies on the island.

The best sort of example would be, I suppose, the Siberian Gulag. Clearly not the best starting point, of course, but there you have it.

[elderdan]

If it has air, it has plant life.

Not to discount all this other, uh, highly civil and charming discussion, but I thought I'd ask: How many other air-having plant-bearing planets besides Earth were in the survey study that apparently concluded, to your satisfaction, that any planet with "air" also has "plants"?

--The Elder Dan

[fgalkin]

If it has air, it has plant life.

Not to discount all this other, uh, highly civil and charming discussion, but I thought I'd ask: How many other air-having plant-bearing planets besides Earth were in the survey study that apparently concluded, to your satisfaction, that any planet with "air" also has "plants"?

--The Elder Dan

If by "air" you mean "human-breathable air" then 100% of them. Breathable air on Earth was created as a result of early plants producing oxygen. Thus, Plants->Air.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Hotfoot]

If it has air, it has plant life.

Not to discount all this other, uh, highly civil and charming discussion, but I thought I'd ask: How many other air-having plant-bearing planets besides Earth were in the survey study that apparently concluded, to your satisfaction, that any planet with "air" also has "plants"?

--The Elder Dan

If by "air" you mean "human-breathable air" then 100% of them. Breathable air on Earth was created as a result of early plants producing oxygen. Thus, Plants->Air.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Moreover, in order to sustain an atmosphere in which humans constantly deplete oxygen and add carbon dioxide, you need something, anything, to provide a reverse reaction. The cheapest way to do this, especially with a large population over a long period of time, is by creating a viable ecosystem complete with plant life. Otherwise, you're making domed colonies with artificial life support systems that require constant repair and maintanence.

It might be argued that creating an ecosystem requires work as well, but of course, shipping in dirt, fertilizer, or seeds and subsequent application of said components is much simpler than high-tech machine parts which require highly technical knowledge to repair/replace.

[elderdan]

If by "air" you mean "human-breathable air" then 100% of them. Breathable air on Earth was created as a result of early plants producing oxygen. Thus, Plants->Air.

I dunno what SirNitram meant by air, but by air I mean a mix of nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. Sure, that mix may be the result of plantlife here, but I think it's a little too early in, um, you know, our experience with early planetary formation and interstellar surveying to be sure you can't get those gases in a reasonable mix some other way. "If Plants, Then Air" isn't the same argument as "If Air, Then Plants".

Or, more succintly: A sample set of one isn't the bet possible source of data for making assumptions about the rest of the universe.

Mostly, though, I'm sort of surprised and amused by the seriousness with most participants here seem to be arguing a subject which is so completely abstracted away from anything we have any realistic way to judge as to be completely ridiculous.

--The Elder Dan

[Hotfoot]

I dunno what SirNitram meant by air, but by air I mean a mix of nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. Sure, that mix may be the result of plantlife here, but I think it's a little too early in, um, you know, our experience with early planetary formation and interstellar surveying to be sure you can't get those gases in a reasonable mix some other way. "If Plants, Then Air" isn't the same argument as "If Air, Then Plants".

You're not grasping the larger picture. Nitram wasn't claiming that the ONLY way to get the mix we enjoy as breathable air is through plant life. Of course it could happen by random. However, it will not sustain itself without plant life once you introduce humans to the equation.

It should also be noted that the current atmospheric mix is a direct result of plants.

Or, more succintly: A sample set of one isn't the bet possible source of data for making assumptions about the rest of the universe.

More simply: this is not a static system discussion. Nor is it a statement of fact concerning the universe. Perhaps you have not been reading this thread, because the argument you are presenting right now seems to be based entirely on one line of text, taken out of context, and put into a position not at all concerning the original poster's point.

Mostly, though, I'm sort of surprised and amused by the seriousness with most participants here seem to be arguing a subject which is so completely abstracted away from anything we have any realistic way to judge as to be completely ridiculous.

--The Elder Dan

So because something isn't real means we can't have a serious discussion about it? And when someone comes along with a patently stupid line of reasoning, we can't be irritated by it?

I do wonder, of course, what leads you to the conclusion that there is no way to use existing models to extrapolate potential situations.