Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ 2065 Food

Posted by: Demon_Bob Jul 2 2006, 02:34 AM

I am trying to understand the reason why all food and drink in Shadowrun seems to be Soy-based.

Are Soy beans just that cheap and easy to grow?

Is there some Mega_Farming Corp that specializes in Soy?

If in Hong-Kong should this change to more of a rice-base?

What is the background on Soy supposed to be?

Posted by: John Campbell Jul 2 2006, 02:56 AM

Because In Cyberpunk, Everyone Eats Soy.

As far as I can tell, that's the extent of the thought that went into it.

Posted by: The ubbergeek Jul 2 2006, 03:03 AM

Not just soy, but things like mold extracts, planktons and krills, bref, anything cheap to make, who have many sues, and industrialise easily.

Posted by: Glorian Jul 2 2006, 03:09 AM

Yes, basically, soybeans are cheap and easy to grow, are sturdy and can survive a great variety of climate changes, and a good source of protein and oil, especially compared to the amount of land you need for a cow. With soybean oil, all sorts of resins, plastics, paints, etc. can be made. There's an entry in the book Shadowtech if you want more details. I think Shadowtech mentions the Resource Rush causing a loss of 40% of arable land to landgrabs. There's even less because of toxins, pollution, etc. For a Hong Kong game, no reason to change it to rice. Asians consume just as much as soy as rice, and rice. Soymilk, tofu, soy sauce, etc. There's also gawd-awful natto. In fact, rice is difficult to cultivate in comparison and doesn't provide as much protein.

And yes, soy is a genre cliche in cyberpunk, for the above-mentioned reasons.

Posted by: JesterX Jul 2 2006, 03:17 AM

Not only soy, but also Algea products.

The reason is that those crops are really easy/fast to grow, give them the taste that you want and they are great sources of proteins.

You can also make many things with soy (taken from Wikipedia) :

"Soybeans are also used in industrial products including oils, soap, cosmetics, resins, plastics, inks, crayons, solvents, and biodiesel. Soybeans are also used as fermenting stock to make a brand of vodka."

Beside, there is not many proteins in rice compared to the number of carbohydrates.

Rice, raw
Nutritional value per 100 g Energy 360 kcal 1510 kJ
Carbohydrates 79 g
Fat 0.6 g
Protein 7 g
Vitamin B6 0.15 mg 12% RDA
Water 13 g

However, the perfect human diet (varies from a country/source to another...) should consist of about 60% of carbohydrates, 25% lipids and only 15% of proteins.

For algae, it's said that there is enough under the sea to feed the actual human population for 100 years without even reseeding even once!

Posted by: Rock Jul 2 2006, 04:32 PM

Most things for the poor are made of soy...and Soylent.

Posted by: Drraagh Jul 2 2006, 10:48 PM

I've heard a few different options for food in Shadowrun. Yes, most talk about Soy for those pretty much up to, and including, Low Lifestyle.

I've heard some about Kibble, which is vat-grown yeast, is the dry food you feed to your dog or cat, but made to be at least somewhat edible for people, even coming with flavor packets like ramen noodles. It's full of preservaties to keep it from going bad so that they can be bought in bulk when people can afford it and use it.

Some people probably also look into gardening. Either by hydroponics, if you can afford the electricity, or just in window boxes and on the roof. This gives you a supply of herbs, vegetables or whatever it is that you plant for cheap though acid rains and such can be a problem, but what you do grow can also be sold or traded for things you need.

One thing I can also see surviving the resource wars would be MRE foods. They could be released by corps as a way to feed the masses cheaply, or there could be stockpiles of it in old manufacturing plants, same with Twinkies and other such stuff. ;P

Then, you get into the higher lifestyles. In Medium, you probably have most meals made by stuff a step up from soy, like vat-grown meat substitutes, like "I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Cow" Hamburgers or "No Name" Chicken Fingers, and maybe every now and then you can spluge on an actual meat meal. High lifestyle, you probably have your own meat that you cook yourself or restaurants that know you by name. And last, is Luxury, where your butler cooks up the me at for you.

So, soy is a good nutritional option as people have pointed out, and it's cheap, so the masses, living in coffin motels, dumpsters, or one room apartments, probably eat it as a way to live. Some may not even know of any better. But, at least in my view of the world, there are a few other options for people at the lower levels for food sources. Heck, I'm almost thinking of rewarding my players with a live chicken after one run for the heck of it. It could be better than cash in some ways. Keep it and you have fresh food every day, whereas sell it and you can live like a king for a while, or you can cook it for one good meal.

Posted by: hobgoblin Jul 3 2006, 01:27 AM

hmm, kibble. probably works ok as a cereal with water or soy-milk

Posted by: Trax Jul 3 2006, 01:45 AM

If you add water it makes it's own gravy.

Posted by: FanGirl Jul 3 2006, 01:58 AM

QUOTE (Drraagh)

Heck, I'm almost thinking of rewarding my players with a live chicken after one run for the heck of it.

I literally LOLed when I read that. Will you throw in a fattened pig if they complete the run by next Michaelmas Eve?

Posted by: Calvin Hobbes Jul 3 2006, 03:38 AM

Our first job was for free eats at a chinese revolutionary cuisine restaurant.

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Jul 3 2006, 04:20 AM

QUOTE (FanGirl)

QUOTE (Drraagh @ Jul 2 2006, 05:48 PM)

Heck, I'm almost thinking of rewarding my players with a live chicken after one run for the heck of it.

I literally LOLed when I read that. Will you throw in a fattened pig if they complete the run by next Michaelmas Eve?

hmm what if they 'love' the chicken too muchh to eat it?

Posted by: Drraagh Jul 3 2006, 05:42 AM

As I posted in the Metahuman biology thread, I had a character who was allergic to meat (I never really took elves a biologically unable to eat meat, so I made it as an allergy). Player took it as a flaw, an in most cases, it never made much of an issue seeing as they regularly ate soy and alternatives, but there were times where they would be required to eat meat, such as a meeting with the Johnson where they gave you a steak dinner as a sign of 'loyalty', I suppose. Or another one where it was a tribe ritual to join as an member of their tribe to eat stuff sort of like survivor.

So the chicken was another one of those sort of issues. Player can't really refuse the chicken if they want some payment for the run, but if they do take it, what are they going to do with it? I tend to like paying my runners in things other than cash, because it gives me opprotunies to develop events around. Say your fixer just got an item that they weren't sure exactly what it was, like the program the Finn had gotten in 'Burning Chrome'. It's just a matter of how you arrange it, I suppose.

Though, if you don't give out cash, it can get hard to give the rewards as well because the players don't want to lose money, so it's a mixed bag usually. Sometimes it's a side-quest trigger, other times it a red herring and other times its a one shot item like the Math Grenades from 'Pattern REcognition' or perhaps a 2nd Edition manuscript of Shakespear's plays.

Posted by: SL James Jul 3 2006, 06:33 AM

QUOTE (Rock)

Most things for the poor are made of soy...and Soylent.

Heh. Soylent is (and is for) the poor. Long pig is for the wealthy. God bless capitalism.

Posted by: PBTHHHHT Jul 3 2006, 04:36 PM

QUOTE (SL James)

QUOTE (Rock @ Jul 2 2006, 10:32 AM)

Most things for the poor are made of soy...and Soylent.

Heh. Soylent is (and is for) the poor. Long pig is for the wealthy. God bless capitalism.

*snicker* Thank goodness for History Channel. Yeah, let's have a bbq for the fourth, long pig will be on the menu!

Posted by: SL James Jul 3 2006, 06:09 PM

The History Channel?

Posted by: PBTHHHHT Jul 3 2006, 06:22 PM

They had a special on Portland and it's infamous tunnels that people would use to 'shanghai' folks. They even talked about some of the conditions on the sailing ships for folks who were 'shanghai'd. Whenever the ship had trouble with provisions they'd be one of the first on the menu when the captain would say there'd be long pig for dinner tonight. Yummy.

Posted by: Demonseed Elite Jul 4 2006, 02:13 AM

QUOTE

Is there some Mega_Farming Corp that specializes in Soy?

Aztechnology, for one.

QUOTE

If in Hong-Kong should this change to more of a rice-base?

There actually is discussion about rice, soy, and mycoprotein farms in the Hong Kong section of RH.

Posted by: SL James Jul 4 2006, 03:55 AM

Ah, yes. NatVat.

Anyway, PBTHHHHT, I was just thinking generally. It seems the wealthy would be the most likely to afford such a delicacy given the cost-prohibitive nature of raising long pig that didn't eat crap and live in its own filth in a disease-ridden, poor blah blah blah lifestyle. Whereas when you're making soylent... Who the fuck cares where the bodies came from? One is actually eating human, and the other is eating something that ate dead human bodies.

It is literally the difference between organic, free-range human or elf raised on a corporate compound to be meaty and tender vs. ... ick ... bacteria that ate SINless guttertrash trog you can find anywhere.

Posted by: PBTHHHHT Jul 5 2006, 02:55 PM

Well James, when you say Longpig, that's what I got the terminology from. You asked, I delivered.

Free range meat... hmmm... how about 'hunting expeditions'? Where corporate execs can go on 'safaris' to bag some good long pig for the buffet. In that case, well, adds the whole dimension of the most dangerous game into the factor also. Potential run/adventure?

Posted by: bclements Jul 5 2006, 05:05 PM

I think SoA had something like that. Wealthy people eating teh Long Pig just because they could. I'll look up the page reference here in a bit.

Posted by: SL James Jul 5 2006, 05:38 PM

Well, I'm using the term as it was used in Transmet.

Anyway, I must say the idea does intrigue me. After all, human life really isn't worth much if anything in Shadowrun alive (even forced breeding is pretty damn slow compared to cloning). So why wouldn't there be a market for human by the kilo?

QUOTE (PBTHHHHT)

Free range meat... hmmm... how about 'hunting expeditions'? Where corporate execs can go on 'safaris' to bag some good long pig for the buffet. In that case, well, adds the whole dimension of the most dangerous game into the factor also. Potential run/adventure?

Haven't you seen Surviving the Game and Hard Target? Eventually they'll hunt down someone who will kill all of the hunters instead in stupid action-movie style.

Anyway, I was actually thinking of healthy young overachieving corp brats.

Posted by: Drraagh Jul 7 2006, 11:10 PM

I know this is a dead horse, but me and my friends were talking about this. I wonder what sort of labels you'll see on foods in SR. Perhaps 'Warning: This products may contain traces of meat', if you believes elves can't eat meat. Or what about food made from old newspaper pulp, "Warning: This product may contain traces of Peanuts Characters."

I decided to use part of it as my signature, but figured it'd be interesting to add for a bit of humor in your games.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 7 2006, 11:32 PM

QUOTE (SL James)

QUOTE (PBTHHHHT)

That's the entire point of hunting http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.6/bookid.1317/ If they couldn't kill you then they wouldn't be worthy of your skill.

Posted by: PBTHHHHT Jul 8 2006, 12:11 AM

QUOTE (SL James @ Jul 5 2006, 12:38 PM)

Aye, I have seen those movies. And read the classic short story. Doesn't mean you can't use it. Yes, it's flawed and the hunters will become the hunted. It's standard cliche but heck, a lot of stories and such are recycled concepts anyway. Just file it away under oldies but goodies when you don't have a good original plot to work with.

Posted by: Omer Joel Jul 11 2006, 09:34 AM

With all the fat rats running around the Barrens, I'm surprised that squatter tribes don't learn how to hunt - sure, rats are a risky prey, but they have meat, real meat, and no one says that that package of NutriSoy™ has less poisoneus chemicals in it than the flesh of a Devil-rat who grew up in the sewers of Redmond...

Hunting isn't only for the rich, you see - viva la Ratburger!

Posted by: Witness Jul 11 2006, 09:37 AM

QUOTE (Omer Joel)

I'm surprised that squatter tribes don't learn how to hunt

I'm betting they do.

Posted by: Platinum Jul 11 2006, 01:51 PM

Real meat, but so many toxins and probably tumours from living in the sewers.

Posted by: Tziluthi Jul 11 2006, 02:01 PM

Yeah. You hear people kicking up a stink about preservatives in foods. If you think that stuff is bad, try living off something that is exposed to toxic or carcenogenic chemicals, or heavy metals frequently. In some ways you might be better off starving to death.

QUOTE

I've heard some about Kibble, which is vat-grown yeast, is the dry food you feed to your dog or cat, but made to be at least somewhat edible for people, even coming with flavor packets like ramen noodles. It's full of preservaties to keep it from going bad so that they can be bought in bulk when people can afford it and use it.

Hmm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_Chow#Bachelor_Chow.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jul 11 2006, 11:40 PM

Read Stephenson's Zodiac sometime if you want to get some ideas about what kind of problems people can get into eating meat that, in it's lifetime, ate all sorts of bizarre crap. There's a reason I stick as much to organic foods as I can.

Probably one of my favorite images of a well-fed underclass came from Transmetropolitan. Nano-assemblers are so cheap that EVERYONE has a "maker," but asides from some really basic patterns (read, kibble) you've got to buy the blueprints for more complex things (read, good food, stylish clothing, etc). What you end up with is people who may be squatting in an alley, but if they can steal a little power and collect enough trash, they can get enough raw matter into the maker to eat that night.

Posted by: Omer Joel Jul 12 2006, 07:14 AM

QUOTE (Tziluthi @ Jul 11 2006, 04:01 PM)

Yeah, like the cheap-ass processed NutriSoy™ DOESN'T have similar amounts of toxic or carcenogenic chemicals...

Ofcourse, enterprising squatter tribes might actually raise rats and cockroaches as "cattle", feeding them with trash which isn't man-edible and then eating their meat. This will be cleaner than game caught in the sewer, but still a very hardy animal that could thrive on trash in the harsh conditions of the Barrens. Plus, you can then organize rat-fights for entertainment - the squatter who wins the bet gets to eat both "contestants"...

Posted by: SL James Jul 12 2006, 02:02 PM

Reminds me of a story I read about an Australian locked away in a Thailand prison. The other prisoners would feed the roaches some of their rice. Then after they got nice and plump, they'd stick a bunch in a baggie and smash the shit out of them. Then they'd eat the paste - because that was the only source of protein that they had.

Good times.

Posted by: Jrayjoker Jul 12 2006, 02:17 PM

QUOTE (Kremlin KOA)

hmm what if they 'love' the chicken too much to eat it?

Hmmm, somone is channeling Gonzo the Great...

Posted by: SL James Jul 12 2006, 02:24 PM

Or the bookmobile driver on South Park who actually DID fuck chickens.

Posted by: Jrayjoker Jul 12 2006, 02:30 PM

Hmm, I need to up my South Park dosage apparently. Haven't seen that yet.

Posted by: Demon_Bob Jul 14 2006, 04:51 AM

QUOTE (Platinum)

Real meat, but so many toxins and probably tumours from living in the sewers.

Na, Get them young and raise them on Soy products.
Farm-raised Rat-Burgers for sale.

Posted by: nezumi Jul 14 2006, 02:34 PM

I wouldn't feed them my tasty soy. I'd feed them stuff I can't eat, like other hobos.

Posted by: El_Machinae Jul 15 2006, 12:54 AM

Then you get toxin accumulation all over again.

Eventually in the real world, enough people will become aware of the ecological inefficiencies of eating meat, and hopefully the price of meat will reflect it's true cost soon.

Posted by: NightmareX Jul 15 2006, 07:40 AM

QUOTE (El_Machinae)

Eventually in the real world, enough people will become aware of the ecological inefficiencies of eating meat, and hopefully the price of meat will reflect it's true cost soon.

Ecological inefficiencies? Tell that to natural carnivores.

Posted by: El_Machinae Jul 15 2006, 12:15 PM

Ah, I was referring to the practice of feeding billions of a species off of a diminishing ecological base.

The simple fact is that you need less water, fuel, and farm land to eat grains and vegetables than to feed the grains and vegetables to livestock. You get your calories and nutrition more cheaply (resource-wise) by skipping livestock. A lot more cheaply. I'm not saying we should become vegetarians, but that I'd like to see the ecological costs of meat incorporated into the pricing.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jul 15 2006, 03:53 PM

In the British navy in the age of sail they would get weevils in their bread. The weevils would then be fed to the livestock on board like chickens.

As for the rest of this thread, I've been htinking about this for a while.
WHY is soy a big part of the Shadowrun universe? I know in cyberpunk it's a major element and the idea is that the world population has grown so large it cannot be supproted by regular farming BUT there are issues in the SR world
1) There has been a massive depolulation of the world due to VITAS and wars.
2) even if the masses in asia and Africa are starving, doesn't the US and Japan grow enough food to feed their own populations? Even with toxic zones in europe there should be enough farm land. The reclamation of Amazonia by vegitation should make farming there easier. not the big aggrarian stuff but today they are successful at orchids, coffee, fruits and coca without doing that big time. So shouldn't 'real' food be common at least in Europe, who ever has argentina and north america?

the wheat/corn fields and catlte ranges of the current USA and Canada are styill in place and suffered no melt downs. so that cattle ranch is now in the PPC and the grain is from Souix nation as often as CAS or UCAS but still....

Posted by: El_Machinae Jul 15 2006, 11:25 PM

You're very right. It was likely thrown in since it's a sci-fi stapel.

Posted by: NightmareX Jul 16 2006, 07:45 PM

QUOTE (El_Machinae)

Ah, I was referring to the practice of feeding billions of a species off of a diminishing ecological base.

I see that as more of an overpopulation problem than a eco-logistics problem. Get rid of the overpopulation and you get rid of the problem

Posted by: The ubbergeek Jul 16 2006, 10:04 PM

There is probably regional differences...

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jul 16 2006, 11:07 PM

overpopulation was taken care of by VITAS. Also it is not a problem in the currnet USA/Canada region and will be less of an issue after VITAS. and we can feed ourselves now.

polution could take out some luxeries like shellfish(more agro-farming there) salmon, caviar but meat, grain, dairy and chicken should be ok.

Posted by: TonkaTuff Jul 17 2006, 01:40 AM

Actually, the VITAS plagues could be the reason for the shortages of "regular" food.

The hardest depopulated areas were large cities (where people were crammed together and supplies ran out) or semi-rural areas where the medical services just weren't there. Cities are no good for farming anyhow (other than large-scale hydroponics and similar operations - thus, the soy/krill explosion). And the agrarian population would have taken a sizable hit because the large tracts of land and constant supervision required for profitable farming puts them out in the middle of nowhere.

As farmer-flight is already a concern now, wiping out those who chose the profession wouldn't help at all. And most of the plague survivors would probably have flocked to the cities because that's where they'd find jobs and security from the roaming bandit-types who inevitably spring up after apocalypse-level disasters. Most of the regular agriculture is probably taken on by a few heavily-secured corporate factory farms. And the higher operating costs (and, probably, manufactured scarcity) would be passed-on to the consumer.

Posted by: bigdrewp Jul 18 2006, 08:06 PM

QUOTE (El_Machinae)

Eventually in the real world, enough people will become aware of the ecological inefficiencies of eating meat, and hopefully the price of meat will reflect it's true cost soon.

Meat tastes so good though, and it answers the question, "What are these pointy teeth in my head for?"

Posted by: PBTHHHHT Jul 18 2006, 08:42 PM

QUOTE (bigdrewp)

QUOTE (El_Machinae @ Jul 14 2006, 07:54 PM)

Eventually in the real world, enough people will become aware of the ecological inefficiencies of eating meat, and hopefully the price of meat will reflect it's true cost soon.

Meat tastes so good though, and it answers the question, "What are these pointy teeth in my head for?"

Don't worry, I can rip those out of your mouth with some pliers.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jul 20 2006, 03:25 AM

I have fully developed fangs. upper and lower set. that is they come to points that porject beyond the level of the flat teeth around them. It is called a 'ferral jaw.' A freind of mine if a wiccan, vegan and veternarian. She is one of those agressive vegans but after she saw my teeth she declared- "Yup that's a carnivore's jaw line" and she never gave me any grief over meat since.

by that trolls nadp orbably orks will be ok for meat.

Posted by: SL James Jul 20 2006, 03:54 AM

QUOTE (Snow_Fox)

by that trolls nadp orbably orks will be ok for meat.

What?

Posted by: SirKodiak Jul 20 2006, 04:19 AM

QUOTE (Snow_Fox)

Significant canines can exist even in herbivores, such as with http://www.evolutionnyc.com/id-843/ImgUpload/N_120673_961781.jpg.

Eat meat if you want, I do, but using a slightly abnormal set of teeth as an argument is ridiculous, particularly as human teeth, even with a more prominent canine, are far from being an optimal setup for a carnivore. Take a look in a dog or cat's mouth to see what that looks like. We're evolved to be omnivores, which puts us in the enviable position of having more freedom in using our intelligence to decide what we eat.

I see no reason metahumanity wouldn't have the same range of choices.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jul 20 2006, 11:19 AM

sure. horses have fangs but they do not project beyond the flat teeth. mine do. I'm just telling you what an expert said.

Posted by: El_Machinae Jul 20 2006, 11:38 AM

QUOTE (NightmareX)

I see that as more of an overpopulation problem than a eco-logistics problem. Get rid of the overpopulation and you get rid of the problem

Yeah, you're right, killing billions of people is better for our society than modifying our eating habits...

Nevermind the benefits of specialisation of labour, and increase service and customer bases ...

Posted by: nezumi Jul 20 2006, 12:42 PM

QUOTE (SirKodiak)

Eat meat if you want, I do, but using a slightly abnormal set of teeth as an argument is ridiculous,

I wouldn't give her too much grief about this. She might bite.

Posted by: SirKodiak Jul 20 2006, 01:26 PM

QUOTE (Snow_Fox)

sure. horses have fangs but they do not project beyond the flat teeth. mine do. I'm just telling you what an expert said.

My point is that there are plenty of herbivores with prominent canines (fangs), including orangutans, which is why I linked to a picture of an orangutan skull in my previous post. If you'd look at it, you'd notice that its canines project beyond the flat teeth. I suppose it's possible that your canines are even more prominent than theirs, but I'd be surprised.

To tie this back into Shadowrun, the reason orangutans have sizable canines is for fighting, not for eating. I always assumed orks and trolls had sizable canines for the same reason, even if they didn't make use of it in the Shadowrun setting. Note, for example, that in the SR3 metahumanity description, the troll describes himself as having 'tusks' [SR3 core, page 50]. Tusks in herbivores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tanzanian_Elephant.jpg) have been known to happen.

Posted by: Birdy Jul 20 2006, 01:29 PM

QUOTE (El_Machinae)

Classical error here:

A lot of the land used to raise lifestock won't be useful for raising crops. Either the ground is too poor, too salty or too remote.

I can't see the fuel problem, grain does not walk to the foodplant either and what it might cost less in transport it costs more in sowing and care.

Water is basically a closed system, goes in at one end, comes out with bio-degradable add-ons on the other.

Posted by: NightmareX Jul 20 2006, 02:22 PM

QUOTE (El_Machinae)

QUOTE (NightmareX @ Jul 16 2006, 07:45 PM)

I see that as more of an overpopulation problem than a eco-logistics problem. Get rid of the overpopulation and you get rid of the problem

The planet minus a couple billion would actually have negligible effect on global society as a whole, aside from the media sqawking of course. It would in no way affect the economy enough to negate the benefits of specialization of labour.

Further, regardless of whether society as a whole eats meat or soy, overpopulation will eventually bring us as a species to a place where the planet's resources cannot sustain the extant population. A lot of other species will go extinct first, but it will happen. Whether the population eats meat or soy will be irrelevent at that point, and switching to an all-soy diet is not a solution to the problem. It only postpones (and arguably insures) the inevitable.

Posted by: Platinum Jul 20 2006, 03:03 PM

Right now we have more than enough food to supply the whoel world. The problem is that there are governments and powers that will not let their people have even "free" food. A few years ago Canada was trying to just get rid of corn and wheat, and several governments just refused. (free transport was also offered)

A few billion people less would have little effect on society, but a huge effect on the environment.

Posted by: Dog Jul 20 2006, 04:40 PM

I think that E-M is talking about some of the more "traditional" methods of growing food. I wonder if modern production methods render that argument obsolete?
(All ethical issues aside, you only need a couple of square meters to raise a cow, and you don't need to feed them farm-grown grains.)

Can someone refer us to an objective study on the issue?

I like the trend of soy-everything because it carries the imagery of bland, mass-produced McFood into almost every meal the characters have. At a recent game, I mentioned the presence of a real vegetable tray at a party and what a luxury it was.

Posted by: Platinum Jul 20 2006, 04:49 PM

You only need a few meters to store the cow, they require a few hectars of food a year.

Each level of the food chain reduces the net yield of energy by 10.

ie
1 measure corn yeilds 1 unit energy
1 measure cow requires 10 units of corn but yields 1 unit energy
1 measure bear requires 10 units cow but yields 1 unit energy. (can't think of a better example of an edible carnivore) (yes I know they are omnivores)

therefore if you each 1 unit of bear... you get the same energy as 1 unit corn but the bear requires 100 measures of corn.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jul 20 2006, 04:56 PM

Yeah, but 1 measure cow is 1000 units of delicious.

Seriously, though, I do understand your point about net energy yield. I'm just trying to show you the standard carnivore's rebuttal in a humorous way.

My view is, anthropologists have told me that my body is designed to eat meat, as well as veggies. Therefore, I follow their instructions for the best maintenance and operation of my body. Thus, the cows die, and I hope they do so mercifully and without undue pain. Maybe that's a little apathetic of me, I don't know.

Posted by: El_Machinae Jul 20 2006, 05:06 PM

QUOTE (Birdy)

Please don't assume a classical error, though:

The land that cannot grow human-quality foods is only a portion of the land devoted to livestock. Leaving this land free is better for the ecology (delays extinctions), but it could be developed for other uses.

However, since livestock consumes so much food (relative to the calories it delivers), the portion of land that IS capable of growing human crops could be used to vastly improve the amount of food available.

It may cost gasoline to ship grain. But it costs more gasoline to ship grain to the cows and then the cows to us. The gallons/calorie for livestock is MUCH higher than for grains and beans. Most livestock is now farm-fed. My argument does not really include free-range livestock - in fact, I encourage such activity (because I KNOW that free-range buffallo is awesome)

Finally, on a global scale there is a closed water-cycle. Locally, there is not. Water that evaporates off Albertan crops is gotten from the Albertan water-table. However, the rain generated only partially falls back into the water table. This is one reason why our water table is shriking, because we suck it out (and evaporate it) faster than it rains back in. It's not a problem now, because the water seems endless. But when it gets tight, it will only regenerate as quickly as it rains.

Posted by: Platinum Jul 20 2006, 05:12 PM

Now that there is genetic modification of crops and knowledge of how to eat a vegan diet safely, animals are less important to our way of life. This has only been in the last 20 years or so. There are substances in meat that are required by your body. I know they can be found in some lentils and beans, but people who eat a bit of meat are usually healthier. There is a balance.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jul 20 2006, 05:15 PM

True. People who eat a bit of meat are usually healthier.
On the flip side of that, the typical westerner eats WAAAAY too much meat.

Posted by: nezumi Jul 21 2006, 02:21 PM

QUOTE (Platinum)

You only need a few meters to store the cow, they require a few hectars of food a year.

Each level of the food chain reduces the net yield of energy by 10.

This really only applies to endotherms. Bugs have a very, very favorable exchange rate and grow at a great speed. I still can't fathom why beetles and catepillars aren't a more popular protein source in this country.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jul 21 2006, 02:40 PM

'Cause they're "icky". Duh. i.e. no good reason at all, but people are weird.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jul 24 2006, 01:59 AM

My ancestors made a delacacy of garden pests.

QUOTE (Platinum @ Jul 20 2006, 10:03 AM)

A good example of this is Japan, where in RL land is so expensive that the farmer power blocks are very powerful and can keep the prices way up becuase they limit imports from elsewhere. A few years ago they had a rice shortage and had to allow rice to be imported form the US. Even with the cost of shipping and the extra tarriffs the government put in place the US rice was still much cheaper than home grown Japanese rice with its massively inflated price.

They are still not importing US beef and all claims of 'protecting' Japanese population form Mad cow disease are pretty poor. There have been three case of cows in the US with Mad cow, and two of those could be traced back to Canada. In the same time there have been 29 cases of Mad Cow disease in Japanese cattle. clearly there is a greater risk from Japanese beef BUT they are just protecting the Japanese industry from the cheaper American beef. it has nothing to do with health issues.

Posted by: El_Machinae Jul 24 2006, 11:14 AM

On the plus side, this does lead one to believe that they're not over-consuming their environment. I mean, in Canada, huge swaths of Canadian, American, and tropical lands are devoted to feeding Canadians. We consume outside our borders, which could imply (but does imply 100%) that we eat more than our fair share.

Of course, we export food too, so it's not as simple as that.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jul 24 2006, 12:26 PM

No they are not overfarming their land, but they are having a problem with small farms disappearing. They are also more along the lines of squeezing the consumers as much as they can by using their influence with government to keep prices artificially high.

For damaging their environment, they also hunt whales claiming it is a cultural imperative but they, like Norway, are not selling all they catch and it is rotting in Norway's warehouses and the Japanese are selling it as dog meat.

As I understand it Canada, the US and Argentina are the major exports of grains to feed other ocuntries. Add Australia and you have the major beef exporters. If these nations cut back on their production there will bem uch more hunger in the world.

Posted by: nezumi Jul 24 2006, 02:17 PM

QUOTE (El_Machinae)

I mean, in Canada, huge swaths of Canadian, American, and tropical lands are devoted to feeding Canadians. We consume outside our borders, which could imply (but does imply 100%) that we eat more than our fair share.

Agriculture is the only American industry that has had a positive surplus in regards to imports/exports for two hundred years straight. The US consumes far less than it produces. I think it's safe to assume Canada is in a similar position.

Posted by: Cynic project Jul 24 2006, 03:49 PM

QUOTE (Snow_Fox)

2) even if the masses in asia and Africa are starving, doesn't the US and Japan grow enough food to feed their own populations? Even with toxic zones in europe there should be enough farm land. The reclamation of Amazonia by vegitation should make farming there easier. not the big aggrarian stuff but today they are successful at orchids, coffee, fruits and coca without doing that big time. So shouldn't 'real' food be common at least in Europe, who ever has argentina and north america?

One US can feed the world without changing one bit of what food people int he US eat. THe us can grown enough food, to do this, and can do so for longer than the world will have oil.

Japan can't feed it's self. It has been importing food for a long time now. THis was a key reason they lost world war 2.

AmaZonia has less farm land in future.THe plants growwing back are not cause some human friendly plot. It was done by somethings that could care less about metahumans.

Posted by: nezumi Jul 24 2006, 04:01 PM

Keep in mind, there are logistical reasons the US cannot or will not feed the world. Just transporting food from California to DC has a terrific cost in fuel and infrastructure. Transporting it to some third world, corrupt nation skyrockets the cost beyond what most would be willing (or able) to pay.

Posted by: Cynic project Jul 24 2006, 04:21 PM

We spend more money destroying food than we spend buying it. The US government buys food, stockpiles it then burns the most of it. They do this to such a large scale that we burn more food than we eat. The cost of burning said food is more than the cost of giving away the food we do not burn for free.

Posted by: Grinder Jul 24 2006, 05:17 PM

I don't know exactly what the EU is doing with the amount of food that is produced too much here, but it'll probably be the same. And we pay for it.

Posted by: Platinum Jul 24 2006, 06:31 PM

Well if oil keeps causing prices to escalate, hopefully we will be burning the food in the form of bio-diesel.

Posted by: torzzzzz Jul 24 2006, 06:33 PM

Hay what about soilent green?

hehe

torz x

Posted by: nezumi Jul 24 2006, 06:34 PM

QUOTE (Cynic project)

They do this to such a large scale that we burn more food than we eat.

I question this statement. Do you have any justification for it?

QUOTE

The cost of burning said food is more than the cost of giving away the food we do not burn for free.

Of course. But giving it away isn't the same as getting it where it should be. I'll give you an example.

I have a car worth $500 here in DC. I'm moving and I don't want the car any more. I am not legally allowed to just leave it around, so I can sell it to some place that'll do the inspections, change the tags, etc. and after getting paid $100 for the car, I'll still pay $20 to dump it. However if I leave it on the street, I'll get a bill for $200 from the state.

You live in California and could use a car. I say "hey, nice deal, I'll give you the car, you just have to come and pick it up". You now have a $500 car in DC. It'll cost $400 for a plane ticket over, and $300 in gas and food to drive it back to DC. It's $800 to have it loaded on a truck and delivered. So you're now paying $700-800 for a $500 car. However if you don't take it, *I* get charged money.

See the problem? It costs more to ship it to Uganda (or wherever) then the food is worth. The US doesn't want to foot that bill, and the nation in question can't. You can't leave it out in the fields to rot either, since that's a health risk. So what do you do? Buy the excess to keep your farmers in business and keep prices down, and destroy what you don't use. There's really no other option.

Posted by: Daddy's Little Ninja Jul 25 2006, 02:51 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5210114.stm shows that not all Soy industries are good. Brazilians are clear cutting the Amazon to plant soy.

Posted by: El_Machinae Jul 25 2006, 06:33 PM

Most of that soy is to feed European beef - which is inefficient. If the people ate the beans instead, they would need much less land to be clear-cut (and the Amazon is ecologically VERY important).

Nezumi: the only issue I have is paying the farmers for their excess. That doesn't discourage them into decreasing production, which is what's ultimately necessary to rid ourselves of waste.

Posted by: bigdrewp Jul 26 2006, 11:27 PM

I have an idea. Eat whatever the hell you want, and let everyone else do the same. Don't try to solve to world's problems, especially sense we do not have all the information, and are on a Shadowrun forum. Go about your life, be smug in the knowledge that you know better than everyone, and that the world is falling apart because of all the idiots around you. I'll eat my bacon cheese burger and not care what you think and I'll be happier that way.

Posted by: nezumi Jul 27 2006, 02:55 PM

Finally, a philosophy that can let me return to cannibalism.

Posted by: knasser Jul 27 2006, 04:55 PM

QUOTE (Grinder @ Jul 24 2006, 12:17 PM)

I don't know exactly what the EU is doing with the amount of food that is produced too much here, but it'll probably be the same. And we pay for it.

The excess food is inspected by EU officials to confirm that it is of marketable quality, and then it is destroyed. No, I am not kidding.

QUOTE (bigdrewp)

Well isn't that nice for you. But it's a bit of a shame for the http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalisation/story/0,,1747904,00.html of Amazon rain forest that gets destroyed annually, mainly to grow soya for animal feed. Iassure you that I'm not feeling "smug". Mainly just scared. I'd actually like to have kids someday and would like there to be something left of the World for them to grow up in. The level of consumption of meat in the US and Western Europe isn't sustainable.

Bringing this back to Shadowrun, one of the reasons I have for the omnipresence of Soy is the collapse of GM crops which I decided happened during the first VITAS plague. GM crops have the following disadvantages from a survivability point of view (ignoring economic and ethical problems).
1. Monoculture. With the crops being near-as-possible genetically identical, one good blight can wipe out the whole year's crop, world wide. Google for the Irish potato famine for an idea of the principle.
2a. Dependency on pesticides. The usual advantage of GM crops to farmers is that they've been engineered to survive herbicides and pesticides that would kill normal plants. This means that undesirable plants and pests can be anihalated without harming them.
2b. Dependency on fertilizers. The intensive farming allowed by modern agriculture leaves the ground heavily depleted in nutrients which must be compensated for by bringing in fertilisers.
The problem with both of these is that during great social upheaval (such as VITAS and the Euro-Wars), normal supply infrastructure can collapse, leading to a great fall in crop production.
3. Terminator crops. GM crops can be engineered to be sterile. In order to grow more crops each year a farmer must purchase more seed from the patent holder (rather than save seed as is normally done). Once you start down the GM route, it's very hard to go back to non-GM crop growth for several interesting reasons. The terminator crop scenario is a big risk in social and economic upheaval.

So the above is my reasoning for the food mono-culture in Shadowrun - a near-calamatous collapse of agriculture. The only problem is that Soy itself is a common GM crop, but you could always say this was the one that wasn't so badly affected or substitute krill.

Posted by: Lindt Jul 27 2006, 05:05 PM

Well with all the backlash at GM crops its not as if normal (read non-GM) crops are going to go extinct in any massive way.
Remember that the US has farms that do nothing but collect money for NOT growing 5k acers of grain, thus keeping the market from flooding.

As for meat? If I was not intended to eat cow, why the heck do they taste so damm good?
And just to spite myself, Im having a saled wrap for lunch...

Posted by: knasser Jul 27 2006, 05:23 PM

QUOTE (Lindt)

As for meat? If I was not intended to eat cow, why the heck do they taste so damm good?

They make themselves tasty on purpose as part of an evil plot to have us turn the whole world into suitable grazing land. They can secretly survive in a high CO2 environment so when we die off from oxygen depletion, the cows will inherit the whole world for themselves. Then the secret cow masters from Orion will arrive to assume command.

I'm just guessing.

Posted by: SirKodiak Jul 28 2006, 04:49 AM

QUOTE (Lindt)

As for meat? If I was not intended to eat cow, why the heck do they taste so damm good?

If we weren't meant to snort cocaine, why does it feel so good? If we weren't meant to ride motorcycles without helmets, why is it so fun? If we weren't meant to commit arson, why is fire so pretty?

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jul 28 2006, 10:59 AM

QUOTE (El_Machinae)

Nezumi: the only issue I have is paying the farmers for their excess. That doesn't discourage them into decreasing production, which is what's ultimately necessary to rid ourselves of waste.

I have a problem with this.

Let's say we stop paying farmers for the excess. The farmers now have useless crop, yes? So they have to either let it rot on the vine, or foot the bill to destroy it themselves.

In either case, next season, they damn sure aren't going to be producing as much. You'd think that makes sense, right?

Well, you would... Until you realize that bread just jumped to eight bucks a loaf for the store brand. An apple became a five dollar variety treat, and you can freaking forget about having you some nice grape juice.

Why? It's simple. Economics. The less there is of something, the more there is demand, the more you charge for it. Since farmers, while admittedly not in the usual position of needing to keep food on the table, and usually capable of using down-to-earth skills to keep a roof over their heads, would generally like to prosper instead of ekeing out a substicance level of existance, they will raise the price of what they DO produce.

That waste may seem wasteful to you, but it serves a purpose. For one, it's a lot better than just saying "Well, subsidize the farmers, then". Why? Say there's a drought somewhere, and it's harvest dosen't come in. Under normal circumstances, we're producing more than we use, and the government can ship their stockpiled food onto trucks and ship it on down the pike.

Oh. Wait. I forgot. We stopped that wasteful practice. So now there's famine, and the government is scrambling to buy any food it can get it's hands on, at any price, and ultimately you're now footing the bill.

Who's the loser here? The people who are having a hard time affording food right now. They suddenly find themselves starving. The rest of us find our wallets a whole hell of a lot lighter. And of course, in the case of a poor harvest somewhere, it's alllllll fucked up.

Posted by: Sahandrian Jul 28 2006, 11:26 AM

QUOTE (SirKodiak)

If we weren't meant to commit arson, why is fire so pretty?

I'm taking you entirely out of context, but I love that line.

And now I exit this conversation, most likely to never post in it again.

Posted by: knasser Jul 28 2006, 03:51 PM

QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685 @ Jul 28 2006, 05:59 AM)

Until you realize that bread just jumped to eight bucks a loaf for the store brand.

I respectfully suggest that you made this figure up rather than derive it from any in-depth economic analysis. As such, it would fall under the heading of hyperbole.

Firstly, not producing so much we have to burn vast quantities to get rid of it is not the same as living on the edge of shortage. It's perfectly possible and reasonable for a government to build up a stockpile of food to see the country through a disaster. That's a good use of purchasing power and certainly a better solution than chronic over-production.

Secondly, your "simple economics" is too simple. You think subsides keep the market price down? Where do you think the money for the subsides comes from? This isn't saving you and I money. It's costing us more. Besides, the subsides aren't going to keep the market price down whereever the money comes from. They're buying produce and burning it to keep prices up. Think about it. It's supply and demand. They're reducing supply with an artificial demand. If there were an excess then prices would have to fall.

Thirdly, subsides can lead to real insanity. I could only google up figures for the 1990's but here's a good example:
In 1997, the UK imported 240 000 tonnes of pork and 125 000 tonnes of lamb. In the same year it exported 195 000 tonnes of pork and 102 000 tonnes of lamb. Does that make sense? Only in terms of a farmer claiming subsidies. Parties are being paid to produce regardless of sale, therefore it makes sense for countries to produce and essentially "swap" produce with each other in order to both claim subsidies and reap some sales. It's more complicated than that in practice of course, but that's the sort of insanity that becomes profitable when you try to artificially maintain a business model that doesn't work. It just doesn't make sense from a system point of view.

All of this ignores the effect that rich governments subsidising their domestic production has on third world countries that would like to export abroad but can't compete because the market is rigged. Think - all that cheap food out there, and we (in Europe and the US), can't have it, because our governement is handing all our money over the farming lobby so that they can match the price.

All subsidies mean is that we pay twice for our food.

Edit: I'm sorry if this all comes across of being very capitalist. But I am one.

Posted by: El_Machinae Jul 28 2006, 07:14 PM

If you think that next year, bread will be 8 bucks a load - what are you going to plant?

The subsidization of foods, especially wasteful products (like livestock), leads to additional waste. OR, even if I accept the argument that we need excess grain - why should my tax dollars subsidise the beef farmers?

We produce MORE than enough, considering we feed all the people AND all the livestock just fine. At least let the livestock apply supply/demand principles...

And we need this change, because there are people who are quite willing to chow down on the bacon cheeseburger, willfully ignorant of the ecological consequences, on MY subsidy dollar. I'm basically subsidizing activities that will reduce my long-term utility of the planet. No thanks.

By analogy, would you accept a subsidy on gasoline for SUVs (or a subsidy on SUVs themselves)? I mean, those kids gotta get to school - we'd just be helping out the families.