 2065 Food, What is with Soy? |
  |
 Jul 20 2006, 04:19 AM
Post
#51
|
|||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 120 Joined: 3-May 04 Member No.: 6,298  |
Significant canines can exist even in herbivores, such as with orangutans. 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. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Jul 20 2006, 11:19 AM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,577 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gwynedd Valley PA Member No.: 1,221 |
sure. horses have fangs but they do not project beyond the flat teeth. mine do. I'm just telling you what an expert said.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2006, 11:38 AM
Post
#53
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 2-March 03 Member No.: 4,188 |
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 ... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 20 2006, 12:42 PM
Post
#54
|
|||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I wouldn't give her too much grief about this. She might bite. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 20 2006, 01:26 PM
Post
#55
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 120 Joined: 3-May 04 Member No.: 6,298 |
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 (elephant) have been known to happen. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 20 2006, 01:29 PM
Post
#56
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 637 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,528 |
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. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 20 2006, 02:22 PM
Post
#57
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 831 Joined: 5-September 05 From: LAX, UCAS Member No.: 7,687 |
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. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 20 2006, 03:03 PM
Post
#58
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,095 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Ontari-airee-o Member No.: 1,115 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2006, 04:40 PM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 7-February 03 Member No.: 4,025 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2006, 04:49 PM
Post
#60
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,095 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Ontari-airee-o Member No.: 1,115 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2006, 04:56 PM
Post
#61
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Yeah, but 1 measure cow is 1000 units of delicious. :D
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. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2006, 05:06 PM
Post
#62
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 2-March 03 Member No.: 4,188 |
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. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 20 2006, 05:12 PM
Post
#63
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,095 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Ontari-airee-o Member No.: 1,115 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2006, 05:15 PM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 21 2006, 02:21 PM
Post
#65
|
|||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
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. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 21 2006, 02:40 PM
Post
#66
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
'Cause they're "icky". Duh. i.e. no good reason at all, but people are weird.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 01:59 AM
Post
#67
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,577 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gwynedd Valley PA Member No.: 1,221 |
My ancestors made a delacacy of garden pests.
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. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 24 2006, 11:14 AM
Post
#68
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 2-March 03 Member No.: 4,188 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 12:26 PM
Post
#69
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,577 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gwynedd Valley PA Member No.: 1,221 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 02:17 PM
Post
#70
|
|||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
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. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 24 2006, 03:49 PM
Post
#71
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,032 Joined: 6-August 04 Member No.: 6,543 |
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. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 24 2006, 04:01 PM
Post
#72
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 04:21 PM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,032 Joined: 6-August 04 Member No.: 6,543 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 05:17 PM
Post
#74
|
|
|
Great, I'm a Dragon... Group: Retired Admins Posts: 6,699 Joined: 8-October 03 From: North Germany Member No.: 5,698 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 06:31 PM
Post
#75
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,095 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Ontari-airee-o Member No.: 1,115 |
Well if oil keeps causing prices to escalate, hopefully we will be burning the food in the form of bio-diesel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd February 2026 - 04:38 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.