Some Observations...(all are welcomed)

[Wade]

----- I'm still early into Space Empires IV but I've observed that I'm low on Minerals and nearly at capacity for Organics and Radioactives.
On my planets (Gas Giants) I've been building like my homeworld was set. That is, a ratio of 5:1:1:5 being Mines:Farms:Extraction Plants:Research Facilities.

Maybe I should tone it down even more. My race creation is set at "superior" for all four of these. I've started creating Miner Light Cruisers for an asteroid ring. Those asteroids can be rich! On my Construction Queue list I have begun to slow down my industry. That was a big part of the problem; and maintenance for ships is expensive! I have Hardy Industrialists and superior ship building. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Also I've been trading to others like: want:5000 minerals/give 3000 organics and 3000 radioactives.

-----I go to sleep thinking about Space Empires and wake up thinking about Space Empires. I have maintenance around the home that I have been putting off. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

-----Gaming can lead to procrastination.

-----Some times , when I'm watching TV I flip the remote upside down and view it as a starship.

-----I'm using my two week vacation from work for Space Empires play and talk. At least I save money that way. I'll travel next time...maybe.

[Fyron]

Hi, my name is Fyron and I am a SEaholic...

[Wade]

---Hi. My name is Wade and I, too, am a SEaholic. It began with just taunts and recomendations from my peers on forums. I...I wanted to fit in and experience all that SE offered. Now, if I don't have SE for awhile I begin to get...anxious.
I have even begun to celebrate the glories of SE in order to expose others to it...some of you might have noticed.

I'm concerned, yet, eager to see where this path will lead.
I here that the first step is admitting my SEaholism.

-Wade

[Black_Knyght]

Hi, my name is Black Knyght and I'm a Sexaholic... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif



What was that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif



Oh, S.E.aholics !?!?!? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif



I'm sorry, I'm in the wrong meeting. Bye now..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/redface.gif

[Atrocities]

I came here to eat bunnies and play SE, and I don't see any bunnies!

[Kamog]

I'm not addicted.... I can stop whenever I want!...if and when I choose to. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Renegade 13]

5 years of near-continuous play isn't an addiction...is it?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[StarShadow]

Nah, it's dedication, not addiction http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

@Wade

I really wouldn't recommend a template approach to building up your worlds. I usually dedicate my worlds to just one or two things (depending on the mineral/organic/rad values), resource poor planets usually get dedicated to research, small/tiny resource poor planets usually end up as storage depots (you need lots of storage to make proper use of 'retro-series'). All planets of small or better usually get a shipyard, moons get either a shipyard or training facility.

[capnq]

Wade said:I'm still early into Space Empires IV but I've observed that I'm low on Minerals and nearly at capacity for Organics and Radioactives.
On my planets (Gas Giants) I've been building like my homeworld was set. That is, a ratio of 5:1:1:5 being Mines:Farms:Extaction Plants:Research Facilities.

I generally build more of whatever resource I'm running a deficit in; over time that tends to come out to a ratio of 6-7:1:2 for me (6:2:2 if I have Organic Manipulation, 6:1:3 if I have something that's rad-intensive like Temporal Knowledge). If I'm running a surplus on everything I build more research or intel as needed.

[Wade]

-----It is generally accepted that we have a higher level of intelligence and consciousness than the life forms that we eat; yes, including plants. Thus, it would stand to reason that some where in the universe there are life forms with a higher level of intelligence and consciousness than us that might want to eat us.
Unless...they have evolved or developed a biological or technological means of consuming energy directly.
I believe that this will be the future of ours and of others.

-Wade

[narf poit chez BOOM]

The general arguement for eating animals is their lack of sapience - Ie., lack of awareness of themselves and others as entities.

[Wade]

I used consciousness as a general term. Sapience also comes in varying levels. We humans eat a huge variety of life forms. I argue that many, if not most, of them have a level of sapience; awareness of themselves and others as entities.
*I eat meat also*. I'm just saying that what's out there in space could be quite bad for us. That's why we should strive to develop research, space travel, colonization, and defenses.

Regarding "sapience":awareness of themselves and others as entities: *putting aside all the cultural differences between people and nations*.
Do these life forms, for example, have *any level* of awareness of themselves and others as entities?

Dog, Cat, Cow, Pig, sheep, rat, fish, octopus, squid, horse, monkey, ape(chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutang,etc.), tuna(yes, I know I already put fish), dolphin, whale, crab, snake, lizard, chicken (and other birds, how about parrots?), deer, elephant, turtle...(I guess those are good enough.)

Words like sapience and consciousness are all creations of language. What it all generallizes to is "intelligence level". There will be many life forms with a higher intelligence level than ours. Hopefully they will have advanced to direct energy consumption.

-Wade

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Emotions are certainly possible without sapience.

[capnq]

The general argument for eating animals (http://mtd.com/tasty/) is that they taste good, and provide a few nutrients that plants don't.

[Caduceus]

“It's easy to quit Space Empires. I've done it hundreds of times.”

- Mark Twain

[Renegade 13]

capnq said:
The general argument for eating animals (http://mtd.com/tasty/) is that they taste good, and provide a few nutrients that plants don't.

Wow. If you read some of the emails that guy got, it really is amazing how many total fools are in the world, thinking the way they do. "Animals have never done anything to hurt you" indeed! What about the people bitten by a dog, mauled by a cougar, killed by a bear, kicked in the groin by a cow? *Yep, that did happen to me* Haven't hurt people...give me a break!

Sorry, I just get a little annoyed by animal rights activists...

[PvK]

Renegade 13 said:
Wow. If you read some of the emails that guy got, it really is amazing how many total fools are in the world, thinking the way they do. "Animals have never done anything to hurt you" indeed! What about the people bitten by a dog, mauled by a cougar, killed by a bear, kicked in the groin by a cow? *Yep, that did happen to me* Haven't hurt people...give me a break!

Sorry, I just get a little annoyed by animal rights activists...

So...
1. Some humans at some point were attacked by some animals for reasons some humans saw as unprovoked.
2. Therefore all humans, even those never attacked by any animal in any circumstance, have (by virtue of some sort of species self-defense?) the right to kill (and maybe eat, or just eat animals killed by others in some unseen factory somewhere) any animals they want (as long as they aren't owned or protected by some other humans...)?

I think "because they're tasty" is more like the actual reason people decide to eat animals. That, and they don't have to face and kill (or "clean", or even cook) them themselves.

PvK

[Slynky]

Wade said:-----I go to sleep thinking about Space Empires and wake up thinking about Space Empires. I have maintenance around the home that I have been putting off. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

You may just be in the light stages right now. In my PBW 2005 Championship (final) game, I would make mental notes of things I needed to check on next time I had the computer on. And at work, I would think of something and email myself a reminder for the turn that night. And explain how things were going to my wife (who couldn't care less).

*shrug* So, it gets worse! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Renegade 13]

PvK said:
So...
1. Some humans at some point were attacked by some animals for reasons some humans saw as unprovoked.
2. Therefore all humans, even those never attacked by any animal in any circumstance, have (by virtue of some sort of species self-defense?) the right to kill (and maybe eat, or just eat animals killed by others in some unseen factory somewhere) any animals they want (as long as they aren't owned or protected by some other humans...)?

Well...that actually wasn't what I was saying. I was more pointing out one fallacy in the arguements of some of the people who emailed the guy who ran that site.


I think "because they're tasty" is more like the actual reason people decide to eat animals. That, and they don't have to face and kill (or "clean", or even cook) them themselves.

PvK

Granted, if they weren't tasty people likely wouldn't eat animals http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

However, some people do "face and kill" and clean and even cook them. For example, me. I help to butcher the animal, and have absolutely no problem eating a steak that night.

Animals eat other animals, and a lot more cruelly than people eat animals. After all, we kill them humanely, without any suffering. We're a lot nicer than animal carnivores. I don't see any reason why animals should eat animals, but people shouldn't...??

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

Renegade 13 said:
Animals eat other animals, and a lot more cruelly than people eat animals. After all, we kill them humanely, without any suffering. We're a lot nicer than animal carnivores.



Ooh, I dunno about you there across the pond but we here in the Netherlands are having some problems with that..... Right now, a reasonably-sized part of our animal (mainly chicken, pig and cow) products comes from what we call the "bio-industry", which is definitely NOT humane. Chickens get their beaks burnt off upon birth, are raised to become so heavy their feet won't support them any more and get slaughtered when they're under a year old. They're killed by either drowning or gassing them. Cows are placed in crates with a head opening when they're still calves, they get raised to be so fat they suffer from being compressed in such a small space, they regularly suffer from numerous afflictions and them they get slaughtered too, also in a very cruel way. That's why the animal rights activists in my country are absolutely adamant that this trade becomes forbidden.

Now I don't know about you there, but I plainly get sick of stuff like this, and therefore I don't eat meat. Try all you may, I will end my days without ever having consumed a dead animal (barring the few times some part of some animal was hidden in something that looked vegetarian).

[Randallw]

I saw a documentary about pig farming in the Netherlands once. Spends most of the film showing the happy little porkers growing up in their pen, and apart from the bit where they avoid the meat being ruined by a boarish smell, they appeared to do well enough. Then at the end most of them get sent off. It took about 4-5 seconds from being happy little porkers to getting koshered you might say http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif It was humane I guess. Lets just say it inolved electricity.

[dogscoff]

I only buy organic and/ or 'cruelty-free' meat at the supermarket. However who knows what I eat when I eat out...

[Fyron]

Strategia_In_Ultima said:
Right now, a reasonably-sized part of our animal (mainly chicken, pig and cow) products comes from what we call the "bio-industry", which is definitely NOT humane.

One company does something cruelly so now the whole industry is "inhumane?" Flimsy propaganda is all they have going. There are all sorts of valid reasons to be a vegetarian (not so many for veganism, but whatever floats your boat); alarmist propaganda like this isn't one of them.

Note that I am not calling you an alarmist or anything; you are just as much a victim as everyone else.

[Renegade 13]

I don't mean to cause any offense SIU, but what you've been told is a big load of bull****.

Chickens don't have their beaks burned off; how would they eat? It would serve absolutely no purpose. Yeah, they're slaughtered under a year old, but how is that wrong? They're full grown before a year is out, so it makes little economic sense to keep them alive. It sure isn't immoral/inhumane to kill them young. Also, chickens aren't killed by drowning or gassing, they're killed by electrocution since it makes the feathers much easier to remove. They don't feel a thing when you jolt them with thousands of volts.

Speaking as a cattle rancher, someone with knowledge about these things. Cattle most certainly are NOT stuffed in crates shortly after birth, to live there for life. Calves are born, castrated (in a humane manner, trust me on this. They're neutered via constriction of an elastic band. Everything just goes numb) then get an ear-tag identifying them (no worse than a person getting an earring). After that, they live with their mothers on pasture. The pasture is about 50 acres in size, so there's plenty of room. Plenty of grass and water. Or hay and water before the grass is growing. They grow until they're roughly 700 pounds (8 months or so), then they're sold. After that, they go to the feedlot where they're grain-fed for another several months (always with space to move around and do what cows do...which is primarly eat, sleep, and crap) until they're around 1300 pounds, and then they're slaughtered. They are slaughtered via a painless procedure whereby their brain is penetrated by a sharp object, and they die instantly.

Animal rights activists are (in a lot of cases) manipulative in the extreme. For example, it was proven that here in Canada, where they petition for the outlawing of the seal hunt, it was shown that they organized the skinning of a live seal. They then filmed this, and used it as their ammunition to try and outlaw it. I don't know about you, but this sickens me a hell of a lot more than how animals are slaughtered. Sickens me.

I'm not trying to convince you to eat meat, since you seem rather convinced that it's the right thing to do. But you sure wouldn't have survived being a vegetarian back a couple hundred years ago http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

I've participated in the slaughtering of several of our own animals. They're shot in the head and die right away. Sometimes they live to a ripe old age, 14 years or so (cows don't have a long natural lifespan).

The ways people kill animals nowadays is one hell of a lot more humane than how animals kill each other. Sometimes I think people (animal rights activists) are just looking for some cause to get the public upset so they can rake in the cash from donations. In fact, I'm sure that's what some of them are in it for. Now, I'm not saying all are like that, but I'm sure a lot are.

I will remain a proud meat-eating person for all my life. I will never stop eating meat...and enjoy every bite of it.

[Wade]

----- A compelling hypothetical; not to judge but to offer thought expansion:

I'm an omnivore.
My intellect lets me know many benefits to eating meat. Taste pleasue, high brain energy, better adaptation in case of an extreme environmental condition...

My intellect also allows me to use emotion to empathize with my prey(even if the meat is from a store or restaurant). Sapience and consciousness are just words created that stress our extreme intelligence level above the other life forms that we share this planet with...

Assume a scenario where an alien race of an extreme intelligence level above ours that we share this universe with comes to our humble planet. They too are omnivores and have found us to be a tasty food item. They process us in a very quick and painless way. Indeed, we may not even know the scope of this process or even that it happens; even at the point of death. I doubt many of our food life forms(animals) know what will happen to them as they go about their business in the fields and buildings and water.

This is the nature of things. Even life forms of equal or nearly equal levels of intelligence routinely eat each other. Many have evolved it to a necessity.

If we became aware that these aliens were eating us our number one desire would be that they stop eating us. We also might want them to go away and stop the food processes and infrusructure that they built up around us. We would not care so much how quick and painless the death process was when compared to the process as a whole. Most of the aliens might not even care if they could even be aware of our complaints.
Our food life forms complain in their various ways moments before their death. Cows, pigs, and chickens struggling and screaming in a processing building; fish and other life forms struggling and communicating in various ways in nets and boats.
The aliens would use their own extreme intellect above ours to measure their benefits and emotion. The majority of them would probably continue to consume us as a tasty food item.

Hopefully any aliens that we meet will have advanced enough evolutionary or technologically to direct energy consumption; or simply not find us to be a tasty food item. Hopefully we will have advanced to a level of intelligence, technology, and evolution higher than our competitors when we meet(possibly to direct energy consumption).

When we leave this solar system to colonize others we will find new life forms of lesser intelligence. We will probably find many of them to be tasty food items that we process in a quick and painless way.

These are some things I some times consider that make me think about being a vegitarian. In the end though I am an omnivore.

-Wade

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

One company does something cruelly so now the whole industry is "inhumane?" Flimsy propaganda is all they have going.



Not just one single company, there's an entire branch of them out here. Of course, there are also the more humane companies, but there are still companies which treat their animals cruelly.


Speaking as a cattle rancher, someone with knowledge about these things. Cattle most certainly are NOT stuffed in crates shortly after birth, to live there for life.



You might be so humane, but like I said there are companies here which aren't. We don't have the wide open spaces of North America, hence the "bio-industry" which started to emerge after WWII; that way, you could have the largest amount of animals in the smallest amount of space.


Animal rights activists are (in a lot of cases) manipulative in the extreme. For example, it was proven that here in Canada, where they petition for the outlawing of the seal hunt, it was shown that they organized the skinning of a live seal. They then filmed this, and used it as their ammunition to try and outlaw it. I don't know about you, but this sickens me a hell of a lot more than how animals are slaughtered. Sickens me.



This, to me, is on the same level of evil as Nazism.

I understand your reactions, and I won't attempt to convince you to stop eating meat (such efforts are limited to semi-serious discussions with my friends during lunch), or convince you that all of what I heard is true, but some of it is, and personally I see no reason to eat meat. I've been brought up a vegetarian, and I'll die a vegetarian.

(Note: I have not responded to some statements. Please take this as my agreement on this; I have only responded to those statements I did not agree with. I have read your posts and seriously considered them.)

[capnq]

Wade said:A compelling hypothetical;

Compelling is in the eye of the beholder.
Assume a scenario where an alien race of an extreme intelligence level above ours that we share this universe with comes to our humble planet. They too are omnivores and have found us to be a tasty food item.

This is where I start to have suspension of disbelief problems with the scenario. Even if some quality of the universe causes all life forms to use chemically similar forms of DNA, ISTM that the odds are that separate paths of molecular evolution would leave each race full of biochemicals that the other(s) find unpalatable if not toxic. At best, I'd expect us to make potentially useful sources of exotic organic chemicals.

One of my favorite bits of the background color in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri is the incompatible biochemistry between Terran animals and Planet's lifeforms.
If we became aware that these aliens were eating us our number one desire would be that they stop eating us. We also might want them to go away and stop the food processes and infrusructure that they built up around us. We would not care so much how quick and painless the death process was when compared to the process as a whole. Most of the aliens might not even care if they could even be aware of our complaints.

Our number one desire would be to convince others that it's really happening (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0962057010/002-5502922-7481607?v=glance&n=283155).

[Glyn]

Oh the humanity of it all!

Billions of individual living entities are raised in crowed conditions feed special chemicals to maximize there growth then they are slaughter so that their gestating young can be ripped from the parents carcass just to be used to feed the masses of humans and other animals!!! Many of these living entities are actually eaten while still alive!


SAVE THE PLANTS!
They have a right to live without the cruel treatment of modern farming!






Thought on Aliens eating humans.
1) The chances are that our biology is a compatible food source for an ext-terrestrial is probably very low.
2) We generally do not farm predator animals for food. Not because they don’t taste good, but because it’s dangerous! It’s dangerous enough just raising non-carnivore.
3) The environmental toxins are usually much more concentrated in predator animals.

[Wade]

--I said *assume* a scenario...as in hypothetical. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

--I said *an* alien race...as in one possibility using a hypothetical assumption. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

--If an alien race is advanced enough then they can make use of chemically different forms of DNA as food. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

--I said *we* as meaning the entire human race. Thus if *we* became aware that these aliens were eating us our number one desire would be that they stop eating us. Others would not nead convincing because *we* all would already know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

--I vaguely remember a documentary about evidence that the US government was using laser scalpals, black helicopters at night, and such to harvest cattle organs and genitilia. This was to do research on the possible effects of radiation in regards to cancer and reproduction in humans. In the mid century there was wide scale atom bomb and radiation tests across wide expansess of several US mid-western states.

-Wade

[Renegade 13]

Strategia_In_Ultima said:
You might be so humane, but like I said there are companies here which aren't. We don't have the wide open spaces of North America, hence the "bio-industry" which started to emerge after WWII; that way, you could have the largest amount of animals in the smallest amount of space.


I agree, in part at least. I guess my point was that things like that do not happen here in North America, to the best of my knowledge. I don't know what happens in Europe nearly as much. Though I must say I still have my doubts, since governmental regulations are generally very strict when it comes to the treatment of animals. Also I'd ask you; have you seen such plants with you're own eyes, or are you relying on the 'evidence' provided by others? There's an old saying I like; "Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear."



This, to me, is on the same level of evil as Nazism.

I understand your reactions, and I won't attempt to convince you to stop eating meat (such efforts are limited to semi-serious discussions with my friends during lunch), or convince you that all of what I heard is true, but some of it is, and personally I see no reason to eat meat. I've been brought up a vegetarian, and I'll die a vegetarian.

It may not seem like it, but I do respect your convictions. I may not agree with them, but it is every human's right to choose what they will and will not do, and I have no right to aggressively argue my point of view over and over http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif So I won't! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif


(Note: I have not responded to some statements. Please take this as my agreement on this; I have only responded to those statements I did not agree with. I have read your posts and seriously considered them.)

I too have read and considered your posts, and agree with some, not with others (obviously!).

Arguements should be something like this, statements of beliefs, not shouting/pissing matches. I'm happy everyone here is remaining civil about this, even when it wasn't in any way related to the original topic! Though if anyone did come close to being uncivil, it was probably me! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

Renegade 13 said:

Strategia_In_Ultima said:

Speaking as a cattle rancher, someone with knowledge about these things. Cattle most certainly are NOT stuffed in crates shortly after birth, to live there for life.



You might be so humane, but like I said there are companies here which aren't. We don't have the wide open spaces of North America, hence the "bio-industry" which started to emerge after WWII; that way, you could have the largest amount of animals in the smallest amount of space.


I agree, in part at least. I guess my point was that things like that do not happen here in North America, to the best of my knowledge. I don't know what happens in Europe nearly as much. Though I must say I still have my doubts, since governmental regulations are generally very strict when it comes to the treatment of animals. Also I'd ask you; have you seen such plants with you're own eyes, or are you relying on the 'evidence' provided by others? There's an old saying I like; "Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear."



Though I have not seen these processes with my own eyes, I am 100% certain that they occur. Once or twice every year you see them on the news or somewhere else on TV, and staging all that is just ridiculous. Like I said, here in the Netherlands we had to find a way to maximize production with a minimum of land right after WWII.




Animal rights activists are (in a lot of cases) manipulative in the extreme. For example, it was proven that here in Canada, where they petition for the outlawing of the seal hunt, it was shown that they organized the skinning of a live seal. They then filmed this, and used it as their ammunition to try and outlaw it. I don't know about you, but this sickens me a hell of a lot more than how animals are slaughtered. Sickens me.



This, to me, is on the same level of evil as Nazism.

I understand your reactions, and I won't attempt to convince you to stop eating meat (such efforts are limited to semi-serious discussions with my friends during lunch), or convince you that all of what I heard is true, but some of it is, and personally I see no reason to eat meat. I've been brought up a vegetarian, and I'll die a vegetarian.

It may not seem like it, but I do respect your convictions. I may not agree with them, but it is every human's right to choose what they will and will not do, and I have no right to aggressively argue my point of view over and over http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif So I won't! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[/quote]

I never suspected you of not respecting my convictions, and I hope you do not suspect me of not respecting yours.


(Note: I have not responded to some statements. Please take this as my agreement on this; I have only responded to those statements I did not agree with. I have read your posts and seriously considered them.)

I too have read and considered your posts, and agree with some, not with others (obviously!).

Arguements should be something like this, statements of beliefs, not shouting/pissing matches. I'm happy everyone here is remaining civil about this, even when it wasn't in any way related to the original topic! Though if anyone did come close to being uncivil, it was probably me! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[/quote]

Eh, don't worry, it's nothing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Oh the humanity of it all!

Billions of individual living entities are raised in crowed conditions feed special chemicals to maximize there growth then they are slaughter so that their gestating young can be ripped from the parents carcass just to be used to feed the masses of humans and other animals!!! Many of these living entities are actually eaten while still alive!


SAVE THE PLANTS!
They have a right to live without the cruel treatment of modern farming!



Believe it or not, I actually get a lot of this when I "attempt" to convert my friends to vegetarianism http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Renegade 13]

Strategia_In_Ultima said:
I never suspected you of not respecting my convictions, and I hope you do not suspect me of not respecting yours.

Nope, never thought you didn't respect my opinions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Just thought you might suspect me of it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Wow, I really can confuse things quickly, eh?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Fyron]

Please reduce the amount of quoted text and nested quotes... It gets really hard to follow (esp. on lower res) with so much extra space wasted between the actual content of the post. Just the words you are responding to will suffice (though they are not usually necessary).

[Renegade 13]

So grumpy! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Black_Knyght]

<font color="red">WARNING: The following comments may be seen as immflammatory to select individuals </font>

I by no means intend this as an effort at offense, but having read the many and varied comments posted here I feel compelled to add my own, stating that in my opinion this thread has become an exercise in the innane. With such references to the human condition, sympathy for one's prey, comparisons to Nazism.



<font color="blue">Nazism</font> !?!?!?!?



I'm sorry if my OPINION is deamed offensive to some, but I just couldn't stand to see such pointlessness continue without expressing this feeling. There really are some valid points along the way, but in the majority it really seems like this thread is deteriorating into simple extremist opinions, with little or no basis in fact or experience. Sorry again to whomever this offends.

[Renegade 13]

Ugh...I'm so offended Black_Knyght! How could you say such evil things? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif &lt;---- (Comment completely intended as humorous)

Slightly more seriously, if an opinion hurt a person's feelings, I doubt they'd be here long! Or the internet in general for that matter.

It just so happens I agree with you, and it has become rather innane. Unfortunately, I sometimes like pointless arguements...a sometimes annoying fault of mine. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Lets all just eat /threads/images/Graemlins/Burger.gif /threads/images/Graemlins/Cake.gif /threads/images/Graemlins/Cheese.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/egg.gif , drink /threads/images/Graemlins/Martini.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/beerglass.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/beerglass.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/beerglass.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/beerglass.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/beerglass.gif /threads/images/Graemlins/Lightning.gif /threads/images/Graemlins/Lightning.gif /threads/images/Graemlins/Lightning.gif ...well maybe don't try to drink lightning!

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

BK, I wasn't comparing "sympathy for one's prey" as such with Nazism, but the fact that "animal rights protestors" in Canada skinned a seal themselves to prove that it was evil. That, to me, is as evil as Nazism is.

[Glyn]

<font color="red"> Warring!!! This thread is experiencing topic drift!</font>


I think all the animals, plants and alien food people would be offended by comments made if they hadn’t been eaten.


The above comment was not intended to be offensive to more than .01% of the population. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


Wasn’t there a twilight zone show where aliens landed and they carried around a book titled “How to Serve Man”?

[capnq]

Wade said:
--I said *we* as meaning the entire human race. Thus if *we* became aware that these aliens were eating us our number one desire would be that they stop eating us. Others would not nead convincing because *we* all would already know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

I cannot imagine that "we" would have such a unanimous opinion on *anything*. There are numerous examples of things that "we" know have happened or are happening, which "they" claim never happened or aren't happening, and vice versa. At least one example has already been brought up in this thread. Some people cannot be convinced by even "irrefutable" proof.

I can imagine the existence of people who not only would not oppose this, but would actually support it.

[PvK]

Oh no, North Americans with their wide open spaces would never maximize their profit/cost ratios by doing tremendous things to chickens. Certainly no human would sear off a chicken beak - what reason would there be for that?

. . .

Well, no reason, until they get crammed together so that they start fighting and cannibalizing each other.


"Most Americans know little about how their eggs are produced. They don't know that American egg-producers typically keep their hens in bare wire cages, often crammed eight or nine hens to a cage so small that they never have room to stretch even one wing, let alone both. The space allocated per hen, in fact, is even less than broiler chickens get, ranging from 48 to 72 square inches. Even the higher of these figures is less than the size of a standard American sheet of typing paper. In such crowded conditions, stressed hens tend to peck each other -- and the sharp beak of a hen can be a lethal weapon when used relentlessly against weaker birds unable to escape. To prevent this, producers routinely sear off the ends of the hens' sensitive beaks with a hot blade -- without an anesthetic."


excerpt from The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter by Peter Singer and Jim Mason (http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_eggssinger.htm)

PvK

[gregebowman]

StarShadow said:
Nah, it's dedication, not addiction http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

@Wade

I really wouldn't recommend a template approach to building up your worlds. I usually dedicate my worlds to just one or two things (depending on the mineral/organic/rad values), resource poor planets usually get dedicated to research, small/tiny resource poor planets usually end up as storage depots (you need lots of storage to make proper use of 'retro-series'). All planets of small or better usually get a shipyard, moons get either a shipyard or training facility.



That's about how I do mine. Even a tiny planet can hold one storage unit. Sometimes, though, when I'm more advanced, I'll use that one spot and put a atmosphere modifier on a tiny planet to get 2 or 3 units on a planet that's been redeveloped. After deleting the modifier, I can put a storage space, an intel unit or a research unit or two or three, depending on what I need. I know it takes awhile to get that far, but when you do, you'll find you'll still have a need for all of those units.

[Fyron]

Ungh, not more of the propaganda.

[Renegade 13]

I sure wouldn't believe anything a site called "www.thevegetariansite.com" has to say... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif After all, I'm sure they're totally unbiased. [sarcasm]

[PvK]

Oh... right... never trust vegetarians... or people who care about the treatment of animals.

[Captain Kwok]

I work in the food development industry and can say with some confidence that the conditions are typically in-between the extremes that have been presented here. There's some good processors that make an effort to keep conditions in their farms reasonable. But with any large-scale operation where costs are a major factor (ie for fast food etc), then the practices become more questionable. Small-scale producers can't compete on cost, so they generally raise for speciality markets (ie organic, high quality stores/restaurants) and treat their animals well.

However, that is really limited to the more tightly regulated markets. You would be shocked at some of the things that go on in the less developed regions of the world. What might make things worse is that many large-scale operations (read: fast food suppliers) are moving to these regions for the cost benefits - which means the animals and laborers will take the brunt.

[PvK]

How about the New York Times for a corporate-compliant news organ? Carnivore enough? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/04/national/04CHIC.html
The henhouse raid in November was the second for Ms. Park, 32, and an animal advocacy group called Compassion Over Killing. Members of the group court arrest by entering chicken sheds at night and filming the rows of hens crammed 10 to a cage the size of a file-drawer cabinet. They get close-ups of swollen eyes, infected skin and shattered wings entangled in cage wire.


Earlier this year the United Egg Producers, a trade group representing 85 percent of the country’s egg producers, issued revised guidelines in response to the complaints of animal welfare groups. The industry promised to increase gradually the size of the enclosed wire cages it uses, known as battery cages, by 30 to 40 percent; improve procedures for trimming chickens’ beaks; and figure out how to force chickens to molt, which induces them to lay more eggs, without starving them for several days.


McDonald’s has agreed to buy eggs only from producers who do not starve their chickens to force molting and who raise them in cages of at least 72 square inches for each bird, nearly double the current United States average of 40 square inches.

Gee, that matches what those untrustworthy vegetarians said... except the vegetarians said the smallest space per chicken was 48 inches.

[StarShadow]

It's not that the vegetarians are untrustworthy. It's the perception of bias. It's akin to getting your information on the negative effects of smoking, from the tobacco industry.

[Fyron]

PvK said:
...people who care about the treatment of animals.

Why should I care about them? They only exist to become food, afterall. I don't want to see excessive production waste just because it makes the animals "happier."

[narf poit chez BOOM]

According to my dad, who was raised on a farm, eight chickens cannot be crammed into an 8x8x8 sized encloser.

Based on my own understanding of the dimensions of a chicken, I doubt you could fit a single chicken in there.

[Renegade 13]

PvK said:
Oh... right... never trust vegetarians... or people who care about the treatment of animals.

Note I didn't say that vegetarians are untrustworthy, I said the website was obviously biased. Big distinction.

I'd also like to point out that I absolutely resent the implication that I don't care about the well-being of animals. I have never once in my life mistreated an animal, no animal. We raise cattle here and they have never been subjected to any inhumane practices. Never. Being a vegetarian doesn't make you superior to us savages who eat meat. And just because people eat meat it doesn't mean they don't care about how animals are treated. It's really too bad typing doesn't allow for emphasis to be applied, or facial expression to be expressed. I think the look on my face and tone of my "voice" would say a lot...

As for what some PETA loving animal hugger from "Compassion over Killing" says, I really don't give a [censored]. In any industry there are bad apples. It doesn't make the entire industry cruel and unjust. And given the way "animal rights activists" act, I wouldn't doubt they did that to the chickens themselves.

Note the word "trimming" when referring to beaks, not burning as has been said. Think of it this way; we castrate animals. That could be said to be akin to "trimming". Yet it is painless and harmless. I can guarantee they aren't yanking the entire beak out of the chicken. It would stress the animal which would cause it to lose weight and not perform as well as it would otherwise.

I would also like to know the definition of "starve". I'd bet it means feeding them a certain diet, not refusing to feed them for days on end. Be reasonable.



As is probably evident, I get a little worked up about stuff like this. Let me tell you something:

Vegetarians are primarily people who have lived in cities all their life, and not been in touch with the real world, outside of cities.

Vegetarians have been raised watching Walt Disney movies, and think that all animals are harmless and nearly the equal to people. They're not, never will be.

Vegetarians would not stand a chance at survival if they were deprived of their "civilized" comforts. If you couldn't go to the grocery store and buy all your organic, non-meat products and you actually had to grow and kill what you eat rather than go buy it, you would eat meat. If you didn't, you'd die. You'd also see that animals are just that; animals. They are not on the same level as a person. That doesn't excuse mistreatment, don't for a minute think that I believe it does. However, death is part of life (bit of an oxymoron there, but hey...). Killing and eating animals does not make people 'evil'. They've lived their life, and don't know there's any other way to live. However they live, as long as they don't live in pain, that's what they're used to. They think it's natural. It is not cruel.

[PvK]

StarShadow said:
It's not that the vegetarians are untrustworthy. It's the perception of bias. It's akin to getting your information on the negative effects of smoking, from the tobacco industry.

No, it would be like getting info on the negative effects of smoking, from nonsmokers.com.

[PvK]

Imperator Fyron said:
PvK said:
...people who care about the treatment of animals.

Why should I care about them? They only exist to become food, afterall. I don't want to see excessive production waste just because it makes the animals "happier."

You should care about them because you are compassionate and would like to reduce suffering.

[PvK]

This discussion has been interesting to me, not just for the topic and to hear people's reactions, but also as an example of the effects of overstatement. Particularly when I think others are overstating a case or writing something that seems ridiculous to me, I am often tempted to respond with overstated sarcastic and ironic humor that only I (or those on my rarified wavelength, but not often those I'm responding to) am likely to get, and that can lead to misunderstandings getting out of control.

Anyway, Renegade 13, I'd like not to upset you with miscommunication, so I'll try to respond as clearly as I can and maybe explain better than I have been.

I was making sarcastic remarks about not trusting vegetarians because the replies from you and Fyron seemed to say you wouldn't trust any information from a URL with "vegetarian" in the domain name. I thought that was pretty remarkable, and was trying to express it with sarcastic humor. Perhaps I was responding unclearly to something I somewhat misunderstood, just getting us circling each other.

It seems that at some point in history some people on the "animal" side of this issue have made some people on the "meat" side (sorry if my terms are offending anyone) quite annoyed and skeptical, though this seems like a very polarizing topic. I guess I was trying to express too that I find it hard to understand how people could get to the point where they trust corporations with tons of money at stake over people who are trying to help animals, to the point that they'd just disbelieve anything with the word "vegetarian" in its name. For my part, I've gotten to the point that I distrust most corporate and corp-media messages, and expect corporations to frame animal rights activists much more readily than I'd expect activists to frame farmers. It's an extreme example of people getting upset at "the other side" and overreacting and hurting both communication and their own cause, leading to lots of mistrust and entrenched sides.

I was trying (and apparently, failing) to reflect what seemed like your illogic back to you. (I'm still surprised how rarely that approach works, but I guess I shouldn't be.) I was not really meaning to say I thought you abused or neglected or didn't care about animals. I just meant to show the same level of illogic and intolerance I seemed to be getting. All it did was make you frustrated in the same way your replies frustrated me, but without you understanding (or at least, not accepting), what I was trying to express.

I wasn't saying the whole meat industry was wicked; of course it's not. Again, my expressions tended to reflect illogical and incorrect expressions from the other side. Again, it didn't get understood. My mistake more than anyone else's.

I hope though that you would realize too that the same is true of people on the other side of the argument. There are some who do bad things and say bad things, but that doesn't make them all bad or wrong either.

I understand about beak trimming. My understanding is that sometimes it is done by burning, but that's not necessarily a significant detail if we're talking seriously. I have seen many arguments on both sides about how humane it is or isn't in different specific cases. I was guilty of overstatement in the way I expressed it, but again this was because I was reacting to overstatements to the effect that it never happened, would never happen in the USA, etc. But two wrongs don't generally make a right, nor do they reach an understanding.

I don't know the details of the "starve" comment - that was the New York Times writing that.

"Vegetarians are primarily people who have lived in cities all their life, and not been in touch with the real world, outside of cities. "
- No, vegetarians are simply people who don't eat meat, for a wide variety of reasons.

"Vegetarians have been raised watching Walt Disney movies"
- Fascinating.

"Vegetarians [...] think that all animals are harmless and nearly the equal to people. They're not, never will be."
- "Equal" in what sense?
- Some people, who may or may not actually be vegetarians, even think that they prefer animals to people in some ways.

"If you couldn't go to the grocery store and buy all your organic, non-meat products and you actually had to grow and kill what you eat rather than go buy it, you would eat meat. If you didn't, you'd die."
- Er, no. Many Asian cultures (and, see "Buddhism") have been largely or almost entirely vegetarian (in the not-animal-eating sense, not in your strange Disney-raised sense) even before significant contact with Western cultures. They did just fine, and many continue to do so.

"You'd also see that animals are just that; animals. They are not on the same level as a person."
- In what terms? I've had plenty of contact with animals, and I respect and appreciate them quite a bit, and certainly prefer many of them to many humans I've known.

"Killing and eating animals does not make people 'evil'."
- Who (on this thread) ever said it did?

I don't think we really disagree on the main issue here. Seems to me we agree that there can be humane meat farming, and there can be abusive meat farming, and there are at least some cases of abusive meat farming, and that's bad. Where we disagree is maybe what counts as abusive, how common abuse is, what should be done about it, and so on. None of which we really want to discuss in detail here.

PvK

[PvK]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
According to my dad, who was raised on a farm, eight chickens cannot be crammed into an 8x8x8 sized encloser.

Based on my own understanding of the dimensions of a chicken, I doubt you could fit a single chicken in there.

Narf, what are you referring to? The low end was 40 or 48 inches square per chicken, not per eight chickens. 48 would be about 7 x 7 per chicken (if it were square, vertical unspecified), and the wonderful concession is a gradual increase to 72 which is more like 8 x 9 inches (flappin' 4 joy (tm)). There are generally several chickens per cage though, so an 8-chicken cage would be 8 times as big, with 8 chickens. There are pictures on the net of course if still curious. Just do a Google image search for: chicken "battery cage" ... or not.

[Captain Kwok]

I find it interesting Regegade13 that you complain about the generalizations made by vegetarian groups etc., and then you go and make a half-dozen generalizations yourself. PvK already addressed most of these items, but let me assure you there are large populations of people who live in rural communities that do not eat animal products and they survive just fine. Just because your experience is more noble, doesn't mean that people who don't eat meat for some of the reasons mentioned in this thread are without reason.

If anything, people in North America generally consume more meat than is healthy, particularly of beef and pork. If you look at some of the top causes of death in North America, many can be attributed to this diet. Instead of consuming bacon in moderation, we'd rather genetically engineer pigs to make lower cholesterol bacon...

Of course, many of these animals wouldn't exist if it weren't for the demand for their meat, but that doesn't justify that they need to suffer. Fyron should hope that the animals that are raised for his consumption are happy, because it certainly makes a difference in the end product that he will see on his dinner table.

There is nothing wrong with not eating meat because you don't like the general treatment of animals in the meat industry. It's your choice and good for you. Of course, there are always the few people among any group that are preachy and irksome, but that's the same for any body of people that have a "cause".

[Glyn]

Meat Meat Meat!!!

Doesn’t anyone care about Plant rights!

Plants are people too! Or would be if they had a central nervous system.

When was the last time you hugged a plant. Poison ivy need love too!!!


Seriously,
Vegetarians are simply choosing not to consume a product for what ever reason. Some believe so strongly that they may violate others rights in the process to enlighten non-vegetarians. Some people who are economically tied to the meat industry may also use extreme measures.

Several studies that have come out recently are supporting the Idea that animals raised in more natural environments eating more natural food (IE. grass vs grain for cattle) make for healthier food for humans. IE Less cruel treatment = more economic sense.


There was a news story about a dairy farmer who installed waterbeds for his cows. Apparently, the cows liked them. I don’t known if the cows produced more milk or higher quality milk.


In July 2001, the Heindel family built a barn on its 2,200-acre farm that came equipped with four robotic milkers, a 26-fan ventilation system, two cow back scratchers, about 280 cow waterbeds and two automatic scrapers that work to remove manure from the building.




The battle on behalf of the poor beleaguered laying hen has, over the past 30 years or so, been fought by the consumer with some passion and, if not won, then at least fairly honourably drawn. Free-range eggs (as opposed to battery eggs laid by hens in tiny cages), now account for about 50 per cent of all UK egg sales to the public

[Fyron]

Captain Kwok said:
Fyron should hope that the animals that are raised for his consumption are happy, because it certainly makes a difference in the end product that he will see on his dinner table.

I've yet to encounter any "organic" (or whatever the appropriate term in this case is) chicken/eggs that was any different from other chicken/eggs. Maybe for animals that do not produce bland and insipid meat, but chicken?

PvK said:
You should care about them because you are compassionate and would like to reduce suffering.

Why should I extend compassion to food products? There is plenty of human suffering to be compastionate about; compassion for what is going to be on my dinner table soon enough is wasted effort.

[Captain Kwok]

A lot of chicken you'll encounter in the grocery store is pumped with a solution of salt, water, and phosphates to help counter stress-induced meat characteristics and present a nice visual (not to mention increase the price with extra water weight!). It's so prevalent that having unpumped chicken is probably a rarity for most consumers.

Also, with high volume operations, processors tend to use various concoctions of antibiotics/hormones in feed etc. to help prevent disease and promote growth etc. - these items do make it to the shelf (and surrounding environment) in some quantities.

For Beef it does make a lot of difference. You'll note that all the highest grade beef comes from generally smaller producers that raise their cattle more naturally vs. the large producers.

[PvK]

Imperator Fyron said:
Why should I extend compassion to food products? There is plenty of human suffering to be compastionate about; compassion for what is going to be on my dinner table soon enough is wasted effort.

Because you're grateful, gracious and humble? Because you're a nice person who doesn't like suffering? Because "none of the above" is one of the multiple-choice options for "who would you like to suffer a miserable existance?" Because you reflect that if you were raised for food, you'd rather be given better treatment than being packed shoulder to shoulder with others in a dark cage before being slaughtered and turned into human McNuggets? Because the risk of serious new disease strains and human malnutrition may be greatly increased by some industrial farm practices?

[Renegade 13]

I understand what you're saying PvK, and actually agree with most of what you've said in your last post.

My position has (obviously!) been a little dogmatic and closed-minded. Obviously there are extremes on both sides of the arguement, and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle, as I suspect it is in this case.

And now that I actually think about it, rather than just trying to defend my position, I guess a vegetarian's choice to not eat meat is their choice to make (and their loss in my opinion http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ) and really doesn't affect me too much. Though I must say there are several essential nutrients found in meat that are not found in vegetable food sources. Kinda argues for an evolutionary reliance on eating meat (if you believe in evolution of course).

As for how animals are treated, I can only say what I know to be true, which is how animals are treated in my direct experience and observation. Which, of course, is how they're treated here in Canada, where we have an absolute abundance of space to allow animals to roam somewhat freely. In the States, or other countries, I dunno. As for chickens...well I don't like eggs so I don't eat them and chicken isn't my favorite food anyway (I prefer hamburger or a nice juicy steak http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif )I really don't know how they're treated (though I'll always have my doubts about the position espoused by animal rights activists. After all, they have an agenda. As, obviously, big corporations do as well. Seems people really can't believe anything that they themselves don't have direct experience with.

As for Disney movies, where else do people get the idea's that bears are cute, cuddly, harmless animals? Bears are not in any way harmless. Yet a lot of people in cities seem to believe they are. How did that notion become so prevalent??

Around here, animals such as bears and coyotes are shot on sight. If you don't, they kill your livestock, ruin your crops. Many people without experience outside of cities (and the movies which they were raised on) don't understand what animals such as bears are really like. They'd just as soon eat you as look at your. Granted, the difference between bears and food animals is quite significant, but the principal is the same.

Kwok, you're right. I was going a little overboard on the generalizations. Also correct about how companies pump chicken full of liquid so they can sell less chicken for a greater price. A stressed animal has a much lower quality of meat than one that doesn't know anything's wrong until it dies. Which is one reason why I have my doubts that food animals are horribly mistreated.

Anyways, I think I've stated my points far too frequently recently, and doubt that anyone on any side of the arguement will change their mind, so I think it's rather pointless to continue!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[rdouglass]

It's kinda' funny that something from the Bible might be surprisingly relevant:

Romans 14:2-3 tells us, "One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him."

[narf poit chez BOOM]

PvK said:

narf poit chez BOOM said:
According to my dad, who was raised on a farm, eight chickens cannot be crammed into an 8x8x8 sized encloser.

Based on my own understanding of the dimensions of a chicken, I doubt you could fit a single chicken in there.

Narf, what are you referring to? The low end was 40 or 48 inches square per chicken, not per eight chickens. 48 would be about 7 x 7 per chicken (if it were square, vertical unspecified), and the wonderful concession is a gradual increase to 72 which is more like 8 x 9 inches (flappin' 4 joy (tm)). There are generally several chickens per cage though, so an 8-chicken cage would be 8 times as big, with 8 chickens. There are pictures on the net of course if still curious. Just do a Google image search for: chicken "battery cage" ... or not.


Ah, thanks. I misread.

That does look rather cruel. I don't actually know if that's prevalent, but it's definitly cruel.

[Kamog]

Soon we won't have to kill animals to produce meat. According to this article (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71201-0.html?tw=rss.index), scientists are using stem cells to grow meat in a test tube!

[Randallw]

yeah I think about that sort of stuff from time to time. I personally wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it tasted like proper meat. But on the other hand I wouldn't eat it for the sake of it if it was more expensive then normal meat. Come the day it is the same or cheaper I would make the change.

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

Renegade 13 said:
.....I guess a vegetarian's choice to not eat meat is their choice to make (and their loss in my opinion http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ).....



Well, that "loss" is entirely your opinion. Whenever my family and I go to a party where we are the only vegetarians, and the host(ess) has prepared a "normal" and a vegetarian version of the same dish (for example pasta salad, lasagna, etc.), it's always the vegetarian version that's eaten first. Trust me.

[Renegade 13]

Strategia_In_Ultima said:
Well, that "loss" is entirely your opinion. Whenever my family and I go to a party where we are the only vegetarians, and the host(ess) has prepared a "normal" and a vegetarian version of the same dish (for example pasta salad, lasagna, etc.), it's always the vegetarian version that's eaten first. Trust me.

While I have no doubt that that is true, it definitely wouldn't be the same in my (or my family's) case http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif We're all closer to carnivores than omnivores it seems http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


Kamog said:
Soon we won't have to kill animals to produce meat. According to this article, scientists are using stem cells to grow meat in a test tube!

Though I don't doubt that day is coming, I highly doubt it would actually taste like meat does today. If such a reality does come about, I bet "real" meat would be worth a premium compared to the "fake" meat.


"In the wild savannah of the Serengetti, the cheetah's having just killed their dinner, they soon discover to their horror that they just hunted and killed one of the Serengetti's stranger creatures, the Tofudabeest."

[Fyron]

Strategia_In_Ultima said:
...it's always the vegetarian version that's eaten first. Trust me.

If they were actually made the same, but the normal one included the meat, there would be no reason for this... Most of the time, people put extra vegetables into the "vegetarian" version, which naturally could make it taste better overall (not better than if it had the meat too, just compared to the more bland version). I've never seen a legitimate version of this, where the "normal" dish was the same as the vegetarian one plus meat...

[capnq]

Renegade 13 said:
Vegetarians would not stand a chance at survival if they were deprived of their "civilized" comforts.

Neither would, at a guess, about 5/6 of humanity.

I think a pretty good measure of how "advanced" a civilization is, is the percentage of the population that would not survive its collapse.

[Renegade 13]

Good point. I think I'd estimate the number closer to 90% wouldn't survive, but that's just me.

I for one wouldn't have lived past 17 if deprived of "civilization". Appendicitis would have killed me. One of my three sisters would have died at about 12 from whooping cough.

That's just medical reasons why people don't die today, I hate to think about how many would die simply from malnutrition, not knowing how to survive, etc. if our civilization fell.

[Kamog]

Hmm, I wouldn't survive without civilization either. I'm nearsighted, and without glasses or contact lenses, I won't be able to find food or see predators coming. Then again, without computers, TV, books etc I'd probably have better eyesight.