Crops can blight, animals can get diseases. I don’t know much about hydroponics but I know that bacteria are a concern. What food source is the most reliable, the least likely to produce less food than expected?

    • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
      7·
      1 year ago

      I know you’re not really being serious, but it doesn’t really. I considered the logistics of this for an RP I was running and it doesn’t add up. You need way way way way more food to grow a human being than the human being provides in food when they’re dead. At most, being very very generous, you could meet 1% of a society’s food needs with cannibalism. And that’s a really high estimate. It’s really more of a special treat than a daily diet!

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          4·
          1 year ago

          It’s so inefficient you may as well just leave the population to starve, nearly the same effect for much less work!

          • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
            1·
            1 year ago

            You’re going to have people anyway, and they’re going to die. We just need a process to make their deaths a d resulting disposal as productive as possible. We could set an optimum age limit; maybe gameify the process, and package it with respect and nobility. We could give it a pleasant name - something like “Carousel” maybe.

            We’re looking for balance, not a Buddhist sort of minimal impact.

    • HouseWolf@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      They’re making our food out of people, next thing they’ll be breeding us like cattle! for food!

        • gullible@kbin.social
          5·
          1 year ago

          What’s funny about Soylent green is that there are a few genuinely standout scenes and insightful existential conversations, but the only line ever referenced is “Soylent green is people.” The ads were apparently more culturally relevant than the movie.