Soylent Green is made out of people. Next they will be breeding us for food!
I thought there was an overpopulation, so why would they have to breed people if there is already too many to begin with???
myspace.com/sofewwithbrains
Same thing as with breeding cattle, pigs, chicken, trouts...
Faster growing, more meat and fat on the bones, controlled medication with antibiotics like in mass production of turkey, and less needed "production space"...
[deleted]
It is said that you need ten times the weight in food to produce one kilogram of meat. For example 20 kg plankton to get 2 kg of herring, to get 200 grams of tuna, to cook one meal for a human.
(or was it a hundred times?)
So in the movie they would need at least ten million people to produce enough soylent green chips for feeding one million people.
Overpopulation would be over very quickly. oO
[deleted]
"It would not work it would cost more to feed the people till they got big enough to provide sufficient food than they would be worth it disobeys the second law of thermodynamics. If you have people alive anyway you can kill them for food and buy time but you cannot actually breed them like cattle."
Wow, so if breeding people like cattle is impossible, then breeding cattle like cattle is impossible too? We already put an incredible amount of energy into producing meat. It doesn't mean it makes ecological sense--but with grain being fairly cheap, it's possible economically. It does not disobey the second law of thermodynamics!
I remember a John Varley short story where it turns out there is a group on the moon who engage in acquiring and eating babies. Maybe they don't raise the people to adulthood...
And would you actually eat some starving slum resident? Yech! Stringy, diseased meat!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Wow, so if breeding people like cattle is impossible, then breeding cattle like cattle is impossible too? We already put an incredible amount of energy into producing meat. It doesn't mean it makes ecological sense--but with grain being fairly cheap, it's possible economically. It does not disobey the second law of thermodynamics!
I remember a John Varley short story where it turns out there is a group on the moon who engage in acquiring and eating babies. Maybe they don't raise the people to adulthood...
And would you actually eat some starving slum resident? Yech! Stringy, diseased meat!
Well, don't cows eat grass? Grass can't be digested by humans, so by breeding cows we're effectively using the grass as a food source.
Although a cow would consume more "food" than it would produce for us humans, we're incapable of eating things like grass, so it's still a gain for us.
However, breeding humans for human food source is counter productive since, well, we eat the same foods as the "animals" we're breeding. It definitely cannot be a primary food source, but if people happen to die, you may as well prevent their bodies from going to waste by using them as an opportunistic food source.
However, BREEDING humans for humans won't work I think. The person above you is correct.
Well what use are MY brains if I'm tied up with a dumb clunk like you!
"Well, don't cows eat grass? Grass can't be digested by humans, so by breeding cows we're effectively using the grass as a food source.
Although a cow would consume more "food" than it would produce for us humans, we're incapable of eating things like grass, so it's still a gain for us."
Most cattle are fed grain, like corn. That's why, when the price of corn goes up, the price of meat goes up. More people could be fed by consuming the corn rather than the meat produced...
By the way, a recent news story says that one rancher's response to the drought and increased corn prices was to feed his cattle second-hand CANDY!
Also he had been shot, and seen something traumatic - of course he's going to spout some illogical statements; the truth is, there's no need to "breed" anyone - any mother's son (or daughter) will do to make Soylent Green.
Once the human race is down to more manageable numbers, there could be a chance that the ecology of the planet would have healed, thus resulting in an eventual higher standard of living, and, of course, draconian population control measures.
Thorn was a cop, not a scientist. And education doesn´t seem to be a priority in 2022 (he´s asking the bodyguard if he can read). So I´m guessing Thorn has no idea of the laws of thermodynamics (even less than me).
I suppose he´s not making an economic argument, but a moral argument:
In 2022, they only use humans who died "voluntarily". The next step would be to take away even that choice, the freedom to determine your own end.
He'd read Cloud Atlas so he knew what was coming next.
shareActually, the line is "Next they'll be breeding us like cattle". They're already using people for food... breeding people like cattle has a completely different connotation. Breeding people would entail huge facilities where males and females are paired or artificially inseminated and the offspring will live their entire lives in confinement.
share[deleted]
The same reason ground beef is cheaper than prime rib. Having several different grades of "Soylent" with increasing levels of perceived quality by taste, would obviously increase the bottom line of the corporation.
shareUltimately, if the seas and therefore the plankton are dying, then the human race is doomed, as at least 50% of the world's oxygen is produced by plankton. I imagine that, in the hypothetical future postulated in this film, the rain forests would have disappeared under the plough years ago.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html
"Now, breathe in and hold it. HOLD IT!"
Hang on, what if they built huge domes, pandered to every human desire but knocked everyone off before they got to thirty? 😀 Oh, hang on, I forgot about Box; I guess we're all *beep* either way.....
I think they meant to breed people straight to food regardless if they're newborns or already born. Not exactly a 'dumb' line.
share