Asklemmy

43963 readers

1252 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What is the most stable food production method? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 1 year ago by TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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!

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

Conservation of energy, basically. A self-eating population is a perpetual motion machine.

[–] Num10ck@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

thats assuming you want to maintain the population size.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] sxan@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

Come on now Aldous, put your glasses on mate.