- May 17, 2018
- 206
- 135
- Thread starter Twistty
- Start date
If anyone needs the 18+ patch for the Steam version:
You must be registered to see the links
- Oct 10, 2020
- 24
- 49
This game is pretty messed up but it's interesting to think about.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
- Aug 25, 2017
- 2,902
- 4,454
It depends on what you mean by "normal" or "disgusting." I'm sure there's plenty of things other animals eat that a human wouldn't consider and vice versa. For example, baby koalas literally eat their mothers' shit to build resistance to the toxins found in eucalyptus leaves. As I know, most animals that eat rotten meat will also eat fresh meat, if available. Animals, or other living organisms, that prefer rotten tissue usually require something that's present (or absent) in rotten tissue, but not (as high a quantity) in fresh tissue. Rot generally softens the material and breaks it down on a molecular level, which means the insects or whatever eating it have an easier time chewing and digesting the nutrients. The reason why not everything wants to eat rotten meat or vegetation is that decomposition generally produces toxic byproducts. As for why animals don't all have resistances to these toxins by default, it has to deal with how biochemistry works, which is kinda hard to explain.
- Sep 19, 2022
- 401
- 145
Human beings feel bad if they eat rotten or raw meat. This doesn't depend on whether they find it appetizing or not, it depends on the biology of their body. You cannot feed yourself on rotten or raw meat alone because you would not survive. There are bacteria that die when meat is cooked properly, such as Salmonella, Listeria, Campylobacter and E. coli.
And this is undestandable: there is a very precise reason why humans have been cooking meat since ancient times.
You must be registered to see the links
Last edited:
And conversely there's whole ecological niches of animals cheerily capable of if not specializing in the consumption of carrion (and various other organic waste - dung beetles say hi), which I rather imagine is the point the other guy was making. "Normal" and "disgusting" are 200% subjective and context-dependent appellations.
- Aug 25, 2017
- 2,902
- 4,454
The guy under you hit the nail on the head. I don't know how you managed to misread what I was saying to badly. Reread the post I was replying to again. Now reread your own post and tell me how anything you just said is relevant.
- Sep 19, 2022
- 401
- 145
Instead re-read yourself the first comment of the person who had asked the question that created the discussion (to which your answer was exactly relevant either: he asked a question and you, instead of directly answering like I did, you clung to a single word he said, saying obvious things and oversimplifying), my goal was to imply answering that by implying "Definitely not a human being". It doesn't seem difficult to understand.
I notice that you behave as if I am missing a piece of the puzzle, while you are the real person who is missing it.
And about your post:
Regarding the fact that considering good or not something like rotten meat is 100% subjective. Yesn't. While every person has subjective preferences as you said (Congratulations: You've discovered hot water!), there are still objective quality standards even when it comes to cooking. Otherwise there would be no cooking courses like MasterChef Academy.
Last edited:
- Aug 25, 2017
- 2,902
- 4,454
What are you on about? No one asked if a human could live on those things. He quite clearly asked "Could an organism evolve that finds rotting/disgusting stuff appealing and normal food disgusting? Maybe vultures think like that." I don't know if your proficiency in the English language is lacking or what, but we're talking about how animals that eat things humans find disgusting probably don't perceive it as disgusting. We're not specifically talking about humans, dude.
Guys, HUMANS are actually can be very resistant to shit like putrescine, and some people who eat rotten corpses for generations develop ability to not die from neurine and all that, and yes they believe it's very tasty (normally people die from such "food"). Then again, there are animals other than humans who prefer rotten food exclusively. Also I don't believe someone was eating something rotten here, it should've been pretty fresh.
I mean adult lactose tolerance only became prevalent in some human populations due to evolutionary famine pressures. The claims you make sound pretty [citation needed] though given for example prion diseases (think "mad cow") are a documented problem among the cannibal tribes still found in some particularly remote corners, AFAIK.
I'm sorry I meant animal corpses I just didn't find a word "carcass" fitting the context. AFAIK prion diseases are mostly a danger when eating human brains and it's not very prevalent in nature (yes animal brains for sure are tasty especially when you don't have any access to fruits or vegetables in general). It's mostly a problem with the industrial meat production since sick animals are fed to the healthy.
I believe eating humans is not very beneficial for the same reason eating old animals is not too, and flesh accumulates all kinds of shit over time as well. There was also some information about plastic inclusions found inside wild animal meat, not to mention various parasites and all that. And, well, it's rather ineffective, there is always a better food source, unless you're a mindless animal and don't care about such things as taste or efficiency.
"Carrion" is the word you're looking for, then.
Humans are *very* slow-growing for their size and difficult to keep, what with being rather creative about running away if given good reasons to (and being destined for the pot sure would be). That makes them even worse food stock than say dogs, which as carnivores are comically uneconomical to raise for food - never mind now that humans directly compete with each other for food. (Compare to how one theory for the origins of the pork consumption ban in Judaism is the ecological calculus that suids eat basically the same stuff we do and in an already marginal environment were thus competition rather than an asset.)
But if you were already ganking neighbours in wars and raids eating them on the side is really just kind of a bonus, which is probably why outside funerary ritual stuff documented human cannibalism on larger scale tends to track closely with warlike societies and conditions of "endemic warfare". Or to quote a Belgian officer writing home from the 1892-94 Congo-Arab War, "Happily Gongo's* men ate them up [in a few hours]. It's horrible but exceedingly useful and hygienic ... I should have been horrified at the idea in Europe! But it seems quite natural to me here. Don't show this letter to anyone indiscreet."
*Gongo Lutete, a former slave-soldier of the Swahili-Arabs and bit of a real-life Robert E. Howard character, was the paramount warchief of the fierce Batetela cannibal tribes allied with the Belgians; ironically also the guy in that war probably the most dismayed by his warriors' culinary habits as he'd absorbed the cultural taboos of his erstwhile masters.
Anyway, going back to the original topic - I still regard your claims of human putrefaction tolerance as highly [citation needed] given that shit's outright toxic for us. You sure you're not confusing fermentation - an effective low-tech preservation technique used extremely widely in many different variations - with putrefaction...?
Well, buried for a year sea calves/cows are surely fermented in the process one way or the other, but still are deadly toxic to the normal humans. It has the same toxins. It's just that humans in general are capable to develop a resistance to poisons and if you do it for generations, I'm sure it's to the point where it won't bother even the young, so it might be possible. For a reference, I'm talking about Igunaq/Kopalhen.
Yeah, I'd like to see some source references for igunaq (which is walrus, sea or whale meat btw - "sea cows" or sirenians are equatorial marine mammals) being "deadly toxic to the normal humans". Note that the botulin toxins that can develop in it are plenty hazardous to the Inuit too, they don't have any special immunity against that shit. (Incidentally they also get the usual range of health issues from the fat-heavy traditional diet and related strokes are a disproportionate cause of mortality.) Can be assumed to apply equally to the less well-studied polar peoples with similar ecological circumstances and diets in Arctic Siberia etc.
I mean, rotten flesh normally can't and shouldn't have botulinum, no? It's a rather specific thing. Unfortunately, I never heard about such studies, but I've read about toxin composition and how you should never try to eat it even if you see it's perfectly safe for the local population, for the reasons it has the same decomposition toxins. You can always try fresh animal brain tho, it's mostly safe and probably free from parasites, or better stick with the frozen fish (don't eat fresh cuz parasites).
Botulinum toxin is produced by bacteria of same name in certain temperatures under anaerobic conditions, improper fermentation included. Not too different really from a wide range of toxins decomposer microbes produce in dead organic matter over a wide spectrum of conditions (bacteria being nothing if not varied and versatile) which... is basically what causes food poisoning and spoilage in general. So, yeah.
And, again, [citation needed] on the locals having some particular resistance to such specifically unwanted byproducts of failed food preparation. Do recall that actual bona fide scavengers capable of consuming meat in actually advanced states of decomposition have a range of evolutionary digestive adaptations specifically for the purpose (which tends to make their guts quite the ferocious acid baths only viable for equally highly adapted symbiotic microbes).
Does anyone know what the contents of the folders inside the photo are? )
Why write 300 GB!? Did he change the browser settings and this number is in bytes?
Why write 300 GB!? Did he change the browser settings and this number is in bytes?
Pretty sure it's in bytes, 133MB saves would be funny