3 ms·

I thought it was a page about recipes for cannibals or tuberculosis tracking from the name. Luckily the title helped clarify the misleading website name. Y'all

I thought it was a page about recipes for cannibals or tuberculosis tracking from the name. Luckily the title helped clarify the misleading website name. Y'all some hungry mofos. That counter zipped thru 13 million poor tasty, little critters while I was on that page. The cattle numbers seemed low relative to others. Maybe because they are larger and each feeds more individuals. What about normal game animals like deer, squirrel, wild turkey, rabbit, dove, quail, pigeon, etc? I think this site only gives a glimpse of the true scope of animal deliciousness. I also disagree with the numbers since most look they are wild-ass guesses intended to inflate or mislead so as to cause those of us who consume all this delicious meat to switch to more sensitive plants, insects, or algae, or fungi. Imagine the numbers you'd have to report if you were accurately reporting seed consumption of typical grains, legumes, leafy vegetables, herbs (which are delicious with meats), and spices and all the other things that vegetarians or vegans profess such deep attractions to that they can ignore all the destruction wrought by the agricultural practices relevant to their foodstocks. Some of the agricultural lands being tallied are used for growing crops like soybeans for consumption as pseudo-meat by vegans who couldn't be morally outraged enough about habitat loss for their beany things to worry about their own destructive impact on mother earth. What happens to the collective consciousness of a fungal colony when someone comes along and rips off a few warty things for their supper? Do you think that the fungus stores a memory of the event and the participants so that once they finally hit the dirt that memory can pass along the subterranean chain so that the fungus can move in return the favor?

zahlman 8mo ago
> I thought it was a page about recipes for cannibals or tuberculosis tracking from the name. Luckily the title helped clarify the misleading website name. Agreed. It's called "human consumption", but it neither relates to the consumption of humans, nor the phenomenon in humans called "consumption", nor does it cover all consumption by humans, or even all food consumption. > Y'all some hungry mofos. Less than one animal per person per day, and the overwhelming majority of them are fish and invertebrate sea life (two thirds of that in the Asia-Pacific region).
- doodlebugging 8mo ago
  It takes a lot of small sea critters to make on big fish like a tuna. If we weren't supposed to eat all this stuff then why did Jesus feed those hungry people in Matthew (14:14-21) bread (vegan food) and fish (non-vegan food)? Was he just covering all his bases or was it because fish really aren't meat? And if fish aren't meat then that website needs to account for that since the numbers would definitely seem to be greatly exaggerated on top of probably being invented.
dang 8mo ago
OK, we've taken cannibal connotations out of the title above. (Submitted title was "HumanConsumption.Live – Real-Time Global Animal Consumption Stats". I've replaced it with a phrase from the subtitle.)
- doodlebugging 8mo ago
  The post title makes more sense now. The website name is a bit misleading but is out of your control. Leading with that initially created the opportunity to lampoon them in a good-natured sort of way. If anyone's feelings were hurt by anything I posted here today I remind you to think of the plants. Mine have spent more than a week nearly frozen under a thick blanket of sleet waiting for me to have the opportunity to remove their cold weather protections so that they can once again feel the warmth of Mr Sunshine for a few hours before being covered again to protect them from the hard freeze we'll have again tonight. I love my plants and they grow well for me. And then I eat them, all the edible parts anyway, sometimes with meat but not always.

zahlman 8mo ago

> I thought it was a page about recipes for cannibals or tuberculosis tracking from the name. Luckily the title helped clarify the misleading website name. Agreed. It's called "human consumption", but it neither relates to the consumption of humans, nor the phenomenon in humans called "consumption", nor does it cover all consumption by humans, or even all food consumption. > Y'all some hungry mofos. Less than one animal per person per day, and the overwhelming majority of them are fish and invertebrate sea life (two thirds of that in the Asia-Pacific region).

doodlebugging 8mo ago
It takes a lot of small sea critters to make on big fish like a tuna. If we weren't supposed to eat all this stuff then why did Jesus feed those hungry people in Matthew (14:14-21) bread (vegan food) and fish (non-vegan food)? Was he just covering all his bases or was it because fish really aren't meat? And if fish aren't meat then that website needs to account for that since the numbers would definitely seem to be greatly exaggerated on top of probably being invented.

dang 8mo ago

OK, we've taken cannibal connotations out of the title above. (Submitted title was "HumanConsumption.Live – Real-Time Global Animal Consumption Stats". I've replaced it with a phrase from the subtitle.)

doodlebugging 8mo ago
The post title makes more sense now. The website name is a bit misleading but is out of your control. Leading with that initially created the opportunity to lampoon them in a good-natured sort of way. If anyone's feelings were hurt by anything I posted here today I remind you to think of the plants. Mine have spent more than a week nearly frozen under a thick blanket of sleet waiting for me to have the opportunity to remove their cold weather protections so that they can once again feel the warmth of Mr Sunshine for a few hours before being covered again to protect them from the hard freeze we'll have again tonight. I love my plants and they grow well for me. And then I eat them, all the edible parts anyway, sometimes with meat but not always.