5 ms·

I doubt Musk would use his space colony as a means of enforcing his personal moral code, but I also suspect the diversity of plants required for a healthy veget

I doubt Musk would use his space colony as a means of enforcing his personal moral code, but I also suspect the diversity of plants required for a healthy vegetarian diet may be just as difficult to maintain on mars as livestock, so it would be very interesting to hear the full story. In any case, there's no explanation of his motivation, and the statement is false according to this article that links to a (now deleted) tweet from Musk: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/01/10/good-news-elon-musk-will-let-you-eat-meat-on-mars/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/01/10/good-news-elon-musk...

DanBC 14y ago
> but I also suspect the diversity of plants required for a healthy vegetarian diet may be just as difficult to maintain as livestock, People need protein, energy, vitamins, and minerals. Getting calories from meat is inefficient; you need to feed the animal many more calories than you'll get back. Meat is reasonably good source of protein. Getting protein from vegetables means mixing types to get the range of amino acids. There's a gentle concern about the lack of omega fatty acids in some vegetarian diets. You get some fat soluble vitamins from meat and dairy products. Meat is a good source of iron. Milk is a good source of calcium. But both of those can be found in vegetable products too. tl:dr You need to grow vegetables anyway; meat is really inefficient; why waste energy growing feedcrops for animals (and for the people looking after the animals, and the people looking after the feedcrops) when you can jsut grow feedcrops for people.
- Irregardless 14y ago
  > Getting calories from meat is inefficient You're taking the model of an industrialized first-world nation with 300 million+ people and applying it to a tiny space colony. Calling that apples vs. oranges would be an understatement. If you disagree, tell me this: How many 30,000 lb. John Deere combines do you think will be sent with the first settlers?
  - Kim_Bruning 14y ago
    The model is the same everywhere. We canna break the laws of (bio)physics, Jim.
  - bunderbunder 14y ago
    No, it really is inefficient. A huge portion of the materials livestock consume get converted into heat and waste products. And don't forget space - these would be domed colonies, so space would be absolutely critical. Here on earth humans have devised a way to raise food animals in a way that's (somewhat) reasonably efficient in terms of land used. But that method depends critically on armies of 30,000 lb. John Deere combines in order to produce sufficient quantities of feed crop without an enormous human labor input.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    Using the model of 'small holding' - 5 acres per person style. Goats provide: Meat Milk Leather Bone Manure Farts Goat blood Useless baby boy goats They eat. They eat far more calories than you'll ever get from them. Someone has to look after them, and that person also needs to eat. Someone needs to grow the food for the goats, and for the goatherds, and that person needs to eat. For a goat to produce milk it (like most mammals) needs a child to feed. Thus, you need at least one male goat for breeding. But male goats don't give milk. And they stink. And billy goats are just plain mean. So this stud-goat, stinky, mean, lazy thing, also needs food and care. And the birthing goat needs some attention. And if it's a male it's useless, so someone has to kill it. All that time and effort, and all you get is goat meat and goat milk. Maybe some will think it's worth it, but other people would prefer using all that time and energy on a wider range of food. > tell me this: How many 30,000 lb. John Deere combines do you think will be sent with the first settlers? You have it backwards: Massive industrial farming makes things many times more, not less, efficient.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      It seems to me that you could just feed your goat the parts of the plants that you can't really eat yourself. All the green crap from soybean plants for instance. If that is worth it probably depends on how much goat milk is worth to you, how much the green crap is worth to you otherwise as compost, and how much goat crap is worth to you as fertilizer. I don't think it would be worth it, but it wouldn't terribly surprise me if I were wrong.
grannyg00se 14y ago
If I recall correctly, from an energy conservation standpoint a vegetarian diet is somewhere around ten times more efficient.
calinet6 14y ago
I'm certain it's not an ideological goal, though perhaps it's being spun as one. Livestock simply might not be the most efficient way to produce food at least initially on a Mars colony. Given an opportunity to live on Mars, I can't imagine any interested person who would have to think twice about becoming a vegetarian to do so, even if only out of necessity. I'm no vegetarian, but it's pretty clear that it might be more efficient than raising livestock, or at least has the potential to be.
- dkhenry 14y ago
  But there is more then just using them for food. Pigs for eaxmple can be used as a sort of biological recycling factory. In addition they produce _usable_ waste from _unusable_ waste. So your actually incurring a cost in not bringing them along that you will need some technology to replace. Then at the end you need to find a way to maintain or repair your technology while you could just mate the pigs and eat their parents. Additionally Bacon.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    > Pigs for eaxmple can be used as a sort of biological recycling factory. In addition they produce _usable_ waste from _unusable_ waste. Given some bacteria, fungi, and earthworms, there is little that composting couldn't also recycle. Farms are basically solar collectors. Unless you have lots of excess capacity, it only makes sense to support livestock on kitchen waste. Studies were done on this in the 70's. It turns out that chickens laying eggs are more efficient than pigs for this purpose.
    - dkhenry 14y ago
      This is true, but its a matter of 1. Speed 2. By products Chickens might be better then pigs, but the point is those little biological machines are really good at what they do and they are are easier to take care of/maintain then some machine to serve the same purpose.
      - 14y ago
stcredzero 14y ago
> I also suspect the diversity of plants required for a healthy vegetarian diet may be just as difficult to maintain on mars as livestock It's actually more reliable and easier to raise a diversity of plants for many indigenous horticulturalists on Earth. Monocropping makes you vulnerable to pests, and there's a nonzero chance of those being introduced by colonists.

DanBC 14y ago

> but I also suspect the diversity of plants required for a healthy vegetarian diet may be just as difficult to maintain as livestock, People need protein, energy, vitamins, and minerals. Getting calories from meat is inefficient; you need to feed the animal many more calories than you'll get back. Meat is reasonably good source of protein. Getting protein from vegetables means mixing types to get the range of amino acids. There's a gentle concern about the lack of omega fatty acids in some vegetarian diets. You get some fat soluble vitamins from meat and dairy products. Meat is a good source of iron. Milk is a good source of calcium. But both of those can be found in vegetable products too. tl:dr You need to grow vegetables anyway; meat is really inefficient; why waste energy growing feedcrops for animals (and for the people looking after the animals, and the people looking after the feedcrops) when you can jsut grow feedcrops for people.

Irregardless 14y ago
> Getting calories from meat is inefficient You're taking the model of an industrialized first-world nation with 300 million+ people and applying it to a tiny space colony. Calling that apples vs. oranges would be an understatement. If you disagree, tell me this: How many 30,000 lb. John Deere combines do you think will be sent with the first settlers?
- Kim_Bruning 14y ago
  The model is the same everywhere. We canna break the laws of (bio)physics, Jim.
- bunderbunder 14y ago
  No, it really is inefficient. A huge portion of the materials livestock consume get converted into heat and waste products. And don't forget space - these would be domed colonies, so space would be absolutely critical. Here on earth humans have devised a way to raise food animals in a way that's (somewhat) reasonably efficient in terms of land used. But that method depends critically on armies of 30,000 lb. John Deere combines in order to produce sufficient quantities of feed crop without an enormous human labor input.
- DanBC 14y ago
  Using the model of 'small holding' - 5 acres per person style. Goats provide: Meat Milk Leather Bone Manure Farts Goat blood Useless baby boy goats They eat. They eat far more calories than you'll ever get from them. Someone has to look after them, and that person also needs to eat. Someone needs to grow the food for the goats, and for the goatherds, and that person needs to eat. For a goat to produce milk it (like most mammals) needs a child to feed. Thus, you need at least one male goat for breeding. But male goats don't give milk. And they stink. And billy goats are just plain mean. So this stud-goat, stinky, mean, lazy thing, also needs food and care. And the birthing goat needs some attention. And if it's a male it's useless, so someone has to kill it. All that time and effort, and all you get is goat meat and goat milk. Maybe some will think it's worth it, but other people would prefer using all that time and energy on a wider range of food. > tell me this: How many 30,000 lb. John Deere combines do you think will be sent with the first settlers? You have it backwards: Massive industrial farming makes things many times more, not less, efficient.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    It seems to me that you could just feed your goat the parts of the plants that you can't really eat yourself. All the green crap from soybean plants for instance. If that is worth it probably depends on how much goat milk is worth to you, how much the green crap is worth to you otherwise as compost, and how much goat crap is worth to you as fertilizer. I don't think it would be worth it, but it wouldn't terribly surprise me if I were wrong.

grannyg00se 14y ago

If I recall correctly, from an energy conservation standpoint a vegetarian diet is somewhere around ten times more efficient.

calinet6 14y ago

I'm certain it's not an ideological goal, though perhaps it's being spun as one. Livestock simply might not be the most efficient way to produce food at least initially on a Mars colony. Given an opportunity to live on Mars, I can't imagine any interested person who would have to think twice about becoming a vegetarian to do so, even if only out of necessity. I'm no vegetarian, but it's pretty clear that it might be more efficient than raising livestock, or at least has the potential to be.

dkhenry 14y ago
But there is more then just using them for food. Pigs for eaxmple can be used as a sort of biological recycling factory. In addition they produce _usable_ waste from _unusable_ waste. So your actually incurring a cost in not bringing them along that you will need some technology to replace. Then at the end you need to find a way to maintain or repair your technology while you could just mate the pigs and eat their parents. Additionally Bacon.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > Pigs for eaxmple can be used as a sort of biological recycling factory. In addition they produce _usable_ waste from _unusable_ waste. Given some bacteria, fungi, and earthworms, there is little that composting couldn't also recycle. Farms are basically solar collectors. Unless you have lots of excess capacity, it only makes sense to support livestock on kitchen waste. Studies were done on this in the 70's. It turns out that chickens laying eggs are more efficient than pigs for this purpose.
  - dkhenry 14y ago
    This is true, but its a matter of 1. Speed 2. By products Chickens might be better then pigs, but the point is those little biological machines are really good at what they do and they are are easier to take care of/maintain then some machine to serve the same purpose.
    - 14y ago

stcredzero 14y ago

> I also suspect the diversity of plants required for a healthy vegetarian diet may be just as difficult to maintain on mars as livestock It's actually more reliable and easier to raise a diversity of plants for many indigenous horticulturalists on Earth. Monocropping makes you vulnerable to pests, and there's a nonzero chance of those being introduced by colonists.