Do you believe that the premise of Soylent Green could ever come true?

For those that do not know of the film Soylent Green. The premise is that in the future food will be scarce and we will rely on an artificially made substance for our daily nutrition. The twist is where the film gets it's most well known quote from...I won't ruin it for those that have not seen it but sufice it to say it is pretty harsh.

Asked by SanctusInsomnium 19 months ago Similar questions: premise Soylent Green true Society > Philosophy.

Similar questions: premise Soylent Green true.

Read the book AND saw the Charlton Heston movie. "The first angel blew his trumpet, and there was hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was thrown at the earth so that a third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up" ( Revelation of John 8:7). "and a third of the creatures living in the sea died, and a third of the ships were completely destroyed" (Revelation of John 8:9)."(Now the name of the star is Wormwood.

) So a third of the waters became wormwood, and many people died from these waters because they were poisoned" (Revelation of John 8:11). This will cause catastrophic food shortages, such that I'd be very surprised if humans did not resort to cannabalism..

1 Not very likely. The math just doesn't work. Assuming you could process the raw material at 95% efficiency, how many days could one human survive on, say, 75 kg of the Green Stuff?

Compared to how long one human being lives? The process wouldn't be sustainable for very long. The material used would be better utilized as fertilizer.

Not very likely. The math just doesn't work. Assuming you could process the raw material at 95% efficiency, how many days could one human survive on, say, 75 kg of the Green Stuff?

Compared to how long one human being lives? The process wouldn't be sustainable for very long. The material used would be better utilized as fertilizer.

2 Conceivably human protein could be recycled into food, but it can't possibly be a significant source, much less the dominant source. Let's say a human being contained 100 pounds of pure edible meat. Let's say that another human could be kept at starvation levels eating 1/4 pound of meat per day.

That means that a single dead human would feed another for approximately one year. Since each human being lives 70-80 years, it means that each human could only make up around 1-2% of the diet. And I'm being very generous with the numbers here; I've probably estimated high by an order of magnitude.

There just isn't enough human to go around. There are already places in the world where people are starving, and they'll literally eat garbage, but cannibalism still isn't practiced. It just doesn't produce enough nutrition to be worth the effort.

Conceivably human protein could be recycled into food, but it can't possibly be a significant source, much less the dominant source. Let's say a human being contained 100 pounds of pure edible meat. Let's say that another human could be kept at starvation levels eating 1/4 pound of meat per day.

That means that a single dead human would feed another for approximately one year. Since each human being lives 70-80 years, it means that each human could only make up around 1-2% of the diet. And I'm being very generous with the numbers here; I've probably estimated high by an order of magnitude.

There just isn't enough human to go around. There are already places in the world where people are starving, and they'll literally eat garbage, but cannibalism still isn't practiced. It just doesn't produce enough nutrition to be worth the effort.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.