• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Eat Shit

Jolly_Penguin

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
10,366
Location
South Pole
Basic Beliefs
Skeptic
So... Coprophagy

Yea or Nay?

https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/art...sider-eating-our-own-poop-for-a-better-future

Article said:
But I wonder if we cannot and should not go further. Why stop at insects? Why be satisfied with their admittedly glowing report card of optimized efficiency when we could go all the way? The logical conclusion of this train of thought, as far as I can see, is clear: Let us engineer the perfect closed loop. Let us eat, and only eat, our own poop.

This modest pooposal is not as far-fetched as it might first sound. So let me try to nip any doubts in the bud. A common objection often involves nutritional composition. How would feces ever be nutritive enough to sustain the life from which it came? The key lies in processing. As it turns out, feces is quite a complex substance. In addition to the waste of digested foods, there is actually quite a bit of useful material to reclaim from it: undigested or unabsorbed proteins, fats, carbohydrates, micronutrients such as vitamins and minerals, and even some enzymes. There is fiber, water, and dead cells from the body in there—such as red blood cells and cells from the intestinal lining—not to mention many of the microorganisms living in the gastrointestinal tract.

Often around 50 percent of the original energy contained in the ingested food is still left in the fecal matter, so there's quite some recon potential. Using existing sewage treatment and fractionating technologies, it is possible, in principle, to obtain safe, pure, nutritive compounds that could be recombined in new ways to meet all of our nutritional needs. And these technologies will only become more sophisticated with time.

A common rebuttal then addresses recovery rate. Let's say that fecal matter does become our entire food source: Even if we assume that 50 percent of the energy of ingested food is not absorbed by the body, then each cycle of ingestion and reclamation will reduce the total feces-derived food supply by half—and that's not even taking into account whether there are still the right amounts of proteins and fats and other things.

There are at least a few strategies we can use to address this issue. The first and most viable solution involves microbes. As I mentioned before, our feces is already rich with gut bacteria and fungi, and the most nutritive of these are what we will be able to mass-culture. With further research, we will likely be able to tweak their yield and even induce their production of different nutritive compounds as necessary so that we will be able to generate the remaining 50 percent of our energy and nutrition from the feces itself.

Another possible solution involves existing animal livestock. Once there is no longer any reason to eat all these cows and their kin, we can instead release them and let them roam free, harvesting some of their feces as necessary for similar processing.

When this thought initially came to me, I wasn't even thinking of any of the above ecological benefits, but more of the gut bacteria advantage. Numerous studies have now shown that "poop pills" from healthy poopers can be as or even more effective as many other medicines. Get those beneficial gut bacteria into you.

So what say you?

Are you ready?

To eat shit? Is the future based on Bullshit?
 
fecal transplants of fat people into skinny people have made them fat.

Don't lick a fat person's asshole is the lesson.

knowing.jpg
 
Many people in the world have been eating shit for millenia - though is has been processed by the food plants they use that shit to fertilize. The rice paddies around small villages in Asia are mostly fertilized by human and buffalo shit. One paddy near the village is generally left fallow to be used as the village shitter. The next growing season that paddy is planted and another left fallow.
 
This should have been titled "A Modest Proposal".

I don't have a lot to offer to this discussion, except to point out that refining fecal matter to reclaim the nutritive value is probably not cost effective, when compared to planting a garden. It's a useful technological model to consider for anyone planning a six month space flight to Mars, or beyond.

My only experience with this sort of thing is from my years in middle management. There is and employee personality type known as the "shit eating dog." This is an employee who does not respond to the incentives and threats which push most people to show up on time and do a good job. The problem with stopping a shit eating dog( a real dog, not a metaphorical employee) from eating shit is, no one has any idea why it eats shit in the first place.
 
The Laws Of Thermodynamics say eating our own waste will run down. Sorry to be a party pooper.

It has been reported that transfer of fecal material to a person with intestinal-stomach disorders can restore healthy gut flora. When I looked at it some month's back for another thread it was said online it is used in some cases but it is not as yet routine practice.
 
Let it be known that I’m firmly situated in the camp of those that say, “shit no.”

Not Even with salt.

I’ll pass.
 
The Laws Of Thermodynamics say eating our own waste will run down. Sorry to be a party pooper.

It has been reported that transfer of fecal material to a person with intestinal-stomach disorders can restore healthy gut flora. When I looked at it some month's back for another thread it was said online it is used in some cases but it is not as yet routine practice.

The law of conservation of mass says that everything you ate is still there, just with rearranged molecules. If energy is properly applied, waste can become food again, but I still say planting a garden would be more practical.
 
http://sciencenordic.com/how-much-more-environmentally-friendly-it-eat-insects


Livestock production accounts for around 15 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and pollutes both the land and surrounding water ways.

So it may be time to switch from steak and chops to to more eco-friendly farm produce, such as crickets and mealworms.

New research shows that cricket farming uses 75 per cent less CO2 and 50 per cent less water than chicken farming. Insects are also rich in protein and contain all the nutrients that we get from meat.

“Traditional farming involves a lot of environmental impacts in the form of both greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution by pesticides and fertiliser,” says Ph.D. student Afton Halloran from the Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Halloran has just submitted her Ph.D. thesis on the environmental impacts of cricket farming in Thailand.

“It’s a massive problem and if we want to reduce the environmental impacts, insects can make a good contribution for both people and feed for animals, which our study shows has fewer environmental impacts,” says Halloran, who has published her research in the Journal of Cleaner Production.

We don't have to eat shit. We can eat yummy bugs to save the environment. I wonder how chocolate covered roaches taste. Has anyone here tried them? I guess if mealworms are good enough for bluebirds, they should be good enough for humans. Crickets might be too crunchy for some people, but apparently they are easy to farm. So put down that beef burger and fry up some crickets. I wonder if they taste good with avocados on a sandwich. It's really not a bad idea to eat bugs. It will just take some time to adapt. But, I'll starve before I eat shit, not even chocolate covered shit would appeal to me.
 
http://sciencenordic.com/how-much-more-environmentally-friendly-it-eat-insects


Livestock production accounts for around 15 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and pollutes both the land and surrounding water ways.

So it may be time to switch from steak and chops to to more eco-friendly farm produce, such as crickets and mealworms.

New research shows that cricket farming uses 75 per cent less CO2 and 50 per cent less water than chicken farming. Insects are also rich in protein and contain all the nutrients that we get from meat.

“Traditional farming involves a lot of environmental impacts in the form of both greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution by pesticides and fertiliser,” says Ph.D. student Afton Halloran from the Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Halloran has just submitted her Ph.D. thesis on the environmental impacts of cricket farming in Thailand.

“It’s a massive problem and if we want to reduce the environmental impacts, insects can make a good contribution for both people and feed for animals, which our study shows has fewer environmental impacts,” says Halloran, who has published her research in the Journal of Cleaner Production.

We don't have to eat shit. We can eat yummy bugs to save the environment. I wonder how chocolate covered roaches taste. Has anyone here tried them? I guess if mealworms are good enough for bluebirds, they should be good enough for humans. Crickets might be too crunchy for some people, but apparently they are easy to farm. So put down that beef burger and fry up some crickets. I wonder if they taste good with avocados on a sandwich. It's really not a bad idea to eat bugs. It will just take some time to adapt. But, I'll starve before I eat shit, not even chocolate covered shit would appeal to me.

I like the little honey-mustard crickets they sell at fairs and the like around here.
 
Entropy applies. All of the energy in food can not be converted to useful work in the body. Reclaiming energy from body waste is diminishing return.
 
What's waste to one organism can indeed be fuel to another. Just even think of our breathing: we inhale O2 and exhale CO2, and the plants use the CO2 and convert it back to O2. However, the plant can't do anything with straight O2, just as we are poisoned by excessive CO2.

Perhaps my thinking is too simplistic or maybe I'm missing something (though I doubt it), but it just seems like that if we could burn all of the material we took in, we wouldn't even produce any (solid) waste at all. It's waste to us because it's unusable, or in some cases because the body can only utilize so much of a given nutrient. Take cellulose, for example: the (human) body can't break it down, that's why you can see the corn you ate the other night in your shit later. You put wood in a fire and it turns to ash. You can't then burn the ash, because it's a waste product of the burning. It can go into the soil and provide nutrients for trees which then can later be burned, but as someone else said above, every process is just a rearrangement of atoms and no one even considers the fact that we've all likely drank dinosaur piss.
 
Dung beetles, maggots. The great circle of life.
 
"What was bad for the dinner will be bad for the diner" is my main concern.

It's so well known that ingesting poop is one of the fastest ways to catch some nasty diseases. It's much safer to filter it through the "gut" of a plant, first, or even through the gut of an animal that doesn't share our particular disease susceptibility.

So to go this route would require some energy intensive pasteurization, killing the good bacteria along with the bad.
 
fecal transplants of fat people into skinny people have made them fat.

Don't lick a fat person's asshole is the lesson.
Wait! Will that work in reverse? Should I rim a skinny hooker next time I "see" one?

Also, don't fecal transplants work the other way around? I.e. through the butt?
 
Back
Top Bottom