Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtp47.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw From: throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: local vs. imported meat for aliens Message-ID: <126@rtp47.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 15:28:58 EDT Article-I.D.: rtp47.126 Posted: Wed Aug 7 15:28:58 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 11-Aug-85 06:30:09 EDT References: <3116@topaz.ARPA> Organization: Data General, RTP, NC Lines: 21 > From: OSTROFF@RUTGERS.ARPA > I should probably let this topic die a natural (?) death - But [...] > Raising cattle (bovine, human, rabbit, or otherwise) not only > takes a lot of space - but you you also have to feed them - and the whole > point was that the aliens were short of food. Well, yes, but... humans are (potential) vegitarians, while the V aliens are obligate carnivores. Thus, they may have been short of "food" in the sense that they had destroyed their natural prey species, but there might be plenty of food for "cattle". After all, *we* can't eat grass directly, but enjoy steak (well, some of us do). Anyhow, that was the way I took the situation... their lack of food was tied into the fact that they need living or recently living or quasi-living flesh to eat. However, I probably just read that into the situation, and the scriptwriters hadn't a clue as to the justification of the situation they created. As a friend of mine says "there is less here than meets the eye" -- true of most SF on screen or tube... and even some in print. -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw