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