Kenny Hates Prospects

I wonder what it's like to go to a ballpark and smell all that ballpark food, and then be like "Man, I really want a carrot right now."

pocket 7's IMO

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2011 -> 09:47 AM) Hey BS, any good vegan or vegetarian meals you can recommend for someone who doesn't particularly like vegetables? What do you eat for protein? You probably just don't know how to cook or something. Fresh veggies (especially garden fresh) are just as good on the grill as anything else. And if you don't like the taste of some veggies, just add some fat to them. The best idea for you might be to get a little bit of flavorful meat (sausage, pork, and beef work great) and put together kebabs with squash, zucchini, pineapple, onion, bell pepper, mushroom, etc. You can make your own sauces (I always do) or you can just put on a light glaze. And if you wanted, since the meat flavors the veggies, you could just leave them alone, brush on a little olive oil and sprinkle on some basil, salt and pepper, and that's it. Or maybe cook up some bacon and brush a little bacon fat on there. Or cook up a clove of garlic into an olive oil and butter sauce, and brush a little of that on there. Lots of easy possibilities. I love my veggies raw and fresh most of the time though. Fresh, washed salad from the garden with nothing but salt and pepper = yum.

Low-flush toilets suck ass... because they don't suck enough ass. I hate those things. A much better way to make use of waste water would probably be to reuse grey water, but that requires a little extra attention to what you wash with chemically and of course you may not be able to do this where you live for whatever reason. But you could always create an outdoor wash-up/shower area (if you spend a lot of time out) and make it part of a garden where the waste water is used to grow useful plants. Anyone interested in green methods and design and just brilliant ideas in general should check out Bill Mollison's books. This book is the greatest book I've ever read. It'll completely change the way you think about sustainable systems, i.e. that they're not so pie-in-the-sky as they may sound, and that there are really some excellent ideas out there. The books are expensive as s*** though, but you can find them free online (arrr, matey!). The best thing is to buy them here but if you're into this kind of thing I'd just say to read the books however you can, because knowing, acting on, and disseminating the information is probably worth a lot more in the end anyway.

I'm not sure it's a great move to trade Liriano right now (that all depends on the return) but it would be hard to put up a strong argument against it. Trading him is definitely the safe move. It would keep them from potentially paying big money to a hurt starter, and while it would hurt their chances of contention in 2011, it may not hurt them in the long term, and it may neither hurt them much in terms of attendance in 2011. The new ballpark gives them a window to work with where they may be able to make an unpopular move or two if they have to and still count on people showing up. And if things work out where the Sox are rebuilding in 2012 or 2013, then they could conceivably hope to get a few guys who are ready now and would be ready to contribute at a time when the Sox are much weaker, making their path to the division title that much easier (probably just Detroit).

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 11, 2011 -> 08:50 AM) God I don't even know where to begin. I just find it astonishing that the lifestyle I lead is deemed by some as being hypocritical. Let me provide you a little more insight as to the way I view the world and the actions I take to minimize my negative impacts (and I’m not stating these to be some kind of show-off): I do not participate in the direct, intentional killing on any animal for the purposes of my diet or clothing. There are literally billions of animals intentionally killed for these purposes each year in the U.S. alone. By doing this I also am not contributing to the enormous amounts of food, water, and land used to maintain this system of billions of animals. My paycheck does not contribute to the enormous amounts of animal waste product and methane gasses that pollute our air and land. I make all attempts to walk, bike, or take public transportation whenever possible. My wife and I put less than 5K miles on our car each year. We purchase an CSA share from a local organic farm to provide us with fruits and vegetables. We also proactively purchase as many local, organic, and fair trade products that we can. We donate to multiple charities that range from wildlife preservation, animal rescue, and doctors without borders. For someone to insinuate that my views and actions are nothing but hypocritical because the very impactful decisions I make don’t go far enough because I don’t live in a clay house under an apple tree and only subside on apples that fall from the tree and consume nothing else...well that’s preposterous. These actions I take dramatically reduce my carbon footprint and minimize unnecessary suffering of animal life and shouldn’t be easily dismissed because an animal has been unintentionally run over by a tractor when my corn was picked. For someone to equate that run over animal with the factory farm system of intentional pain and suffering and ultimately death is absurd. These are not apples to apples and you're being disingenuous by stating that. This whole argument reminds me of the early debates in the filibuster about climate change. The climate change deniers completely dismissed everything because Al Gore has a large house. That’s it. He has a big house so that means climate change doesn’t exist, no one should take steps to reduce their footprint, and the theory is automatically false because he is a 100% hypocrite. So I might as well eat tons of meat, purchase fur coats, kick dogs in the head (because they might not really feel pain anyway), and drive an H1 everyday to the corner post office instead of walking because I am nothing but a hypocrite right now because I eat fruits and vegetables (they might feel pain!) and use the Internet. It’s an all or nothing proposition. Unless I live in that clay hut under the apple tree then everything I’m doing is meaningless. And I apologize if sharing my viewpoints come off as preachy to everyone. That is not my intention. I have not demanded that any one of you change anything in your lifestyle. You sound like a great person who makes the planet better. The arguments here - as far as I can see anyway - were more about ideas, definitions, designations, and cut-off points than anything else. And I don't see how you're a hypocrite or how any of us are hypocrites since we can't reasonably be expected to make all our crafts by hand and live in a tree or whatever, and so no matter what, we're going to be spending dollars that support truly evil s*** that makes our skin crawl. But I think it's important to realize that in general and as a result I think it's important to promote or at least not try to discourage others from doing things that help the environment by funding conservation and experiencing nature in general, especially when those activities involve hands-on food or resource procurement directly from nature in a humble and sustainable way. I see hunting as just that. We've been hunter/gatherers the majority of our lives and the instincts we have are still there, as is the need to eat. And in general it seems like there are too many people who for whatever reason completely misunderstand what the hunter/game relationship is about, and even worse, they project these terrible images onto hunters like they're killers and sick body manglers and all this other s***, and it's not only unfair, it's wrong, and it pisses people off. There are indeed "hunters and shooters," but most of them are hunters, and they do a whole lot to conserve environments that others would freely allow to be destroyed. Chances are there are some small sections of woodland near where you live, that maybe aren't much, but they are areas only kept from being flattened because hunters pay to hunt there. Without a few hunters in a few places (and it actually *saddens* me that both hunting and fishing seem to be becoming increasingly rare - not surprising with so much wilderness gone) then there would be a lot more empty stripmalls and townhomes than there already are. But anyway, thinking and talking about what constitutes a better planet only matters when it leads to a better planet, and you're doing what you can to make for a better planet, so in terms of who you are or your actions, you're not on the bad side at all - not even close. But none of us are going to live without death, none of us are going to continue on without killing something (or having someone kill for us) something that both has just as much right to live as we do, just as much purpose as we do, and something that is also intelligent and to someone is considered cute or beautiful. But the idea I think should always be that when life is taken it is taken responsibly so that life replaces life through death, rather than life dying with death through the careless actions of humanity.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 11, 2011 -> 10:46 AM) It has to be fake or illegal. It's the internet dude. But yeah, there are tons of great survival sites out there and they'll teach you everything you need to know to survive. And then some will teach you more if you want to fight of the government or (far more likely) random looters when they attempt to acquire your food store. I've also seen some videos out there where I guess Israeli Special Forces teach you how to most effectively kill a man in hand-to-hand combat. That is probably great to know, but I imagine you'd be better off protecting your base from a distance, probably with a decoy house/shed heavily booby trapped, with the important stuff buried underground with access covered by a stream or leaf litter. Then you can sit up in the tree and pick people off while they're distracted by the explosions going off around them.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Feb 11, 2011 -> 11:36 AM) You may be interested in this book. When you have that down, get this one. I own both. I've actually been meaning to read those. I've heard quite a bit about the author and enjoy reading about survival skills in general, I've just never gone that far down the route. I bet there's tons of serious stuff in there though. Paladin Press takes freedom of information about as far as you'll ever see it go. And that is a wonderful thing. Another Paladin Press I'd like to recommend is The Art and Science of Dumpster Diving by John Hoffman. You can read it/download it free here http://www.scribd.com/doc/2054609/The-Art-...by-John-Hoffman if you don't want to buy the book, but I'd recommend the book. It's really fascinating.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 11, 2011 -> 12:09 AM) Well that's for certain. And I don't mean for Sqwert to think I don't respect him for his position, because I think it's admirable. But on the other hand, I don't think it's right to be preachy about it either. Agree. Although it's hard not to be preachy one way or the other. I'm preachy about it because I'm 100% totally pro-gun rights, pro-conservation, anti-corporate, etc. and kind of fascinated in a way by some of those things which we fear. So this kind of debate really gets my brain-penis going. But yeah, Sqwert's position, even if I disagree with it, is far less likely to lead to a blacktopped South America than the views of Joe Blow Destructo "I cry when I watch the Terminator movies because they're just so beautiful!" would.

You can also look at humanity on earth and the tiny little segment of time we've lived in agricultural society and it's almost equally as stunning. I think the nature of the argument is philosophical because it deals with life and death, and those are primarily philosophical issues. I don't think anything bad about vegans or people who don't want to hurt or kill animals for any reason at all. I also - as I've said - don't even like to refer to those people as hypocrites. I think the way they think is a product of the conditions under which they have been raised, and you don't call someone a hypocrite for living/thinking the only way he/she knows how. My problem lies entirely with the logic used and the lines drawn. I think - for example - that it is natural to love and revere animals, and to wish that they come to no harm. I think this is instinctual, and I'd point to the behavior of indigenous peoples (our living ancestors) again to back that up. But I think the real instinct is more likely to be that we don't want to see *unnatural* or *unnecessary* harm come to an animal, and the difference (which we have problem rationalizing) is a product of the way we live only, and not the product of the life we've been living as a species historically. Now that I think of it, the best argument for pro-veganism might be that we are evolving into a new species entirely, and that these beliefs are natural. But that's whacky (and I just thought of it now BTW) and I'd still need to see good evidence that the human body can live and grow that way. Humans have altered their compositions in the past based on major dietary shifts, so maybe that's possible. But mentally maybe I should stop before I end up in the Batcave.

My issue with the meat vs. no meat thing is that I can't see any reason for it being anything other than a nutritional matter. It should be left to which diet is best for the human body. We are omnivores, is it possible to be anything else without experiencing severe deficiencies? That's simply up to us to figure out and it shouldn't be such an emotionally charged issue. Where death and pain come in - we just have to accept this. Unless we can grow our own steaks or broccoli florets in lab conditions without causing anyone or anything pain or death, this is just a pipedream. And besides, knowing what we know about humanity, and about corporate greed and power, do you really want to see a world where there's nothing left on earth to harvest, and you have no option but to rely on corporations and their expensive equipment for your food? I think if you can accept death and pain as part of life, and if you treat your environment with respect, you can preserve nature and preserve life in it. Man will always have his own goals, and that's fine. But if we can figure out a non-destructive yet healthy way of living where we impact the environment as little as possible and only live within our means, then that is the ideal I think. But again, not happening. Too many people think they deserve kids, or actually "own" land, etc.

I had a nice long post just about ready to send and then I accidentally hit the back button and it disappeared. I think the main thing - and this is just my opinion - is that people think the way they do because they are removed from nature. I think because of this people get confused. They confuse themselves by taking some of the natural instincts and impulses that bother them and attempting to resolve or explain their presences by applying human "logic," which is only based upon what they know, and that isn't much of anything when it comes to the workings of nature since they've always lived apart from it. And I think also that man, capable of building structures and transportation systems etc., is too egotistical and too confident in his own future and projected future abilities to ever give nature her due - at least not until he uses that opposable thumb + rationality combination to make a big enough error to force himself back into the stone age. I think that man sees himself as equal to or above nature most of the time and therefore doesn't need to bow down to nature and accept her for what she is. I think man views nature as being wrong/imperfect, and that such "negatives" as death and pain are only obstacles he will eventually conquer, and I think he'd often rather suffer than be right, and would rather cling to his own logic or perfect world scenario than accept a seemingly dismal reality that leaves him merely a link in a chain. I just think that man is the ultimate opportunist and he is great at adapting to change from a standpoint of pure survival. I personally believe there are far too many people on this planet, and we are far too destructive as a species. Eventually something has to give, here, elsewhere, or everywhere, and that when the proverbial s*** hits the fan, people aren't going to be so confused anymore. They'll know what hunger is, why death is so important, what constitutes torture and so forth, the importance of wildlife habitat, etc. because they'll be faced with life according to nature, not idealistic life according to man. And this is just my opinion and I admit I don't know s*** either, because I haven't been raised to love and respect nature either. I just kind of feel it's necessary, and I don't in any way look at death or pain as unnatural or unnecessary or avoidable in any way. It's just there. We're not right, we're wrong, and the more wrong we think nature is, the lesser our chances of survival.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 09:57 PM) Oh come on, Sqwert...you simply can't make some quick and dirty distinction like that. Simply living in human society is intentionally harming things in the animal kingdom. You're using the internet right now, which has caused all kinds of animal life to lose it's habitat and migrate elsewhere, most likely to a less desirable one. You consume all kinds of products that intentionally cause harm to all kinds of things in the animal kingdom which are not a necessity for your survival, but instead are a mere convenience or luxury for your enjoyment. You simply cannot divorce yourself from this reality by drawing some line in the sand and saying this is the point where I become less culpable for the destruction of other species than you are, because you eat meat and I do not. It's nice to think that, because it allows you some peace of mind and lessens the burden on your conscience, but it's a false reality based on a nonsensical premise. Are you suggesting that you need to use the internet to survive? That the use of your cell phone is imperative? That you need to live in a climate controlled living space to survive? All those things, both indirectly and directly, cause devastation to other species in varying degrees. I know it's an impossible line to draw and an unfair position to place someone in, but it's what a vegan does every time he makes a value judgment of someone who does consume meat. Why is pain some ultimate distinction? When you look at what pain is, it is simply a mechanism by which to inform the organism that the behavior engaged in is not favorable to it's chances of survival. Why is that some eligible criteria by which to attach some moralistic judgment to? Plants have the same exact survival mechanisms, they just happen to be different than ours. So because you can understand the mechanism of an animal because it is more similar to your own somehow makes it more worthy of consideration? I've said this before and I'll say it again: iamshack = iamawesome

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 06:35 PM) No, but for some reason KHP thought it was relevant to discuss some unusual theories about trees to prove some point as if people actually ate them. More like observations, and I used them to try to show that plants can actually be considered intelligent organisms. They move at a speed and level that isn't easily noticeable by the naked eye, but experiments have been done to show they're a lot smarter than westerners seem to think. Also, people eat fruits, nuts, sap, leaves, and flowers from trees, and they make teas and medicines out of bark and roots, and use trees to collect water from (standing, via transpiration, cuttings, etc.) and in tropical parts of the world, even the trunk itself is eaten. Heart of palm is a staple for many people. So every part of a tree gets eaten by man somewhere, and the rest is inevitably eaten by other organisms. So even if we don't eat the trunk of an oak tree, we may eat the mushrooms grown from it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 05:30 PM) The diets we put cattle on actually lead to a lot of problems, requiring us to pump them full of antibiotics. The marvels of modern technology! I agree, which is why I'm not defending it.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 05:07 PM) I can point you to sources (or you can look on your own) but that's just a whole other matter that would lead to other topics. The basic idea is that food + water = beef argument is based off common industrial practices (and often embellished to favor the vegans). You don't need to feed cattle grain. They're meant to eat various plants, bark, etc. as browsers. You don't need to raise cattle the way they are currently raised. You don't need to grow plants the way they are currently grown. You don't need to work with the amount of expensive machinery and fuels that make beef expensive - and actually - cattle can be part of a system where their own products and behavior are used to lower costs. This argument you rely on is itself reliant upon a system that is generally exploitative and wasteful. It's like conducting an experiment in improper conditions and then saying your results are truth. Converting plant matter to meat isn't some simple equation of grain + water = meat, much less grain + water + conventional practices = the only way of obtaining meat. And what waste materials? Everything a cow produces has a use, except that methane and CO2 would be hard to harvest. But every animal part along with it's excrement, the hide, meat, eyes, tongue, brain, everything has at least one very good use. And I'll just clarify this a little further in case it doesn't make much sense. The grain + water = beef argument is a cost argument put forth by vegans to try to convince people not to eat meat and instead eat grain. The idea is that it takes the industrial cost of a lb of wheat and compares it to the industrial cost of a lb of beef, and then it takes a MASSIVE LEAP (neglecting nutritional issues and assuming that it's healthy to eat that much grain in the first place, or that meat is unnecessary in a diet) and puts forth the idea of X (s***load) of grain = Y (miniscule amount) of beef, and therefore that grain (and thus veganism) can end hunger and suffering while eating meat only encourages/perpetuates it. But all this s*** is reliant on other s***. It relies on grain being produced in a destructive manner and sold at well below cost such that governments have to step in to make sure farmers stay above the poverty line. It involves wholesale destruction of landscapes and massive amounts of fossil fuel energy that presumably will run out and need to be replaced. It also involves meat products being created in equally unsustainable conditions, with cost appearing to be artificially HIGH as a result of feeding animals on grain instead of free plant material that can be grown on site, and undertaking farming at an over-extended industrial level NO ONE can handle rather than a smaller, more profitable operation that produces yield at a better cost ratio. Like I said, the info is there if you want to look at it, but there's no point in going into too much detail since the argument itself is often a vegan defense mechanism and there's no point in trying to work past it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 04:59 PM) I don't think anyone can really defend these factory farms from an ecological standpoint...they certainly have one goal in mind, which is to produce the most quantity of passable quality for the least amount of money. Other than that objective, it's difficult to see much other concern for anything, whether that be the animals, the land, or even their human employees, to be honest. The difficulty with your position, Sqwert, is that every action we take within any ecological system or our greater environment has some effect on everything else. There really is no course of action one can follow which does not have some unintended consequences to it. Nature and the environment are what they are, and no matter what your moral choices or your best intentions, every choice one makes, is causing some other event in nature which will cause some organism to suffer and/or another to thrive. And the scariest part of it all, is we don't really have much of a clue what those reactions will be. So where does it all stop? What is acceptable and what isn't? Why is the presence of a central nervous system some signpost at which we stand and say, "enough is enough"? I think the position that sits best with me is to try and be the most responsible stewards of the environment and the ecosystem that we can. Unfortunately, that is not only difficult because of our limited knowledge, but also because of our capitalist economy. But as you full-well know, some companies are better about it than others, and perhaps we can illuminate their practices and promote patronage for those reasons rather than simply price. It's certainly something that is unsustainable, ultimately, as you have said. But I'm just not so sure that it is as simple to draw the line where you have. I like this post very much.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 04:47 PM) Apparently. You'd think it's common sense to think that the total amount of inputs over a cow's lifetime is way more than the output of meat it will provide at slaughter. And the mass amounts of waste materials the cow excretes hasn't even been touched upon. I can point you to sources (or you can look on your own) but that's just a whole other matter that would lead to other topics. The basic idea is that food + water = beef argument is based off common industrial practices (and often embellished to favor the vegans). You don't need to feed cattle grain. They're meant to eat various plants, bark, etc. as browsers. You don't need to raise cattle the way they are currently raised. You don't need to grow plants the way they are currently grown. You don't need to work with the amount of expensive machinery and fuels that make beef expensive - and actually - cattle can be part of a system where their own products and behavior are used to lower costs. This argument you rely on is itself reliant upon a system that is generally exploitative and wasteful. It's like conducting an experiment in improper conditions and then saying your results are truth. Converting plant matter to meat isn't some simple equation of grain + water = meat, much less grain + water + conventional practices = the only way of obtaining meat. And what waste materials? Everything a cow produces has a use, except that methane and CO2 would be hard to harvest. But every animal part along with it's excrement, the hide, meat, eyes, tongue, brain, everything has at least one very good use.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 04:23 PM) Just look at all the record droughts we're seeing in the world and look at how much water and food is needed to produce 1 lb of beef. The population has been exploding exponentially the last 150 years and shows no signs of slow down. This paradigm is unsustainable. This is all wrong. The "X amount of water + food for beef" argument has been torn up again and again. The numbers given are usually way off anyway. Besides, these costs all relate to industrial practices, and the industrial practices themselves are wrong and ineffective. Why use numbers from an ineffective system to try to prove anything? People can grow chickens or tomatoes cheaply if they want to. Growing small relieves the need for expensive fuels and machinery, expensive pesticides, medical treatments, fertilizers, etc. And by having both, they can use animals to feed the plants and plants to feed the animals, each feeding the other. Industrial systems produce massive waste and destroy s***. Their numbers mean s*** as a result, and no "cheap food" is worth the destruction of an entire ecosystem especially when we're throwing away massive amounts of food each year and *NOT* even using it as beneficial fertilizer. Imagine how many gardens could grow out of a dumpster behind McDonalds?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 04:21 PM) But, to be fair, we grow a lot more food than we need because we turn around and feed it to beef and pork. A lot less efficient than just eating the grains/vegetables/etc., but also a lot less tasty. Agreed 100% The system is wrong in the way it operates, but it exists for good reasons. You can say the same things about governments, economies, etc. Only the difference is, it's much easier to take out or rebuild a government or economy than rehabilitate nature. Certain plants and animals will only exist under certain very specific conditions related to soil pH, water retention/filtration, vegetation density, moisture, pressure, temperature, etc. Man doesn't really know enough right now to re-create an environment he has destroyed. Simply "planting trees" doesn't really work - the order, density, effect on the soil, etc. creates ecosystems.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 04:18 PM) Fine. A cow and a carrot are the same exact thing. You've convinced me. From now on I'll only eat sand and plastic. If cows are so smart then why don't they unite against their evil human overlords?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 04:16 PM) I win. Bow before me. :notworthy :notworthy The sad thing is that in many ways you are absolutely correct. Adopting a diet based on grain harvested commercially is adopting a diet based on the practice of destroying ecosystems and salting lands. The effects rain down everywhere, like fertilizers washing into rivers and f***ing up ocean habitants, etc. Animals in this case don't just move to better areas and live happy lives, they die off. Lots of farms are for sale pretty cheaply in this country. A big reason why? The land is absolutely useless without extensive rehabilitation.

Plants will develop poisons to kill pests and drugs to stimulate those who would help them, all for the benefit of the species. Trees will actually create their own environments and draw other plants to them. Some trees will sacrifice themselves to pests to save others. Plants can really do some amazing things. And shouldn't the actions and behaviors observed be a better judgement of intelligence than the appearance of a spinal column?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 03:40 PM) That applies to your post as well as BS's. I'm not saying you can't make a good argument that consumption of meat is wrong if we have the ability to live without it. I'm saying you can't make a good argument that eating meat is equivalent to intentional torture. BTW, when you say "murder," you're using loaded words and begging the question. FWIW, I probably agree with you and BS a lot on issues of animal treatment and the moral (as well as ecological) problems with the mass consumption of beef and pork. This is a great post. Nature exists because of life and death. As such, you can't view natural processes as inherently wrong. If the idea is death = bad, then that's just wrong, because life grows from death, and without death there can be no life, and this is the natural world. Nature just can't be wrong. If the idea is torture = bad, then I'd agree in general - but now it's a much grayer area. How much is too much depending on the circumstances? If the idea is that people don't need to eat meat to survive, then this isn't a life vs. death or torture vs. non-torture argument, because even vegans rely on death and some kinds of torture depending on your definition of torture when you consider that plants are also (based upon some of their behaviors) intelligent lifeforms. The argument in that case is actually over the nutritional differences between plant and animal matter. And even that argument requires a lot of research, not just listening to the propagandists who want to sell you totally unnatural soy products. The "powers that be" will work to deceive the vegans the same way they'll work to deceive the rest of us, and when you look at who you're supporting in either case when you buy animal meat or plant substances, you're going to be supporting a company that murders, tortures, destroys environments, etc. anyway. So the morality really isn't there even if you want it to be, and the argument is nothing more than purely nutritional.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 03:18 PM) I was referring to chicken meat which wasn't always as thick as the bible. That started happening after the factory farm system, with it's accelerated chicken growing practices, became entrenched in our society. Prior to that you wouldn't get much meat out of a chicken. I'm sure a factory farm could be set up to pump up dogs with steroids in order to produce plump meat. Instead of a pig in this pen, just make it a bulldog: Factory farming has increases yields of everything, but chickens have been raised for a long, long, time, so you're going to have to go back pretty far to find a time where chickens as livestock wasn't *edit* practical. And also, way back when, many fruit trees would have been light-yielding and bitter, but that has all changed too. And I wouldn't put even half that on modern technology, I'd put that on man simply caring for and ensuring the success of more palatable species over time. You can apply that to animals as well.