It's not that hominids can't handle raw meat, it's that we get increased nutritional value from cooked meat. Once we see the new health stuff it would be cool if we could make raw meat risky in terms of disease (basically everyone knows about the tricho-something worms that will happily sit in your muscle waiting for a giant cave spider to eat you or something in order to continue their life cycle.)
Source? Judging from what I found in a couple minutes of searching, cooking causes an unconditional decrease in nutrient content of a given piece of meat, although nutrient density increases mostly due to water loss while cooking. See this article and the related table ("Percent retention of Vitamin B6, Vitamin B12 and Folate in cooked lean fresh beet or pork").
Same thing at the technical level I wrote that~
You'd obviously break up certain chemicals and denature numerous proteins by sticking flesh in fire. You're not decreasing the number of amino acid residues and that's roughly what you need to be able to grow large brains like we do.
...only two semesters since biochem and I already can't remember what the B vitamines do without help from google :<
Looks like cutting B6 in half wouldn't be an issue. B12 is (one of?) the reason rabbits eat their poo and baby deer lick their mother's butt (gotta maintain the bacteria culture that produces it,) but we get about all we'd need from a quarter pound burger at some fast food place, though if half of it's destroyed in cooking you might have to go for the double. Fish and liver go way the hell past how much we need though. Either way it's available enough that only screwy diets and genetic defects should pose a problem there.
B9 you'd get from the plant part of your diet so I won't even give a break down of that.
Dunno how the actual absorption goes but I never meant it in the literal measurement sense. If nothing else you get more out of cooked meat because you're less likely to end up puking it back up, making the lower nutrient content still a net gain compared to the expense of a very bad serving of meat.
The cooking process makes the meat easier to chew and more digestible, allowing us to get more energy from the protein before it passes through.
Just give me a source, please.
Aww crap, I knew i forgot something.
Oh well, I'm lazy and the nutritional variation in cooked meat isn't that relevant to dwarves anyway. The original point of uncooked meat being inedible seems to be recognized as an unintuitive mechanic.
It would be neat if we could have them only resort to eating unprepared meat (and maybe a few types of plants,) unless they were out of preferable foods, sort of like hunting vermin but better at keeping them fed, though possibly still with a negative thought.
It would probably be best to have it be a quality expectation similar dining halls so they could eat uncooked meat happily enough when they were some back woods outpost but expect better once industry was going.
I claim that the cooking process itself does not make the food more easily chewable. The reason why people may chew less when eating raw meat is that they do not like the taste of raw meat..and thus want to get it out of the mouth as fast as they can. It's a matter of habit. I am no food expert, but I can easily say that badly cooked food actually makes the food harder to eat/swallow. I claim that if someone eats enough raw meat, the "chewing benefit" of cooking the meat dissappears.
If you hadn't known cooked meat you probably wouldn't be repulsed...
But ya, cooking stuff like beef makes it tougher. Otherwise I don't know why anyone would order steak rare. I'm not sure about the cooking methods of chicken though.
And if the cooking process REALLY increases the energy/etc. content of food, then at what point is it at optimum? I mean if you cook long enough the food starts to burn off (the going black thing) and it definately isn't better to eat.
Think more like eggs. You can cook them at a low temperature that will eventually solidify all of the white and practically never burn them, though you get them cooked faster at higher temperatures.
Meat is usually thicker than an egg white in a pan though. You could get a thin outer layer of your steak (or whatever) cooked at a low temperature where you'd have a really long wait before it burned (if ever,) but the heat's going to dissipate before you get the middle cooked. Actually you even see that cooking eggs at normal temperatures so we flip them (and still get runny whites if we weren't paying attention.)
Some of you people are so petty over the silliest of things.
Yes, it was petty of me. I don't have much tolerance for people making unsubstantiated "corrections" to things I've said.
Good god. Fine, here.
Wrangham, R; Conklin-Brittain (2003). "'Cooking as a biological trait'.". Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Part A, Molecular & integrative physiology 136 (1): 3546.
Koebnick, C; Strassner; Hoffmann; Leitzmann (1999). "Consequences of a long-term raw food diet on body weight and menstruation: results of a questionnaire survey.". Annals of nutrition & metabolism 43 (2): 6979.
Wrangham, Richard (2006). "The Cooking Enigma". in Ungar, Peter S.. Evolution of the Human Diet: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable. Oxford, USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 30823.
Ironically eating foods raw results in Vitamin B12 definiciency
Koebnick, Corinna; Garcia, Ada L; Dagnelie, Pieter C; Strassner, Carola; Lindemans, Jan; Katz, Norbert; Leitzmann, Claus; Hoffmann, Ingrid (2005). "Long-Term Consumption of a Raw Food Diet Is Associated with Favorable Serum LDL Cholesterol and Triglycerides but Also with Elevated Plasma Homocysteine and Low Serum HDL Cholesterol in Humans,2". Journal of Nutrition 135 (10): 2372.
And just so you've got an easy webpage to look at:
http://altmedicine.about.com/od/popularhealthdiets/a/Raw_Food.htmAbout halfway down they list likely dietary deficiencies from uncooked food.
Now can you acting like you've been attacked? I don't aim for higher education standards when I talk on public forums and although I'm sick of seeing that little terminator-Jesus picture chime in that we're too concerned with science in a fiction setting
this is really taking it too far.
Some of you people are so petty over the silliest of things.
Yes, it was petty of me. I don't have much tolerance for people making unsubstantiated "corrections" to things I've said.
Though this is rather off topic anyhow and even if we were to say "Ohh what about adding this to Dwarf Fortress" I would say "No!"
Yeah, it's questionable how detailed the nutrition simulation should be. Scurvy does have a rich history, but declaring the vitamin C content of fictional plants is a little too nerdy even for me. Tracking calorie and protein levels would be enough, I think.
Though adding food poisoning chances to meats wouldn't be a bad idea.
Imagine if certain foods had a different chances of food poisoning or straight out poisoning individuals.
Poisoning can be done by the size of the poisonous contact areas vs. the rest of the body (so a Urchin which is all poison would be difficult, while a snake where you could just cut off the head would be simple)
Yeah, dwarven equivalents of fugu would be interesting. The fish cleaners need a little more danger in their lives.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'd really rather not track the calorie intake of dwarves whom are going to eat whatever they want anyways. My dwarf fortress would either be filled with extremely skinny dwarves, or obese dwarves so beyond the term 'fat', that they cannot even move.
And even with the ability to pick what each of 200 or so dwarves can eat at any time, that's more microrealism than fun.
(Unless you can trap a goblin or somesuch in a cage, and feed it some specific herb or food that contains enough nutrients to keep it alive, but horribly poisons it in some way. Bleeding out of every orifice, or very slowly losing functions of the organs, etc etc. That'd be pretty awesome.)
- Kayla
Ocom Onza has been miserably lately. He has been confined recently. He has cried blood recently. He had a poisoned drink recently.
Calories would be pretty simply though. For a very simple system you could just have it be the counter that ticks down until they are hungry enough to want or need to eat. Fat dwarves could just have higher preferred values of calories. If they kept track of what calories they were at the last five seasons you could base their weight off of that when they weren't already starving, and maybe even have the fat ones live a little longer without food.
Handling vitamins seems tricky. It's essentially the same as being poisoned except you'd have a value ticking down and suffer from low levels instead of high ones.
Maybe instead of defining it on particular plants you could have general categories like "citrus fruit" and either throw reverse-poison tags on those or have a file of ailments and assign preventative food categories to the ailment.
edit--clearly bats use sonar, not radar
Not if you mod in aquatic bats...
Actually aquatic bats would have a much harder time making use of low wavelength light and would probably want to continue with the sonar.
Yup. The difference in protein content of raw vs. cooked meat doesn't seem particularly worth simulating. The interesting aspects of raw vs. cooked are spoilage and cultural attitudes.
If we'd had less ambiguous data about what we're able to get from the two you could just multiply the input by some constant for the output. Even with this all I'd be fine with the output being lower as it's considered higher quality food and this could work to balance food production in some ways.
I KNOW that certain moths jam bat sonar by making noise.
While some bats jam insect's nervous systems by shrieking horribly. I'm not too sure on the specifics, but I'd guess it's something to do with overstimulating them with the sound. I'm very glad we can't hear any of this going on, or I'd probably never sleep again.
Cold water on your face or strong winds usually make it pretty difficult for typical humans to breath too.
Living things are practically quivering balls of weak spots.
Based on what I see as of this point, I'm expected a likely early to mid January release for the following reasons:
Toady gave us a breakdown of the min and max times this was going to take. December unlikely and February sad.
fixed.
V1.0 would not be ultimate, it would be impossible. A game like DF is never truly finished, in a sense it's procedurally generated like the game itself, and will be for all eternity. I guess it's like Zeno's paradox, you can get closer and closer to v1.0, but never reach it.
DF is a paradox in itself. The most complex video game/simulation blend that we've ever seen, yet it's created by one single person living off of donations. It inspired countless intriguing and beautiful stories, novels, songs and works of art, yet the game itself has no sound, only one music track with one single acoustic guitar and it uses graphics that would've been considered ancient and obsolete more than a decades ago. It looks like it could be run on a NES, yet it needs the most powerful hardware in existence to be able to play the game to it's full extent. DF is immensely popular, yet it's totally obscure and unknown to the general gamer audience. Etc.
The evidence is clear: Dwarf Fortress shouldn't exist! It's unpossible!
Are you sure you know what a paradox is? Being unusual or doing unprecedented things does not make something a paradox.
That'd be more of an oxymoron, I'd say. Technically a paradox is a statement that is neither true nor false, such as "This statement is a lie."
Apart from the terminology mixup though you have a very good point. DF is unprecedented in many ways, although some similarities might be drawn to previous ongoing indie projects like NetHack and ADoM.
Just to clarify: the release of DF 1.0, as in a complete game, as in a full procedural fantasy world generator, as in a setting enclosed yet large with significant social groups interacting with each other and the other parts of the setting, would be a paradox, for the completed infinity reason.
DF 1.0, as in a non-alpha version with the range of features Toady has signified as those that will be in the full 1.0 version of the game, is just an eventuality provided he stays alive and able bodied and funded without someone else stealing the thunder and making DF obsolete.
I just realized something. Toady mentioning the next round of underground made me remember: he never did tell us everything that went into the first Underground Week, did he? Anyone care to guess what unspoken horrors and shocks await us in the dark bowels of this newborn world?
Tricksy hobbitses pulling the leverses that floods the fortses yes.
Author
Topic: Future of the Fortress: List of Remaining Items (Read 3632728 times)