Slashdot Mirror


Giant Rabbits To Feed North Korea

iamdrscience writes with news of an East German pensioner who breeds rabbits the size of dogs. Karl Szmolinsky won a prize for breeding Germany's largest rabbit, at 23 lbs., in 2006. News photos reached the North Koreans, who asked through their embassy whether Szmolinsky would be willing to sell them some as foodstocks — each rabbit yields about 15 lb. of meat. A deal was struck and Szmolinsky will be traveling to North Korea in April to help them set up a breeding program. (The photos in the article use the most extreme, contrived camera angles to make the rabbits look even more huge.)

35 of 421 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Seems like a make-work project... by tilandal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because dogs eat protein so that would defeat the purpose.

  2. SQUISH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And a beef will rise again, broken machine in his hand. Ten words: snapping bunnies twitching gurgling forget the bombs in your eyes. Roaring with whispers to the tiny bunnies SMASH/SPLAT those fucking bunnies. Send them information in a sensationalist manner, THEY CORRUPT. Heads snapping and misspelling eyes twitching in response to the sound of the words. Red world-like words zooming boiling. Moons in the shallow sky. Roaring with whispers to the tiny bunnies SPLAT/SQUISH those fucking bunnies. Twitching bleeding screaming bring the hammer down. Screaming bunnies bleeding bloody bunnies smeared across the ground. Drool spilling down his chin unto his beard as he screams red words at A blank and pointless sky of mothers. Red words popping and crackling black. Ten words: Snapping bunnies twitching gurgling forget the bombs IN YOUR EYES. Forget the bombs in your eyes. Speak the words to crack open the sky

  3. Efficiency? by UOZaphod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not a vegetarian myself, but even this raises questions regarding the efficiency of such an operation.

    Is it more efficient to feed these rabbits vegetable matter to be converted to protein (which, according to the article, is what the diet of many N. Koreans is deficient in), or would it be better instead to grow protein-rich plants that can be consumed directly by the people?

    If the rabbits can consume grasses and other things that humans are unable to digest efficiently, and convert that into protein, then I suppose it would make sense.

    --
    "The unicode stuff in the latest version is working fabulously well. My russian mafia friends are ecstatic."
    1. Re:Efficiency? by shmurfect · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In terms of efficiency, it would be most efficient environmentally to have N. Koreans consume protein-rich vegetables directly, as each step through the food chain is about 10% efficient. This is why, if you look down the food chain, the biomass of plants and vegetables is exponentially greater than herbivores, as herbivores are exponentially greater than carnivores. At each step down the line, there is a tremendous waste of energy.

    2. Re:Efficiency? by UOZaphod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I'm wondering, however, is if the situation is such that there are tracts of land that aren't suitable for growing such protein-rich vegetables. The same land, however, may yield grasses and other plants that would make fine rabbit food. The rabbits become a supplement to the protein-deficient diet of the people, because they can convert plant matter that was once non-beneficial to something that is.

      --
      "The unicode stuff in the latest version is working fabulously well. My russian mafia friends are ecstatic."
  4. May I be the first to say... by PapayaSF · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In Soviet North Korea, rabbits eat you!

    Seriously though, how absurd is it that anyone thinks this is going to make any difference: it's a Communist dictatorship. The government runs food production and distribution, so of course they don't have enough food. All the rabbits in the world won't change that. It's sad and absurd that the average North Korean is still paying the price for a government that ignores that basic fact, proven so thoroughly and with so many graves in the 20th century.

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    1. Re:May I be the first to say... by pyite · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me welcome to the Soviet States of America.

      Such comments are really nothing but an insult to people who actually did live in Communist Russia. I know some of them, myself, and likening the United States to Soviet Russia is such a laughable comparison that you should be ashamed. Many of these people used basically all the money they had to move to countries like the US.

      --

      "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    2. Re:May I be the first to say... by deevnil · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Such comments are really nothing but an insult to people who actually did live in ...
      Whenever anybody compares the decline of civil liberty and freedom release patches there's always a whiner saying that comparing Bush to Hitler, or the PATRIOT Act to a country that has patriot act mentality and abuses it( or "losing freedom is like losing a leg" and someone with two legs always says, "that's an insult to people who have lost a leg." )...insults somebody.

      So what would you have people do, wait until it's too late. Wait until they really are being dragged out of their houses, do you honor oppression by waiting until the last minute when it is more appropriate to propose an analogy? I think they would want that.

    3. Re:May I be the first to say... by spyfrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And here rest of EU thought you where free because of yourself and the courage of the polish people.

      I think you overestimate the United States role and underestimate your own.
      It was the polish people who overthrown the communistic dictatorship, not an american invasion.

    4. Re:May I be the first to say... by deKernel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your statement is one large contradiction. First you hint that societal infrastructure should be nationalized, and then in the next sentence you think that the inefficiencies could be fixed by decentralizing the power (whatever that would mean).

      You really need to pick a side and stay with it or just come to grips with reality.

      By and large, if you nationalize anything, you are automatically accepting a level of inefficiencies. If you don't agree, you really need to spend some time in economics. If you don't want to spend time going to school then I would suggest that you just look at history.

      There is no perfect solution here. The problem is that (a) they won't accept that people die (b) any form of communism (and to a lesser degree socialism) makes some people lazy and others corrupt (c) you were not born with a single right or privilege in this world. If you want something, you need to work hard and sacrifice for it. Once you realize that, you will then be happy because you can achieve anything you wish. Nationalizing, socializing and such don't help or fix anything little alone enhance the human spirit. If anything, it kills it. Don't believe me, just ask anyone who escaped from those types of regimes. Here is a quick list: Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Iran and the list goes on. People die trying to either get themselves away from these types of governments or trying to get their family away.

    5. Re:May I be the first to say... by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what would you have people do...

      How about being accurate? How about if you talk about what's actually happening now instead of saying basically:

      "Everyone knows about this bad thing that happened in the past (Nazis, Killing Fields, slavery, plague, whatever). Without being specific at all we're saying that what's going on now is just as bad."

      - How is it just as bad? We're not telling you that.
      - What's the bad thing that's happening? Nothing specific, but it's really bad, we assure you.
      - What should you do about it? You should do what we tell you to do!
      - Who are the victims? Everyone!
      - Can you give me a few examples? No, just believe us. Are you stupid or something?

      Etc, etc, etc.

      In other words, instead of talking about what happened 60 years ago in WWII, talk about exactly what you don't like that's happening now and actually try to make the case that it's bad in some way. Be specific and reasonable and talk about reality.

      Why should anyone listen to hysterical ravings? Do scaremongers have a good track record for correct predictions of the future?

    6. Re:May I be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      May I sum up your comment as, "Whenever I engage in hyperbole, someone always calls me on it"? Oh my. What an outrage.

    7. Re:May I be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Holy fuck, I've never seen the broken window fallacy applied to prisoners of war before.

      Tell ya what, Captain Sunshine, How about if I come over and tie you up, rob your family, and maybe rape your dog while I'm at it.. It'll prove I'm a great guy, since hey, I could have just murdered you all!

    8. Re:May I be the first to say... by dbcad7 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Ok, when you capture someone or they surrender.. you most certainly do need to take prisoners.. What kind of video game world are you living in ?

      I don't think we are hated for taking prisoners. It might be the treatment of those prisoners. I imagine your assumption is that everyone who was taken prisoner is a "terrorist" and doesn't deserve humane treatment. However many were civilians caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time, some are legitimate solders, and others just fighting on the "wrong side" for whatever beliefs they had. Certainly there are some real terrorists in custody but I think the number is a extremly low one. To lump everyone together is a pretty big mistake.. kind of like lumping Iraq and 911 together.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
  5. Re:Seems like a make-work project... by comradeeroid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why don't the North Koreans just continue to eat dogs?

    A dog must eat meat to grow, which means you have to first feed an animal that you feed to the dog. As you can understand this is wastefull since you'll loose energy in the conversion from vegetables to dogfood.
    The problem is that any conversion from vegetables to meat is a lossy one, so in the end even the rabbits are a stupid (yet so brilliantly communistic) idea. It would be better to grow crops and feed the north Koreans vegetarian food. (though they might want to rebell if forced to eat just carrots)

    --
    If you see a rock violating the law of gravity, then the law is wrong, not the rock!
  6. "They cost a lot to feed" by iSeal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Did anyone else find this quote amusing, from the original article?
    "I'm not increasing production and I'm not taking any more orders after this. They cost a lot to feed," he [German Farmer] said.

    They're too expensive to feed for the German farmer to continue. By German rabbit-breeding standards. Now if the North Korean regime already (and allegedly) finds it too expensive to feed it's own people on even the lowest standards, how is diverting those much needed foodstuffs to rabbits going to solve anything?

    Usually there's a logic to this. Unfortunately, the same people powering this decision are the same people that had the foresight of building a massive hotel that couldn't be finished (you know what I'm talking about if you're familiar with Pyongyang.)

  7. Re:Long term effects? by replicant108 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Incredible what the in-house propaganda machine can get away with

    Those were exactly my thoughts reading the comments attached to this article.

  8. No need to do much research by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Communism is just a precursor of Dictatorship.

    This is because Marx had this stupid idea of condoning or even encouraging violence as the way to achieve Communism.

    So when you have a "Communist" Revolution ala Marx, guess who ends up becoming leader of the country?

    The one who was willing AND able to exert the most violence.

    Yeah, that's right, most of the time you get Mr "Silence all Opposition".

    Marx's Communism is severely flawed because of this.

    You basically have to wait till you get taken over by a Benevolent Dictator, or the Evil Dictator hands power to nondictators, or Mr Dictator has a change of heart.

    --
    1. Re:No need to do much research by vandan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Communism is just a precursor of Dictatorship.

      Interesting assertion. You don't back it up with anything though. I say you're way off, and just repeating bullshit that you've heard elsewhere. It's not your fault. You probably don't even realise you're doing it.

      This is because Marx had this stupid idea of condoning or even encouraging violence as the way to achieve Communism.

      Well firstly, Marx didn't condone violence. He provided an analysis of capitalism, and argued that the working class must fight to liberate themselves from the ruling class. The nature of the struggle depends on the nature of the ruling class, and unfortunately the ruling class won't just stand aside and take default gracefully. It is widely recognised that violence is justified if it leads to self-emancipation.

      So when you have a "Communist" Revolution ala Marx, guess who ends up becoming leader of the country?

      Someone else for once?

      The one who was willing AND able to exert the most violence.

      Not necessarily. This is what happens if there is no party able to inspire and lead the masses forward - a power vacuum exists and is filled by violent people. Yes. But it's not the only way things can play out, and you'd like us to believe.

      The rest of your comments don't really deserve comment. You should do some reading on Marxism instead of parroting Fox News and the neo-cons.
    2. Re:No need to do much research by hanssprudel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well firstly, Marx didn't condone violence. He provided an analysis of capitalism, and argued that the working class must fight to liberate themselves from the ruling class.

      An analysis that happened to be dead wrong in every concievable way. From the very start it was un-scientific historcist nonsense, and since its inception it has been completely contradicted by historical facts. In fact capitalist societies provide more opportunity for social movement than any other societies in history (including all the ones that followed Marx pathetic model).

      This is what happens if there is no party able to inspire and lead the masses forward - a power vacuum exists and is filled by violent people. Yes. But it's not the only way things can play out, and you'd like us to believe.

      Oh, really... Care to give us one - one single - example of a large scale Marxist revolution that did not play out in this manner? Come on, let us hear it.

      In fact, the grandparent was only wrong when he claimed that communism is a "precursor" to dictatorship. In fact, communism IS dictatorship. A dictatorship of many or of few (and in practice always of few), but because its very principle is to put the collectivism over individuals, it can be nothing but that. A free society recognizes every individuals to live and work for themselves, and thus keep - and own - the that which they have created with through their own labor. A society that does not do this can only be the horrid distopia that all too many people have suffered under already thanks to the idiot Marx and his followers.

      BTW, I hear North Korea will take immigrants. Your Marxist utopia is becons...

  9. Correction... by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > move to countries like the US.

    Should be: "move to countries like what the US used to be".

    1. Re:Correction... by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      People are dying (literally) to get to most of Europe. Your point?

      Take your over-enthusiastic patriotism for America, Land Of The Free, Justice And Mercy For All, God Bless This Mighty Nation etc etc and shove it.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    2. Re:Correction... by c_forq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can you cite this please? I would be interested in reading about it.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    3. Re:Correction... by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Only on /. can uninformed political bickering be considered more interesting that GIANT FUCKING RABBITS! For God's sake people are you all insane? There's 23 pound rabbits on the loose and you're arguing over whether refugee would prefer to go to Europe or America? I want to hear about the rabbits and all I get in the comments are references to communism, a lecture on the life and times of Marx, nookular missiles and such trivial things. Seriously guys think of the rabbits!

      --
      I hate printers.
  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. You got it the wrong way by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dictatorship is a precursor to communism.

    Move specifically, the "dictatorship of the proletariat". It is in the official Marxist road to Communism, a temporary state of dictatorship that should lead to the promised land.

    Just about all self-declared Marxist regimes claimed to be the "dictatorship of the proletariat" state, being bright enough not to claim to the people that the current state of affairs was he best they could hope for. The one exception I know of was Albania, which at some point claimed to have reached "true Communism".

    It has been rough to get there, but those intellectuals that still dream of Communism have mostly reached the conclusion that any kind of dictatorship of temporarily suspension civil rights are *not* acceptable steps on the way. It just took a few (well, rather more than a few) million lives to get to that insight.

    Hopefully it will take less than that for the neo-Conservative to see that torture and other suspension of civil rights are not acceptable means to reach their goals, neither abroad or at home. Unless, of course, that is their goals.

    1. Re:You got it the wrong way by qbzzt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Do not blame an ideology for the people who believes in it.

      You mean, "don't judge it by what it has achieved in practice, almost every single time it was tried" (Kibbutzim worked better, but they are only inhabited by people who want to be there).

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
  12. Re:Roos by Cee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In Australia the rabbits are even bigger - I think they call them 'roos'...

    This reminds me of what happened in Australia when the brought rabbits there in the first place. Granted, I guess there already are native rabbits in North Korea, but it's a very risky business to bring in foreign species into an ecosystem.
    The first episode of the documentary Strange Days on Planet Earth illustrates that quite clearly.

  13. Rabbits can be a worthwhile food source by Marcion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >Seriously though, how absurd is it that anyone thinks this is going to make any difference

    In Roman Britain Rabbits were an important food supplement. A large number could be easily be fed and cared for by the Children while the parents did more arduous agricultural tasks such as attempting to grow crops or maintain larger animals.

    Pretty bad that in 2006 we have come to this though, especially when the US and EU ploughing food back into the soil and African countries would dearly love to be able to have foreign food markets.

  14. It might help by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All the rabbits in the world won't change that.

    Maybe not but it certainly might help. Rabbits can survive on grass and crude silage, can be grown in relatively small areas and reproduce reliably. Faster than goats, the most widely eaten animal on the planet.

    Similar husbandry programs with cavia porcellus, guinea pigs to you, have helped many families lift themselves out of poverty in Peru and other areas in South America.

    Rabbits would be better suited to the colder climate of North Korea. The fur would provide a secondary revenue source. It may not sound like much but when you're dirt poor having meat to eat and furs to trade is big deal.

    How is this not a good thing? Why would you want to see the North Korean people starve just because their government is the asshat of the world? That's almost as silly as people hating all Americans because Bush is a douche bag. It's not like they elected that idiot in North Korea and there's growing evidence we didn't elect our idiot, either.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:It might help by wonkavader · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this analysis really depends on whether these hyper-growing rabbits still have the eating requirements of their smaller cousins. If they can still survive (at their growth rate and ultimate size) on what's indigestible to humans, then clearly this is a big win. If they require big nutricious vegtables (the breeder says he currently feeds them kale) that would otherwise be edible by humans, then they aren't going to help -- they'll be less efficient than the humans eating the vegtables.

      If only this could become an export for them. However for both practical and political reasons, I doubt that will happen.

  15. U.S. bureaucracy = North Korea? Yeah, right. by perfessor+multigeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dude, here's a nickel, buy a clue. Sure, large bureaucracies cause inefficiencies but that is so far from the primary reason for North Korea's current situation it's absurd, in fact offensive, to make the comparison. You are seriously lacking in a sense of perspective.

    Go for it, son, define "large" for me. Give me some numbers. We have plenty of bureaucracies that are as large or far larger than the entire North Korean government, General Motors, for example, and while they may be inefficient, they do not leave millions of their own starving to death or subject to a high likelihood of torture or death. Equating the two is beyond wrong, it's flat out irresponsible.

    Those of us living in reality point, rather, to lack of accountability, lack of transparency, inefficient cross-communications, y'know, the stuff that us actual experts in industrial organization are always willing to explain to those clued enough to pay attention.

    You go out there and talk to some genuine experts in the reasons for North Korea's current state. Read up on, say, rule of law. See what energetically capitalist outlets like the Wall Street Journal have to say about the causes of North Korea's problems.Then come back and we'll have this chat again.

    Oh, and if you're so hyped on decentralization, tell me, what in the real world have you done to bring that about? Personally, I've been working at that for over twenty years, just testified this past week on government procedures to New York's city council. This wasn't so bad since I've been dealing with the senior relevant councilman since, oh, about two months since he was elected, back in '01.

    So, how about you. What have you accomplished?

    --
    Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
    1. Re:U.S. bureaucracy = North Korea? Yeah, right. by Aptgetupdate · · Score: 3, Insightful

      General Motors, for example, and while they may be inefficient, they do not leave millions of their own starving to death or subject to a high likelihood of torture or death. Equating the two is beyond wrong, it's flat out irresponsible.

      Right. Because of decentralization...if GM tortured people, or merely left them to starve, people would go work somewhere else. (Like, for example, because of massive lay-offs for which massive bureaucracies are infamous.) Because they're only one of many corporations, rather than the sole, centralized authority.

      Or are you arguing that if GM were the government, they wouldn't leave people out in the cold? Or that North Koreans should just use their other government? What the hell is your point? Did you read the post you're responding to, or just use it as a launchpad to offer your opinions? Stating that the results are different doesn't mean the initial conditions aren't similar. It only reinforces the original point, in this case.

      Finally, please don't use attending an "open to the public" city council meeting as a credit to your "expertise". Or at least, if that's the extent of your credentials, don't be such a pompous, arrogant, condescending jerk to other /. posters. Humility is a sign of confidence. Having the tone of a self-important and intolerant ass is a sign of uncertainty.

  16. Re:Correction..."/." is dying from cynicism. by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 2, Insightful

    slopes go both ways, we went up a slope, now were going back down one. Returning to the good old days is the problem.

  17. Re:Correction..."/." is dying from cynicism. by c_forq · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I remember correctly it was an executive order that create Japanese internment camps. Not legislation, not a federal court, but an order sent out on the sole authority of the President. At least Guantanamo Bay has congressional support.

    --
    Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns