Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

All-Corn Diet Turns Hamsters Into Cannibals

Posted by EditorDavid on from the and-gremlins-after-midnight dept.

An anonymous reader quotes Engadget: A new paper outlines the efforts of scientists at the University of Strasbourg to determine why the European hamster has been dying off at an alarming rate... Previously, the rodent's diet consisted of grains, roots and insects. But the regions in which its numbers were dropping have been taken over by the industrial farming of corn... Researchers in France have discovered that a monotonous diet of corn causes hamsters to exhibit some unusual behavior -- cannibalism.
âoeImproperly cooked maize-based diets have been associated with higher rates of homicide, suicide and cannibalism in humans," the researchers point out, and they believe it's the absence of vitamin B3 which is affecting the hamsters' nervous system and triggering dementia-like behavior. Hamsters are already an endangered species in Western Europe, so this is being heavily-researched. And they obviously won't improve their chances of survival with cannibalism.

171 comments

  1. Cannabis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I misread Cannibals as Cannabis and thought - that's quite a magic trick.

    1. Re: Cannabis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Excuse me, we are talking about Trump. Please stay on topic, thank you.

    2. Re: Cannabis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's interesting is that I noticed I started being a cannible soon after I began mainlining HFCS.

    3. Re:Cannabis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I was about to post the snarky comment "Yawn. Call me when corn turns mice into cannabis" but you beat me to it.

    4. Re: Cannabis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or was it Mansato we were talking about? I am confused.

  2. Obviously by sacrilicious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And they obviously won't improve their chances of survival with cannibalism.

    It's tempting to accept this statement at face value, but an instance of cannibalism involves the death of an individual, not the death of a species. Cannibalism is just another variant of natural selection, and it's fairly easy to construct a scenario where it in fact leads to better overall survival rates (e.g. only the sick are eaten, or the challenge of evading being eaten leads to the accelerated development of intelligence/swiftness/whatever). Whether it turns out that way in this case remains to be seen.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    1. Re: Obviously by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      Eating other hamster will not increase a hamster's level of niacin.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    2. Re:Obviously by ledow · · Score: 0

      Cannibalism is quite literally survival of the fittest.

      And, not to pour water, but has anyone considered that a cannibalism response is actually sensible and protective? With a nutrient deficiency, the animals change their behaviour to find another source of said nutrient.

      How does this differ from pregnancy cravings? Some animals eat their OWN young. Cannibalism may well be what's keeping the few that are left alive.

    3. Re: Obviously by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      But cannibalism may resolve some other deficiencies - protein for example.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cannibalism only makes sense when killing & eating the odd failure individual. The same species is not viable as a "source of nutrient" though. If other hamsters is the only source of B3, then one hamster will need to eat at least one complete other hamster to get enough. This means it is impossible to grow in numbers - such cannibalism is only viable as a short-term measure until another food source is found. Worse, it is usually necessary to eat another hamster after a while, because the body don't keep B3 around indefinitely. With one hamster needing to eat several others through its life, their numbers will dwindle rapidly.

      Disaster movies where humans eat each other when all other food sources failed (nuclear winter, biological disaster, whatever) have the same problem. A human eats his own weight in food in a month. So a cannibal society would halve their numbers in one month. We're 8 billion or so, and can halve our numbers 32 times before there is only two left. So, only two and a half years of cannibalism before reproduction becomes impossible. It just doesn't work.

    5. Re:Obviously by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      To make reproduction possible, sometimes you have to eat someone, but in a nice way. You're not done until your face looks like a glazed donut.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Obviously by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      And they obviously won't improve their chances of survival with cannibalism.

      It's tempting to accept this statement at face value, but an instance of cannibalism involves the death of an individual, not the death of a species. Cannibalism is just another variant of natural selection, and it's fairly easy to construct a scenario where it in fact leads to better overall survival rates (e.g. only the sick are eaten, or the challenge of evading being eaten leads to the accelerated development of intelligence/swiftness/whatever). Whether it turns out that way in this case remains to be seen.

      In New Zealand, turning to cannibalism arguably stopped a precipitous population crash. The Maori population had soared from a diet of native birds including the gigantic moa which were easily hunted. When these species were driven to extinction people started starving. By the time Europeans arrived the Maori population was a fraction of what it had been (eg there were dozens and dozens of uninhabited hill-forts dotting the countryside, a testament to the huge population that had existed in the past.) and people were sustaining themselves by cannibalism, which had become a common part of every-day life. Eg slaves were captured in raids and kept in order to be killed and eaten later.

      If they hadn't turned to cannibalism, the population crash may have gone even further and there might have been only a vestigial population of Maori remaining when the Europeans arrived and today their culture might be completely unknown.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    7. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does this differ from pregnancy cravings? Some animals eat their OWN young. Cannibalism may well be what's keeping the few that are left alive.

      Animals that do this (and there aren't all that many) do it because there isn't enough food to support all of the litter. Eating the runt rather than letting it just die and decompose reduces the risk of predators being drawn to the nest. It has nothing to do with pregnancy cravings.

    8. Re: Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to know - I have a deficiency in CJD so maybe that could help.

    9. Re:Obviously by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That's a quite unlikely interpretation of the history. That there was a population crash is evident, but I know of no plausible argument that cannibalism maintained the level of population. It *is* true that when levels of protein in the diet are very low, people tend to become cannibalistic. I've also heard it claimed that this is true if the only protein is fish, though I doubt this.

      More likely there was a short period of extreme protein starvation where groups that developed a cultural set in favor of cannibalism (of other groups) were favored, and the cultural set continued even after the population had stabilized. People can have a hard time shaking a cultural pattern, even when it's no longer adaptive.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:Obviously by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      This article reeks of anti-corn lobbies.
      Corn should only be part of your diet not all of it. Granted we use corn as a sweetener and a grain and filler. But it's flavor and cooking diversity doesn't mean that it will have all the nutrients of a full balance diet.
      Hamsters have been known to eat other hamsters in time of stress. If they are not having a balanced diet for hamsters then they will be under stress.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    11. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A human eats his own weight in food in a month.

      I do NOT eat 4kg of food every day.

    12. Re: Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and since we can't eat aborted babies anymore :( we'll need to eat hamsters.

    13. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This article reeks of anti-corn lobbies.

      OK. Why would anti-corn lobbies exist? What would they benefit from being against corn?
      Or are you perhaps thinking that this might be a counter reaction to the strong corn lobbyists?

    14. Re:Obviously by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Cannibalism only makes sense when killing & eating the odd failure individual.

      In nature, cannibalistic behaviour seems to be naturally limited almost exclusively to species that literally cannot tell the difference between their own species and anything else edible. Spiders is the prototypical example - but even there it's not as widespread as commonly believed. While all spiders will eat other spiders - that's not cannibalism (different species). Actual cannibalism do happen but very rarely. What's interesting is that, rather than evolving means to avoid eating their own species - they evolved means to avoid BEING eaten by their own species. So for example male spiders in the orb-web families spin a line of very stretch silk which they keep attached to a leg during initial contact and mating with a female - as soon as mating concludes they let go with the other legs and their bungie cord gives them a very rapid escape. Cannibalism only happens if the cord fails to function for some reason, or the female manages to be faster than the cord (seriously low odds).
      So while cannibalism almost never happens - the behaviour shows that there is a very real risk of it, hence the males have evolved an intricate defence mechanism to avoid that fate.
      Wolf spiders (and many scorpion species) carry their young on their backs to defend them... but if one falls of mother will definitely try to eat it herself. Yet, as far as we can tell - cannibalism is completely absent in social spider species - perhaps because, in order to become a social species, they had to evolve ways to recognise members of the species as allies rather than food.

      Now compare that with species that have some intelligence - and you see a marked decline in cannibalistic behaviour. The more social the species - the less it happens. Rats generally don't partake of other rats unless they are starving. They adopt orphans. Humans were a bit of an odd one out, there is some strong evidence that palaeolithic humans engaged in widespread cannibalism - but it ends almost as rapidly as it began.
      What leads to the general abhorrence for eating your own species appears to be an evolved response - it's simply too massively high a disease vector, and even a species that managed to stop obeying it's evolutionary impulses and override them with cultural evolution and individual brain-evolution (i.e. neural-net reprogramming) - ended up avoiding it, likely for the same reason.

      So what does that tell us about the hamsters ? Likely that this cannibalism is neither a "Survival of the fittest" thing, nor a nutrient hunt, - it's simply a case of dietary shortcomings causing insanity.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    15. Re: Obviously by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Why not? Can the first hamster not metabolize the niacin that was in the second hamster?

      I mean sure, if the second hamster had *no* niacin in it's system then obviously it wouldn't help, but in general cannibalism should provide a nice boost for any trace vitamins that are at low but non-zero levels.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    16. Re:Obviously by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Unless you're 7'6 (2.9m), at 120kg you're also nowhere near the average weight for a healthy human. In fact, unless you're over 5'8 (1.73m) you qualify as morbidly obese.

      Maybe you should start eating 4kg per day. Of nothing but vegetables.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    17. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is also disease. Eating downed and sick individuals just will spread that, and it might spread diseases that are normally contained, such as prion diseases like Kuru.

    18. Re: Obviously by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      I guess that a hamster that has access to a richer diet, and thus has niacin in its system, is strong enough to defend itself and not being eaten. Anyway, according to the summary, hamsters are resorting to cannibalism in regions where there is no source of niacin, so cannibalism won't help very much.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    19. Re: Obviously by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I rather doubt that there are *no* sources of niacin in the region - more likely there's just not enough to maintain healthy levels given their "default" diet. An organism designed to eat a grain-rich diet is unlikely to recognize that the available grain suddenly no longer contains balanced nutrition. But hamsters are after all omnivorous, with insects, lizards, etc. making up a portion of their normal diet.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  3. At this point... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... thousands of /.ers around the World stop to stare blankly at their bowl of Corn Flakes (or whatever breakfast cereal) ...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:At this point... by Archtech · · Score: 2

      Grains are only somewhat harmful. It's sugar that will really do you in.

      Of course, the thoughtful food manufacturers have kindly combined the two in every conceivable manner, often also folding in some toxic fats for good measure.

      Stick to food that a hunter-gatherer could find, and you won't go far wrong. (Clue: that includes no sugar - except for a little honey occasionally - and no grains. If we had evolved to eat grains we would have four stomachs).

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    2. Re:At this point... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Grains are only somewhat harmful.

      The problem is not eating grain, but eating ONLY grain. This leads to deficiency in B3, B12, and lysine.

      If we had evolved to eat grains we would have four stomachs).

      Ruminants don't have four stomachs to digest the starch in grain, but the cellulose in leaves and stems.

    3. Re:At this point... by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Exactly this. It is a wonder how many are ignorant of basic science. (Well not really with the state of today's public education system.)

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    4. Re:At this point... by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      Hunter-gatherers ate quite a bit of sugar, that's where the 'gatherer' part comes in. Berries, fruits, vegetables - all of these contain sugars, and sometimes in great quantities. Did you perhaps mean to say 'processed' sugars like glucose?

    5. Re:At this point... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is not eating grain, but eating ONLY grain. This leads to deficiency in B3, B12, and lysine.

      Depends on the grain and how it was prepared. If the corn has been prepared by some form of nixtamalization, the B3 (Niacin) will be more readily available for consumption. The Aztecs knew about this. A lot of processed corn products (Including junk food) have undergone this process. However if you subsist entirely on corn on the cob (or frozen corn kernels) you will develop a deficiency. The B3 is in there, but not in a form our bodies can digest and utilize.

    6. Re:At this point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think the average /.er would know some basic stuff like this...

    7. Re:At this point... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Right. Because hunter-gatherer societies were the pinnacle of human evolution. The ones that had a child mortality rate around 50% and lived to, maybe, their mid thirties.

      Just a thought - look at evolution on a continuum. There are several billion humans on the planet who've largely escaped the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. That's 'evolution'. Now, we just might agree that this is to be widely regarded as a Bad Thing for a bunch of reasons, but freezing the diet at the early Paleolithic stage makes absolutely no sense.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:At this point... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Hunter-gatherers ate quite a bit of sugar, that's where the 'gatherer' part comes in. Berries, fruits, vegetables - all of these contain sugars, and sometimes in great quantities. Did you perhaps mean to say 'processed' sugars like glucose?

      True and those sources also contain fiber, which slows the digestion/metabolism of the sugar.

      I recommend this video Sugar: The Bitter Truth by Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, about how sugar is metabolized (in extreme detail) by the body.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    9. Re:At this point... by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Berries are actually quite low in sugars, just a few percent. And in old times, fruit was much smaller than today. Apples were the size of cherries, for instance, and corn cobs only the size of your thumb. On top of that, fruit and berries are seasonal. Root vegetables were probably a bigger source of edible starches, but also not available year round and not in the size and composition that we consider normal now. Most hunter gatherers didn't eat nearly as much starches and sugars as we do.

    10. Re:At this point... by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Because hunter-gatherer societies were the pinnacle of human evolution. The ones that had a child mortality rate around 50% and lived to, maybe, their mid thirties.

      That's because we have better medical care, antibiotics especially.

      freezing the diet at the early Paleolithic stage makes absolutely no sense

      Makes more sense than eating a bunch of hyper processed food not found in nature.

    11. Re:At this point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently digesting pseudo scientific drivel also has adverse effects. This stuff should be taught better at school.

    12. Re:At this point... by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      True and those sources also contain fiber, which slows the digestion/metabolism of the sugar.

      Not much. White bread has a glycemic index of 75. Whole wheat bread has a glycemic index of 74. Both higher than table sugar at 65. You can also test this yourself. Each a few slices of bread, wait an hour, and measure blood glucose. It will be up sharply, meaning that the glucose is already entering the bloodstream while the fibers are still in your gut.

    13. Re:At this point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could put the lysine contingency in to effect!

    14. Re:At this point... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      True and those sources also contain fiber, which slows the digestion/metabolism of the sugar.

      Not much. White bread has a glycemic index of 75. Whole wheat bread has a glycemic index of 74. Both higher than table sugar at 65. You can also test this yourself. Each a few slices of bread, wait an hour, and measure blood glucose. It will be up sharply, meaning that the glucose is already entering the bloodstream while the fibers are still in your gut.

      Most white bread has zero (or almost zero) fiber and most whole-wheat bread isn't much better. And hunter-gathers don't really hunt/gather bread. Most fruits, nuts and vegetables have lower glycemic loads. But to support the initial statement, from Dietary fiber: Essential for a healthy diet (and other places):

      Benefits of a high-fiber diet

      Helps control blood sugar levels. In people with diabetes, fiber — particularly soluble fiber — can slow the absorption of sugar and help improve blood sugar levels. A healthy diet that includes insoluble fiber may also reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

      Also, we're talking about adequate fiber in the diet, not just 3-6g. From the second page of the above link:

      Fiber: Daily recommendations for adults:
      Age 50 or younger, Age 51 or older
      Men: 38 grams, 30 grams
      Women: 25 grams, 21 grams

      You should watch the video I originally referenced, it's from the a lecture series at UCSF and is pretty interesting - though it's also 90 minutes.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    15. Re:At this point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Apparently digesting pseudo scientific drivel also has adverse effects.

      Fortunately, this problem can be cured by eating Trump!

      --
      You have the right to remain stupid!

    16. Re:At this point... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      The ones that had a child mortality rate around 50%

      I would not dispute this.

      and lived to, maybe, their mid thirties.

      Not true - they lived far longer than the generations that lived after the wide spread use of coal fires and tobacco.

      Rumours of life being "nasty, brutish and short" were not based on facts/hunter gatherer lifestyle. They were much influenced by poor interpretation of the evidence.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    17. Re:At this point... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Just admit it: you want food that doesn't have chemicals.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:At this point... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The ones that had a child mortality rate around 50%
      I would not dispute this.

      But I would. It would mean that every second grave would be of a new born. For that we have no evidence at all.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    19. Re:At this point... by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      Not to mention how important fiber is to gut flora, which they're finding also influences many systems, from immune system to mood.

    20. Re:At this point... by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Babies are not buried always. With a 50% mortality rate babies would not even be named till they are 1 yr old. Dead bodies would be disposed with garbage

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    21. Re:At this point... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Y0u mean grain. Hunter-gatherers gathered grain too. Don't fall into this paleo crap invented by people who don't know what paleo even means.

    22. Re:At this point... by quenda · · Score: 1

      ... thousands of /.ers around the World stop to stare blankly at their bowl of Corn Flakes (or whatever breakfast cereal) ...

      Corn Flakes have added Niacin (B3), so I assume that Kellogs are already aware of the cannibal apocalypse potential.

    23. Re:At this point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the corn has been prepared by some form of nixtamalization, the B3 (Niacin) will be more readily available for consumption. The Aztecs knew about this.

      The Aztecs knew about vitamin B3, and how make it more readily available for consumption? Citation needed. I doubt they even knew some foods and preparations of foods could prevent pellagra.

    24. Re:At this point... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Right. Because hunter-gatherer societies were the pinnacle of human evolution. The ones that had a child mortality rate around 50% and lived to, maybe, their mid thirties.

      Which, to be fair, is 40% LESS than the child mortality rate in Industrial-Revolution Britain. 90% of children died before age 10 during that little adventure in unregulated, unrestrained capitalism. It's no wonder the very first labour law *ever* passed in Britain was to outlaw child-labour. So when libertarians hold that period up as some kind of model we should be emulating - one has to wonder if they are ignorant of those deaths or just don't care if we go back to most people having to bury their children.
      When they tell you we need to "compete" with sweatshop countries by building our own sweatshops... they somehow never mention those things. They want to get more jobs for the people and they stop talking there, most people dying on the job isn't mentioned - either because they don't KNOW that's what they are advocating, or because they don't care... or because they LIKE that idea, killing people for profit has always appealed to the people they admire most.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    25. Re:At this point... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      To be fair, there is a solid and scientific reason to be concerned about processed foods. And it has nothing to do with the processing (about which, frankly there seems to be equal evidence for and against).
      The real concern is that they tend to use very few ingredients - which means they are nutritionally very poor. We're omnivores, we are evolved to make use of (and as a result require) a diverse diet.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    26. Re:At this point... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Apparently the argument is that the dead babies weren't being burried - they were being eaten by the parents.

      Talk about slow-cooking your dinner...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    27. Re:At this point... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the corn has been prepared by some form of nixtamalization, the B3 (Niacin) will be more readily available for consumption. The Aztecs knew about this.

      The Aztecs knew about vitamin B3, and how make it more readily available for consumption? Citation needed. I doubt they even knew some foods and preparations of foods could prevent pellagra.

      Don't be dense. The Aztecs (or rather the entirety of the Americas before Columbus) knew that corn as-is was not fully edible. It had to go through a process of nixtamalization (pretty much soak the corn or corn flour in an alkaline solution.) This is no different from how other cultures have dealt with otherwise toxic food items like taro and manioc.

      MesoAmerican diets were in fact quite well-rounded until the conquest. For whatever stupid reason the Conquistadors prohibited nixtamalization for a while (work of the devil or some shit). We know from records of the time (as well as bones) of levels of malnutrition that resulted from this until the locals could again do this process on their primary food source: corn.

      Old cultures didn't have a modern lab. Sure, no motherfucking surprise. But they had thousands of years of Darwinian trial and error with which to notice what combinations of foods provided the best results as well as how to prepare them for best results (be them nutrition or storage.)

      Just because cultures were not modern (or even literate) that does not mean they were not intelligent enough to gather knowledge from empirical observation.

    28. Re:At this point... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Yes, thank you.

      They almost certainly didn't understand the biochemistry but they knew that people who didn't do it got sick and died earlier than the people who did.

      Maybe they explained it as "the will of the gods" or "this is how you prevent the curse of..." but they knew and understood that an unbalanced diet was not good for you.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    29. Re:At this point... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      And if you want to get technical, ruminants don't even have four stomachs - they have one stomach, preceded by three esophageal pouches that act as fermenters / bioreactors to grow large populations of microbes. The microbes then break down the cellulose as well as synthesizing a wide range of dietarily important chemicals not present in the original feedstock. In essence ruminants don't primarily digest plants, they digest internally plant-fed microbes.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    30. Re:At this point... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      The corn we eat today, is nothing like what was available even 50 years ago.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    31. Re:At this point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And not smoking cannabis leads to a deficiency of what in the USA?

    32. Re:At this point... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      For that again we have no evidence.

      Hint: with a mortality rate of 50% you would need 4 kids to even sustain the population.

      A mortality rate like that is extremely unlikely. There is no animal in the world that has a comparable mortality rate.

      The idea that either early humans eat their dead babies, threw them away or did not bury them, or have a significant higher mortality rate than any other modern man is absurd at best and in my eyes: idiotic.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    33. Re:At this point... by ghoul · · Score: 1

      I am not saying that 50% mortality rate is true. I am merely saying that the absence of child graves does not prevent it from being true. You need a differnt argument to say the rate is not true. As for modern man even till the last century in rural America 1 out of 3 kids died in infancy. My Grandfather was the eldest of 13 kids. When a cholera epidemic hit within 4 weeks he was one of 2 surviving kids.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    34. Re:At this point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... thousands of /.ers around the World stop to stare blankly at the remainings of their... Breakfast! yea! Breakfast is a nice word!

      Now snap out of it and finish your food. And don't forget to cleanup after eating!

    35. Re:At this point... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      FYI, everything has chemicals, you are made of chemicals!

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    36. Re:At this point... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      There is also the possibility of predation causing many of those deaths. Wolves don't normally bury their prey.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    37. Re:At this point... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      That seems unlikely though. Firstly, the areas where humans lived that way were not really wolf territory. The majority of our hunter/gatherer existence we would be more worried about lions, hyenas and leopards. And there is strong evidence that hunter/gatherers were quite adept at defending against those (not least that surviving hunter/gatherers are), indeed the evidence suggest that during the hunter/gatherer phase - humans were already the top predator.
      There is also other things to consider, like the strong scientific evidence for the night-owl gene, which suggest that humans had evolved other defenses against predation of their nests even before the hunter/gatherer phase. Much as you'll find that predation of chimp young is extremely rare and for bonobos it's virtually non-existent.
      The only things that hunt bonobos successfully are humans.
      But the whole argument makes no sense anyway. The child mortality rate among chimps and bonobos is nowhere near 90%, it's around 30%. So why on earth would the chimp-family member with the worst child-survival rates have been the one to become the world's apex predator ? It seems extremely unlikely an outcome.
      The only time human child-mortality WAS at 90% was during the industrial revolution - and natural causes had nothing to do with that.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  4. The spice of life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this a property of corn or a monotonous diet?

    1. Re:The spice of life by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      Is this a property of corn or a monotonous diet?

      From TFS, researchers think it's possibly a lack of vitamin B3 (aka Niacin) from a corn-only diet. So yes, it could be due to a monotonous diet, but not the monotony of the diet.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  5. Not now! by nospam007 · · Score: 0

    I just had forced myself to like my grits by calling it Polenta and now I'm getting homicidal thoughts after that article.
    I might also develop a liking for long pig.

  6. There's no substitute for brains by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    The dim-witted hamsters don't realize that they need to nixtamize their maize to get adequate nutrition.

    1. Re:There's no substitute for brains by Walter+White · · Score: 1

      My vote is to ferment and distill...

    2. Re:There's no substitute for brains by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      I agree, corn should be available in all stores in its fermented and distilled form.

  7. Read the book Grain Brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sugar on the brain.
    Hamsters are an endangered species? Huh.
    I thought those small rodents have occasionally always ate their young.

    1. Re:Read the book Grain Brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Animals that gets disturbed too much might eat their young. Basiclly, they figure it is impossible to raise young under current conditions. So they eat them, regaining the proteins which may be scarce. This improves the chance of reproducing later, perhaps after fleeing to a better place.

  8. Aztecs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So basically, it turns then into Aztecs.

    1. Re:Aztecs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahahahaha

  9. Happened to humans also by Pollux · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, not so much the cannibalism part, but the dementia part.

    Corn cell walls separated mostly by Hemicellulose, and breaking down this tough molecule is necessary to access the nutritional compounds found within, including niacin. Humans can't do it very easily. Mesoamericans figured out the way a long, long time ago how to break apart hemicellulose by mixing a little ash into the water used to boil the maize kernels, breaking apart the hemicellulose and freeing up the niacin, a process called nixtamalization.

    When Europeans landed in the 15th and 16th centuries, they took corn back to Europe, but not the nixtamalization process. As a sort of crude justice for all the pain and suffering Europeans inflicted on the natives, the European cultures that adopted corn as their cereal crop suffered greatly from pellagra, a disease brought about from the absence of niacin. A disease which includes among its symptoms dementia.

    What's happening with these hamsters sounds eerily similar.

    1. Re:Happened to humans also by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      It was not exactly clear, B3 is only missing when not niximized?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Happened to humans also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all the pain and suffering Europeans inflicted on the natives

      When the life expectancy of those natives is twice what is was before European contact, it's a little hard to stick to this narrative.

    3. Re:Happened to humans also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Between 1906 and 1940 more than 3 million Americans were affected by pellagra with more than 100,000 deaths.

          In 1915, Joseph Goldberger, assigned to study pellagra by the US Surgeon General, showed it was linked to diet by observing the outbreaks of pellagra in orphanages and mental hospitals. He noted that children between the ages of six and 12 and patients at the mental hospitals were the ones who seemed most susceptible to pellagra.

          Goldberger theorized that a lack of meat, milk, eggs, and legumes made those particular populations susceptible to pellagra. By modifying the diet served in these institutions with "a marked increase in the fresh animal and the leguminous protein foods," Goldberger was able to show that pellagra could be prevented. By 1926, he established that a diet that included these foods, or a small amount of brewer's yeast, prevented pellagra.

          In 1937, Conrad Elvehjem, showed that the vitamin niacin cured pellagra in dogs. Later studies by Dr. Tom Spies, Marion Blankenhorn, and Clark Cooper established that niacin also cured pellagra in humans, for which Time Magazine dubbed them its 1938 Men of the Year in comprehensive science.

    4. Re:Happened to humans also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corn is not a staple food for humans in Europe. They feed it to farm animals.

    5. Re:Happened to humans also by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      Corn in the UK means "grain" - ie rye, barley, wheat. Maize does not grow here.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    6. Re:Happened to humans also by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Maize also grows in the UK, or could. No idea if it is farmed there, though.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:Happened to humans also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does the US. Most maize is grown for feed.

    8. Re:Happened to humans also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I read it, the B3 is already in the corn as it's harvested, but without nixtamalization, the human digestive system can't extract thatB3 due to the inability to break down hemicellulose.

    9. Re:Happened to humans also by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I posted the story of the frogs wanting corn after WWII and you think I don't know how confused Europeans are?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  10. Well, duh...! by taiwanjohn · · Score: 3

    An all-corn diet has virtually no protein... The body will eventually rebel against such a diet, and force a change in nutrient availability. I was born and raised in Iowa, so I love the taste of corn, but even I know that a man cannot live on corn alone... nor a rat.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    1. Re:Well, duh...! by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Missouri raised.

      Of course a healthy balanced diet includes beer, pizza, steak and chocolate cake as well as corn chips and corn on the cob. Everybody knows that.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Well, duh...! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      An all-corn diet has virtually no protein... The body will eventually rebel against such a diet, and force a change in nutrient availability. I was born and raised in Iowa, so I love the taste of corn, but even I know that a man cannot live on corn alone... nor a rat.

      Rats contain lots of protein, but true enough, one isn't going to last you very long.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    3. Re:Well, duh...! by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      This is untrue, it is only modern hybrid corn that has a tiny amount of protein, and most of it locked away and unusable.
      Naturally, corn is like most grains, it contains a goodly amount. Many strains exist which will give you 20%, and some experimentation has yielded strains with upwards of 30%. I believe a decent grain mix typically contains something like 16%, so corn is extremely protein rich if done right.

      The problem is America, the farmers are paid to produce corn, the more they produce the more they are paid. So having the plant put effort into nutrients and protein is counter productive.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:Well, duh...! by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Actually corn does have a fair bit of protein (about 1g protein for every 10g of corn according to the USDA) relative to many other vegetables, but it doesn't include all of the essential amino acids so you'll need to get those from somewhere else. Of course that's true for anything a person is going to eat, and corn is probably only something you'd want for supplemental protein anyhow as lentils or other beans offer much more protein per serving. It's good to have on the cob and cornbread is alright once in a while, and you can mix it in with a lot of other things to make salsas and the like. Corn chips and corn flower tortillas are also popular and common.

      However, most of what's raised in the U.S. isn't the sweet corn that you can buy at grocery stores, but instead a different variety for livestock feed, which is mainly used because its pretty energy dense compared to grass so you can get your livestock to put on weight faster. Knowing that fact and how much we've incorporated corn into our diets probably gives a bit of a hint as to why the U.S. and Mexico have the worst obesity rates on the planet.

    5. Re:Well, duh...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no 'silver bullet' in the cause of weight gain in our countries. It seems corn is at the center of it that is for sure. What we are not sure of is how much is just corn or the pesticides or the mono crop cultures we have created. Do I care if a cow is fat? Yes actually I want them to be big. Do I care if I am? Yes I want to be more fit.

      If you notice one thing out of all the fad diets that kinda work. Most cut way back on sugar and corn based products. Sugar specifically HFCS is just another form of corn.

      I am a regular coca cola drinker. I can tell the difference between can, bottle, fountain, and plastic formulas. I drink it that much. When I drink it I usually get a bit of acid reflux. Except when I drink the sugar based formula vs the HFCS formula. Now they are different formulas but the big one is the lesser amount of corn based product in there.

    6. Re:Well, duh...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now they are different formulas but the big one is the lesser amount of corn based product in there.

      It's all psychosomatic. Give yourself the Pepsi challenge and I guarantee you won't be able to tell. The corn syrup used in soda is nothing more than sucrose and fructose in the same proportion as standard sugar.

    7. Re:Well, duh...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I thought weight gain was due to the natural law: "Survival of the fattest!"

      --
      You have the right to remain stupid!

    8. Re:Well, duh...! by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you're just making a joke, but corn is actually not too bad at 7% protein: http://nutritiondata.self.com/...

    9. Re:Well, duh...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who get surgery that limits the amount they can eat lose a lot of weight very fast. So stop eating when you're not hungry or are full. Eat smaller portions.

  11. It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need the protein, vitamins, and minerals in meat, and have no compunctions about getting them as they are driven by blind instinct. Human beings need those nutrients, too, but hankfully we don't have to resort to cannibalism to get them.

    1. Re:It's simple by hey! · · Score: 1

      Of course sometimes we do sometimes engage in cannibalism, both for symbolic cultural purposes and survival.

      From an evolutionary standpoint, you might frame the question like this: what is the optimal rate of cannibalism in a species? Well there are plenty species where it is common, but they're species that have reproductive strategies that involve large numbers of offspring -- more than can typically be carried by their environment. That gives them the advantage of being able to exploit unusually favorable conditions, and when things are less than favorable cannibalism keeps those limited nutrients in the family, so to speak.

      Humans most often have small litter sizes (one is overwhelmingly prevalent), and are extraordinarily expensive in evolutionary terms to raise to reproductive age. It makes sense that the optimal rate of cannibalism for a species like ours is close to zero. But not quite zero.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:It's simple by Reziac · · Score: 1

      http://www.krackatinni.net.au/...
      (javscript required, and it's still ugly)

      "These male Aboriginals are all cannibals. The height of a blackfella's ambition is to kill and eat some member of another tribe; although quite content to eat his own off-spring or barter them for weapons of exceptional value. When the children are considered fat enough the killing is not delayed."

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  12. Budweiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Budweiser has a high corn content (along with white rice). In fact, most mass market American beers are corn based. That is what gives them that watery sickly sweet taste. Homicide, insanity, cannibalism--alcohol fueled? Perhaps . . . but more likely the corn in the beer.

    1. Re:Budweiser by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Not beer.

      Beer is a beverage made of malted barley, yeast, hops and water. _Nothing_ else.

      American Budweiser is a cereal malt beverage, not beer. Same as all American 'can beer'.

      Corn or rice sugar, doesn't matter. It's just ethanol after fermentation. No flavor, just good pure nutritious alcohol. Might make the yeast into cannibals, but they take the hit for you.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Budweiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beer is sold all around the world made from grains besides malted barley. I'm not going to argue that Budweiser is good, but saying it isn't beer, or that it's essentially a watered down vodka, is nonsense. A simple taste will tell you there's flavors going on, for better or worse.

    3. Re:Budweiser by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Only if you are a mindless slave to the proclamations of a monk. Reality is, beer is a family of beverages, with a fair amount of variation.

    4. Re:Budweiser by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Anyone who thinks parroting the Reinheitsgebot makes them look like a beer connoisseur is proving the exact opposite.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Budweiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beer is a beverage made of starch source, yeast, hops and water.

      Fixed. You can make beer without barley.

    6. Re:Budweiser by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Drink all the wheat/corn/rice 'beer' you want. More of the good stuff for the rest of us.

      Name one quality 'beer' containing wheat, corn or rice? Bet you like beer with a 'yeast infection' too. Sour piss (wheat beer) can actually be improved by adding fruit flavor or leaving the yeast in, doesn't make it good.

      Try the 'grape beer', also the Japanese style 'rice beer'. Fuck it, just make beer mean 'water and alcohol mixture'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Budweiser by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Name one quality 'beer' containing wheat, corn or rice?

      Logic fail. I never claimed that it was a necessary or sufficient condition to be a quality beer.

      However, Hoegaarden Grand Cru. If that tastes sour to you it's because you're a fat ponce.

      If you were half as knowledgeable as you pretend to be you'd know that the original point of the law wasn't directly to do with beer at all - it was to ensure some cereals were reserved for bread so the poor wouldn't starve.

      Mind your head - shovel coming down.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. This makes sense by dschiptsov · · Score: 1

    It means acute dis-balance and/or deficiency of some nutrients which organism is trying to compensate. It also could explain in part aggression in general - getting better nutrition no matter what, implemented as some hormonal pathway.

    1. Re:This makes sense by hey! · · Score: 2

      Humans trying to live on unpreocessed corn get pellagra -- a chronic vitamin B3 (niacin) deficiency -- the symptoms of which include emotional disturbance and aggressiveness. Corn is naturally rich in B3, but it's not bioavailable. So living on corn is a bad idea unless you're a ruminant.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  14. That applies to many singular diets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All carrot diet -- You'll turn oranger than Trump
    All fruit diet -- Your teeth will fall out
    All rabbit meat diet -- You'll die of starvation
    All tuna diet -- Mercury poisoning

    etc, etc.

    Few (large) animals have adapted to live on a singular food source. While there's a lot of hate on corn, "Only eating X causes Y problem" applies to most food sources, including ones that are traditionally very healthy.

  15. Was the corn ... by MichaelJamesBattagli · · Score: 1

    ... on a cob?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:Was the corn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that when you eat corn on the cob, it goes in on the cob, and comes out "on the cob".

  16. People can live on a diet of mostly corn by bettodavis · · Score: 1

    But only if it's processed correctly. The lack of critical nutrients like niacin results in nutritious deficiencies, like pellagra, a nasty and potentially lethal disease.

    Mesoamerican peoples discovered all they needed to do is to pre-cook corn by boiling it in water and some lime, in order to have a product that didn't made people sick.

    That's the reason why people that adopted corn later (e.g. people in Africa), but that didn't adopt this simple method still suffer pellagra nowadays.

  17. A little secret... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can find a way to add magnesium to your diet, you'll probably feel a lot better. It also helps with bowel movements, but that's a bonus, not a negative.

  18. Obviously-missing in everyone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Depends upon what's missing. If one or more members are missing something, then the one's they eat may be missing the same? In other words cannibalism doesn't resolve the deficiency.

  19. Re:why slashdot silent trump massacre constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan

  20. Re: why slashdot silent trump massacre constitutio by NEDHead · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That is nonsense. No person has any value other than through its relationships with others. A fetus unwanted that will not be missed has no value.

    The only damage done by anyone's death is measured by the loss of those left behind. The dead person has no regrets, and suffers no loss by his death.

    And do not raise the specter of the pain of dying, for that only argues in favor of an improved process.

    Example: A solitary person living in the wilderness struck from behind by a space rock that obliterates his head in an instant, suffers no pain, no regret, and leaves neither behind for anyone else. There is no loss to anyone.

    Argue if you must that the mother must suffer from the decision, but that only means that the mother is the only one that should decide.

  21. Re: why slashdot silent trump massacre constitutio by HornWumpus · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Why I'm in favor of legal 75th trimester abortions. At the demand of _either_ parent after the first 3 (when only the mother can pull the plug).

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  22. Re: why slashdot silent trump massacre constitutio by NEDHead · · Score: 2, Funny

    Per Twain:
    "When a child turns 12, he should be kept in a barrel and fed through the bung hole, until he reaches 16at which time you plug the bung hole"

  23. 1+1=2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    * Mexicans are know avid corn-eaters.
    * All-corn diet turns you into cannibal.
    * So Mexicans are cannibals.

    Trump was right all along!

    1. Re:1+1=2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you RTFA. Ignorant Trump supporting motherfucking RACIST. We should put all of you Trump supporters on trains and gas you motherfuckers with cyanide!!! You goddamned racist Nazis!!!!!!!!

    2. Re:1+1=2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitlery lost, now get over it please!

    3. Re:1+1=2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's the biggest woosh I believe I've ever heard!

  24. Cornmeal pancakes by Walter+White · · Score: 1

    I guess I had better keep a sharp eye on the grandkids the next time I make cornmeal pancakes for them.

  25. Re: why slashdot silent trump massacre constitutio by r1348 · · Score: 1

    So it's fine to beat unpopular kids?

  26. rofl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hamsters of the Corn.

  27. I notice a lot of A/C's here on /. these days... by mmell · · Score: 1
    Always posting offtopic - usually in support of the Cheeto-in-Chief (hey, a corn product!).

    Let me guess - supporting Trump is like raping little boys - feels great as long as nobody you know finds out, right?

  28. Happened in Transylvania in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Cross reference with

    Pellagra and the origin of a myth: evidence from European literature and folklore.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1296679/

    Cross reference with the historical research on a village in Transylvania in the 1800s where the vilagers ate a diet of just corn without lime or other products providing vitamin B. The entire village suffered pelegra. Their skin would blister within minutes of sun exposure. This had led some historians to speculate that tales of the event may have had some influence on Bram Stoker's Dracula. For published a published, referreed article see, e.g.,

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1296679/

  29. The hamsters - episode: The Shining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'All corn and no B3 make hamster something something'

  30. Well, just "shit!" ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... I initially read the headline as:

    All-Corn Diet Turns Hamsters Into Cannabis"

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  31. Re:I notice a lot of A/C's here on /. these days.. by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    You notice the wrong goddam things.

    If you focus on the comment(s) you won't care if it's AC or not.

    I'm not AC and I say that orange motherfucker is an admitted pussy grabber and he's self-identified as a sexual predator.

    And, I have stuff that matters to back that up.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  32. Man Corn by Christy G. Turner II by davescafe · · Score: 1

    “Improperly cooked maize-based diets have been associated with higher rates of homicide, suicide and cannibalism in humans,” the researchers note.

    This remindeds me of the book Man Corn by Christy G. Turner II

    From Goodreads:

    "Christy and Jacqueline Turner’s study of prehistoric violence, homicide, and cannibalism explodes the myth that the Anasazi and other Southwest Indians were simple, peaceful farmers. Using detailed osteological analyses and other lines of evidence the Turners show that warfare, violence, and their concomitant horrors were as common in the ancient Southwest as anywhere else in the world... The authors review several hypotheses for Southwest cannibalism: starvation, social pathology, and institutionalized violence and cannibalism. In the latter case, they present evidence for a potential Mexican connection and demonstrate that most of the known cannibalized series are located temporally and spatially near Chaco great houses."

    It looks like Christy and Turner can add another reason for cannabalism among the Anasazi: a corn-based diet

  33. Re: why slashdot silent trump massacre constitutio by NEDHead · · Score: 1

    You clearly did not parse my statement thoroughly. Infliction of pain is not acceptable, as the recipient clearly suffers as a result.

  34. Re: why slashdot silent trump massacre constituti by NEDHead · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    You're making my point. Since you (and hopefully others) would suffer emotionally should you kill me, then the conditions are not met.

    Mine is a relativist philosophy of the value of life. The value only obtains in relationship to others. Absent any such relationship(s) the timing of the end of that life is of no consequence.

    Consequently, I recommend that you move out of your mom's basement and make some friends.

  35. Re: why slashdot silent trump massacre constitutio by r1348 · · Score: 1

    Ok, so euthanasia of the unpopular is fine.
    Dude, I'm really trying hard not to break Godwin's Law here...

  36. Bullshit by allo · · Score: 2

    Hamsters are no group animals. If you have them in a group, they either fuck or bite each other or fuck and then the female bites the male until it leaves. Dead animals are eaten, as hamsters do eat meat, if they get some and they care to get rid of dead corpses to avoid attracting enemies.
    This hasn't anything to do with a corn diet, which is common for golden hamsters as pets.

    1. Re:Bullshit by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Not real fond of hamsters, domesticated rats are much better pets. Less likely to bite and quite a bit more intelligent.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Bullshit by allo · · Score: 1

      Hamsters may be the better choice, when you're having a rat allergy, because they have other ancestors :-).
      Btw. there is cannibalism (mostly of corpses) in rats as well.

  37. Its not just corn.. by fred911 · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows, babies are are just tastier! Beef and pork are best when young!

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  38. Re: why slashdot silent trump massacre constituti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't break it, you prove it. Laws, like these, are not broken.

  39. vegetarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love vegetarianism because I don't wish to harm animals.

  40. Re: why slashdot silent trump massacre constitutio by NEDHead · · Score: 1

    How you got to this concept from my statement is a reflection of your simplistic analysis

  41. WTF is a European Hamster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They got hamsters in France? Nope... hamsters come from Brazil. I think this "scientific paper" was just an April Fools joke published a bit early.

    1. Re: WTF is a European Hamster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are russian hamsters and wild north-european hamsters. The golden hamster comes from the middle-east. Dwarf hamsters come from Siberia, the Gobi, Erebor and Khazad-dum. Learn your hamsterfacts.

  42. Sulu by laing · · Score: 1
    Obligatory video here.

    Explanation here.

  43. Improper linking by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 2

    Has no one else tried to click on the second link in the summary? It directs to "https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/01/29/068214/gizmodo.com/all-corn-diet-turns-hamsters-into-cannibals-who-eat-the-1791736449" - shouldn't Slashdot editors know how to set up a URL (in addition to preview/edit)? : \

  44. where did you get your weed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like a crazy man seein things that aint there!

  45. If the hamsters ate each other ... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    If the hamsters ate each other, clearly the study failed to make sure they ate an all-corn diet. Fail.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  46. Paleo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When the first book on the paleo diet came out, circa 20 years ago ?, I read it at Border's on the installment plan. 3-5 visits with a large cafe mocha and I could get through similar books.
    I quickly determined they left something paleo man would have been eating: bugs.
    Even now, 20 years late, most American writers and promoters of paleo realize that if they mention cavemen or homonids without caves would have gladly much on ants, grasshoppers, grubs if they were hungry enough, they would loose a fair percent of the readers they are trying to convert.
    Well, unless you believe paleo people were Kosher.
    BTW, the lack of perfection of re-creating a paleo diet--mastadons are hard to come by these days, does not invalidate one of the concepts coming out the theory of the paleo diet: that highly processed or concentrated nutrients may 'overwhelm' our biology, and that things grown in a vat (genetically engineered into living organisms) may not 'match' our nutritional needs very well.
    Short term severe or moderate poisonous effects will probably tend to be figured out rather soon, but long term or minor effects, good, back, or other, may be harder to establish.

    1. Re:Paleo by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Even now, 20 years late, most American writers and promoters of paleo realize that if they mention cavemen or homonids without caves would have gladly much on ants, grasshoppers, grubs if they were hungry enough, they would loose a fair percent of the readers they are trying to convert.
      Well, unless you believe paleo people were Kosher.

      Locusts (Grasshoppers) are Kosher and Halal. They can be eaten without violation of the, notoriously strict, dietary laws of those two religions.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  47. Re: why slashdot silent trump massacre constituti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So according to you human lives have no value. Good to know. I will remember it.

  48. Ancient History by joboss · · Score: 1

    Could this explain some aspects of Aztec and Mayan culture?

  49. Cool spider bro! by azrael29a · · Score: 1

    So for example male spiders in the orb-web families spin a line of very stretch silk which they keep attached to a leg during initial contact and mating with a female - as soon as mating concludes they let go with the other legs and their bungie cord gives them a very rapid escape. Cannibalism only happens if the cord fails to function for some reason, or the female manages to be faster than the cord (seriously low odds). So while cannibalism almost never happens - the behaviour shows that there is a very real risk of it, hence the males have evolved an intricate defence mechanism to avoid that fate..

    Wow, screwing their females, and then bungee jumping right afterwards - these spiders are rad, dude!

    1. Re:Cool spider bro! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Wow, screwing their females, and then bungee jumping right afterwards - these spiders are rad, dude!

      Nah, that's nothing, when they bungee jump DURING sex ... then I'll be impressed.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  50. Re: why slashdot silent trump massacre constitutio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then why are these douche bags so against birth control which is the one thing that will decrease unwanted births and abortions.

  51. Re: why slashdot silent trump massacre constitutio by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    at which time you plug the bung hole

    I know there's a priest joke to be made here somewhere...

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  52. Re:why slashdot silent trump massacre constitution by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

    This just in! Liberals can't handle losing. News at 11

    Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble like never before.

    This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!

    More votes equals a loss revolution!

    Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.

    We can’t let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

    The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!

    He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!

    - Donald Trump, 2012, when he thought Obama had lost the popular vote but won the electoral college

    --

    How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

  53. Re: those natives by slashrio · · Score: 1

    You mean, life expectancy of what's left of 'those natives'?

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  54. Any connection to the corn syrup debate? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    People have been associating the obesity epidemic and various other problems to the rise of corn syrup sweetener; this suggests the influences could be more serious.

  55. Re: why slashdot silent trump massacre constituti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No man. It's just that these people making these psychotic comments are the victims of the corn diet. I suspect it's the one syrup in Coke they drank in replacement of water which is typical of nerds.

    Anyway, they need help not rebuke. And maybe their coke priviledge taken away.

  56. Re: why slashdot silent trump massacre constitut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corn not one...

  57. Hamsters into Cannibals? by Badger+Nadgers · · Score: 1

    ..and hipsters into vegans. Thus the equilibrium is maintained.

  58. Re: why slashdot silent trump massacre constitutio by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    I don't think anyone is telling you that you cannot use a condom, unless you are a catholic. However, why should the state pay for your condoms? If you can't even afford condoms, maybe sex is the least of your worries.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  59. Re:why slashdot silent trump massacre constitution by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    (Said when DJT was a member of the DNC).

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  60. Re:why slashdot silent trump massacre constitution by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

    I can see you have a hard time ascertaining what is and is not reality. Trump was never a member of the Democratic National Committee. He registered as a Republican in 2009 and started his "birtherism" bullshit in 2011 when he considered running for President (as a Republican) in 2012.

    --

    How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

  61. Re:why slashdot silent trump massacre constitution by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    It looks like you have trouble ascertaining what is and is not sarcasm. I was not meaning that as a literal statement of which party Trump was in, but that he was a member of the DNC repeatedly, and the only reason many seem to be against things he does is because he was elected from the RNC, not because they have put the least amount of thought into anything he does or says. This is specifically evidenced by the conversation above, which conveniently gives Obama a pass for doing the exact same thing, while demonizing Trump for doing it.

    http://www.politifact.com/flor...

    Yes, I am aware that Trump was not a Democrat at the time, but he actually could have been an independent at the time, depending on when the statement was made.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?