The weight of the human soul is said to be 21 grams. A beef cow at a 1200 pound average, is approximately 8 times larger than an average human of say 150 pounds. It is feasible then to suggest a cow's soul is around 168 grams, which is the approximate weight of a small hamburger patty, depending on the burger type.
With society's increasing infatuation on calories, grams of fat, carbs per serving etc - a ratio can be established from food derived from dead animals relating to soul weight per serving.
Pigs, chickens, fish etc would all have different ratios according to their weight and meat yield, and would be clearly labelled on any packaging that contains these items according to the soul food ratio.
Such a thing could be advocated by vegetarians and animal rights groups to focus on the lives and souls of the animals that are slaughtered to put on our plates.-- benfrost, Nov 02 2004 This idea comes too soon after the 21 grams idea, which wasn't universally lauded either. Sorry [ben].-- vigilante, Nov 02 2004 universal lauding isn't my aim as im sure u know, but i thought the reason 21 grams - now deleted it seems - had problems was because it fell outside of the realm of 'idea.' im unsure of what 'too soon after' means.-- benfrost, Nov 02 2004 Actually, having re-read your idea, it seems to me that unlike 21 grams itself, yours is an implementable idea in its own right (assuming the soul does in fact weigh 21 grams and this is able to be proven) whereas 21 grams deserved deletion. My apologies.-- vigilante, Nov 02 2004 is there a correct mourning period for deleted ideas?-- po, Nov 02 2004 [ben] although you say: //Pigs, chickens, fish etc would all have different ratios according to their weight and meat yield//you assume a soul:bodyweight ratio consistent across species in your opening paragraph. This is unlikely to prove the case but assuming your logic stood, the bigger something got the bigger it's soul would get, without a limiting trend. Therefore, the amount of soul per serving would depend directly on the weight of the meat served, not on the species, thus making it equally reprehensible (or acceptable) to eat ducks, chickens, peacocks, pigs, cows, whales, humans, guinea pigs and so forth.-- DocBrown, Nov 02 2004 How do we know that plants don't have souls? If we're going to presume that animals have souls and that souls are directly linked to life (in that they are no longer present when you're dead) then surely it'd be logical to extend the presumption and conclude that plants to, as a form of life, have a soul. Obviously this wouldn't be such good news for any vegetarians or animal riights activists that you might have had in mind.-- scubadooper, Nov 02 2004 How much does the soul of a deleted idea weigh?-- energy guy, Nov 02 2004 It depends on how much it weighs on your conscience.-- Ling, Nov 02 2004 If it's one of Vernon's about the same as a blue whale.-- scubadooper, Nov 02 2004 [benfrost]. You have way too much time on your hands.-- python, Nov 06 2004 The scary thing is that there are many people here who don't have much time on their hands. But we *make* time for the bakery. Devotion to a lost cause.-- wagster, Nov 06 2004 Found cause.-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Nov 06 2004 Schrodinger's causuality paradox?-- RayfordSteele, Nov 07 2004 This means whale have huge souls. Hmmmm.
What about the dinosaurs?-- DesertFox, Nov 07 2004 I think they had huge R souls-- Ling, Nov 07 2004 Surely fried chicken, hush-puppies and mash with cream gravy has much more soul than a cow?-- goff, Nov 08 2004 //This leaves the vegetarians and animal rights groups without a new argument - unless someone can repeat the experiments under much more rigorous conditions.//
Since most ARA by far don't believe in souls, heaven, hell, God, or the devil anyway, it's a moot point.-- bobad, Nov 08 2004 How do you figure, [bo]?-- Worldgineer, Nov 08 2004 random, halfbakery