The Fundamental Issue with Cannibal Fluffies

Community Posts
, , ,
1

Let me get one disclaimer out of the way: I have nothing against artists or writers who incorporate cannibal fluffies into their works. This is not a jab at those creators, but a jab at the lack of logic behind the very concept of cannibal fluffies.

Now, it is widely accepted in most peoples’ lore that fluffies are prolific to the point of being pests. Thus, some abusers justify their slaughter with the fact that they are helping to chip away at the fluffy overpopulation problem.

You may be thinking, “Wait a minute, shouldn’t cannibal fluffies be a good thing then? After all, they’re eating the pesky ones!” At first glance that seems like a sound conclusion, but let’s take a step back and look at the bigger picture here.

First of all, if the goal is to eradicate fluffies, then creating a carnivorous breed is only adding to the total number of fluffies. Unless the cannibal variety is specifically engineered to be infertile, then they’re just going to make more babies, and the cycle repeats.

Secondly, let’s assume that cannibals are infertile or at the very least have a low sex drive. Now the problem becomes that it would take a lot of money to fund the engineering of new individuals in order to have enough of them to do any damage to the normal fluffy population. Money that would be better spent on equipment that can take out dozens of fluffies at once as opposed to having to feed the cannibal variety one at a time and at a regulated pace to account for metabolic rate.

Third, let’s assume that somehow all of these problems are no big deal and the cannibals are successful in wiping out the standard “pest” fluffy breed. Well, now the cannibals’ main food source is gone, so if they don’t want to starve, now they have to eat other creatures. In many headcanons, the cannibal variety is more intelligent than the average fluffy, meaning that they are better at cooperation and planning. They may start off small at first, hunting mice and the like, but they’re bound to get bold sooner or later due to their audacious nature that is also prevalent in many headcanons. They will start attacking pets, and, if left unhindered, maybe eventually livestock or people. They are, after all, fluffies, and if they retain the breeding drive of their cousins, herds would easily be able to grow big enough to plan elaborate attacks and take down far larger animals. Not to mention, in the midst of all this, their population would keep growing… and eventually we’re in the same dilemma as before, but now with the Murder Edition :tm:.

I’d like to reiterate that I’m not attempting to slander folks who use cannibal fluffs in their works. This community is already well-known for completely throwing logic out the window (especially in regards to basic anatomy, but that’s a whole different discussion), so I don’t expect everyone to drop everything to adhere to my personal opinion.

I’ve always been extremely logic-oriented in my thought process (perhaps in part due to my Asperger’s Syndrome), which I’ll admit has gotten me into a few altercations with people who insist that fiction needs no rules or logic (and yet they get angry when people go against their headcanons… hmm…)

Well, as long as I’m rambling, I’ll mention that I’m feeling a lot better and will soon be finishing the last page of The Meta! Yay!

Stay funky fresh, my dudes. Peace out for now.

18 Likes
2

i agree

3 Likes
3

All good points, though I so have to counter the logic of using logic.
My frustration with Foal-In -A-Can for example is the fact it could never turn a profit, and thus the logic makes no sense.

But engineering cannibal Fluffies to consume regular Fluffies without much thought of consequence makes perfect sense, as its the kind of short-sighted stupidity that is completely logical. Morons sick of Fluffies demand the politician do something, pol hires a company that’s totally fucked at every level and run by a semi-distant relative to “do something”, they breed and alightly alter existing deviations and mutations into a new breed with only thought of profit in mind as they pursue the simplest solution that requires the least specialists and rely on immunity to responsibility via the political connections and some scapegoats.
Then shit goes to hell, lots of fingers are pointed and nothing changes. Like a city that wanted jobs and now is stuck with flammable water no matter which party they vote into office.

Its a bit funny.

I dislike (dedicated) cannibalFluffs but my main interest here is humanity destroying itself through misuse of bioengineering and general selfishness/ignorance.

11 Likes
4

cannibal fluffies always reek of edgy boy my oc is the bestes ever writing

7 Likes
5

yeah just make a fluffy that eats fluffy flesh

4 Likes
6

fgunxgfu

4 Likes
7

I’ll kind of agree with @Thk in that I think a repeating thing in a lot of fluffy fiction seems to be that a big part of the problem is the human factor. I personally tend to assume incompetence before malice, Mr. Owl suggests the opposite order, but at the end of the day both fluffies and humans are very often working against their own long-term interests. I’d say a lot of the work depends on this, even. Fluffies characters will often ruin things for themselves, humans might have unrealistic expectations or intentionally set them up to fail, etc.

Creating cannibal fluffs as a biological entity (versus out of necessity or something else) is a paramountly dumb idea that someone would probably do. It could also be the result genetic quirk that wasn’t discovered and stamped out. It could simply be that a starving group of ferals were starving and if everything else eats them, then maybe they can do so too.

I do think that fluffys, so far as some fiction goes, cannot be adequately predated to control their numbers. And something that can get a regular fluffy can probably get the cannibals about as easily. They require active controlling. Which doesn’t make sense either since they’re so ill equipped to do anything outside a domestic setting that we pretty much have to suspend disbelief regarding their incompetence and lack of ability to enjoy the stories.

I think they’'re a good story-telling tool, a nice spin on things, but I don’t think I can take them seriously lest I start poking the glaring holes in a lot of other things. I can change bits I like or dislike, but the fundamental idea of fluffies in general means I sort of have to not dig too deeply.

Nice read, @BadLuck! And glad you’re doing better! Team Nugget members Napoleon and Hippolyta are quite thrilled with things.

6 Likes
8

I think Foal-In-A-Can is just a dumping ground for the foals who weren’t approved for selling in stores or breeding, as I said earlier today.

But it makes sense when you think about it that way. It’s not exactly turning a profit, but it gets rid of useless stock by making it somebody else’s problem, and even if the cans only cost a dollar, they probably don’t think that the foals are worth even that.

6 Likes
9

The problem is the cost of transport, sorting, feeding them, reobtaining the materials, licensing, and the fact that unlike things sold in such a way that turn a profit the Foals cannot remain in the machine for months or years. They expire in days, meaning they need to be cryogenically frozen or have constantly rotated stock with cleaning, bookkeeping, and maintenance.

Its impossible they could be profitable unless they cost like $25+ in a world where demand is high because there isn’t likely Ferals sleeping under the machine itself.
Machines that sell perishables are partially subsidized by the location such as a bus station or hospital since it provides a necessary service cheaper and easier than a restaurant would be.

That’s not even getting into incinerators. They cost a lot to run, probably more than any company not selling Alicorns can make back. There’s a reason cremation takes so long, reducing organic matter to ash within regulations takes time and energy.

4 Likes
10

Is it a write-off or simply marketing? Loss-leader hoping for additional, high margin purchases later?

4 Likes
11

Let’s be real, the true purpose of Foal-In-A-Can is catering to abusers.

Anyone who gives a fuck about fluffies wouldn’t touch that shit with the world’s longest pole.

6 Likes
12

Still not enough profit to be made off them.

Even if the cans were actually brought back for reuse, which is almost never shown.

If it was a Mom & Pop doing it for political or religious reasons, fine. But to a corporation the face of Benjamin Franklin trumps god or queen. Or godqueen.

4 Likes
13

I have this idea in my lore which I’ve tried to put in my stories is that to keep a fluffy healthy, and especially on a budget diet, you actually have to feed them fluffy meat to keep them healthy.
I had this idea that they’re that pozzed that what they can eat is limited and they can’t absorb nutrients from food properly because of their poor and Shitty digestive system.

Except feeding them fluffies, in the form of processed kibble, in a very Soylent Green kind of way, is the best way to keep them healthy.

And they remain completely oblivious to the fact they’re eating other fluffies

4 Likes
14

I see your point. But like I also said earlier, they make for a good plot device: write a Foal-In-A-Can machine into a location, and the reader immediately has a general idea of how people in the area feel about fluffies.

The logic being that if people cared, the machines wouldn’t be there.

4 Likes
15

Eeeeeh, that doesn’t really work for a hugbox setting.

3 Likes
16

Oh, of course.

I don’t say people shouldn’t use it by any means. I quite like some of the FIAC art.

But the idea bothers me in the fridge logic stage.

As I recall Avacado had to thaw, which makes it make more sense to me. Plus I think someone had one where they aren’t supposed to be removed and spend their whole life in it?

3 Likes
17

Not at all :-p but nothing I ever thought of is Hugbox.
I also like the movie Soylent Green, and I can imagine some people would be completely oblivious as to what is in kibble and be completely unaware it’s fluffy.
I’ve always had this idea that fluffies are like tamagotchis that need more attention and a more carefully managed diet. To raise the best fluffy would be to be a master in micro management

2 Likes
18

Yeah, and Avocado turned out alright, but he’s the exception, not the norm.

2 Likes
19

Okay, I can’t argue with that.

But, again, I feel like anyone who cares about fluffies wouldn’t feed them fluffies.

Also, Tamagotchis are fucking rad, but fluffies are more like the Chao from Sonic Adventure in my opinion. Don’t tell me you don’t see it.

1 Like
20

What about @Chikahiro’s fermenting their feces to feed to them again?

That’s how I like it personally. Lots of animals, especially horses, eat their own shit. Fluffies are just a bundles of incomplete physical form and overly regimented mental programming that don’t work together. Hasbio programmed them to not gross out their owners with extreme poop aversion, but didn’t make them efficient enough to absorb most nutrients or hold it in. Up for debate on it shit blasting was intentional or not. I have my own theory on this.
The Poopie should be the healthiest since they’re eating the best, and almost as well as the first time it was consumed. Probably more varied if they’rd eating everyone’s.

1 Like