>>25168
The point is indeed not to discourage anybody.
Each author is entitled to choosing how his universe works.

But first of all, I find it fun, to think about how it could realistically be a sustainable thing.

Secondly, if I were to create such a universe, I'd want to have a realistic setting, and I'm sure there are others who have the same inclination, so if anything, those reflections might help them figure out how they wanna go about this.

Thirdly, for those who don't want to include such realism in their stories, I believe having a basic understanding of what's realistic or not can still help empower them to choose how they want to break away from realism and understand where they're asking their readers to suspend disbelief.
I'm generally of the opinion that any choice the author wants to make is fine, but that it's best if it's actually a choice, and not something that's done through ignorance and that they might come to regret later because they hadn't thought about it and wouldn't have made the same choice had they known.

>>25169
Realistically, that's probably desirable anyway to have the meat girls be vegetarians. Notice how most of the animals we eat are mainly herbivorous.
But the main issue is that most of this population (in my simulation, about 7 billion of it) is little girls below 10 years old.
It's important to stress, because that means they're unlikely to be able to do pretty much any hard labor, like growing enough food to feed themselves.
And each breeder has to take care of about 40 kids at any point in time, while being pregnant for 50% of their adult life. Not the easiest thing to do.
One assumption I kinda silently made and realized afterwards is a bit silly, but which might help, is that I assumed a monogamous breeder society by assuming each breeder has to produce 2 offspring that won't be eaten for sustainability.

So in this case, there's about 2 adults for these 40 kids, and importantly, one of them isn't gonna be pregnant half of the time. So these males could be the ones being farmers. And that seems to about track. A modern farmer can produce enough to feed around 150 people. So only about a fourth of breeder males would need to be farmers. But that also doesn't leave much of the population to do all the other things that are required to sustain those modern techniques.
So yeah, that silent assumption might save the realism of that setting, but I'm not even certain it's enough.

If you were to go the other way and assume males would spend their time impregnating women ... Let's say a male can fuck a breeder once per hour, that makes him available to breed maybe 10 of them a day.
It seems the probability for a woman to get impregnated is about 25% chances until around 30, dropping afterwards, with a recommended 2 or 3 intercourse sessions around ovulation. So it takes for a male fucking a female around 12 times to impregnate her.
In our 18 month cycle, a male can breed 5475 times, which impregnates 456.25 females. This gives you the male/female ratio you need in your population to keep the breeding working.

If you assume instead that you're artificially impregnating the females, then I assume a male can impregnate many more females than that.

So essentially, this number being pretty insignificant, you can more or less divide by two the population of breeders and add 1 to the number of meat offspring a female can produce, which reduces the required population slightly further.
So the larger impact of this is on the population of breeders you require. Though it's a minor impact because it isn't by large the largest part of the population.
And since your adult/kids population ratio is further decreased by that, you're increasing the issues with getting things done.

>>25172
Actually, you make a good point I failed to address.
While all you're saying is true, if you assume there's a population of eaten and a population of eaters, then having an accelerated growth drastically reduces the number of meat girls that need to be alive at any one time (essentially by ensuring they're big enough to eat at a younger age and thus have a shorter lifespan).
And since it's the largest part of our population, then it has a pretty big impact (less mouths to feed. less kids to handle).
And so if you assume that you can feed the same overall population, it increased the size of the eaters population quite a bit.
It doesn't change the fact that if you want it to be a staple food, you need a population that's breeding without eating human meat, but it does help with the figures. Especially if you start thinking about the workload that goes into feeding all that population, because you're increasing the adults/kids ratio.

I haven't found good figures about how many workers it takes to support the work of a farmer. But technically, you'd need to take that into account.
And even then, you haven't produced any clothing or housing, or provided many other basic necessities to your population.

I'm not quite sure how much of an actively working population it takes to sustain things, but I think even in my "realistic" scenario, that's the biggest concern.

So if anybody can find good data on that, maybe the best approach would be to assume you have a certain adult population based on those figures, and then work back to how often people can realistically eat human meat and what your population looks like.
Because ultimately, what might limit your population's ability to consume human meat might very well be its ability to provide basic necessities to many kids that need to be alive at any one time as they're growing up.