that is not what the person you're replying to said.

Sure it is. Humans don't need four stomachs to handle grain.

You'd need it to eat grass, but the article doesn't say anything about humans eating grass.

> With only grass-fed livestock, individual Americans would still get more than the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of meat and dairy protein, according to Pimentel's report, "Livestock Production: Energy Inputs and the Environment."

Is there really a "Recommended daily allowance of meat and dairy protein"? Sounds like propaganda from the meat and dairy industry like the food pyramid. I once met someone who studied to be a professional nutritionist, but left the field entirely because it is corrupted by special interests. IIRC to get certified she had to tow the party line that nutritionists should promote animal products as part of a healthy diet, and she decided to change fields instead.

Yeah, the whole food pyramid is various industries competing against each other. The grains recommendation is even nuttier; you're supposed to have a giant pile of pasta and maybe a veggie or two.

Michelle Obama took a stab at updating it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyPlate) with quite a bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth from industry and right-wing groups (https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/03/michelle-obama...).

the poster you replied to did not say that we needed 4 stomachs to digest grain, either. you're reading way more into their post than what was said.

it seems your misunderstanding results from the phrase "we'll be set", I think you took this general phrase to mean "we'll all be able to eat grain", yes?

if so, what the term actually means is, "we will be well prepared for the future", something that being able to eat grass would hypothetically help us with, since it would theoretically open up even more food options to more people

It was a direct reply to an article about eating less grain-fed meat and redirecting that crop production to humans, implying we'd need ruminant stomachs to do so.

I'm not sure why some HN discussions turn into a lesson on object permanence.

in the spirit of HN, your inferences should assume a good faith interpretation of a post, like I described

in this case, since growing 4 stomachs is obviously not a serious suggestion, the post was flippant, like,

"now we just need Mr. Fusion bionic stomachs and we'll be set [so we can burn trash, in addition to grass, in addition to grain... this bracketed part is the implied portion of the joke that usually doesn't need to be said]",

since the term "then we'll be set" is almost always used to describe the next step in improving something.

improve upon what, you may ask? your own idea! lol. the humor of the joke is that the suggestion is silly.