FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef • Hacker News Board

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#51

Post by thunderbong » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 7:29 AM UTC

bigDinosaur wrote: post #33

0des wrote: post #25

This might be an unpopular opinion here but if this puts more beef on the table or at a lesser price, bring it on. I love beef. I want more people to have access to good quality beef at a competitive price. The pandemic for me saw meat in general double in price on average. I can't in good faith consume corn, tomatoes, tobacco, or even broccoli while saying I don't support GMO. It is not the same but it also is not a…

if you have literally no concern about the suffering of animals, then it's a good thing. If you think that the suffering of animals outweighs people's preferences (not needs, you can thrive on a vegetarian diet) then this is absolutely not good. I'm happy to see high prices for beef, and would be happy if everyone was priced out of eating it. As second best, I'd be happy if people at least considered the suffering th…

We weep for the blood of a bird, but not for the blood of a fish. Blessed are those who have voice. - Mamoru Oshii

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#52

Post by s1artibartfast » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 7:37 AM UTC

dillondoyle wrote: post #38

betwixthewires wrote: post #23

I want to know what exactly was changed to help them "endure climate change" because to me it sounds like bullshit designed to create a proprietary cow genome with a pretty story to sell it.

Also 'endure climate change' is so grossly ironic. Instead of factoring in the costs of our actions, engineer ways to lower price and feed more demand -> and thus creating more methane, forest destruction, emissions from feed, huge waste of water, and all the gas shipping it a continent away. If people won't reduce their beef consumption, maybe we can crispr out some methane (seems not possible just based on chemistr…

The methane isn't from the cows, it is from the bacteria in their gut. It can be greatly reduced with supplemental feeding that changes the microbiome

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#53

Post by simulate-me » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 8:07 AM UTC

furstenheim wrote: post #45

throwaway73838 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I think eating meat is abhorrent, and genetically mutilating animals even more so. Selective breeding is one thing, but this opens the doors to all kinds of ‘design gene’ questions that I don’t think the world is ready for, or ever should be.

How is selective breeding good? There are dog breeds that have respiratory problems all their lives. CRISPR should open the door to genetic improvements without genetic diversity loss

The breathing issues found in certain breeds of dogs aren't from diversity loss. Rather, the breathing issues are caused by the traits being bred for. Pugs, for instance, are bred to have small noses, so small that they restrict airflow. CRISPR could exacerbate the desire of breeders to express physical characteristics in dogs without considerations for the impact of those changes on the well-being of the dog.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#54

Post by microjim » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 8:09 AM UTC

betwixthewires wrote: post #23

I want to know what exactly was changed to help them "endure climate change" because to me it sounds like bullshit designed to create a proprietary cow genome with a pretty story to sell it.

That information, alongside a comparison photo, is available in the first (very short) paragraph. The modification is to have them grow much shorter hair in order to tolerate heat better.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#55

Post by verisimi » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 8:10 AM UTC

This is great news, and overdue!

Of course there are issues with mere humans editing creatures, and true, coarse-grained crispr editing could result in unintended consequences.

But our ethics committees see nothing wrong with this. And as my morality depends on what ethics are commonly said to be ethical, this is a decision I am delighted to accept. And think of all the invalid children this will help!

Sure, I'm not clear on what has been edited here. Nor do I understand the legal implications of the editing, where a corporation is now considered to be a patent holder in a living cereus.

And I'm not sure what the future holds for people, even though I have read talk that dna was changed by vaccines (not just rna). Surely, corporations wouldn't argue that they have a legal interest in people, and that their interests need to be accounted for?

No, this is great news. Onwards and upwards into the brave new world! And special thanks to the FDA who have bravely represented the best interests of humanity, refusing to kowtow to corporate interests. I only sleep as well as I do thanks to my wonderful government and its 3-letter agencies! Good job.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#56

Post by microjim » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 8:18 AM UTC

Would count this categorically as one of the ways we do not want to be using technology in the context of climate change, as it’s bypassing the negative feedback loop that already wasn’t strong enough to prevent us getting to this point in the first place.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#57

Post by koonsolo » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 8:19 AM UTC

In Belgium we have cows specifically breaded for meat, which are called "dikbil" =(fatbutt). It's extremely unnatural, so I'm very afraid what kind of monstrosity the industry can come up with when using gene manipulation.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dikbil

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#58

Post by koonsolo » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 8:33 AM UTC

0des wrote: post #46

bigDinosaur wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you have literally no concern about the suffering of animals, then it's a good thing. If you think that the suffering of animals outweighs people's preferences (not needs, you can thrive on a vegetarian diet) then this is absolutely not good. I'm happy to see high prices for beef, and would be happy if everyone was priced out of eating it. As second best, I'd be happy if people at least considered the suffering th…

I respect your choice, and hope some day the work we see here can open doors to a lab grown alternative that eliminates the suffering so that you also can experience the joy of a ribeye, bone-in with a compound butter and runny egg.

I also eat meat, so not going to play the saint here.

But it seems you have absolutely no remorse of what happens to those animals that end up on your plate. Or you do and try to cover it up by playing the tough guy.

I try to cut back on meat as much as I can. I also enjoy some ribs, but I don't eat meat every day. And when I do, I try to stick with fish or poultry.

I suggest you watch some slaughterhouse videos, so you know what those animals have to go through to end up as tasty meat on your plate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTenibfTutI . Please watch it all up until the end.

If you still have no remorse, you are for sure a psychopath.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#59

Post by yywwbbn » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 8:33 AM UTC

danielovichdk wrote: post #36

histriosum wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we were to accept that fact as stated (I don't, but let's assume we do..) What are you proposing, exactly? It sounds like "address the real problem" here means you are suggesting killing people off. That definitely doesn't seem like a good answer. China tried the one child policy, and it didn't turn out very well. The second order effects were pretty awful, and will be felt for generations. What would you sug…

Based on how we exploit our resources and the amount of people that are wealthy enough to live a good-standard life, we are definitely too many people on earth. Of course I don't suggest killing people, why would you even suggest such a thing ? I suggest people start to educate themselves and eachother. Instead of having kids, adopt. Instead of eating meat 5 days a week, eat it twice. Start using a bike and not a car…

Having less/very few children would be an awful if we care about the next generation. You’d end up with much larger proportion of older people in the total population. This would result in a massively increase in per capita healthcare expenditures and a decrease in productivity. And guess who is going to pay for all that?

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#60

Post by Knufen » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 8:36 AM UTC

bigDinosaur wrote: post #33

0des wrote: post #25

This might be an unpopular opinion here but if this puts more beef on the table or at a lesser price, bring it on. I love beef. I want more people to have access to good quality beef at a competitive price. The pandemic for me saw meat in general double in price on average. I can't in good faith consume corn, tomatoes, tobacco, or even broccoli while saying I don't support GMO. It is not the same but it also is not a…

if you have literally no concern about the suffering of animals, then it's a good thing. If you think that the suffering of animals outweighs people's preferences (not needs, you can thrive on a vegetarian diet) then this is absolutely not good. I'm happy to see high prices for beef, and would be happy if everyone was priced out of eating it. As second best, I'd be happy if people at least considered the suffering th…

This is probably gonna sound a bit dystopian, but would you eat beef if we eliminated suffering with CRISPR? I don't get to talk to a lot of vegetarians/vegans so honest question.