Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

modernfarmer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 339 posts

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#141

Post by iamacyborg »

lopis wrote: post #87
Knufen wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you invent an animal that is designed to grow muscle tissue for harvesting and isn't sentient nor suffers, you've solved lab meat, in an organic container. While many veg ns grew a distaste for meat, that would indeed satisfy the vegan principle of eliminating suffering. However, the reason farm animals are so cheap is because they are conscious, autonomous meat machines that you can order around easily. * You do…

I think your latter point is a bit different to the topic at hand.

Cannibalism isn’t widely seen as distasteful because of the suffering involved, but because you're eating people.

Maybe a better question would be around eating dog, dolphin or to a lesser extent, horse meat.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#142

Post by spicymaki »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #73

0) Raise cattle 1) Earth gets warmer because we do shit like raise cattle 2) Cattle might die 3) Bio-engineer cattle that can live on warmer earth 4) ??? 5) Get fucked

Perhaps we can bio-engineer humans to be humane. I would back that research.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#143

Post by rocqua »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #128
ksec wrote: post #8

From the 12+ Years on HN I know this is an unpopular opinion. I dont like GMO / Genome-edited cattle / food or crops. Even if it could theoretically occur through a natural breeding process. You can cross breed all you want. GMO is not cross breed as many on HN somehow believes last time we had this discussions. You can do Data Science and other controlled environment in providing better yield as in EUR ( Or specific…

Further your assertion by discussing the real concern: uncertainty. It seems to take generations for health problems with novel products that humans ingest to materialize. We have millennia of experience with cross breeding, animal husbandry, etc. Why trust these salesmen of genetically modified organisms, the same gentlemen who gleefully introduce pesticides into the environment, when we know that traditional hybrid…

To avoid malthusian traps we do need per-acre yields to be higher and higher. Increasing yields is not just about farmers profits, also about feeding the world.

That does not mean it is a good idea to trade long term damage for short term yields. But yields are still important.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#144

Post by xbmcuser »

koonsolo wrote: post #57

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

Most livestock, fruits, grains and vegetable that exist today and we buy in our store shelves are all the result of selective breeding by humans over the last 100-200 years. More recently as the science and ability to do selective breeding has improved. Genetic manipulation is going to accelerate something that is already happening. For me genetic manipulation of livestock and grains is not as problematic as the western/richer countries patenting genes and making poor countries pay through the nose for it.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#145

Post by bombcar »

cik2e wrote: post #129
sdflhasjd wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Breaded" means coated in breadcrumbs. I assume they weren't bred like that.

I pictured a whole live cow covered in breadcrumbs instead of fur when I read that. The southern US would be a huge importer.

If it was a chocolate cow you’d have chicken fried steak and a milkshake all in one.

A marvel of engineering.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#146

Post by rocqua »

notafraudster wrote: post #115
mping wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unknown unknowns

What is the epistemological framework you use to identify possible sources of unknown unknowns and bound their harms? In the absence of any framework you basically have a sort of nihilistic solipsism.

I think the most widely accepted framework here suffices. The emperical framework.

Cross breeding occurs slowly and is a long-used process. The long-used means there is ample evidence suggesting cross-breeding results in safe food.

The fact that cross breeding happens slowly gives any safety issues a long time to reveal themselves before it becomes wide-spread. Thus it makes sense that cross-breeding yields fewer unkown issues by the time its widespread. Essentially, early warning are built in, even for latent issues.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#147

Post by rhn_mk1 »

iamacyborg wrote: post #141
lopis wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you invent an animal that is designed to grow muscle tissue for harvesting and isn't sentient nor suffers, you've solved lab meat, in an organic container. While many veg ns grew a distaste for meat, that would indeed satisfy the vegan principle of eliminating suffering. However, the reason farm animals are so cheap is because they are conscious, autonomous meat machines that you can order around easily. * You do…

I think your latter point is a bit different to the topic at hand. Cannibalism isn’t widely seen as distasteful because of the suffering involved, but because you're eating people . Maybe a better question would be around eating dog, dolphin or to a lesser extent, horse meat.

Or the inverse: turning the brain dead into animal feed or fertilizer.

Closer to home: donating them to research/organ donation before they formally die.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#148

Post by rocqua »

Tenoke wrote: post #74
mping wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unknown unknowns

There's always unknown unknowns and by now those have been reduced significantly for GMOs. Any reason to think the risk in this case might be higher than the benefits? Are you sure you are not overestimating the unknown unknown risk just because GMO sounds scary?

Unknown unkowns are much more dangerous in any revolutionary change. Because previous experience is much less useful in a revolutionary change.

GMO, with its large increase in potential interventions, is quite revolutionary.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#149

Post by nojito »

xbmcuser wrote: post #144
koonsolo wrote: post #57

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

Most livestock, fruits, grains and vegetable that exist today and we buy in our store shelves are all the result of selective breeding by humans over the last 100-200 years. More recently as the science and ability to do selective breeding has improved. Genetic manipulation is going to accelerate something that is already happening. For me genetic manipulation of livestock and grains is not as problematic as the west…

If this didn’t happen in pharmaceuticals it wouldn’t happen in gene editing.
Post reply on HN