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

161–170 of 339 posts

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#161

Post by Taywee »

jlokier wrote: post #151
gruez wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they go rogue with their patent portfolio, you’re still free to go back to non-GMO varieties, leaving you no worse off than before.

That might not apply to Monsanto. Monsanto is infamous for contaminating non-GMO crops on neighbour farms then suing the neighbour for growing the GMO variety, and for "drift" of their special herbicide which happens to destroy neighbour farm crops - for which the only solution is, you guessed it, buy Monsanto GMO varieties to grow instead of the non-GMO varieties you wanted to grow.

You have been misled by Food Inc. I was as well. Reading up on the case and finding out how disingenuous it was really made me angry.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#162

Post by mping »

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.

Good question. There is no way to bound the possible harm, but I'd there are solid alternatives then it becomes less desirable. A good example of this is the covid vaccine: this time, the risk of unknown vaccine complications is worth it.

As an aside, I admire the HN crowd reasoning capacity, but it always amazes me that almost no one is upfront and say we as a society love the taste of beef and are willing to risk environmental and possibly health issues for it. It would be a much more productive discussion if we were honest about it instead of discussing whether we need bigger cows.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#163

Post by TruthIsHeresy »

atemerev wrote: post #126
microjim wrote: post #56

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.

But if the loop is eventually not strong enough to have negative effects, why should we reinforce it? I am quite optimistic that the climate change crisis will be eventually resolved by the combination of engineering to restore the environment and adapting our existing technologies to damage it less (like it’s already happening). Humans are very adaptive.

What happens when human adaptivity outpaces our species’ ability to accurately perceive and adequately understand the impact of our own adaptivity?

We seem to be becoming increasingly reliant upon technology which is increasingly untested to solve problems that are increasingly a result of this adaptivity. It’s a vicious cycle in which humans identify a problem but lack the necessary perspective to identify and solve the root cause of the problem so we end up with inadequate solutions that mostly prolong and exacerbate the original problem rather than actually solving it. Adaptivity aside, I just don’t think humans are at a point in which we possess the necessary perspective for us to safely engage in large scale commercial genetic modification of life without it backfiring on us in some horribly spectacular way.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#164

Post by BurningFrog »

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.

We apply "Unknown unknowns", the Precautionary Principle, etc, to things we don't like.

These principles then provide the wise sounding argument that our Motivated Reasoning brain center needed.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#165

Post by s1artibartfast »

Eduard wrote: post #78
s1artibartfast wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The methane isn't from the bacteria, it is from their food. If the inefficient cow/bacteria processing step is skipped, the whole production pipeline is greatly more climate-friendly.

More specifically, it is a waste product from bacteria digesting the food.

The food doesn't turn to methane without the bacteria.

https://jasbsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40104-01...

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#166

Post by koonsolo »

naoqj wrote: post #75
koonsolo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That video is slowed down in the most shocking moments to make it look like the suffering of the animals lasts for longer.

Ok, fair enough. Can you provide a video that is more realistic then?

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#167

Post by koonsolo »

mbg721 wrote: post #154
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

The US has Dolly-Parton-esque chickens too, it's not a new phenomenon.

Yes, those we have in Belgium too.

My grandfather was a farmer, and at his old age he bought such a chicken. He was amazed and astounded that within a few weeks it became so big it couldn't stand on its feet anymore.

He didn't buy such a chicken again.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#168

Post by koonsolo »

sdflhasjd wrote: post #113
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

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

Ha yeah, I was already questioning myself if it was the correct spelling :D.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#169

Post by matchbok »

koonsolo wrote: post #58
0des wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They are animals. Do you weep for the bugs and rabbits that are killed when wheat is harvested?

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#170

Post by matchbok »

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…

The virtue signaling is strong here. Humans have been eating animals forever. It played a large part in our evolution. It's a normal part of life. Wringing hands over it helps nobody.
Post reply on HN