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

231–240 of 339 posts

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#231

Post by Nbox9 »

sjmm1989 wrote: post #229
samatman wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as someone who has genetically modified several organisms, please don't do this. Genetic engineering is a distinctive and new technique for modifying the genomes of organisms, and the results of genetic engineering are referred to as GMOs. The rhetorical flourish of decompiling the acronym and pretending it is descriptive rather than nominal does no one any favors. It's disingenuous, and doesn't alleviate so…

No, I took the actual definition, and you just don't like it. Just because other people are ignorant or arrogant, doesn't mean we should cater to their ignorance or arrogance. But it does mean we should make it easier to differentiate the key differences by not re-using the same acronym over and over again. Instead of calling the 'new methods' GMO's, we should be calling them something else, instead of confusing the…

> No, I took the actual definition, and you just don't like it.

You didn’t take the actual definition. Look at the GMO wiki, and the first sentence defines the term in such a way to restrict it to organisms created with more modern techniques. When having conversations with people it’s important to have a shared vocabulary with people. Having a different vocabulary creates miscommunications. It can be especially hard to assume best intent of people are using a non-standard definition because it is a technique purposefully done around scientific and academic jargon to achieve political ends.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#232

Post by sweetheart »

yesco wrote: post #230
sweetheart wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unnecessary violence that is sustainable is still unnecessary violence. You don't need to eat any animals to thrive, so choosing to do so is simply choosing to induce suffering for ephemeral, meaningless pleasure.

Your appeal to emotion is unconvincing

Yeah it’s sad how few people are able to grasp the simple concept that we ought to avoid unnecessary suffering, regardless of species.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#233

Post by zaroth »

DocTomoe wrote: post #88
Thorrez wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why 2055? Isn't it legal right now?

It will take some time for the public to take notice and create a meaningful movement against that thing. For nuclear, it took about 35 years before we saw public protest that was more than just three potentially mentally unstable folks raving about the end of the world.

The nuke protests just managed to line Russia’s pockets with German treasure and lead to more coal deaths, so perhaps it’s an apt comparison, but not the one you’re looking for.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#234

Post by coolso »

colordrops wrote: post #191
softwaredoug wrote: post #160

I don’t want to argue you should be vegetarian, but I hope at least people might consider eating _much less_ meat. I’m trying to save it for special occasions. It’s not always possible, but I try and do my best. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eating-less-red-m...

I do want to argue that you should be vegan. The meat industry is very cruel to animals, and it is nearly impossible to source truly "cruelty free" meat despite marketing saying otherwise. Dairy is far worse, with cows kept in small cages, constantly impregnated to keep producing milk, their calves pulled away from them and slaughtered for veal. Eggs are also horrible, with egg chickens living miserable lives, even "…

> I do want to argue that you should be vegan.

Tried it (by my own suggestion) as a supportive boyfriend for a week. Absolutely not. The food tastes awful and is so unfulfilling as well. Every single bit of it. Nice boutique vegan restaurants, homemade vegan, following highly rated recipes online, “you can’t even tell it’s vegan!!” alternatives from the store.

All of it absolutely gross and of questionable nutritional value, both overall and to men’s health especially but also women. I finally discovered, for example, the source of my then-girlfriend’s bouts of faintness and nausea: her vegan diet. Supplementing with vitamins improved things overnight. But something feels very, very wrong about that.

There’s also the type of person that tends to be vegan. I’m sorry but when the scene is filled with people who believe veganism, male feminism, effeminate traits, inherent weakness due to diet, and voting for Bernie is a personality trait, I don’t walk… I run.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#235

Post by Nbox9 »

yesco wrote: post #230
sweetheart wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unnecessary violence that is sustainable is still unnecessary violence. You don't need to eat any animals to thrive, so choosing to do so is simply choosing to induce suffering for ephemeral, meaningless pleasure.

Your appeal to emotion is unconvincing

That’s because it’s a logical appeal. The argument is: Eating meat causes suffering to the animal. Eating meat is unnecessary for a human life. Eating meat causes unnecessary suffering.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#236

Post by deschutes »

foobiekr wrote: post #216
klondike_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't provide any argument for why you dislike GMO food here. What bothers you so much about GMO food? The fact is that humans have been breeding plants and animals to increase efficiency and palatability for thousands of years, and GMO is the next technological step.

Start by asking yourself how humans have established that a given food, genetically engineered or not, is long-term safe?

Ok. Show me something that would be a food but for "delayed bad things". Like, delayed by decades or even years. Just so we're clear, nutritional deficiencies aren't of any interest.

As far as I'm aware this angle is FUD.

If we want to apply the same standard to pesticides I'm not sure any high ground exists. That said, whatever effect they have on mortality appears to be miniscule given the trends over the last century.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#238

Post by Pigalowda »

strainer wrote: post #123
epgui wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a biochemist, and I’d feed GMOs to my kids all day if I had any. Or to my mom. They’re totally fine.

Everything is totally fine until it bites hard enough to beat the marketing and legal campaigns run to promote and protect it. "Totally fine" is simply the orthodox professional position towards new potentially lucrative practices. Because it is a burden on the career opportunities to those who think otherwise. Putting cattle remains in cattle feed was fine until CJD was discovered, mass producing CFCs was fine until…

So he needs to provide proof but you don’t? It’s fine for you to use a slippery slope argument and straw man combined but he needs citations? Interesting.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#239

Post by strainer »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #156
strainer wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is totally fine until it bites hard enough to beat the marketing and legal campaigns run to promote and protect it. "Totally fine" is simply the orthodox professional position towards new potentially lucrative practices. Because it is a burden on the career opportunities to those who think otherwise. Putting cattle remains in cattle feed was fine until CJD was discovered, mass producing CFCs was fine until…

This is a pretty poor form of argument. You can't just make blanket statements like this without evidence. What evidence do you have that our understanding of CRISPR and genetic modification today is on par of our understanding of CFCs and CJD in the 20th century? It's like saying that we shouldn't release any new drugs because of the thalidomide catastrophe.

I did reply to a blanket statement based on a bare claim of professional expertise - and with examples to plentiful historical evidence of premature confidences in technological understanding. There is no evidence that this fallibility has not carried into this century.

My argument was not like saying "we should never do anything like this because of past grave accidents in comparable novel products and practices" It was to be measured and wary of bare professional and institutional assurances.

Regarding the characteristics of plants and animals that we should feed to our children and mass rear in our environment - I am of the mind that the characteristics should be as well evidenced by the long history of life as we can afford.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#240

Post by yesco »

Nbox9 wrote: post #235
yesco wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your appeal to emotion is unconvincing

That’s because it’s a logical appeal. The argument is: Eating meat causes suffering to the animal. Eating meat is unnecessary for a human life. Eating meat causes unnecessary suffering.

Okay then your "logical appeal" is unconvincing, I disagree that eating meat is uneccessary.
Post reply on HN