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

241–250 of 339 posts

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#241

Post by ben_w »

nicoburns wrote: post #132
ben_w wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of humans that can live on this planet simultaneously is a function of technology. If we all lived like hunters and gatherers, the population limit would be a mere few tens of millions. Conversely, if we imagine arbitrary technology, the maximum population that can live simultaneously and sustainably on this world is somewhere in the trillions. Technology such as the stuff you’re trying to use as evidence…

It's also a function of the finite resources available to us. You also need to factor in that we don't have arbitrary technology and never will. There will always be limits to our technology. I think the gist of the GP argument is something like: Our use of technology is using increasing amounts of our planets resources (e.g. land), and is often questionably ethical (exploiting the other creatures we share our planet…

Sure, and if I’m talking to someone who claims e.g. the economy can grow forever I’d make a similar point myself.

But we don’t have trillions of people yet, and the difficulty of supporting the current population sustainably is more one of organisation than technological inability — much closer to irrigating and enclosing in greenhouses Nevada, Utah, and Arizona [0] than it is to colonising Mars. (I’m told greenhouses are way more productive than open air farms, just not cost effective in most cases; the example given by proponents is the Netherlands).

> is an expanded human population worth that cost?

To whom? I’m vegetarian and pushing myself in the direction of veganism, partly because of ethics. Ethics are however are relative, and many humans only care about other humans. Heck, given that the nature of the rich inner world often called “self-awareness” or “consciousness” is not yet sufficiently well defined to even be testable, such people may even be correct. I’m not even sure at what threshold to stop caring myself — lobster brains aren’t very complex, and bivalves (despite being animals) don’t even have brains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivalvia#Nervous_system

[0] for illustration purposes only; this is almost certainly a suboptimal set of locations.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#242

Post by s1artibartfast »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #187
s1artibartfast wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

But genes to appear to modulate gut microbiota composition on other animals, so it's not impossible that there is some genetic modification (to cattle) that would have the desired effect.

Another alternative is GMO feed that contain some of the same nutrients as seaweed. Gene transfer might be easier between seaweed and feed then seaweed and cow

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#243

Post by gruez »

cesaref wrote: post #182
gruez wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Just because he’s anti-anti-GMO, doesn’t mean he views conventional foods with disgust and buys GMO whenever he can 2. The benefits are clear: GMO foods are more cost effective, hence why farmers choose them over conventional

On your second point, you are basically saying 'more profit' is the reason that farmers are choosing them. I personally am not interested in farmer profit when choosing what to eat.

>I personally am not interested in farmer profit when choosing what to eat.

That's fine. You're free to buy the conventional version if that's the case. However, market pressures will likely bring down the price, which mean some of the profit/savings are passed onto you.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#244

Post by driverdan »

yucky wrote: post #125
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.

Do companies like Monsanto hold patents on their GMO products and techniques? Because trusting a company (like Monsanto for instance) to play nice with their patents as it relates to our food supply is a non-starter.

The issue of patents is separate from the issue of GMO technology.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#245

Post by sweetheart »

yesco wrote: post #240
Nbox9 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You disagree with every major nutritional and dietetic institute around the world. Google it.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#246

Post by marliechiller »

wincy wrote: post #221
colordrops wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "…

The happiest times in my life and the healthiest I’ve ever been are always when I eat mostly meat and very little of anything else. I don’t care about the emotions of animals at all, and never will. I purposely show my daughter videos of how to slaughter farm animals to try to make sure she has a full understanding of what’s happening so she doesn’t one day realize what “pork” or “beef” means and becomes vegan. Her f…

> I don’t care about the emotions of animals at all

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but humans are animals mate

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#247

Post by dehrmann »

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 "…

> with cows kept in small cages

I don't think this is common practice. My dairy knowledge is somewhat dated, but they they're usually kept in large corrals (possibly crowded) with many other cows.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#248

Post by schrodinger »

yesco wrote: post #240
Nbox9 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can’t just disagree with a fact. There are plenty of examples of people who live normal life spans without eating meat.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#249

Post by tsimionescu »

qqtt wrote: post #194
sjmm1989 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who has ever eaten bread or a banana, has already been technically in some fashion or another, eating GMO's. Norman Borlaug helped rid us of Wheat rust, which took a more 'natural' approach to gene editing. The banana has been a mutant for decades now.

Also lemons, broccoli, and pretty much any modern vegetable or fruit - humans have been selectively growing plants since humans have had the knowledge of how to grow things period.

What does that have to do with GMOs?

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#250

Post by gruez »

wincy wrote: post #221
colordrops wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "…

The happiest times in my life and the healthiest I’ve ever been are always when I eat mostly meat and very little of anything else. I don’t care about the emotions of animals at all, and never will. I purposely show my daughter videos of how to slaughter farm animals to try to make sure she has a full understanding of what’s happening so she doesn’t one day realize what “pork” or “beef” means and becomes vegan. Her f…

>I’m all for others reducing their consumption as hopefully that’ll drop prices so I can eat more meat and feed my children more meat

You realize that to an extent, the reason why meat is cheap is because of economy of scale and government subsidies, both of which depend on significant/majority of the population to be meat eaters to exist?

Post reply on HN