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

251–260 of 339 posts

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#251

Post by wormer »

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…

So you desensitize her early to it before she gets a chance to be old enough to think about the consequences of her actions? Ok.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#252

Post by tsimionescu »

sweetheart wrote: post #207
prepend wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d like to argue for eating healthy and sustainably produced animal protein. Commercial meat is really bad for the environment, but you don’t have to eat that. Animals are evolved to make the most of vegetables that humans can’t eat. There are sustainable sources that we can use to eat beef, pork, chicken, lamb, etc. I try and do my best by eating local sources that I know are well produced. I don’t hunt, but would…

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.

Animals die violently regardless of human actions. If you want to prevent violent, painful deaths, you should be going around the forest euthanizing animals.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#253

Post by gruez »

speed_spread wrote: post #124
karmakurtisaani wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That gives me a pretty cynical idea: the companies pushing GMOs should start funding and supporting groups who are vocal about the claimed adverse health effects of GMOs. That opposition is easy to argue against in public debate, and the resulting noise conveniently drowns out the real problems. Controlled opposition I think it's called. Not surprisingly, I've learned about this concept from the Russian government.

I believe that's exactly what they are doing. They're drowning the big political issues of their model into the noise produced by the scientifically debatable issues. Ultimately, it's about bringing back up a feudal regime that can't be bypassed.

Sounds like poe's law? "wow these radical activists have some really extreme positions! could it be that these are people that sincerely hold extreme positions? nah they must be the 'controlled opposition' hired by the elites to bring 'back up a feudal regime that can't be bypassed'!"

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#254

Post by foobiekr »

deschutes wrote: post #236
foobiekr wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cent…

Transfats fit this perfectly.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#255

Post by gruez »

kickout wrote: post #179
Thorrez wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And we may soon have Cattle labeled as GMO / Genome-Edit Free as selling point A lot of food I buy has labels saying GMO-free on it. Although maybe that's just to distinguish from GMO plants currently.

Other have also commented, but this is mostly a marketing ploy. Non-GMO is not a regulated term and most things we eat have do not have a 'GMO' alternative.

>Non-GMO is not a regulated term and most things we eat have do not have a 'GMO' alternative.

Source? A search turns up:

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2016/09/21/new-allowances-in...

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#256

Post by gruez »

imtringued wrote: post #176

I sure hope that these cows can reproduce without the authorization of a mega corporation. Everyone loves talking about how their genetic engineering technique is the best and that at worst it is only as bad as selective breeding yet they completely dismiss the fact that you cannot apply selective breeding on a lot of these GMOs.

> I sure hope that these cows can reproduce without the authorization of a mega corporation.

What's the concern here? That violating the reproductive rights of livestock is bad?

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#257

Post by pessimizer »

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 (much) about the emotions of animals either, but I also 1) don't have a lust to make them suffer and 2) think the farming of meat is destructive to the environment. If there are tasty, cheap, and nutritious substitutes for meat, I'd gladly eat them instead.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#258

Post by foobiekr »

taneq wrote: post #226
foobiekr wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We're pretty terrible at it, honestly. Look at half the crap we eat currently, I wouldn't describe much of it as "long-term safe."

Yes. So we need to be careful about making it worse.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#259

Post by karmakurtisaani »

gruez wrote: post #253
speed_spread wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that's exactly what they are doing. They're drowning the big political issues of their model into the noise produced by the scientifically debatable issues. Ultimately, it's about bringing back up a feudal regime that can't be bypassed.

Sounds like poe's law? "wow these radical activists have some really extreme positions! could it be that these are people that sincerely hold extreme positions? nah they must be the 'controlled opposition' hired by the elites to bring 'back up a feudal regime that can't be bypassed'!"

Well, how would you ever know? When there's profit to be made you shouldn't exclude the possibility.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#260

Post by twojacobtwo »

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.

I believe a logical implication of your 'argument' is that you think vegans don't exist. Is that really the case?
Post reply on HN