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

261–270 of 339 posts

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#261

Post by pessimizer »

thunderbong wrote: post #51
bigDinosaur wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We weep for the blood of a bird, but not for the blood of a fish. Blessed are those who have voice. - Mamoru Oshii

Lots of people don't eat fish.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#262

Post by pessimizer »

ekianjo wrote: post #10
danielovichdk wrote: post #9

Address the real problem. We are too many people on the earth for the resources that we are naturally given. That's a fact.

> We are too many people on the earth for the resources that we are naturally given. The same old rant that we hear for like 100 years now "when we reach 1 billion people everyone will starve", "peak oil is just around the corner (back in the 70s)", and all this kind of bullshit. Resources are plentiful as long as you are ingenious when it comes to harvesting them.

> Resources are plentiful as long as you are ingenious when it comes to harvesting them.

Resources are also plentiful until they're not. The idea that people have been saying that resources are running out for a long time is not evidence that they are infinite.

You'd have to be quite ingenious to maintain the fossil fuel supply indefinitely through your harvesting tactics, unless the tactic you use is to slow to a stop.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#263

Post by speed_spread »

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'!"

Nothing so obvious. Yes, these people aren't hired or paid in any way, they are authentic in their positions. And they also get media attention because extremes bring clicks, rational political discourse is otherwise "boring". Power dynamics already regulates away most credible opposition so incumbents only have to nudge things here and there.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#264

Post by yesco »

twojacobtwo wrote: post #260
yesco wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I believe vegan diets are detrimental to health, I consider being healthy necessary for human life. I realize vegans like to imply the opposite but not only has the evidence been unconvincing, but I frankly have never met a healthy looking vegan in real life.

Not that any actual evidence or true rational argument has been provided by such parties in this comment chain. Appealing to emotion and agressively stating what you want to be true are simply not conductive to a productive argument.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#265

Post by wyre »

dehrmann wrote: post #247
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 "…

> 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.

They have to keep the cow in a cage or else she will look for her offspring.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#266

Post by yesco »

sweetheart wrote: post #245
yesco wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, provide me the sources if you want to use them as a part of your argument.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#267

Post by yesco »

schrodinger wrote: post #248
yesco wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Provide them then, real hard evidence that lifespans are unaffected by the average person with a vegan diet.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#268

Post by nickstinemates »

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 "…

Grow your own meat or buy direct from someone who does

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#269

Post by nickstinemates »

tengbretson wrote: post #227
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...

On the other hand, even if you want to regularly eat meat, between public land hunting and raising rabbits and chickens, the ability to take the production of the meat you eat into your own hands is a lot more accessible than you might think. Even if you live in an urban setting.

Yes 100%. Raising 52 chickens for 1 chicken per week per year takes about 8 weeks start to finish and doesn't take much space at all.

Rabbits are pound for pound the most efficient meat to raise.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#270

Post by epgui »

codingdave wrote: post #121
epgui wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I agree, but I also feel the same way about software patents. I think it’s important to distinguish that objection from health scares, technophobia and such: imagine if the public’s objections were targeted at the real problems instead, how much more productive it would be!

Yes, but posting "They're totally fine" is hardly distinguishing those problems. If you are going to use your credentials to explain why you do not have a problem with GMOs, but then put in a blanket "Everything is fine" vibe... that doesn't do justice to the problems.

A biochemist isn't exactly the best positioned to talk about political or legal issues. Health risks, however, are what we know about.
Post reply on HN