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

291–300 of 339 posts

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#291

Post by qqtt »

tsimionescu wrote: post #249
qqtt wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That by selective growing of plants over thousands of years, we have altered the genetic make up of the foods we consume. While "GMO" is a "new technique", reductively this isn't exactly another dimension compared to over many years isolating and growing things like broccoli and lemons.

Yes, GMO is a new technique to modify food sources away from "naturally occurring processes" - but again things like lemons and broccoli are also not naturally occurring in nature.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#292

Post by hiptobecubic »

qqtt wrote: post #291
tsimionescu wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that have to do with GMOs?

That by selective growing of plants over thousands of years, we have altered the genetic make up of the foods we consume. While "GMO" is a "new technique", reductively this isn't exactly another dimension compared to over many years isolating and growing things like broccoli and lemons. Yes, GMO is a new technique to modify food sources away from "naturally occurring processes" - but again things like lemons and broc…

This stupid, pedantic way of talking about the issue helps no one.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#293

Post by sweetheart »

radu_floricica wrote: post #281
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.

I never found a satisfactory answer to this question: if we stop eating domestic animals, they won't frolic forever in an idyllic wilderness - they'll just stop existing, completely. Do you prefer them not existing, to being eaten by people? And once you've answered - how would you feel about hyper advanced aliens coming to our corner of the universe and being horrified of all the pain and misery on earth, with a fin…

Yeah we should stop breeding animals into existence only to live short and unimaginably cruel lives. They won’t go extinct though, if that’s what you mean. There will always be cows and chickens and pigs. Just far far fewer.

The huge difference between your hypothetical and reality is that the aliens are actively committing genocide and im merely a proponent of not forcefully impregnating more animals to get them pregnant so I can profit off them.

If human beings were kept in conditions like those we find animals and at the same scale, and the aliens came and were horrified then I’d beg them to press the button that stops humans from being raped and impregnated at mass scale solely for the babies to be processed.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#294

Post by sweetheart »

cercatrova wrote: post #282
sweetheart wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay. https://youaretheirvoice.com/pages/the-clear-consensus Enjoy.

In an argument, if you're trying to convince the other person to support your beliefs, you wouldn't use clearly biased sources like you did here. I have no argument with you specifically but just pointing it out for the future that people will dismiss any biased sources you give them, which is probably not what you want the outcome to be in an argumentative fashion.

You mean Kaiser Permanente? And Harvard Medical School? And The American Institute for Cancer Research? And the British Dietetic Association? And the Mayo Clinic?

What biases are you talking about?

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#295

Post by cercatrova »

sweetheart wrote: post #294
cercatrova wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an argument, if you're trying to convince the other person to support your beliefs, you wouldn't use clearly biased sources like you did here. I have no argument with you specifically but just pointing it out for the future that people will dismiss any biased sources you give them, which is probably not what you want the outcome to be in an argumentative fashion.

You mean Kaiser Permanente? And Harvard Medical School? And The American Institute for Cancer Research? And the British Dietetic Association? And the Mayo Clinic? What biases are you talking about?

The site you linked is affiliated with vegan causes, is it not? Just because the sources are from those institutions does not mean they aren't cherry picked for that specific cause. I can also quote journals with conclusions justifying omnivorous consumption as well [0] but those would be just as cherry picked.

[0] https://sapienjournal.org/people-who-eat-meat-experience-low...

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#296

Post by gruez »

jlokier wrote: post #285
gruez wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. 1. in the context of this discussion (ie. GMO cows) this is basica…

On the first claim, looks like you're right and I learned something. It is interesting to see the Canada Supreme Court were split 5-4 on the Schmeiser decision and did not award any damages to Monsanto, (but that doesn't mean they believed the second year of crop growth was by accidental contamination). On the second claim, it's briefly described in Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#Dicam…

>On the second claim, it's briefly described in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#Dicamba). The second claim isn't about GMO spreading directly, but rather about how you may have no choice but to grow the GMO variety (and pay for it, and lose revenue if you were growing something more profitable) when in the neighbourhood of other farms growing it, which has a similar practical effect on individual farmers regarding "you’re still free to go back to non-GMO varieties".

>Lengthier article here (https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/12/04/buy-it-or-else-ins...) "‘Buy it or else’: Inside Monsanto and BASF’s moves to force dicamba on farmers" [...] [...] "His neighbors who spray dicamba are frustrated with him, he said. There’s an easy solution to avoid damage, they tell him: Buy Monsanto’s seeds" [...] "As the damage has continued, he said, more and more of his clients are “feeling bullied into” buying the dicamba-tolerant crops. Others tell him, they have to spray dicamba or else they can’t control the weeds."

I agree that this situation is bad and monsanto was in the wrong. However, I don't agree with the characterization of this as a GMO problem. The problem as I see it is that one party (the farmer spraying dicamba) is harming another party (the farmer that's not using monsanto seeds). In other words, a tort. This is something that the legal system protects against, and the article mentions that the injured farmer has won a lawsuit, so it seems like everything's working as intended. Blaming it on GMO doesn't really make sense. If GMOs weren't involved, and the pesticides merely poisoned the drinking water, that wouldn't magically make the situation okay.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#297

Post by dillondoyle »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #52
dillondoyle wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also 'endure climate change' is so grossly ironic. Instead of factoring in the costs of our actions, engineer ways to lower price and feed more demand -> and thus creating more methane, forest destruction, emissions from feed, huge waste of water, and all the gas shipping it a continent away. If people won't reduce their beef consumption, maybe we can crispr out some methane (seems not possible just based on chemistr…

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

Very cool to see the knowledge of guy/microbiome growing.

I wonder if that means it would actually be possible, more likely I would guess to modify the corn or whatever gross food we feed most cows.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#298

Post by sweetheart »

tsimionescu wrote: post #252
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.

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

How do you think that will prevent horrible deaths? Will the animals that need to hunt and eat prey suddenly not be hungry?

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#299

Post by sweetheart »

cercatrova wrote: post #295
sweetheart wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean Kaiser Permanente? And Harvard Medical School? And The American Institute for Cancer Research? And the British Dietetic Association? And the Mayo Clinic? What biases are you talking about?

The site you linked is affiliated with vegan causes, is it not? Just because the sources are from those institutions does not mean they aren't cherry picked for that specific cause. I can also quote journals with conclusions justifying omnivorous consumption as well [0] but those would be just as cherry picked. [0] https://sapienjournal.org/people-who-eat-meat-experience-low...

Mate, the website is just a collection of links to the actual research. I’m being asked for sources, I give tons of very credible sources, and your retort is to just claim that now they are cherry picked?

Sure, we can ALWAYS find a source that supports whatever claim we want to make. But let’s look at the general scientific consensus.

The overwhelming majority of research indicates that veganism is perfectly healthy. That’s what I linked! Your single journalistic summary of summary about non-causal associations between meat eating and depression don’t undo the general scientific consensus.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#300

Post by colordrops »

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…

Considering that you have no empathy for other living beings, you should look into Elwood organic meats for you and your children:

https://www.elwooddogmeat.com/

Post reply on HN