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

301–310 of 339 posts

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#301

Post by Spivak »

DeWilde wrote: post #72
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…

> not needs, you can thrive on a vegetarian diet Not true for everyone. I have a specific health issue and to ingest the necessary daily intake of proteins solely through non-meat source would mean ingesting a lot more carbs that I can handle for a day. Also explain how would CRISPR increase the suffering of animals?

My vegan protein powder is 20g protein for 2g carbs 2g fiber so it’s definitely possible.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#302

Post by [deleted] »

wormer wrote: post #251
wincy wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#303

Post by strainer »

epgui wrote: post #277
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…

I happen to be a biochemist by training (12 years of postsecondary including cancer research for my MSc) who is completely outside the field. I'm working as a software engineer for non-bio-related companies. I have no intention of going back to pipetting liquids around all day. So yeah, for what it's worth, zero potential conflict of interest whatsoever.

So you just doubled down on basing your assurance solely on the strength of your own experience pipetting liquids around all day. The safety of GMO food is not even overall determinable by whatever biochemical insights you might have, unless you somehow feel that problematic GMOs simply could not be created accidentally or unscrupulously. The safety of GMO produce is dependent on the performance of regulatory bodies, not the raw capabilities of the latest approved technologies.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#304

Post by bluGill »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #225
bluGill wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody has used a plow in 30 years because they are such an environmental disaster. Chemicals are the answer. Some CO2 is used for chemicals, but not nearly as much as a plow would use, and that is before we look at the other disasters of the plow. Dust from harvest causes allergies, but don't blame it on chemicals. Well other than everything is a chemical.

This is probably something I can google, but could you point me to some info about why the plow is a disaster? It seems like one of those things that made it possible for a huge increase in the number of people not starving before it became a disaster. I imagine it has something to do with erosion, but I'd like to know more, and you seem to have a position on the topic.

For CO2, it takes a lot of energy to move that soil.

For the soil itself, it brings up subsoil which has microorganisms that work better in low air enviornment (because that is what they are from) and move the near surface microorganisms down below where they don't get the air they need. It also breaks up organic matter making them break down faster (into CO2 if there is O2 available, and the turning just added a bunch). Also all those broken roots no longer hold the soil in place. so the soil will erode much faster.

Erosion is part of it, but even if the soil wouldn't erode the loss of organic matter is still a big deal.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#305

Post by prepend »

sweetheart wrote: post #276
yesco wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

How would you know if someone you met is a healthy vegan?…

Vegans are pretty vocal so it’s pretty easy to identify them. It’s like the CrossFit of diet regimens in that they self announce quite a bit.

I’m sure there are some quiet vegans, and it’s possible that I just don’t know people well enough to know whether they are vegan. I’ve met dozens of vegans over he years and friends with many. As I’m friends with them, I’m aware of their health issues or lack of health issues.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#306

Post by mgraczyk »

Surprised by the negative sentiment here.

This is exciting for the obvious reasons of helping make meat production more sustainable and making meat more affordable. It's also incredible that we have this technology and we're putting to uses with obviously prosocial benefits.

I'm worried that we will reject climate change mitigations because of tradition or religious views. I hope we can change culturally to make it possible to survive for the next century.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#307

Post by prepend »

sweetheart wrote: post #232
yesco wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Providing safe, efficient nutrients is not unnecessary suffering. I believe it is necessary. And animals can be slaughtered in humane ways with minima suffering (eg, halal, kosher, and other methods).

Animals can process inarable land and turn it into nutrients. I can have a cow graze on land that can’t grow edible food for humans and turn it into edible food. That’s efficient.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#308

Post by strainer »

epgui wrote: post #280
strainer wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I am of the mind that [...] Which is totally fine, but unfortunately that position is neither informed by any specific evidence, nor informed by a principled understanding of the technology in question (which is where deferral to expertise can come in handy). You should note that there's a difference between an appeal to authority fallacy, and deferral to expertise, and while the former is fatal to any logical argu…

Allow me increase your principled understanding of GMO safety - anyone that thinks that any technology is safe, should be kept away from it. All technology confers capabilities and all capabilities can be misapplied accidentally or negligently in the pursuit of private advantage. Fire is not safe, you have to be safe with fire.

What determines the safety of any commercial application of technology is regulation. No technology is safe - don't lose contact with fundamental facts in the coarse of trying to maximize your argumentation and technological expertise.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#309

Post by sweetheart »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #289
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.

> Eating meat is unnecessary for a human life There are a lot of things that are "unnecessary for human life", such as using electricity. Making electricity harms the environment, causing suffering. Therefore, you should stop using your computer. Right?

Someone is asking you to consider not supporting animal abuse, and you’re making the case that using electricity is comparably bad. That’s worth just calling out and appreciating for a moment.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#310

Post by sweetheart »

prepend wrote: post #305
sweetheart wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you know if someone you met is a healthy vegan?…

Vegans are pretty vocal so it’s pretty easy to identify them. It’s like the CrossFit of diet regimens in that they self announce quite a bit. I’m sure there are some quiet vegans, and it’s possible that I just don’t know people well enough to know whether they are vegan. I’ve met dozens of vegans over he years and friends with many. As I’m friends with them, I’m aware of their health issues or lack of health issues.

Ignoring the fact that you still would have clue who you meet is a healthy vegan because why the hell would that come up casually when meeting random people throughout the day, your belief is the opposite of every major nutritional and dietetic association around the world. I linked to the collection of those official stances elsewhere in the thread.

That means that not only do you claim to have a better understanding of nutrition than those organizations and the thousands of nutritionists and scientists they represent, but you are able to determine your correctness by merely talking to the vegans you’ve met.

That means you’re able to also trivially determine if someone’s health issues are caused directly by veganism, rather than merely present in a vegan.

That is a level of delusion and arrogance I genuinely cannot comprehend.

Post reply on HN