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

311–320 of 339 posts

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#311

Post by Turing_Machine »

sweetheart wrote: post #309
Turing_Machine wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Someone is asking you to consider not supporting animal abuse, and you’re making the case that using electricity is comparably bad.

The arguments are exactly the same, despite your attempt to spin it.

The original argument was that a) eating meat is not necessary to human life, b) eating meat harms animals, c) therefore, you should stop eating meat.

My recasting of your argument is a) using electricity is not necessary to human life, b) using electricity harms animals, c) therefore, you should stop using electricity.

What is the difference between these arguments? Be specific.

And I don't really care if you "call me out". I don't bully. Sorry.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#312

Post by Turing_Machine »

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.

There are plenty of examples of people who lived normal lifespans without using electricity, without modern medicine, without central heating, without running water...

So what?

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#313

Post by sweetheart »

prepend wrote: post #307
sweetheart wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When you can get all the safe and efficient nutrients from living things that do not suffer, then any suffering is unnecessary.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#314

Post by sweetheart »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #311
sweetheart wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Someone is asking you to consider not supporting animal abuse, and you’re making the case that using electricity is comparably bad. The arguments are exactly the same, despite your attempt to spin it. The original argument was that a) eating meat is not necessary to human life, b) eating meat harms animals, c) therefore, you should stop eating meat. My recasting of your argument is a) using electricity is not neces…

Nah mate, you’re on your own for that one. I hope you’ll dwell on it though and try to understand how that’s a very meaningless comparison.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#315

Post by Turing_Machine »

sweetheart wrote: post #314
Turing_Machine wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone is asking you to consider not supporting animal abuse, and you’re making the case that using electricity is comparably bad. The arguments are exactly the same, despite your attempt to spin it. The original argument was that a) eating meat is not necessary to human life, b) eating meat harms animals, c) therefore, you should stop eating meat. My recasting of your argument is a) using electricity is not neces…

Nah mate, you’re on your own for that one. I hope you’ll dwell on it though and try to understand how that’s a very meaningless comparison.

In other words, you're conceding the point.

P.S. I'm not your "mate".

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#316

Post by qqtt »

hiptobecubic wrote: post #292
qqtt wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Saying declarative short (and virolic) sentences like this also helps no one.

Humans already eat a wide variety of foods as part of their daily diet that have no natural occurrence (lemons, broccoli, many different kinds of meat) - they were specifically bred that way. Some people have concerns about GMO in the same angle - that since for example these cattle are bred to endure climate change and they have no 'naturally occurring' example, there might be something inherently unsafe about them.

Yes, GMO is a new technique, but there is an intelligible way to connect the dots between the GMO and what humans have been doing with our food supply for thousands of years.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#317

Post by bigDinosaur »

Timwi wrote: post #80
DeWilde wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I don't think they were claiming that it increases suffering. But it doesn't decrease it either. We should at least decrease suffering, or ideally, eliminate it. CRISPR does not constitute any progress in that regard. If anything, it gives more people more excuses to continue supporting the suffering.

My thinking was that it allows us to continue to improve yields without corresponding costs being paid by the consumers. In other words, people will just keep buying huge quantities of cheap meat. I do not consider this a good thing because meat is a luxury. In this case, it's keeping meat cheap(er) despite screwing the planet with climate change.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#318

Post by WheelsAtLarge »

kickout wrote: post #184

My opinion continues to be tools like CRISPR and genome editing techniques are just that--tools. Can be used for good or bad purposes depending on your context and bias. Most people associate these genome modification tools as inherently bad because the first generation of them were tied to herbicide and pesticide resistance. Whether you agree with those applications or not, its clear those tools worked and were extr…

The big issue with gene editing is the unintended consequences. Everything is fine now but will it always be that way? We deal with consequences by applying patches. So it's patch after patch after patch until the problem gets so bad that we start over. We can do that with things. But for genes that have spread over a population it will be next to impossible. Good luck to the future generations that will have to deal with the genes that get modified today.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#319

Post by bigDinosaur »

matchbok wrote: post #170
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…

The virtue signaling is strong here. Humans have been eating animals forever. It played a large part in our evolution. It's a normal part of life. Wringing hands over it helps nobody.

This is just pure naturalistic fallacy. We have done plenty of terrible things for millions of years (rape, murder, war) but having done those for millions of years is no real justification for their continuation.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#320

Post by pensatoio »

colordrops wrote: post #300
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…

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/

I'm totally for raising the bar when it comes to terminology like "ethically raised," but I'd eat dog meat if it were good. Why not?
Post reply on HN