Cows genetically modified to produce

[Render]

I think you're confusing evolution with progress. Evolution is creatures adapting to their environment. Progress is creatures adapting the environment to suit themselves.

No, im not.

You're talking about survival of the fittest. Which is by definition the most well adapted form to the environment.

Evolution by definition is :

ev·o·lu·tion/ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/

Noun:

• The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
  
• The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.
  

What humans do with GM, prosthetics etc IS evolution and progress yes.

I did. Questioning the moral implications of something isn't fear-mongering. These are questions we SHOULD be asking so that we understand the implications of that final product of milk.

Fear mongering is saying something that isn't true in order to get people to run around scared. I don't think anyone should believe what I have to say about it any more than they should believe anyone else. They should ask questions and think for themselves, instead of just buying that cool new product off the shelf because it's THERE.

If you read the article why are you asking questions the article gives you answers to?

You wanted to know if the proces provides a problem for offsprings. The article clearly states they are still waiting for the already succesfully born calf to produce offsprings herself so she starts producing the low lactose milk.

The intent is to create many of them so you might assume scientists take all your questions into account.

I'd like to think of scientists knowing more than you do on the subject, so you can bet your bottom dollar that the fearful questions you ask yourself ... they have thought about them a loooooong time ago.

And with the omega 3 group:

The genetically modified cow was then allowed to mature and give birth to its own offspring before tests were conducted on its milk.

The researchers found the milk contained nearly four times as much omega-3 fatty acids compared to milk from an ordinary cow. It also contained half the amount of unhealthy omega-6 unsaturated fat, which have been linked to cancer and heart disease.

So they already have offsprings which are doing just fine.

Maybe you just didn't understand what you read, i don't know. Maybe you just want to rebel.

No, I don't think that. I think that because cows can't speak for themselves we wouldn't know the consequences of our actions, if it was not something obvious or immediate (like all cows with the altered genes dying or having blatent defects).

As i've mentioned before I completely agree i should be regulated thouroughly to prevent unnecessary suffering in birth defects.

It's also a bit irrational to think that the cow hurts because it produces a different strain of milk.

A cow is not a human....they are not as aware of things as we are.

My point is we do not know what the repercussions could be, and since it isn't something necessary to keep mankind from dying off, it should be left alone. Mankind isn't going to sink into the dark ages if cow's milk isn't modified to have less lactose.

Scientist are also aware of this, which is why everything is TESTED. There's more knowledge behind this than you seem to think. Even if changing certain compounds of milk has a negative impact, it will be controlled. It won't come to the point that suddenly a human grows another arm because of it, as as matter of speaking.

With the "it's not necessary" comment I completely disagree.

Milk has been proven to benefit in a myriad of ways. If we can help everyone get the benefits of milk this could have substantial positive effects on certain populations.

Milk has been proven to provide a certain level of protection against Diabetes type 2 for example.

It's good for blood pressure.

The intake of Calcium has huge impact on a human body. Milk is the ultimate source of this.

Recently articles have been popping up that milk actually boosts brain power.

In the study published in the January issue of the International Dairy Journal, researchers at the University of Maine found that adults who consumed more dairy products scored "significantly" higher on memory and other cognitive tests than those who drank little to no milk. Those with high milk intake were five times less likely to fail the test compared to non milk drinkers.

A very recent discovery of a supervitamin in milk Nicotinamide riboside even mentions it could reduce the symptoms of aging.

To keep this from certain populations while we have the technology to let them benefit from it...well i dno if that is ethical.

Wow. That hypothetical doesn't even compare. The cows aren't being modified to give their offspring super immune systems. They aren't being modified to benefit cows. They are being modified so people who have to go through life not drinking milk (and survive just fine doing so) have the luxury of enjoying milk.

Do you not understand the difference between modifying a creature for our own convenience and modifying a creature to benefit that creature? Hell, this modification doesn't benefit humans, not in an evolutionary sense. How is it beneficial for people who do not need cow's milk to survive to start consuming something they don't need? Helloooooo greed.

The real hypothetical equivalent would be altering a human female's genetics so that she produces milk that can feed adult cows who otherwise would not drink human milk nor would they need it. Sure, some women wouldn't care and would take the extra buck for it (the cows don't get paid, they just get slaughtered once they don't produce well enough anymore) ... other women would be horrified or disgusted at the idea. If, for no other reason then they don't want to be modified or have to hand over their bodily fluids. Now take away those women's ability to speak up about it, and force them to proceed with the "milk donation". How is that not cruel? And yeah, I do understand that this applies to all milk not just GM.

I knew you were gonna bring that up

A cow is not equal the human woman which is unable to speak. I hope you understand this. Im not trying to say it's justifiable to do just about anything with a cow because it doesn't feel.

Of couse it feels... is it aware the same way humans are aware? Not by a long shot.

Milking a cow dates from i dno how many years....it's not animal cruelty. Changing the milk isn't equal to making them produce lava or something.

It's not so bad as you make it out to be.

Do i agree with mass production etc? No. I do agree with developments in science so we can eventually surpass using live animals for anything.

Seriously, what's with this "people like you" crap? I did read the article. Do you know why I read the article? Because I wanted to know what it said instead of making assumptions.

It is assanine to say I didn't read it just because I don't agree with you on the subject.

Well, why are you making assumptions after reading it then ? Are you afraid maybe?

I wasn't trying to imply that I assumed you didn't read it because you didn't agree with me. You have every right not to agree. But the questions you're asking are coincidentally the same questions ppl ask when they haven't bothered reading the article.

And i believe you mean "asinine".

Scared? Of what? LOL

You have obviously come to this conversation with a pre-concieved idea of who I am and what I believe, based on other people you've encountered.

After this post, I'm done talking to you. If you can't set aside your delusions and actually pay attention to what I'm saying, this is pointless. All you've done is compare me to other people and assume I believe or think things that I do not.

I don't care if you disagree with me, but it's not possible to disagree with me unless you comprehend what I'm saying in the first place!

Pre-conceived notions is what the internet is all about. It's true that i've may been quick to put you in a category of ppl i've met who are so very against GM. Because you bring up a lot of similar points.

I may have reacted a bit severe because of that. It just don't get why ppl are so quick to make GM out to be something evil and the scientitst doing the research as ppl who are to stupid to think of the consequences themselves or are purely in it for the money.

Maybe im just too much of a positivist i dno. Im willing to assume that scientists know a whole lot more on the subject than the ppl condamning it even before all the test results are in.

No, of course not. Scientists are working with genetics in an attempt to better mankind. I happen to disagree that it will actually better mankind. All progress has gotten us is a lazy, overpopulated society of people who can't think for themselves.

Well I cannot agree with this of course.

Wait, so farms are now a problem? That's part of progress, I thought you were a fan of that?

What I feel is respectful is letting the animals have their natural habitat, living out most of their lives and only consuming the elder animals and only IF you've got the skills to hunt them. The problem is that progress has made it possible for a vast number of humans to survive and breed, so now there are more humans than a natural population of animals can comfortably support. Factory farms and GM animals are the natural next conslusion of that, but it still doesn't make it right.

No you mentioned farms are less of a problem than GM cuz it's more respectful to the animal in some way. Because you also metioned you eat meat. So if you're so against it all, why do you? Because it's better for you? You benefit from it somehow? Hmmm...

What you feel is respectful here for the animal is something that just isn't realistic in these times.

From the moment mankind started farming that all changed.

Sure, if we increased the number of milk drinkers by including all the lactose intolerant people, that wouldn't increase demand for milk.

The purpose of the modification is that "people who cannot consume milk will be able to consume the modified product"..... so the whole point of the modified product is to increase demand, which increases the number of cows needing milked and/or modified.

Well of course they're gonna have a market for it, and as the article mentions "they hope to create hurdles of them" for everyone.

There is always a dark side behind human consumption. As I've mentioned I too am not pro mass production where the animal is treated like a machine. But what im saying is that there is no difference in treatment of a 'regular'' animal vs a "modified" animal.

There will be more modified cows being born yes...does this imply that this modified species will suffer more than a "regular" cow, Not at all.

Really? You don't think there will be purists who argue that unless it came from a living breathing animal it doesn't taste the same? I guarantee you that when there is petri-dish meat, people will find a reason that it's not good enough, and then petri-dish meat will be affordable for the average person and "real" meat will be an expensive delicacy. Similar to what happened with lobster.

That...is exactly what I said.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Render

[karmakazi]

If you read the article why are you asking questions the article gives you answers to?

It does not give those answers, but you apparently read it and inferred what you wanted to hear.

You wanted to know if the proces provides a problem for offsprings. The article clearly states they are still waiting for the already succesfully born calf to produce offsprings herself so she starts producing the low lactose milk.

Which means she has not yet had offspring or produced the milk, so it is not yet known how her offspring will fare on her milk. Meaning that the article does NOT answer that question.

The intent is to create many of them so you might assume scientists take all your questions into account.

I'd like to think of scientists knowing more than you do on the subject, so you can bet your bottom dollar that the fearful questions you ask yourself ... they have thought about them a loooooong time ago.

Products constantly hit the shelves that aren't good for us. These products are considered better, or innovative, until years down the road it's figured out that they were harmful all along and either that potential harm was KNOWN and it was sold ANYWAY or the potential harm was something that - and this is important - could not be known until humans had been utilizing the product for some time.

You know who the long term experimental subjects are for these things? You, and everyone else who consumes them.

Oh, and I'm not being alarmist. It's a fact. Here's a small sample of "safe" products that were later found not to be:

Lead Paint

Asbestos

Fen Fen

Dalkon Shield

Ford Pinto

Propulsid

Zyprexia

And... oh yeah - cow meat. When they thought it was OK to feed cows the brains of other cows.

The list goes on, much the same way.

So they already have offsprings which are doing just fine.

Maybe you just didn't understand what you read, i don't know. Maybe you just want to rebel.

The lactose reduced cow has not had offspring. You quoted that yourself. The article does not indicate whether the offspring will be capable of nursing from their mother or will require surrogate milk.

So, yes I comprehended what I read and was asking questions that went beyond the information provided..... Yet you seem to think that makes me stupid or alarmist... lol.

It's a shame you think people should just accept that everything is done in their best interest and never question anything. I guess that's because that is what you do and you don't like it when the boat is rocked.

With the "it's not necessary" comment I completely disagree.

Milk has been proven to benefit in a myriad of ways. If we can help everyone get the benefits of milk this could have substantial positive effects on certain populations.

Milk has been proven to provide a certain level of protection against Diabetes type 2 for example.

It's good for blood pressure.

The intake of Calcium has huge impact on a human body. Milk is the ultimate source of this.

Recently articles have been popping up that milk actually boosts brain power.

In the study published in the January issue of the International Dairy Journal, researchers at the University of Maine found that adults who consumed more dairy products scored "significantly" higher on memory and other cognitive tests than those who drank little to no milk. Those with high milk intake were five times less likely to fail the test compared to non milk drinkers.

A very recent discovery of a supervitamin in milk Nicotinamide riboside even mentions it could reduce the symptoms of aging.

To keep this from certain populations while we have the technology to let them benefit from it...well i dno if that is ethical.

You seriously just believe everything you read don't you?

Well, why are you making assumptions after reading it then ? Are you afraid maybe?

You don't understand the difference. I wasn't making assumptions I was questioning it. I did not at any point say "this article means cows will suffer".

If you rewind a bit you'll find my original post said "it seems like animal cruelty." If I was the kind of person you seem to think I am, I would have said " OMG HOW CAN THEY DO THAT THAT IS TOTALLY ANIMAL CRUELTY AND IT'S INSANE BLAH BLAH BLAH"

But apparently, when you read someone disagreeing with anything GMO you just automatically see the all-caps tirade whether they have actually typed it or not.

I wasn't trying to imply that I assumed you didn't read it because you didn't agree with me. You have every right not to agree. But the questions you're asking are coincidentally the same questions ppl ask when they haven't bothered reading the article.

And i believe you mean "asinine".

As I've already notated, those questions are not answered in the article, you assumed the answers yourself based on the article.

In other words, you read the article but didn't comprehend it, and that's somehow my fault.

Pre-conceived notions is what the internet is all about. It's true that i've may been quick to put you in a category of ppl i've met who are so very against GM. Because you bring up a lot of similar points.

I may have reacted a bit severe because of that.

Again. Assanine. And yeah, I know how I spelled it.

It just don't get why ppl are so quick to make GM out to be something evil and the scientitst doing the research as ppl who are to stupid to think of the consequences themselves or are purely in it for the money.

Maybe im just too much of a positivist i dno. Im willing to assume that scientists know a whole lot more on the subject than the ppl condamning it even before all the test results are in.

Nope. You're just not - at all - getting my point.

No you mentioned farms are less of a problem than GM cuz it's more respectful to the animal in some way.

Uh... re-read what I said. You have a problem with reading comprehension. I did not, in any way, say "farms are less of a problem than GM" nor did I suggest farms are respectful to the animal. You made that leap based on your own thoughts, not anything I wrote.

Because you also metioned you eat meat. So if you're so against it all, why do you? Because it's better for you? You benefit from it somehow? Hmmm...

I didn't say I eat meat, I said I do not have a problem with eating meat... meaning I don't care if people eat meat. I've never been a fan of it because I was grossed out as a kid and never got over it. I eat it occasionally but usually only fish.

What you feel is respectful here for the animal is something that just isn't realistic in these times.

From the moment mankind started farming that all changed.

And? So we should just use the status quo as an excuse to keep on doing it?

[ThickasaBrick]

Could be good or bad, only time will tell. It is way too early to make any judgement on the overall effects of genetics. There is only one way to tell though, go through with it and analyze the future offspring and side effects.

[Render]

It does not give those answers, but you apparently read it and inferred what you wanted to hear.

Which means she has not yet had offspring or produced the milk, so it is not yet known how her offspring will fare on her milk. Meaning that the article does NOT answer that question.

Sigh...as I've said before. They are still waiting for those results so they kinda expect the calf to get a healthy offspring so they in turn can produce many more offsprings.

Don't you think scientists that know a heck more than you about this maybe think this through a bit and try to narrow down what sort of results they can get?

You probably don't. That's fine.

Products constantly hit the shelves that aren't good for us. These products are considered better, or innovative, until years down the road it's figured out that they were harmful all along and either that potential harm was KNOWN and it was sold ANYWAY or the potential harm was something that - and this is important - could not be known until humans had been utilizing the product for some time.

You know who the long term experimental subjects are for these things? You, and everyone else who consumes them.

Oh, and I'm not being alarmist. It's a fact. Here's a small sample of "safe" products that were later found not to be:

Lead Paint

Asbestos

Fen Fen

Dalkon Shield

Ford Pinto

Propulsid

Zyprexia

And... oh yeah - cow meat. When they thought it was OK to feed cows the brains of other cows.

The list goes on, much the same way.

Some list you got there, hope you didn't put much time in looking up all that stuff cuz it's not really relevant yet since they're still doing research.

Yanno, many ppl ... ahum ... like you ... seem to think that the slightest adjustment of cow milk could have the most far reaching possibilities. It's just not rational to think that something like adding omega 3 to cow milk is gonna end in ppl suddenly growing an extra arm. There are limits to the possibilities, which why research is done to narrow the possible negative effects down even more.

The lactose reduced cow has not had offspring. You quoted that yourself. The article does not indicate whether the offspring will be capable of nursing from their mother or will require surrogate milk.

Oh my ... maybe reread my previous post again?

Pfff so .... the offspring i reffered to was the one in the Omega 3 group. Not the lactose intollerant group.

In simpler terms.

Lactose no offspring yet

Omega 3 has offspring already.

Yes? Okay, i hope we can move on now.

So, yes I comprehended what I read and was asking questions that went beyond the information provided..... Yet you seem to think that makes me stupid or alarmist... lol.

Well you're the one comparing research, in adding omega 3 to cow milk and letting ppl with lactose intolerance benefit from milk, to

Lead Paint

Asbestos

Fen Fen

Dalkon Shield

Ford Pinto

Propulsid

Zyprexia

And... oh yeah - cow meat. When they thought it was OK to feed cows the brains of other cows.

Euhm yeah...that seems calm and rational.

It's a shame you think people should just accept that everything is done in their best interest and never question anything. I guess that's because that is what you do and you don't like it when the boat is rocked.

The reason research is done is because ppl just don't assume everything is in the best interest. Results will let you know more.

You seriously just believe everything you read don't you?

So i talked about the proven benefits of milk and the further research that is done to find possibly even more benefits and this is your response.

Well...i guess no one can argue with a smashing argument like that.

You don't understand the difference. I wasn't making assumptions I was questioning it. I did not at any point say "this article means cows will suffer".

Are you really gonna make me quote you to give you more insight in what you say ?

Everything about this feels wrong. I don't want to consume genetically engineered cows, and it kinda seems like animal cruelty.

...

Now take away those women's ability to speak up about it, and force them to proceed with the "milk donation". How is that not cruel? And yeah, I do understand that this applies to all milk not just GM.

this implies you think these animals will suffer. Saying it is cruel implies there will be suffering. Otherwise why would it be cruel? Cuz they wanna watch tv rather instead?

But apparently, when you read someone disagreeing with anything GMO you just automatically see the all-caps tirade whether they have actually typed it or not.

Well you did kinda make a tirade here. It's kinda exhausting to be honest with you.

As I've already notated, those questions are not answered in the article, you assumed the answers yourself based on the article.

In other words, you read the article but didn't comprehend it, and that's somehow my fault.

I can just refer to the beginning of my post for this.

Nope. You're just not - at all - getting my point.

I was just talking about me there, trying the give some insight as to where i'm coming from. But ok.

Uh... re-read what I said. You have a problem with reading comprehension. I did not, in any way, say "farms are less of a problem than GM" nor did I suggest farms are respectful to the animal. You made that leap based on your own thoughts, not anything I wrote.

You said you want them to be treated more respectful and you also said you don't mind eating meat. Acquiring meat through the current system isn't equal to getting a cow from a petting zoo.

I mean, if you don't see the correlation there i can't help you.

I didn't say I eat meat, ... I eat it occasionally but usually only fish.

sooooooo...you're saying and you said you eat meat. I can read between the lines yanno. No need to explain it even more. Fishes aren't acquired in a very loving/respectful way either. But of course you know this.

And? So we should just use the status quo as an excuse to keep on doing it?

im more for going forward. Not trying to advocate going backwards while everybody knows this isn't possible anymore with how far we've evolved now.

Going forward will hopefully mean we'll get to a point we'll be advanced enough we can produce everything ourselves in labs and stuff like that. So we can completely detach ourselves from needing "nature". Because we'll be creating nature ourselves. Skipping the using live animals/plants part.

Or in short:

Could be good or bad, only time will tell. It is way too early to make any judgement on the overall effects of genetics. There is only one way to tell though, go through with it and analyze the future offspring and side effects.

[karmakazi]

Well you did kinda make a tirade here. It's kinda exhausting to be honest with you.

My original post wasn't a tirade, it was a comment of my opinion. Yes, it has turned into a tirade after you posted in an insulting manner... what do you expect when you call someone a hypocrite and say things like "people like you"? I tried to explain my position on the subject to you, and you've been more insulting, doing your best to comment in such a way as to make it look like I'm panicking or scared or stupid.

Unfortunately, a lot of your replies show a lack of comprehension and, because of that, aren't valid arguments to the point I was making. I doubt it is actually exhausting for you, or you wouldn't be on a forum in the first place. Stop being such a drama queen.

So i talked about the proven benefits of milk and the further research that is done to find possibly even more benefits and this is your response.

Well...i guess no one can argue with a smashing argument like that

It wasn't an argument, I'm sorry you misunderstood it as such.

I was making an observation that when you like what you read, you believe it to be true, and when you don't like what you read then it's biased or fear mongering or... whatever.

I read studies that say milk is good, and studies that say milk is bad, and I consider both and consider their possible motives. My opinion is that milk probably does have some benefit but it is not necessary for human consumption. Like most things, it should be taken in moderation.

Well you're the one comparing research, in adding omega 3 to cow milk and letting ppl with lactose intolerance benefit from milk, to

Lead Paint

Asbestos

Fen Fen

Dalkon Shield

Ford Pinto

Propulsid

Zyprexia

And... oh yeah - cow meat. When they thought it was OK to feed cows the brains of other cows.

Euhm yeah...that seems calm and rational.

I'm not comparing the end result, I was pointing out that there have been things, which were researched and believed safe, that after years of human use were found not to be. There have been things which were known not to be safe and put to market anyway.

You might have heard of the concept - "hind sight is 20/20"

Edited June 22, 2012 by karmakazi

[Render]

so anyway..i think we can ALL relax a bit knowing if will take another 10 years until it's ready for human consumption. Cuz they, yanno, try to test stuff sufficiently.

So have a run, take a sauna, do whatever you need to get of your high-non manipulated-horse.