Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Cows genetically modified to produce

cows milk gm foods

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#16    twobytwice

twobytwice

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Joined:21 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ladysmith, B.C. Canada

  • Smart Monkay

Posted 18 June 2012 - 02:36 PM

All animals modify their environment to suit their needs, we are just better at it. We can't help ourselves, It is who we are. Smart monkey.


#17    blueandi

blueandi

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 60 posts
  • Joined:25 Mar 2009

Posted 18 June 2012 - 02:56 PM

GM needs careful regulation, but it can be one of the most important tools we have if we are going to meet the needs of a booming population. Food security is vital to all nations. Natural or unnatural is a debate that will rage forever, but the truth is the only way we will meet the demands of future generations is by this kind of research.  GM foods can have huge environmental benefits i.e. lower pesticide use, less irrigation, less fertilizer, lower emissions etc. etc..
However when huge Goliaths like Monsanto use it as a tool to run huge monopolies and damage agriculture is what's wrong. We NEED to be open minded about GM, as part of a sustainable future, and as always price will dictate who buys into it...


#18    mxcx

mxcx

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 44 posts
  • Joined:16 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 June 2012 - 11:56 PM

This is disgusting and immoral.


#19    Quiet Sky1

Quiet Sky1

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 13 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

Posted 19 June 2012 - 12:37 AM

What happened to just having free range,genetically unaltered cows happily munching on grass?

Edited by Quiet Sky1, 19 June 2012 - 12:40 AM.


#20    Lava_Lady

Lava_Lady

    Official UM Asylum Resident

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hawai'i

  • Wha? /:0\

Posted 19 June 2012 - 08:16 AM

Healthier for who or is it whom?  Cow milk is for calves.  If we change cows to produce milk healthier for humans how do the calves, future steaks, fare?


#21    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 5,700 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 19 June 2012 - 11:35 AM

Through combined utilization of genetic modification and robotics,  we should soon be able to produce cow / milk trucks , which run on grass and make their own deliveries.    ?¿? :)

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#22    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 June 2012 - 03:13 PM

View PostInsaniac, on 18 June 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Sorry for the confusion, Render.

I didn't read the atricle, no. I'm just fed up with the state of the world & wanted to vent. It just seems as if overall, concerning nature, everything keeps getting altered. From GMO crops, genetically modified food and now milk.

Just stop modifying things and leave nature to be natural.

And i apologize for reacting a tad aggressive. But like you, I'm fed up with ppl always giving their negative parrot-opinion on something they obviously don't understand.
I completely agree with the fact that we do destroy a lot of things and try to invent something to fix it.
And careful regulation is a must, especially in the field of GM.
On the other hand, things change and are modified ... this is evolution
The terms nature and natural aren't absolutes. Their definitions change.


View Postkarmakazi, on 18 June 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

Ok, so when that cow gives birth and starts lactating, will its calves be allowed to nurse from it or will they have to be given some other cow's milk because they are genetically predisposed to need lactose?  What if lack of lactose has the effect on them that the presence of lactose has on people?  If calves get the runs, especially in the wild, they are quite unlikely to survive.  So if that were the case, this cow would not be able to reproduce viable calves and feed them, taking away it's natural reproducive ability and right to add to the gene pool.

PLEASE read the article first before you start with your fear-mongering.

Quote

If that were done to a human, it would be cruel.  Sure, we like to think that altering animals isn't cruel because it allows us to have what we want and still be able to sleep at night.  Sadly, that doesn't make it true.

The ethical thing to do is leave them alone.


You seem to think that by changing cow's milk ppl somehow hurt this animal and make it suffer excruciating pain. This ... is not the case.
Does it need to be monitered? Of course. As i've mentioned before, strong regulation is needed.

So, let's look at this hypothetical case of "what if this was done to a human".
What if a woman's breastmilk was enhanced and made sure her baby had a supreme immune system for the next 10 years ?
Does this sound cruel to you? Or does this sound like progress?
Do you think this mother will start screaming in pain that this is unjust? "please no, don't give my baby a supreme immune system, i want it be as vulnerable as a neanderthal..don't make things change pleeeease."

Quote

Are you assuming that because someone is against this topic it means they're ok with the way animals are selectively breed for aesthetic traits, or is only doing so to be trendy?  WOW.  Yeah, it's not because of personal or spiritual convictions.  It's just because I want to be part of the hipster crowd.

I believe we should respect life as it evolved and not mess with it.  Honestly, I have a problem with corn since it was selectively bred to be what we know today, producing WAY more food than the plant originally did.  I say leave nature alone... all of it.

I never mentioned I assume ppl are OK with selective breeding. I mentioned this because more than often ppl who piss their pants in fear of GM have selectivly bred pet.
And turn it as you will... it;s hip to be against GM these days. That's why ppl like you don't bother to read the article , they just see GM  and go "oh my god, nature is gonna die. Scientist are cruel mimimiimi"

Quote

Call me a monster...and someone probably will... but I don't think it is ok to genetically modify something else in order to relieve people of their suffering.  It's transferring the suffering to another living being, and no matter how much we tell ourselves it's ok to do so, it is not.

Try to think outside of the box before assuming that this planet and all its creatures are here to be bastardized by humans for our own benefit and convenience.

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Humans did not evolve to consume milk beyond a young age... so why push those whose ancestors didn't adapt to it to be able to consume it?  Probably because the dairy industry would like to make more money.

I don't find you a monster, i find you a bit narrow minded. Because you fail to see that this is part of evolution. Ppl like you just get scared because we're driving that evolution instead of evolution driving us.
Scientist aren't doing this "just because they can".
Creating a selective breed is doing it just because they can. It serves no purpose.

Researching GM and seeing how everyone can benefit from it, serves a purpose. It's not "just because".

Quote

Really it's as simple as this... everything evolved to be the way it is, and we shouldn't tweak everything we get our hands on to make it EASIER for our society.
Manipulating the genes, physical body, or living conditions of any animal is cruel.  I have no problem with eating meat, but the animals should be treated with respect.  They give their lives to sustain ours, and we just demand more and more and more of them.

Look back to what i mentioned before about evolution.
And you think putting a cow in a closed field, awaiting human consumption, is more respectful than upgrading it's milk for human consumption?
That's intresting. And also a very common view of ppl who scream murder when they hear or see GM ...

We're not demanding more of them. If you upgrade one cows milk, you don't need two cows their milk, you just need the one.




Anyways, in the future these discussions will all be outdated. Once we won't need live animals anymore for feeding. We'll just be able to create every piece seperately in the lab. I wonder if vegetarians will admit they can eat again then, or if they'll start screaming bloody murder that "it's not natural".
Oh wait, many already do scream bloody murder about that....
I guess you can't win with a scaredy cat.

Edited by Render, 19 June 2012 - 03:17 PM.


#23    3amfright

3amfright

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 187 posts
  • Joined:19 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:United States

  • Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.
    - Marie Curie

Posted 19 June 2012 - 05:12 PM

Huh. I'm currently reading a book, "Robyn's Egg" by Mark Souza & the genetically perfected healthier cows that produced the most meat & the most milk in the book were duplicated & manufactured throughout the world....and then promptly wiped out by a single virus that removed the entire cow population becasue they were all one perfect genetic strand....welcome to the future of starvation & the extinction of the cow population. Diversity is necessity.


#24    karmakazi

karmakazi

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,041 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

  • Oh I am a giddy goat!

Posted 19 June 2012 - 05:19 PM

View PostRender, on 19 June 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

And i apologize for reacting a tad aggressive. But like you, I'm fed up with ppl always giving their negative parrot-opinion on something they obviously don't understand.
I completely agree with the fact that we do destroy a lot of things and try to invent something to fix it.
And careful regulation is a must, especially in the field of GM.
On the other hand, things change and are modified ... this is evolution
The terms nature and natural aren't absolutes. Their definitions change.

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



Quote

PLEASE read the article first before you start with your fear-mongering.

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.




Quote

You seem to think that by changing cow's milk ppl somehow hurt this animal and make it suffer excruciating pain. This ... is not the case.
Does it need to be monitered? Of course. As i've mentioned before, strong regulation is needed.

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).

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.



Quote

So, let's look at this hypothetical case of "what if this was done to a human".
What if a woman's breastmilk was enhanced and made sure her baby had a supreme immune system for the next 10 years ?
Does this sound cruel to you? Or does this sound like progress?
Do you think this mother will start screaming in pain that this is unjust? "please no, don't give my baby a supreme immune system, i want it be as vulnerable as a neanderthal..don't make things change pleeeease."

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.



Quote

I never mentioned I assume ppl are OK with selective breeding. I mentioned this because more than often ppl who piss their pants in fear of GM have selectivly bred pet.
And turn it as you will... it;s hip to be against GM these days. That's why ppl like you don't bother to read the article , they just see GM  and go "oh my god, nature is gonna die. Scientist are cruel mimimiimi"

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.



Quote

I don't find you a monster, i find you a bit narrow minded. Because you fail to see that this is part of evolution. Ppl like you just get scared because we're driving that evolution instead of evolution driving us.

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!


Quote

Scientist aren't doing this "just because they can".
Creating a selective breed is doing it just because they can. It serves no purpose.

Researching GM and seeing how everyone can benefit from it, serves a purpose. It's not "just because".

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.

I guess that's a pointless statement because apparently, I can't think for myself... lol



Quote

Look back to what i mentioned before about evolution.
And you think putting a cow in a closed field, awaiting human consumption, is more respectful than upgrading it's milk for human consumption?
That's intresting. And also a very common view of ppl who scream murder when they hear or see GM ...

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.


Quote

We're not demanding more of them. If you upgrade one cows milk, you don't need two cows their milk, you just need the one.

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


Quote

Anyways, in the future these discussions will all be outdated. Once we won't need live animals anymore for feeding. We'll just be able to create every piece seperately in the lab. I wonder if vegetarians will admit they can eat again then, or if they'll start screaming bloody murder that "it's not natural".

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.

“When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion.” – Abraham Lincoln

“You must do the thing you think you cannot do.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

“One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it’s worth watching.” – Unknown

#25    Bildr

Bildr

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Joined:30 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Quebec Province(Canada)

  • “Enlightenment is not imagining figures of light but making the darkness conscious.” -Carl Gustav Jung

Posted 20 June 2012 - 02:07 AM

View PostSpid3rCyd3, on 18 June 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Only bad thing about soy milk, if you're a man and you regularly drink it, it kills your testosterone.

Well, i've always wondered if that was true, since i've knowed guys who drank this for years and never had any problem at all. Even myself is drinking this for a long time and i'm still a hairy/bearded as hell guy(lol).

What I would really about is hormones is our meat; since that the vast majority of industrial farms give hormones to their cattle(specially pig and chicken).

Edited by Bildr, 20 June 2012 - 02:07 AM.

Posted Image


#26    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 June 2012 - 08:35 AM

View Postkarmakazi, on 19 June 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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 :yes:
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.

Quote

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".

Quote

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.

Quote

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. :D

Quote

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.

Quote

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

Quote

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. :D

Edited by Render, 20 June 2012 - 08:43 AM.


#27    karmakazi

karmakazi

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,041 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

  • Oh I am a giddy goat!

Posted 20 June 2012 - 11:05 AM

View PostRender, on 20 June 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

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.


Quote

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.


Quote

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.



Quote

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.



Quote

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?



Quote

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.

Quote

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.



Quote

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.

Quote

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.  


Quote

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.


Quote

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.

Quote

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?

“When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion.” – Abraham Lincoln

“You must do the thing you think you cannot do.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

“One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it’s worth watching.” – Unknown

#28    ThickasaBrick

ThickasaBrick

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 387 posts
  • Joined:22 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • "Your wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick." "I'll judge you all and make damn sure that no-one judges me."
    -Jethro Tull

Posted 21 June 2012 - 03:07 PM

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.


#29    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 June 2012 - 08:53 PM

View Postkarmakazi, on 20 June 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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. :tu:

Quote

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 ?

View Postkarmakazi, on 17 June 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

:no:

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.


Quote

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.

Quote

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:

View Postjgorman628, on 21 June 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

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.



#30    karmakazi

karmakazi

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,041 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

  • Oh I am a giddy goat!

Posted 22 June 2012 - 11:54 AM

View PostRender, on 21 June 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

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.



Quote

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.


Quote

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 by karmakazi, 22 June 2012 - 12:37 PM.

“When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion.” – Abraham Lincoln

“You must do the thing you think you cannot do.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

“One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it’s worth watching.” – Unknown




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users