GM cheese from cow clones

[OneFootInTheGrave]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2696725.stm

Scientists in New Zealand have created the world's first cow clones that produce special milk that can increase the speed and ease of cheese-making

Perhaps we could make slave clones who would not have a soul or sentinence but would do all that we want them to.

Now what about that Better than robots.

On topic - revolution in cheezemaking maybe I should start being a vegan. Or is that a too drastic measure? Am I just kind of too conservative and feel that meddling with apsolutley all parts of life is a bit dangerous.

[Az]

Do you have any basis on which you substanciate your fear?

[Dinner]

They never do. Most of the anti-GM people think biotechnology is going to make Frankenstein's monster and then laugh as it goes on a killing rampage.

Foot: Knowing that the human population world wide is exploding and the amount of farmland world wide is decreasing due to urbanization; what would you do to prevent mass stavation and/or malnurishment amoung the worlds poor? GM has proven itself to boost the quantity and quality of food per acre. Are you suggesting we ignore that fact because some ignorant people are scared of it?

[Az]

I don't agree with some of the "marketing techniques" that GM bio-techs use, but generally, I don't think that there is something wrong with that.

[Dinner]

In Europe it is mostly used as a protectionist measure. The U.S. and Canada have invested heavily in to cross-breeding and biotech so they are the first ones to come to market with these products while European farmers have languished. They are protected with high tarrifs and monster truck sized subsidies payments so why both investing money in better farming techniques?

Any way the several European governments are using this as an excuse to remove competing farm products from the market as a give away to their domestic farmers. They keep insisting Europeans would never buy high protein wheat and other stuff, despite there being no desernable difference, and have so far refused to even give consumers a chance to try it.

It's the same old protectionist fear mongering with a new label.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well put it this way, you are meddling with the genes that took the whole evolution or an act of God to be created, it is not a machine that we built and that we can surely control all the possible outcomes. Couple this with the "profit is everything" mentality, and 20 years down the line you could have a disaster. Disaster like new ilnesses evolving and similar. Hey but we cannot stop the develpment of the world can we?

One fact remains until a disaster strikes all this is a "conspiracy theory", and once it happens than it is too late anyway, so why bother?


edit: american "killer bees" come to mind, a dominant species just introduced to the environment (what was it only cross breeding american and african bees for more honey? ), anyway that is with combining existing material in a relativleyt normal process, now genetic modifying, that is like putting new code into a being that took thousands of years to get to the present status.

How safe is that?

Are mistakes impossible, and what can be the consequences?

[Az]

I don't know what their reasons are, but mostly these measures suck.

Each case should be considered independently, though. These are some new technologies.

But the thing above is so trivial. It doesn't contain antibiotics, it faces no fear to develop superbugs. It just makes cheese more simple to produce.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Any way the several European governments are using this as an excuse to remove competing farm products from the market as a give away to their domestic farmers. They keep insisting Europeans would never buy high protein wheat and other stuff, despite there being no desernable difference, and have so far refused to even give consumers a chance to try it.

It does make a kind of sense from a European government viewpoint though. The EU is already capable of producing excess amount of a number of food items. This way they get to keep their farmers happy and if the whole GM thing goes belly up then the US, who produce it, and the rest of the world, who eat it suffer, not Europe. If GM does work then they will try and buy their way in later.

The real problem in Europe is the French government and a few of the smaller countries who get a lot of farm subsidy and won't agree to major changes in the system whilst the UK and German governments are rather tired of paying for it.

Blame the French!

[Az]

Well put it this way, you are meddling with the genes that took the whole evolution or an act of God to be created, it is not a machine that we built and that we can surely control all the possible outcomes. Couple this with the "profit is everything" mentality, and 20 years down the line you could have a disaster. Disaster like new ilnesses evolving and similar. Hey but we cannot stop the develpment of the world can we?

Farmers have been practicing genetic engineering since the dawn of mankind. And they were indeed working from scratch, blindly trying to cross breed different plants. No disaster happened.

How much of your fear is based on knowledge, and how much is based on fear of the unknown?

[Dinner]

Is there even one example of this ever happening? No, it is just unfounded scare tactics of uneducated and uninformed people. Most of the GM aims have been to take already existing traits in the species and accelerate the traditional cross-breeding techniques so we get the best cross breed now rather then 20 years from now.

For example rice subspecies A has the highest grain output per acre but has no resistance to a desease. Rice subspecies B has great resistance to desease but low output. While rice species C is higher in vitamins but tastes bad and lastly rice species D tastes great but isn't as good as the other subgroups in other areas.

To cross breed these rice strains and get just the right mix of the desired traits and none of the undesired traits would take many, many generations plus will require a lot of space and money. By picking from the pre-existing chromosomes we can get exactly the combination of output, taste, vitamins, & disease resistance in one generation. It's doing what farmers have already been doing for thousands of years but adapting new technology to make it more efficient.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Yes the cows seem to be simple but isn't it a first, a heard of genetically engineered clone cows this sounds like the beginning of the Cow Park

[Inverse Icarus]

whats GM stand for, Genetic Manipulation? I'm more familiar with the term "Genetic engineering", although i assume it's the same crap.

organic life is nothing more than chemical processes, just like those mechanical elements. if we can figure out how to manipulate those reactions to better serve mankind, why shouldn't we?

humans though, thats taboo with many people. a lot of people think life is sacred, especially sentient human life, is unique, and deserves special protection.

we'll see what happens.

[Dinner]

Same idea but instead of rice now it is cows. The finished product is not noticably different and the farmers benifet greatly.

[Az]

GM - genetically modified.


GM humans- I have nothing against it, as long as it is done to cure deseases. for example, I have a certain mutation called "Gilbert's Syndrome". It creates exessive Bilirubine protein in my body when my body is under stress, the same protein that causes people to turn yellow when they have hepatitis. I don't think I want my kids to have it.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Azazel


Farmers have been practicing genetic engineering since the dawn of mankind. And they were indeed working from scratch, blindly trying to cross breed different plants. No disaster happened.

How much of your fear is based on knowledge, and how much is based on fear of the unknown?

Well it surely is a fear of unknown, but on the other hand the farmers never had the means to make a difference that will be spread in high quantity all over hte world if it was a success in first 5 years only to discover a flaw later on when it is too late. The failures were cerainly contained in the area where someone was trying it and it only spread after a success, and confirmed success many times around.

No we were not in a similar situation before, and knowing the human tendency to make mistakes some are bound to happen. Now severity is the question. What about killer bees. OK they are not really dangerous to environment bout don't they show the potential of a mistake? Are you sure that we can afford such nature changing acts. What if one of a hundred goes wrong and it destroys the world rice crops? Or a virus develops like the "foot and mouth" that has longer incubation time and by the time it is realised 50% of the world stock is infected? Did anyone add "profit is the main goal" way of thinking into the equation?