DescentBB

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:56 pm**

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01555.html

Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt a cloned animal exactly the same as the original animal (biologically)

\"In fact, cloned animals have been studied much more than naturally produced animals,\" said Cindy Tian, who has analyzed milk and meat from clones at the University of Connecticut. \"We have more data on them than for any other animal that we eat.\"

What I see when it comes to new technology such as this and genetically modified crops is one of the best ways to increase our food supply by a huge factor, which decreases the price of food for all people, and would help aid in the solution of \"world hunger\".

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:01 pm**

If you think they will reduce the price of food because we clone it, forget it. Everything is about the mighty profit.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:18 pm**

I agree, ccb.

As long as the content and quality is the same, increasing the volume of food a given square mile of farmland can produce isn't something we should be complaining about.

Whether the increase is due to 'normal' breeding practices or genetic processes like cloning, the result is beneficial.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:22 pm**

Yep. Genetically modified crops serve only one purpose -- profit for the maker (mostly Monsanto). Pretty dangerous too, most mods include terminator genes that can contaminate normal crops (via pollen) making them sterile as well (click, click).

As for cloned animals, should be safe -- as long they are not genetically altered.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:32 pm**

Aren't all animals and crops genetically altered?

If not, why else do they all not look alike?

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:35 pm**

Grendel wrote:click

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:53 pm**

Foil wrote:...content and quality is the same...

You mean little and crappy?

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:28 pm**

cloning is awesome, genetic engineering is awesome.

i havn't heard of any problems with ANIMAL cloning or genetic engineering. All the problems i've been hearing have been with Flora, crops. There is a slight crossover when genetically engineered crops effect the animals who eat them - i have heard about genetically engineered crops causing fertility problems in animals that eat them. But iirc human culture has had a history of rumours of fertility problems (incl in our domesticated animals) sending us into a panic even though they are hoaxes, it seems we humans are pretty panicy when it comes to such things.

I recon cloned animals are fine, but i still eye BOTH sides of the fence suspiciously on the subject of genetically engineered CROPS. On one side is greedy monopolistic corporations, on the other side are religious eco warriors. I completely trust neither.

ANYWAY.
some real points:
- Widespread cloning of animals could cause immune weakening no? It would reduce genetic diversity, reduce the natural mutations that end up giving some animals within the species protection from some diesases and viruses. If cloning where really widespread it could be risky in that it reduces natural immunity from new diseases.

- Are we genetically altering these animals to be more efficient? I thought one of the the primary concerns with genetically altering our food CROPS is to increase yeild.
I often hear vegetarians say how growing animal protein for food is quite inefficient - it's more efficient to eat the crops directly than to eat the animals that eat the crops.
So i don't see how genetically altering ANIMALS can help our food situation that much.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:12 am**

roid wrote:cloning is awesome, genetic engineering is awesome.

i havn't heard of any problems with ANIMAL cloning or genetic engineering. All the problems i've been hearing have been with Flora, crops. There is a slight crossover when genetically engineered crops effect the animals who eat them - i have heard about genetically engineered crops causing fertility problems in animals that eat them. But iirc human culture has had a history of rumours of fertility problems (incl in our domesticated animals) sending us into a panic even though they are hoaxes, it seems we humans are pretty panicy when it comes to such things.

I recon cloned animals are fine, but i still eye BOTH sides of the fence suspiciously on the subject of genetically engineered CROPS. On one side is greedy monopolistic corporations, on the other side are religious eco warriors. I completely trust neither.

ANYWAY.
some real points:
- Widespread cloning of animals could cause immune weakening no? It would reduce genetic diversity, reduce the natural mutations that end up giving some animals within the species protection from some diesases and viruses. If cloning where really widespread it could be risky in that it reduces natural immunity from new diseases.

- Are we genetically altering these animals to be more efficient? I thought one of the the primary concerns with genetically altering our food CROPS is to increase yeild.
I often hear vegetarians say how growing animal protein for food is quite inefficient - it's more efficient to eat the crops directly than to eat the animals that eat the crops.
So i don't see how genetically altering ANIMALS can help our food situation that much.

Meat puts hair on your chest. And sometimes breast.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:49 am**

and just why do we NEEDto clone animals for eating?? They seem to be reproducing just fine on their own. Clone Pandas for pete sakes.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:33 am**

The issue that I'm concerned about is whether or not the animals are allowed to have happy lives before we eat them. If cloning them means that we won't have to ★■◆● around with them as much while they're actually alive, then all the better for cloning. But I doubt that this will be the case in practice.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:30 am**

Duper wrote:and just why do we NEEDto clone animals for eating?? They seem to be reproducing just fine on their own. Clone Pandas for pete sakes.

Which wouldn't solve a thing. If anything, that would make matters WORSE for them. It'd be worse than allowing them to inbreed. (which is why the cheetahs are slowly dying off) Pretty soon you'd have the majority of them with the same exact genetic code. The only way to actually prevent that would be to map their entire DNA structure, and make adjustments on our own. (and hope that we don't end up with a bunch of rejects like with the Dolly project.)

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:46 pm**

ya know, we've seen what narrowing a gene pool can do. (just look at the ancient British royal blood line)

Things have done well as they are for a long Loooooong time. Why change this? \"because we can?\"; I don't think so.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:01 pm**

Foil wrote:As long as the content and quality is the same, increasing the volume of food a given square mile of farmland can produce isn't something we should be complaining about.

As long as the government is paying the farmers to not grow (so that McDonald's is cheaper than vegetables), I don't think it matters...

Posted: **Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:35 am**

http://www.aquarianonline.com/Sci-Tech/ ... otech.html

Sobering reads.

Posted: **Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:48 am**

MD-2389 wrote:rejects like with the Dolly project.)

what?

The Dolly project was a resounding success. She died of a common sheep disease

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:05 am**

Personally, I'd rather fight the battle against high fructose corn syrup. It ruins everything it touches. Ketchup isn't supposed to be sickly sweet, damn it!

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:33 am**

That's a tough battle, too. That crap is everywhere and it's disgusting.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:42 pm**

What's really scary is trans-genetic engineering (I'm not sure of the proper term here). That's where they combine the genetic material from two or more totally unrelated species, even combining plant and animal genes together to form a new plant or animal not possible in nature. Have you seen the cats that were created that have skin that glows under ultraviolet light?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... eo-ap.html

If they can do this, we're probably already eating weird Frankenfood. If it's not even a natural life form, how do we know if it will be safe to eat?

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:00 pm**

Same way we know natural food is good... TRUST THE GOVERNMENT! Hah! Now you know I am kidding!

But seriously, we must have learned the hard way what natual stuf is food, and what is not. A smart early man would find a new plant, smell it, feel it, tiny taste, etc... Read 'Clan of the Cave Bear' and the Earth's Children Series, by Jean M. Auel.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:30 am**

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:03 am**

i don't why that last pic is funny at all.
is it funny coz the GOVERNMENT is modifying crops? Coz iirc that doesn't happen at all - it's all corporate. so uh... haha?

I can totally understand why some ppl are freaked out by GM CROPS - coz they are cross polinating non-gm crops, and then the GM corporation is claiming intelectual property theft on the crops nextdoor (i'm not joking).
So yeah, it might be greenpeace breaking in the door, but it's the farmers who are getting screwed - they have more reason to get active about it. The full body protective clothing is ENTIRELY VALID too, as you don't want to spread the pollen.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:40 am**

Why would I be suspicious of cloned animals for meat? Science in general has a shaky track-record when it comes to common sense, in my book. They've only semi-recently come full circle and stated that breast-milk is really the best thing for developing babies, not formula. *slaps forehead*

googled source 1
googled source 2
(don't know where I heard it originally, but it's generally accepted now, I gather)

Anyone want to take a guess at how many avoidable problems were caused in infants by the pushing of formula? To preempt an argument, I think formula has its exceptional uses, but not as a replacement, which is what it was touted as.

This is certainly not the only thing that causes me to be apprehensive when \"science\" meddles with something natural to try and make it better, but it is the most obvious. The fact is that scientists are but men, and men make mistakes. From what I can see, a large portion of science is dedicated to discovering these mistakes later on. Personally, I'd rather not be subject to them in the mean-time.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:15 am**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Anyone want to take a guess at how many avoidable problems were caused in infants by the pushing of formula? To preempt an argument, I think formula has its exceptional uses, but not as a replacement, which is what it was touted as.

That's also what I heard.

This is certainly not the only thing that causes me to be apprehensive when "science" meddles with something natural to try and make it better, but it is the most obvious.

Exactly.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:38 am**

Human sciences are lacking in common sense, I agree, but I'd also point out that most of these scientists are actually corporate front-ends to sell a product.

Case in point, breast milk has ALWAYS been the best. Everyone with half a brain knows that, but since most of this country has less than half a brain, they believe whatever they are told to believe on the idiot box.

...

With that said, the opposite is becoming true. Nowadays, breast milk is actually dangerous to infants now with all the radioactive/chemical crap put in products we buy, and the obscene amounts of sodium/sugar/chemical replacements and other assorted garbage being shoved into our food. All these cancerous chemicals are being absorbed into breast milk and right into baby's barely-there immune system. Then people wonder why everyone has cancer.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:00 pm**

Testiculese wrote:With that said, the opposite is becoming true. Nowadays, breast milk is actually dangerous to infants now with all the radioactive/chemical crap put in products we buy, and the obscene amounts of sodium/sugar/chemical replacements and other assorted garbage being shoved into our food. All these cancerous chemicals are being absorbed into breast milk and right into baby's barely-there immune system. Then people wonder why everyone has cancer.

Interesting (and quite scary) thought. We're (mostly) breastfeeding our baby, and we try to eat as much healthy organic food as possible. However, with all the exhaustion of being new parents comes a tendency to go for the easy fix, and we often just get a pizza, chinese food, or one of these other put-em-in-the-oven-and-your-done dishes.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:26 pm**

The benefits of breastfeeding outweigh the possible dangers from any chemicals in the milk. It's been found that breast milk is required for the development of the baby's immune system, nature's way of priming the body's little army.

I grew up in the 50's when the doctors thought they knew what was better for us and that the baby formula you bought at the store had much more nutrition than mother's milk. WRONG! We may be paying for that assumption with many immune system caused illnesses in adult life.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:08 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:I grew up in the 50's when the doctors thought they knew what was better for us

Yup. Now we're living in the new millenium, where average Joes like you think they know what's better for us. Whee.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:35 pm**

roid wrote:i don't why that last pic is funny at all.
is it funny coz the GOVERNMENT is modifying crops? Coz iirc that doesn't happen at all - it's all corporate. so uh... haha?

I wasn't making lite of anything or trying to blame anyone - It's just a cartoon - ya know? A joke.

Technically you're right, however, if the FDA's ruling on genetically modified crops ends up the same as meat - it seems to me the government would be pretty much responsible for the outcome of both issues. The whole truth about us cloning anything is yet to be learned, and IMHO, it (the big picture) will be a good thing in the long run.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:55 pm**

iirc the Breastfeeding debacle was caused by Corporate interests, i remember my mother being part of the Nestlé boycott.
So yeah, corporations trying to tap into unethical profits - much the same as the GM situation currently.
Testi beat me to it, it's a corporate front-end to sell a product.

While some distrust and blame science, i distrust and blame commerce.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:59 pm**

roid wrote: Testi beat me to it, it's a corporate front-end to sell a product.

Yup ... corporate America makes tons of $$$ - that's what it does - that's why we call it "big business". And when a door is opened they're gonna try to take advantage.

1986 - Bruce Hornsby - Top 20 hit song - THE WAY IT IS
"That's just the way it is
Some things will never change"

The way I see it - we can regulate it (ya right), change it (good luck) or accept it ... for now.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:30 pm**

TIGERassault wrote:Yup. Now we're living in the new millenium, where average Joes like you think they know what's better for us. Whee.

That's not my opinion, the benefits of breast feeding were finally verified from scientific research.

http://www.4women.gov/breastfeeding/index.cfm?page=227

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:59 pm**

mistercool2 wrote:
roid wrote: Testi beat me to it, it's a corporate front-end to sell a product.
Yup ... corporate America makes tons of $$$ - that's what it does - that's why we call it "big business". And when a door is opened they're gonna try to take advantage.

1986 - Bruce Hornsby - Top 20 hit song - THE WAY IT IS
"That's just the way it is
Some things will never change"

The way I see it - we can regulate it (ya right), change it (good luck) or accept it ... for now.

Or even try to shift the blame to someone else (Science!)
lol. Anti-intellecualism vote pandering FTW!

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:28 pm**

I second that!

DescentBB

Whats the big deal about cloned food?

Whats the big deal about cloned food?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: