March 28, 2007

• Well, I guess the first question to ask is: how many asses does it have?
• no Fes, the first question is: WHY??
• To create a potential source for transplantable organs, it says. Seems like a good thing, albeit one they will have to be careful with, surely. The article mentions the possibility of animal diseases getting transferred over, but it seems like we have that already (e.g. avian flu), but that seems fairly remote, and I suspect they would be watching that rather closely.
• *AHchoo!* *snif* : D
• See also: Manbearpig
• I really don't like this. It just seems...wrong.
• "I suspect they would be watching that rather closely." And I suspect there's no way they could watch it closely enough.
• and yet, people need organ transplants, more so than ever.
• Gettin' clinical 'n all: Clinical Xenotransplantation of Organs: Why Aren't We There Yet?
• xenotransplantation - a surgical procedure in which tissue or whole organs are transfered from one species to another species From the Greek xenos for "foreign". mHOY!ven glaven
• from the article: But selective breeding techniques may eliminate a large number of potential pathogens, including pCMV, and possibly reduce infectious endogenous retroviruses. Swine that do not express PERVs that are infectious for human cells have been identified [72]. Long-term retrospective studies of patients treated with pig tissues have not found any evidence of PERV infection in any of the patients tested [73,74]. Antibodies against the highly conserved epitopes encoded by the retroviral genome have been shown to neutralize PERV infectivity, suggesting that there may be a basis for producing a PERV vaccine [75]. PERVS!
• MonkeyFilter: may be a basis for producing a PERV vaccine
• It just seems... wrong. Understandable, but not the strongest basis for prohibition. See also: anything else that makes you go "ick," or for which your forebears may have gone "ick." I mean, isn't cutting the guts out of dead people and reusing those pre-owned guts already icky enough?
• Understandable point goetter, but I'm not thinking of the ick factor. I'm thinking "wrong" because they breed animals so they can kill them and give their organs to people. There's arguments for that practice that carry a lot of weight, and I've thought about them all, but they don't quite change that feeling of "wrongness" about it all.
• Oh, shit. I just realized that to fully support the above point, I need to become a vegetarian. Thanks a lot, SMT! Dammit.
• What's the problem? *munches celery stick, fights the power*
• That it's not really possible for me to do the vegetarian thing at this point in time. And I would have liked to have realized the hypocrisy of my statement before I posted it. /likes celery
• *cowers* In terms of opinions on this matter (and the vegetarian angle), I'm probably exactly where you are at, minda. It's an awkward topic for me. I suppose I'm just sitting on the fence (which seems common for me nowadays), wondering which way I'll eventually fall. I imagine that if my life was contingent on an organ transplant, and I was told that the waiting list was x number of years - I might be all for this type of research and medical advancement. And then there's a part of me that cringes at the thought. *chews on some foxtail*
• It's an awkward topic... Exactly. How far is too far? If we're against this, should we be against raising animals for consumption? First thought is of course "yes", but then there's always the consideration that xenotransplatation isn't natural and that eating animals is. The only thing about our modern animal consumption is that it's incredibly inhumane towards the animals (cages, filth, etc.), and they're pumped full of hormones & whatnot, which we are eating. The solution to that is either to have your own farm, or to buy only free-range organic meat. I used to be in the only free-range organic meat camp, but then we had a baby and our budget shrunk until Wal Mart actually started to look like a good idea. I also considered the "if I needed a heart, would I support this then?" argument, and I can't say if I would keep my current attitude if baby Minda25 needed an organ from one of these creatures.
• With scientists effectively taking the taboo away from bestiality, I am going to have to go shopping for a new fetish.
• Imagine the possiblities, bernockle. Soon, you could have your very own internally-produced supply of owl semen!
• You'd never leave the house!
• *walks down the hall, cheerily whistling a tune* *pokes head into a room through an open doorway* Imagine the possiblities, bernockle. Soon, you could have your very own internally-produced supply of owl semen! *backs away very slowly, quietly closing the door behind him*
• The solution to that is either to have your own farm, or to buy only free-range organic meat. and both of these are only really possible on a limited basis. To return to an agrarian society after so much time and effort has gone into our specialization would probably kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. The ones that lived would be at the mercy of the next harvest, and would suffer rampant malnutrition due to limited local diversity of foodstuff. Infant mortality would skyrocket, disease would spread, and all those things that make up the accoutrements of modern, civilized life would virtually disappear. To only eat organic, free range meat would multiply by at least a couple factors of ten the space required to produce that meat and the foodlot required to bring it to maturity. Even if consumption declined precipitously (and it would have to), you're looking at a significant ecological downturn as cattlemen are forced, by necessity, to acquire and render usable huge volumes of land for pasture. Removal of the anitbiotics would spark disease, which would cut the amount of meat available still further. We are of the same mind about the cruelty with which food animals are treated. But some of proposed solutions would be Khmeric in their universal application.
• Which, Minda, is not to say that you shouldn't do what you believe is best for you and your family. I just wanted to make the observation on what would occur if ALL did so, is all.
• Taken as such, Fes. :o) I never gave much thought to why we're in the kind of society we are, thinking that a "return to the roots" kind of life would be far, far better than what we have now. Live off the land! No more "modern" worries! But points like yours, Fes, make me realize that we had advancements, and call them advancements, for a reason. It stands to reason, then, that the only solution is for me to win the lottery. Then I could spend the rest of my life deep in (comfortable) thought trying to think up a solution to this conundrum.
• Baaaaaaaah!
• I would think that human society could do better than that, Fes - we'd just need to stop using meat as such a large portion of the diet, which in most cultures is a relatively recent phenomenon spurred in part by the technical advancements that reduced the price of meat in the first place. Better we do it now while we can, than later when we run out of the oil that supports this lifestyle (fuel for shipping, petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, etc.). If we ate less meat, we could afford the space necessary to produce meat more humanely. That would also leave more space for growing non-meat food sources. We could keep the antibiotics (nobody wants a sick cow!) but ditch the growth hormones in favor of selective breeding for robust, fast-developing stock, as humans did for thousands of years before growth hormones were available. We have the technology to make this sort of thing possible, we just don't have the collective will to do so yet - and sadly we probably will not generate enough pressure to make this happen until we absolutely must do so, which will likely result in the scary outcome you're suggesting, due to lack of planning and foresight.
• To return to an agrarian society after so much time and effort has gone into our specialization . . would suffer rampant malnutrition . . . Infant mortality would skyrocket, disease would spread, and all those things that make up the accoutrements of modern, civilized life would virtually disappear. I disagree completely. "A prevailing or unchecked medical condition resulting from eating too little nourishing food"? Because everyone doesn't eat factory farmed meat? The accoutrements of modern, civilized life would virtually disappear? What? What, like cars and video games and . . . air conditioning? I'm missing the link between ending factory farming of animals for meat - or eating meat in general - and the virtual apocalypse described here. There are other plant-based forms of protien and complete nutrition and it's actually the shift to meat 3-meals-a-day, everyday that's recent not the other way around. There are amazing costs and pitfalls incurred by factory farming that aren't necessary and to state that factory farming is necessary to some standard of living is just wrong.
• Note the opening phrase there: To return to an agrarian society after so much time and effort has gone into our specialization This was in response to the "have your own farm" option. He's saying the wheels of our economy have turned past that, and to go back to an agrarian economy would set us back decades. Which is absolutely correct, IMO. If everyone went back to farming their own stuff, only those living in "breadbasket" areas would fare well. People living too far north or in areas with bad soil conditions or too little water would not be able to grow everything they needed to subsist. Yes, infant mortality and malnutrition rates would absolutely rise. Though I agree with you and frogs about the meat angle -- multiplying the land needed for grazing and keeping livestock becomes less of a problem if we just start eating less meat. But where before we were discussing a massive economic shift, now we're discussing a similarly large cultural one (in the US, anyway), and that often won't come without crisis. Also, fewer cows and goats mean less (and more expensive) milk for you and your kids, and less (and more expensive) cheese for that taco. So now the future health of your teeth and bones is questionable. The wife and I get a monthly basket of meat and produce from the local farmer's market, a really really good program that I enjoy far more than I expected to. But it's amazing what just limiting yourself to the region's produce can do to your dinner menu (right now we're up to our eyeballs in goddamn sweet potatoes). If it weren't for Kroger, fall and winter would have been miserable
• Monkeyfilter: up to our eyeballs in goddamn sweet potatoes
• SMT, there's a banner that comes on My Yahoo every once in a while for Classmates.com. On this banner are initials for 3 different schools: S MLK T I think of you every time I see that, and I just wanted to tell you about it.
• Really? That's just bizarre. And now, well, I'm blushing just a bit! *googles the classmates.com banner*
• He's saying the wheels of our economy have turned past that, and to go back to an agrarian economy would set us back decades. OOOhhhhh. I see, no that makes sense. Sorry. I thought His Sharpness was saying we can't go back to a meat-free diet or the economy would collapse. It must have been all those sweet potatoes angryin' up the blood and all. My apologies. Also, fewer cows and goats mean less (and more expensive) milk for you and your kids, and less (and more expensive) cheese for that taco. I don't think that really applies, as eating less meat would only lessen the need for (and eventually the supply of) animals raised for meat. Dairy should remain unaffected, shouldn't it?
• You'd think if we can put a goddamn man on the moon we could figure out some way to make everything all better without having to change anything at all! I mean, come on, people, GET WITH IT! Where's the innovation What are they teachin' in them universities these days? *ptui*
• Dairy should remain unaffected, shouldn't it? Well, you may have a point there. I don't really know the economics of cattle farming, how many beef cows begin their lives as dairy cows. I was assuming that the answer to that question would be "most," indicating that reducing the stock of beef cows also reduces the stock of dairy cows, but that was only an assumption. My grandfather raised cattle, but he stopped farming when I was still very little, so I know nothing about the business. What are they teachin' in them universities these days? Communications.
• Where's the innovation It's cost prohibitive.
• What are you all bleating about now?
• Keep moooving GramMa, nothing for ewe to see here.
• Dairy should remain unaffected, shouldn't it? A good point, as dairy cows are typically different breeds than those raised for beef. A complex issue, for certain. I wasn't quite expecting this discussion to come about from this thread (aaah, but that's what I love about this place!). Some good points from all.
• Even within breeds, farming for dairy and farming for meat are quite different activities. Males are separated out at birth for veal or beef production (a very rare individual is raised for stud); females are usually tested once for their milking ability so are kept to maturity and impregnated. If they're good milkers, they're kept; otherwise it's off to slaughter. It's rare in Europe to find someone who does both; a dairy farmer will have contracts with a beef farmer to whom the bullocks are sent for raising. So we'd expect about 50% beef cows to have started as dairy cows. I'm not sure about the quality of the beef from these, as many would be four or more years old. With advances in genetics, we can expect that there will be more cows born and fewer bullocks.