World hunger solved.

[FoolKiller]

I guess my main point was how does it solve world hunger, I know the title isn't to be taken too literally I am just struggling to see the big gains of cloning for the purpose of agriculture over say selective breeding, when the difficulties are factored in.

Right now this will do nothing for world hunger, but if it becomes a succesful and predictable process what stops it from basically turning into a huge factory-line of bulls being created from one? It doesn't even have to be top-notch cows, just good enough to pass food inspection. Starving people will likely not care if it is Filet Mignon or Thursday night sirloin sale night steak. It is food, and that is all they need.

So, you take one cow and you make 10,000 clones from him at one time. Every single one of those cows doesn't even get a chance to breed (thus eliminating the genetic diversity argument) and is quickly sent to slaughter. All that meat is then sent to third-world countries for cheap while the first-world countries continue on with their normal breeding/herding market.

From one cow you added 10,000 cows worth of beef to the world.


Then of course there are the still sci-fi concepts of working in accelerated growth in the cloning process, as well as other genetic modifications. Imagine, a cloned cow ready for slaughter in two months and his meat contains 100% of your daily required nutrition. Make thousands and send the meat overseas to third-world countries.

But all of this is far, far off into the future. The point of this is that it is the first step in heading that way. The Wright Brothers didn't build a spaceship, they built a glider. What good was that? It proved that it could be done and began the science that led to jets and space travel.

How can you play someone who doesn't exist...

Whether he actually exists or not does not matter. What does matter is what the belief of those who make or persuade ethics policy is.

"Playing God" is bollocks. It's regulating industry based on assumption instead of fact.

Actually it is bollocks because we are not creating new genetic codes. If I take the blueprints from your house and build my own exactly like them I didn't play Keef, I copied Keef.

When we can take non-biologic stuff and make it become living biologic stuff, with its own individual genetic code, then we will be playing God.


There are also the people that think cloned or genetically enhanced foods will alter our own DNA and give us all cancer or something.

 

[Bram Turismo]

There are also the people that think cloned or genetically enhanced foods will alter our own DNA and give us all cancer or something.

Great post there 👍

I heard that one before as well, that sentence I quoted, and that'll probably be one of the biggest arguments from religious people (not pointed at any of here, probably the extreme ones) that'll use this reason of altering DNA that it is against God's will and whatnot. I think we just need to live with the idea of this new kind of "technology" becoming an everyday thing, not just yet though... Only the thought about how the industry and technology skyrocketed since 1900 makes me go feel weird in my gut how the industry and technology will be like in the 2100...

Also, some internet links to cloning (advantages, disadvantages and whatnot...)

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml

http://science.howstuffworks.com/genetic-science/cloning.htm

http://schools.sd68.bc.ca/CEDS/Library/cloning.htm

 

[niky]

@Foolkiller: The only problem with the factory-style cloning idea is we already do something very similar with donated cow sperm. We do have entire herds that are genetically related... only as brothers, not twin... errh... triplets... or... thousandplets?

 

[Stevisiov]

Right now this will do nothing for world hunger, but if it becomes a succesful and predictable process what stops it from basically turning into a huge factory-line of bulls being created from one? It doesn't even have to be top-notch cows, just good enough to pass food inspection. Starving people will likely not care if it is Filet Mignon or Thursday night sirloin sale night steak. It is food, and that is all they need.

So, you take one cow and you make 10,000 clones from him at one time. Every single one of those cows doesn't even get a chance to breed (thus eliminating the genetic diversity argument) and is quickly sent to slaughter. All that meat is then sent to third-world countries for cheap while the first-world countries continue on with their normal breeding/herding market.

From one cow you added 10,000 cows worth of beef to the world.

I can't see where the 1 cow from 10000 really stacks up. Rearing 10,000 normal cows is no different to rearing 10,000 cloned cows. The only difference is that you can guarantee your end product to a greater extent. It still takes the same land, etc to rear non-cloned to cloned cows, the only real gain is that if you have cloned the best cow since sliced bread then your going to have a heard of a exceptional cows instead of a mediocre heard, even then, the mediocre heard can actually be almost as good using donor sperm.

I can't see any large advantage of cloning from selective breading, and therefore I can't see how it can have any major impact on world hunger even if the cloning process became a 10p job which took 30 seconds.

Niky basically said what I was trying to say on the last page but made a lot more sense I am worried about the consequences of replacing natural heard with cloned herd, the potential of a genetic weakness to a particular disease wiping out thousands of cattle is increased. I agree that clones should be neutered, if you displace the countries natural livestock with clones across the country, where are you getting your original copies from? Sure there will still be places dotted around the country with natural livestock but with fewer cows to choose from (and of those you only want the best of the best for cloning purposes) you have a greater risk of having a small genetic diversity.

This would only be a problem most farms replaced normal livestock with clones, but when you think about it, if the farmer down the road has a heard of 'supercows', your going to want 'supercows' too if you want to stay in business.

Cloning will no doubt become an essential part of our future but I don't like the idea of cloning for food purposes because somewhere down the line we will pay big for the lack of genetic diversity.

@Niky, I didn't realise the situation was so bad with regards to cows and selective breeding, is it getting close to the problems encountered selective breeding in pedigree dogs yet?

 

[niky]

I'm not really sure. But some researchers say it is. There are actually breeds of cow going extinct every month, if you can believe it.

Dogs are an extreme case. If dogs were humans, you'd have hundreds of thousands of people who look more or less exactly like Brad Pitt, anoither population set that looks exactly like Tom Cruise, another set that looks like Gary Coleman, another set that looks like Mini-Me, complete with fragile bone problems and the inability to hunt prey animals... ...etcetera. And the perverse thing is, dog breeders go to great pains to ensure that these dogs breed with nobody but their close cousins, just to keep the look of the breeds from wandering... sort of opposite to how the breeds were created in the first place, where dogs were bred to a desired set of traits (much as farmers breed for good meat and milk cows) and the breeds were continuously imrpoved by picking the best dogs they could find to strengthen these traits.

 

[Omnis]

Thank god dogs aren't humans then. The last thing we need is legions of identical douchebags.

 

[opelgt1969]

More cows=more tax money

Something for everybody to say what the


By Darius Radzius
Reporter / WJHL
Published: January 9, 2009
It may sound like a joke, but area farmers aren’t laughing. Someone is Washington proposed the idea of taxing farmers for the greenhouse gas. Their cattle produce while chewing their cud.
Farmers think the idea stinks and if you eat anything from pork chops to ice cream, you might too.
Its become tough over the years for farmers to earn a living from their land.
“This day and time with the cost of fuel and all of that fertilizer,“ said John Hilemon, cattle rancher.
It’s actually turned into a hobby of sorts.
“You have to have another job to keep the farm going,“ said Hilemon.
They naturally cringed when the environmental protection agency emitted a proposed tax, intended to fight greenhouse gases.
“What is all of this about. It sounds kind of crazy for most of these farmers out here,“ said Ty Petty, University of Tennessee Agriculture Extension Agent, Unicoi County.
They wanted to know more about a tax on gas released by livestock.
“That would include dairies, any kind of beef cattle, and also pigs,“ said Petty.
The new tax would target the largest polluters of 100 tons or more a year.
“If you categorize greenhouse gases as a serious pollutant, then all entities that emit the same pollutant are subject to tax,“ said Petty.
The New York Farm Bureau estimated 175-dollars per dairy cow, $87.50 per beef cattle, and $20 per hog per year.
“Basically those tax rates that were considered for automobiles were translated into per cow,“ said Petty.
This would impact farmers with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle, or 200 hogs.
Which means John Hilemon would have to pay $8,750 dollars per year.
“You just can’t incur anymore cost. No possible way,“ said Hilemon.
Many farmers would go under and you’d pay the price.
“Beef production, it’s going to go up higher for people in the supermarket,“ said Hilemon.
But in the end, the EPA’s report may be a bunch of hot air. The Environmental Protection Agency followed up the summer report with a statement that they have no intention of levying a tax on livestock.
There are more than 96 million cows in the United States and we each consume an average of 27 billion pounds of beef per year.


I really like where it says we each consume an average of 27 billion pounds of beef per year. I think they mean the US consumes that much per year.

 

[Sureboss]

I wouldn't bet against it [/stereotype]

 

[Rotary Junkie]

If being single means I have to beat my meat a bit more often, then so be it.

Sig'd in 5...

EDIT: lol, Sureshot did as well.

 

[Rykon Zero]

There is no way in hell someone is going to tax my bumhole. (They did say all entities that produce this gas, right?)

 

[ExigeEvan]

Depends, do your parents already have to pay the utility company for sewage waste coming from your house?

 

[niky]

Sewage wastes are waste that is handled and treated by municipal/urban/local/whatever utilities. You're paying for use of the treatment utilities.

Paying for the methane emissions of your cattle or pets or self is just plain ridiculous. Ridiculous in the sense that such a tax would have to be levelled on every single living animal within the country... whether or not they have the capacity to pay.

With the hysteria over greenhouse gases, I wouldn't be surprised if they started taxing us on the CO2 we emit every time we breathe.

 

[Bram Turismo]

With the hysteria over greenhouse gases, I wouldn't be surprised if they started taxing us on the CO2 we emit every time we breathe.

Into my signature, that went.

[/Yoda]

 

[buickgnx88]

I could just see it now...

"Today in the news, the UN has declared that every human on earth must wear a device near the mouth and anus that records the amount of CO2 and Methane emitted. This data is sent to a collection center in each capitol, and is billed to you on a monthly basis.
Stay tuned for Martha Stewart, who will be showing 10 ways to dress up your gas counters!"

 

[Touring Mars]

 

[boiltheocean]

I could just see it now...

"Today in the news, the UN has declared that every human on earth must wear a device near the mouth and anus that records the amount of CO2 and Methane emitted. This data is sent to a collection center in each capitol, and is billed to you on a monthly basis.
Stay tuned for Martha Stewart, who will be showing 10 ways to dress up your gas counters!"

haha

 

[FoolKiller]

I can't see any large advantage of cloning from selective breading, and therefore I can't see how it can have any major impact on world hunger even if the cloning process became a 10p job which took 30 seconds.

The future thought in cloning is not so much in the current, clone a cow and everything after birth is exactly the same as before, process we have now.

While that may help ward off extinction, it doesn't create any new benefit. You are correct.

But this is in its infancy. Cloning allows us much more control than selective breeding. We are just now beginning to understand and use genetic codes. If we can create alterations we can do all kinds of things. I have already heard of attempting to clone human organs in animals such as cattle. While cloning the cow we could possibly put that in place pre-conception.

Or, if we can manage accelerated growth then you can fill a field with the same size heard as before, but do it multiple times a year, instead of once. Whatever multiple you manage to decrease the time it take to reach physical maturity is how many more cattle you can have in the world every year.

Or find a way to make them able to live in different climates so that people in need of good food can have their own cattle they raise. Not only would it boost their economy, but it would give them food. This may even be possible without cloning, but cloning could open the door to understanding.


See, you are looking at it right now and saying it is very similar, and not much benefit. But think of it this way. It is new technology and is already very similar to the old process. Any improvement is better. People looked at the first automobiles and thought they were no better than a horse and carriage. You buy fuel or food. What they didn't consider was that a horseless carriage was just the first step.

No one says cloning livestock will solve food supply issues today, tomorrow, next year, or next decade. But in 50 years? Maybe.