Hard News: Clover It
325 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 13 Newer→ Last
-
Thanks, Ben.
We know we want the bigger yields
Bias towards growth. Ever model any static environments where conserving total energy/resource was the goal?
-
Although I am not sure where I am in this debate, why can't I get exploding cows out of my head? Is it because a scientist I spoke to about this (who knew the trial) commented that although it worked in the lab, it didn't in the field.I guess they found out though. At the same time, for all the reasons of solving starvation in the world, the poor and starving, wont reap the benefits.It is not commercially viable to serve the poor. I think (although there are drought resistant strains being looked at surely?? ) water must be the big contender, so I'd want the issue of the use of water being dealt with first. A lot of farmers in Sth America, are penniless because of drought. Large yields (GM)or small(natural) don't exist in drought.
Here's some pretty sad pictures.Jus' thinking of the poor, but I am happy at reading this discussion. It has helped me tremendously.
water issues -
. . . why can't I get exploding cows out of my head? Is it because a scientist I spoke to about this (who knew the trial) commented that although it worked in the lab, it didn't in the field.I guess they found out though.
That'd be these cows, right? A particularly ghastly example of commercially driven scientific hubris. Despite the complaints about the restrictive regime under which selfless scientists currently labour, and the claims that such mishaps are outside of the realms of probability, it happened, recently, right here.
-
Well it's almost certain a lot of animals suffer from experimentation. But it's also true a lot of animals suffer from nature, and normal agriculture slaughters them in their millions every year. When it comes to supplying humans with food, the suffering of animals doesn't usually figure highly. I don't think GM experimentation is more inhumane than a lot of other experimentation, and that includes things as simple as changing feed. You can make an animal suffer or die with mistakes like that, and it just goes down in the log book for next time round.
-
I don't think GM experimentation is more inhumane than a lot of other experimentation, and that includes things as simple as changing feed.
I'd be mildly curious to know how changing one's diet could lead to, say, a set of unfeasibly large (and ultimately exploding) testicles. While the cost in terms of animal suffering was way too high in the case of this bungled experiment, that wasn't my main point. It's an example of how, despite assurances from those who claim to know, things can and do fuck up.
We have a moral duty to minimise any suffering to animals that we hold power over, it's a measure of how civilised we really are. The careless approach shown at Ruakura should, like live sheep exports, never have been allowed to happen.
As for using what happens to animals in nature as some kind of benchmark, in the early 90s the circus owner who was carting the last performing elephant around this country attempted to justify the animal's treatment by claiming in a radio interview that Somalis would be happy to be exhibited in his show because they'd be better off than they would in their war-torn homeland.
-
That'd be these cows, right?
Right. but at the same time I despair that a rose doesn't smell anymore but don't they look so pretty. I also understand the desire for knowledge and experimentation is required for that. At the same time ignorance seems obvious on both sides of the equation but I still don't love the idea of frankensteinishable experiments being the answer to a "we must have bigger,better,faster" for the sake of our children in the overpopulated suffocating world.Still, oil spills don't consider the animal world, and animals are slaughtered everyday but I love my salmon which is dead as I eat it,(and the debate of farmed over wild salmon continues) so, maybe with humans ability to dispose of animal, mineral or vegetable at will, it is required that there should be study to look at alternatives to the status quo.I think our scientists could figure out a brilliant clean up solution for the oil, showing a caring side and win some popularity for their other agendas. Trade off,brownie points, I could get behind that. I think??...
-
Hey Joe. ( now I have a Hendrix head)
At least some degree of change happened in Parliament this week with changes to the Animal Cruelty Act. Increases were desperately needed in funding. One for the SPCA, one for all animals, domestic and commercial. About time and for all who see Sue Kedgley as "out there", her perseverance on animal welfare got Simon Bridges, then the National Party on board.Also something good the media did with reporting animal abuse. -
About time and for all who see Sue Kedgley as "out there", her perseverance on animal welfare got Simon Bridges, then the National Party on board.
Thanks Sofie, and 3 cheers for civilisation. While Sue Kedgley may be a tad flakey on the issue of vaccination, this is an achievement that makes all our lives better. MMP working as it should.
-
MMP working as it should.
Yes and unanimous vote. Nice to see select committee process used correctly too. If only we could look at human issues the same.
-
Thanks Sofie, and 3 cheers for civilisation. While Sue Kedgley may be a tad flakey on the issue of vaccination, this is an achievement that makes all our lives better. MMP working as it should.
Ah, the conflict of bearing any sort of reasoned sympathy for Green politics. I love the Greens for some things, and lament them for others.
-
Ah, the conflict of bearing any sort of reasoned sympathy for Green politics. I love the Greens for some things, and lament them for others.
In the world of MMP, no one party can be perfect or we wouldn't have MMP. The Green are headed in my right direction so will get one of my votes.One thing the Greens get in Parliament I don't see from any other Party,is, the ability to silence the House with a reasoned argument it seems.I don't think it's because of their more radical ideas.
-
Sofie
for all the reasons of solving starvation in the world, the poor and starving, wont reap the benefits
There is a perception that GM crops are only grown by big (American) companies. That used to be true but there a 14 million farmers growing GM crops, most of those a small holders. It isn’t there yet but increasingly GM crops are for the poor.
although there are drought resistant strains being looked at surely??
Hell yeah. But water is difficult, as you’d expect plants manage water very carefully so changing the way plant manages water is tricky and it changes as you shift from lab to greenhouse to field trial. Which is why we need to do trials in the field. But short answer is yes it’s a huge priority and progress is being made.
Joe
the claims that such mishaps are outside of the realms of probability
The point I’ve been trying to get across is that we know that when we try things we will see unexpected results. Most of those will show up in the lab, some will only show up in the greenhouse and some will only show up in field trial.
It’s not that we don’t see the unexpected, it’s that we no longer simply do an experiment in the lab and then ship it to the grocer. We know we need to do trials. And we are certain that after doing those trials that the products will be safer than any product of conventional breeding (or MAS) has been over the previous centuries.
The problem in New Zealand is that we are not allowed to do trials because our current regulations make that effectively impossible. Note technically possible but horrendously restrictive and with horrendously expensive bureaucracy.The careless approach shown at Ruakura should
Bollocks and you know better than that Joe. There is no way you could describe the research done with those cows in Ruakura as careless. Quite the reverse. Those cows are cared for much better than any farmer in new Zealand could afford to do. Yes the results were unexpected but don’t mistake that for lack of care, that is unfair Joe.
-
Bart, someone stuffed up bigtime at Ruakura. The results speak for themselves. It was a dubious experiment with questionable goals, and grocers had nothing to do with it - not that they have squat to do with anything these days.
I'm a little dismayed by the contrast between the self-pity you're able to muster for the "horrendously restrictive" conditions under which you labour, and the utter disregard for the animal victims of bungled research. If you're at all representative of the bioresearch community in NZ then you appear to be a heartless and self-serving bunch.
-
The results do speak for themselves, your interpretation of them as evidence of lack of care however is what I disagree with. The cows died because the experiment had an unexpected result. Everything leading up to the experiment indicated that they should not have died. In short the researchers expected the best for those animals, if they had expected anything else the trial would not have been done.
The researchers are not heartless at all and the animals in those research trials receive veterinary care well above any care that is possible on normal farms. Portraying the researchers as without care and heartless is simply unfair.
-
The cows died because the experiment had an unexpected result. Everything leading up to the experiment indicated that they should not have died. In short the researchers expected the best for those animals, if they had expected anything else the trial would not have been done.
According to this account, the researchers were well aware of the risks:
The Official Information Act documents show a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) investigation found deformities and respiratory problems among animals at the facility - something AgResearch had been open about - but said that was a foreseeable by-product of the project.
While the scientists involved may, as you claim, be exemplary humanitarians, such niceties don't extend to management level:
AgResearch's applied technologies group manager, Dr Jimmy Suttie, said he did not see the deaths as a "big deal", and they were part of the learning process for scientists.
-
well aware of the risks
You are misreading context. The quote you are reading
found deformities and respiratory problems among animals at the facility - something AgResearch had been open about - but said that was a foreseeable by-product of the project.
Refers to the fact that all genetically engineered animals have health issues. It is a result of the technology itself and the issues are usually minor. As we learn more about animal cloning and engineering those issues are becoming less frequent. Those health issues disappear after one generation.
The researchers did not know that the gene in question would cause the deaths when introduced into the cows
a problem that did not show up in trials on mice
As for Jimmy Suttie's comment it may not have been politically correct but it is still true. Deaths of animals that are part of breeding programs is nothing new nor unusual.
You probably are not aware that conventional animal breeding results in birth defects, abnormalities and deaths of animals. That is ignoring the culling of animals that showed no improvement in the trait of interest.
You are certainly welcome to believe that animal deaths at the hands of humans is wrong. But to portray this research as particularly inhumane is not fair. I believe that the animals in this research program are better cared for than most farm animals in New Zealand.
-
BTW I sound like a cheerleader but believe me I am not. I detest unethical treatment of animals. If I believed for a second that the work being done by AgResearch was unethical I would happily condemn it.
-
. End of the day, my conclusion here is that nature is, indeed, an amazing and awesome thing, for discovering such an efficient optimization algorithm. But humans can improve on it enormously.
is it just me? that final sentence
sends a shiver down my spine!be careful what you wish for...
-
End of the day, my conclusion here is that nature is, indeed, an amazing and awesome thing, for discovering such an efficient optimization algorithm. But humans can improve on it enormously.
I was going to comment on this one at the time (but didn't want to detract from Bart's fine efforts, so held off).
Nature didn't discover the "efficient optimisation algorithm" - that algorithm, aka natural selection, just is. It's an integral part of nature. Discovered to be so by Darwin.
But now I'll go a little further - Darwin gained much of his insight into the natural selection process from his knowledge of human-mediated selection in pigeons and other domestic animals. There's been much in a few grass = grain species and other food plants too. That is, humans have been assiduously working on improving on nature's "efficient optimisation algorithm" for 10,000 years or so, that's why 'we' humans are not still all hunter-gatherers.
Yes, I think this is close to spine-tingling stuff, but not in the chilling sense.
-
be careful what you wish for...
Righto, Grandma.
Bart, I believe you. Some people don't get that the word experiment means some uncertainty about the outcome, and that it's one of those concepts built into science.
-
Some people don't get that the word experiment means some uncertainty about the outcome
More than some people. It's something I remind students of quite frequently...
If you know what is going to happen why are you bothering to do the experiment? The most interesting experiments are those where you don't know what is going to happen :). Sadly it's quite hard to get accountants to believe that. -
You probably are not aware that conventional animal breeding results in birth defects, abnormalities and deaths of animals. That is ignoring the culling of animals that showed no improvement in the trait of interest.
Khrist you can be condescending. As it happens I grew up in the rural sector, something that's not too uncommon in this country, and while I'd rather not dwell on it, I've seen a few naturally occurring animal birth defects, and done rather more than my share of 'necessary' killing than I'd have liked. On the internet you never know just who you may be talking to on a given subject, and while your scientific credentials give you a certain credibility, they don't afford you ownership of any debate that happens to involve your expertise.
Implying that those who question Jimmy Suttie's management of what appears to be a genuine stuff-up are 'politically correct' is a very cheap shot. The man comes across as arrogant and inhumane, not to mention an ineffective apologist. I'll say it again - we have a duty to minimise suffering to animals in our care, it's a measure of how civilised we truly are. Simply claiming that they're afforded the best veterinary treatment is meaningless in an ethical vacuum, which Suttie's glib 'no big deal' comment indicates is pretty much the case.
-
you can be condescending
My apologies. I assumed your comments were made because you didn't realise the realities of animal breeding.
However it is clear you have the knowledge and yet you are certain in your mind that the animals in the research program were indeed unethically treated.
I withdraw from any attempt to change your opinion.
-
Righto, Grandma.
your monkey's paw is in the post, use it wisely...
-
Nature didn't discover the "efficient optimisation algorithm" - that algorithm, aka natural selection, just is. It's an integral part of nature. Discovered to be so by Darwin.
Not really sure if you're disagreeing with me here. Sounds like a quibble along the lines of "Discovery requires a discoverer, so nature can't discover anything, any more than a stone can". I don't really care to argue about that. It goes to how language is used to convey an idea, rather than implying any deep anthropomorphizing of nature by me. Of course I consider my work to be part of nature, in one sense. But not in the sense people usually mean, so I didn't talk that way.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.