The morals of genetically modified shoes

[njiska]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/20 ... sting.html

Short story:

A company is genetically modifying stingray to grow with customer specified patterns, raising them to age and then harvesting them for leather to make shoes. The general reaction form the public seems to be one of disgust, but is this really any more cruel than we we're doing now? After all we raise cattle by the millions to be slaughtered for leather. And Stingray's have been harvested for their leather for centuries. Then again we also don't specifically modify the cow on a per customer basis. Something feels off about this, but I can't see anything that's wrong without being a hypocrite.

[O. Van Bruce]

So it begins... another fashion Shitstorm.

Not bad for me, I would buy one if they were confy and I had the money. Just for the lulz and to anger some hardcore ecologists.... which in turn are most of the chicks so I wouldn't get a girlfriend in my life again

[Vyxx]

I think the most frightening part of the whole story is that anyone would wear the shoes shown in that picture.

[njiska]

I think the most frightening part of the whole story is that anyone would wear the shoes shown in that picture.

There's no accounting for women.

[burgerkingdiamond]

yeah you're right. Logically it's no worse than pumping chickens full of hormones for example to make them grow 3 times as big in 1/3 of the time. But it does feel weird.

I think it's pretty cool that they can do that though. Electric blue zebra print stingray son!

[FIL]

Shame it's a hoax, I like the look of those blue zebra shoes.

[njiska]

Shame it's a hoax, I like the look of those blue zebra shoes.

Regardless of being a hoax, it makes for an interesting moral debate.

[trap15]

I don't get how people can be disgusted with killing animals that were specifically raised to be killed. they're not combing the ocean for already existing rays, right? They're not harming any ecosystem.

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't get how people can be disgusted with killing animals that were specifically raised to be killed.

There is a serious movement that disagrees with you. Raising animals in a way that doesn't allow them to experience a natural life also seems to devalue life itself.

They're not harming any ecosystem.

That's probably false.

[trap15]

They're not harming any ecosystem.

That's probably false.

Which one? The one that they set up themselves isolated from a natural ecosystem?

[Ed Oscuro]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fish+farming+ecology

[trap15]

This has caused more than a few problems, the first is that many of these salmon escape into these new environments and have been able to breed thus competing with native fish species for food and habitat. These alien species also spread diseases to native fish that have no resistance and again cannot compete with the domesticated fish that are fed anti-biotics and steroids in their feed.

Sounds more like an issue with how it's practiced rather than the actual practice itself.

If they actually kept the environment closed, what issue would there be?

[FIL]

You're assuming that these stingray farms would be perfect closed ecosystems, which fish farms in the real world aren't. And it's not just escaped fish, it's also leaks of those steroids and antibiotics that threaten wider species.

Also large scale fish farming requires unsustainable amounts of plankton for feeding. this threatens other species and is probably the biggest ecological downside to farming carnivorous or omnivorous species of fish.

[xbl0x180]

How do you think the "Africanised" bee managed to take over the Americas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africanized_bee

In shoot-'em-up terms, these queen bees are the HIBACHI equivalent in the bee world and can pretty much pulverise other kinds of bees...


There can be a lot of ecological harm stemming from farming genetically modified animals, fish, and insects. Saying that's it's no different than pumping chickens and cows with hormones doesn't change that fact. Actually, pumping chickens and cows full of hormones could itself pose a health threat to the humans that consume them

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Actually, pumping chickens and cows full of hormones could itself pose a health threat to the humans that consume them

Farmed turkeys are more or less fucked up due to how we've bred them more meat, to the point where they're basically incapable of reproducing without human aid. Chickens are getting to that point too, so it doesn't necessarily require hormones to mess up a species. Just lots of selective breeding.

Some people who knew nothing about biology induced a moral panic by claiming that eating beef that had been injected with bovine growth hormones would give you cancer, despite the fact there's a huge difference between being say injected with estrogen directly and eating meat or drinking milk from a cow that had hormones given to it. Claims of health danger are bullshit, although it does sometimes have some adverse effects on the cows themselves, which is why some countries have disallowed using it, and that's actually a legitimate concern.

Same thing happened with vaccines, huge moral panic over mercury in vaccines despite the fact that they stopped using mercury in most vaccines, and the amount that was being used in the form of thiomersal was negligible at best. Even worse, thiomersal is an ethyl mercury, a form of mercury that's readily removed from the body via the gut compared to methyl mercury, a form that accumulates in the body. You'd get way more methyl mercury eating a can of tuna anyways, but Andrew Wakefield's bullshit damaged people's confidence in science, and now we have diseases like whooping cough and measles making an alarming comeback thanks to people who are gullible and susceptible to obvious bullshit health scares.

[xbl0x180]

Some people who knew nothing about biology induced a moral panic by claiming that eating beef that had been injected with bovine growth hormones would give you cancer, despite the fact there's a huge difference between being say injected with estrogen directly and eating meat or drinking milk from a cow that had hormones given to it. Claims of health danger are bullshit, although it does sometimes have some adverse effects on the cows themselves, which is why some countries have disallowed using it, and that's actually a legitimate concern.

Sure, those claims of danger are bunk. However, using all those biochemicals could still pose a threat to human and environmental health. I mean, if trace human pharmaceutical chemicals can be found in the water, why wouldn't hormones used in cows and chickens be the same?

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse ... gorman.pdf

[Ed Oscuro]

Growth hormone also might change the taste and texture of the meat. Those questions, to me, are still relevant because they help determine the quality of life for farmed animals. But yeah, some of the stuff being talked of as dangerous are nonsensical. That being said, much of the skepticism regarding modern techniques can be worthwhile, for the simple fact that technology poses more damaging possibilities than a state of nature would. Of course, this is no argument for being selective in what kinds of technology to okay - not only would getting rid of many worthwhile and useful technologies reduce the lifespan dramatically, but we live in a world where we expect many of the benefits of technology. Lots of people in close proximity without vaccination, for example, is a great recipe for another Black Death, with lots of needless and extremely painful casualties. The problem, unfortunately, is that it's not clear which technologies will pan out and which ones won't, especially with the regulatory structure being essentially broken. But yeah - fuck Wakefield, and Trump too.

[Damocles]

How do you think the "Africanised" bee managed to take over the Americas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africanized_bee

In shoot-'em-up terms, these queen bees are the HIBACHI equivalent in the bee world and can pretty much pulverise other kinds of bees...

That's a helluva reach, especially after reading the Wikipedia entry you linked to.

[Acid King]

Growth hormone also might change the taste and texture of the meat.

This. Animals that are pumped full of hormones and drugs simply don't taste as good as ones that are pastured and raised naturally. So-called "factory farming" doesn't have much going for it. It's shitty for the environment, hell for the animals, and the flavor and texture can't compete with animals that are left to grow and feed naturally.

[BulletMagnet]

So-called "factory farming" doesn't have much going for it.

It's got plenty going for it in the profit margin department, certainly, not to mention the whole "if people want to eat this much meat and stuff while paying so little for it (in raw dollars, anyway, as "indirect" costs such as the ones you mentioned never seem to factor in for some reason), they're gonna hafta learn to live with the way we do things" argument, which in and of itself is rather tough to refute. People are either going to have to start eating less resource-intensive stuff (anyone else remember that stat concerning how many pounds of grain are required to produce one pound of hamburger, something like that?) or pay a whole lot more for the meat they do eat to reflect its actual cost, and they certainly aren't going to do very much of that on their own.

[xbl0x180]

So-called "factory farming" doesn't have much going for it.

It's got plenty going for it in the profit margin department, certainly, not to mention the whole "if people want to eat this much meat and stuff while paying so little for it (in raw dollars, anyway, as "indirect" costs such as the ones you mentioned never seem to factor in for some reason), they're gonna hafta learn to live with the way we do things" argument, which in and of itself is rather tough to refute. People are either going to have to start eating less resource-intensive stuff (anyone else remember that stat concerning how many pounds of grain are required to produce one pound of hamburger, something like that?) or pay a whole lot more for the meat they do eat to reflect its actual cost, and they certainly aren't going to do very much of that on their own.

I recall those stats also discussed the "carbon footprint" from consuming meat (as well as the depletion of water sources)

[Acid King]

It's got plenty going for it in the profit margin department, certainly, not to mention the whole "if people want to eat this much meat and stuff while paying so little for it (in raw dollars, anyway, as "indirect" costs such as the ones you mentioned never seem to factor in for some reason), they're gonna hafta learn to live with the way we do things" argument, which in and of itself is rather tough to refute. People are either going to have to start eating less resource-intensive stuff (anyone else remember that stat concerning how many pounds of grain are required to produce one pound of hamburger, something like that?) or pay a whole lot more for the meat they do eat to reflect its actual cost, and they certainly aren't going to do very much of that on their own.

From the consumer end, profitability isn't a great bullet point. The costs are distorted by regulations and subsidies that favor certain crops and certain methods of food production. Until our agricultural policy and regulations are reworked not much will change.

[BulletMagnet]

From the consumer end, profitability isn't a great bullet point.

But having lots of money automatically means that factory farmers are indispensable job creators! That's the rule now! In all seriousness, though, you're right, but as the previous post maintains, whatever "indirect" costs end up being borne by consumers haven't been enough of a dissuasion (at least so far) for most of them to take their business elsewhere, though I'd submit that a) The often prohibitively-high cost of non-factory products, often thanks, as you refer to below, to hard-fought subsidies and other factors, and b) General lack of consumer knowledge about what they're buying and where it comes from (again, the right to obfuscate often being actively fought for by producers), are also factors to consider.

The costs are distorted by regulations and subsidies that favor certain crops and certain methods of food production. Until our agricultural policy and regulations are reworked not much will change.

I certainly can't disagree with you there (high-fructose corn syrup says "hi"), though I'd personally direct this line of thought into "vicious circle" territory, i.e. making more money allows for the hiring of more lobbyists to pull for more custom-tailored laws that allow for even more money to be made...that's getting off-topic though.