| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"tg" |
| Date: |
23 Jan 2008 03:32:05 PM |
| Object: |
On Cloning |
From NYT:
Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: January 23, 2008
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the way for the
eventual sale of meat and dairy products from cloned animals, saying,
in effect, that consumers face no health risks from them. The next
day, the Department of Agriculture asked farmers to keep their cloned
animals off the market until consumers have time to get over their
anticloning prejudice. That is one prejudice I plan to hold on to. I
will not be eating cloned meat.
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by
Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board >>
The reason has nothing to do with my personal health or safety. I
think the clearest way to understand the problem with cloning is to
consider a broader question: Who benefits from it? Proponents will say
that the consumer does, because we will get higher quality, more
consistent foods from cloned animals. But the real beneficiaries are
the nation's large meatpacking companies -- the kind that would like it
best if chickens grew in the shape of nuggets. Anyone who really cares
about food -- its different tastes, textures and delights -- is more
interested in diversity than uniformity.
As it happens, the same is true for anyone who cares about farmers and
their animals. An agricultural system that favors cloned animals has
no room for farmers who farm in different ways. Cloning, you will hear
advocates say, is just another way of making cows. But every other way
-- even using embryo transplants and artificial insemination -- allows
nature to shuffle the genetic deck. A clone does not.
To me, this striving for uniformity is the driving and destructive
force of modern agriculture. You begin with a wide array of breeds, a
truly diverse pool of genes. As time passes, you impose stricter and
stricter economic constraints upon those breeds and on the men and
women who raise them. One by one, the breeds that don't meet the
prevailing economic model are weeded out. By the beginning of the 21st
century, you've moved from the broad base of a genetic pyramid to its
nearly vanishing peak, which is to say that the genetic diversity
present in the economically acceptable breeds of modern livestock is
minute. Then comes cloning, and we leave behind all variation.
Cloning is not unnatural. It is natural for humans to experiment, to
try anything and everything. Nor is cloning that different from
anything else we've seen in modern agriculture. It is another way of
shifting genetic ownership from farmers to corporations. It is another
way of creating still greater economic and genetic concentration in an
industry that has already pushed concentration past the limits of
ethical and environmental acceptability.
It always bears repeating that humans are only as rich as the
diversity that surrounds them, whether we mean cultural or economic
diversity. The same is true of genetic diversity, which is an
essential bulwark against disease. These days there is less and less
genetic diversity in the animals found on farms, and farmers
themselves become less and less diverse because fewer and fewer of
them actually own the animals they raise. They become contract
laborers instead.
It is possible to preserve plant and crop diversity in seed banks. But
there are no animal banks. Breeds of animals that are not raised die
away, and the invaluable genetic archive they represent vanishes. This
may look like a simple test of economic efficiency. It is really a
colossal waste, of genes and of truly lovely, productive animals that
are the result of years of human attention and effort. From one
perspective, a cloned animal looks like a miracle of science. But from
another, it looks like what it is: a dead end.
end quote
Shop at any supermarket and the meat will taste exactly exactly the
same. Every day for the rest of your life, wherever you live.
Wasn't there some play or movie about hell being like that?
-tg
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: On Cloning |
23 Jan 2008 09:42:53 PM |
|
|
On Jan 23, 1:32=A0pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
From NYT:
Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: January 23, 2008
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the way for the
eventual sale of meat and dairy products from cloned animals, saying,
in effect, that consumers face no health risks from them. The next
day, the Department of Agriculture asked farmers to keep their cloned
animals off the market until consumers have time to get over their
anticloning prejudice. That is one prejudice I plan to hold on to. I
will not be eating cloned meat.
Any cell that divides in two has cloned itself. Therefore you already
eat the cloned.
The Board Blog
=A0Additional commentary, background information and other items by
Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board >>
The reason has nothing to do with my personal health or safety. I
think the clearest way to understand the problem with cloning is to
consider a broader question: Who benefits from it? Proponents will say
that the consumer does, because we will get higher quality, more
consistent foods from cloned animals. But the real beneficiaries are
the nation's large meatpacking companies -- the kind that would like it
best if chickens grew in the shape of nuggets. Anyone who really cares
about food -- its different tastes, textures and delights -- is more
interested in diversity than uniformity.
Once the process is cheap and portable then it may not be just the big
companies that use it. Like the internet everyone can use it to
profit. It might actually put the idea of the big company out of
business.
As it happens, the same is true for anyone who cares about farmers and
their animals. An agricultural system that favors cloned animals has
no room for farmers who farm in different ways. Cloning, you will hear
advocates say, is just another way of making cows. But every other way
-- even using embryo transplants and artificial insemination -- allows
nature to shuffle the genetic deck. A clone does not.
Mostly true.
To me, this striving for uniformity is the driving and destructive
force of modern agriculture. You begin with a wide array of breeds, a
truly diverse pool of genes. As time passes, you impose stricter and
stricter economic constraints upon those breeds and on the men and
women who raise them. One by one, the breeds that don't meet the
prevailing economic model are weeded out. By the beginning of the 21st
century, you've moved from the broad base of a genetic pyramid to its
nearly vanishing peak, which is to say that the genetic diversity
present in the economically acceptable breeds of modern livestock is
minute. Then comes cloning, and we leave behind all variation.
There will probably come about various ways to alter the cell to be
cloned so that it can result in many different forms. It may come down
to one universal stem cell which can be programmed to grow into any
animal or animal part.
Cloning is not unnatural. It is natural for humans to experiment, to
try anything and everything. Nor is cloning that different from
anything else we've seen in modern agriculture. It is another way of
shifting genetic ownership from farmers to corporations. It is another
way of creating still greater economic and genetic concentration in an
industry that has already pushed concentration past the limits of
ethical and environmental acceptability.
As others have hinted at in this topic, what is natural? Is it a
slippery slope where we would reduce all civilization to the primitive
living in tribes with no clothes or any alteration of the environment
because it is not nature's course? Or is there a line that can be
drawn with clear reason as to why one human change to nature is good
and another change to nature bad?
It always bears repeating that humans are only as rich as the
diversity that surrounds them, whether we mean cultural or economic
diversity. The same is true of genetic diversity, which is an
essential bulwark against disease. These days there is less and less
genetic diversity in the animals found on farms, and farmers
themselves become less and less diverse because fewer and fewer of
them actually own the animals they raise. They become contract
laborers instead.
Once we learn to turn one stem cell into any creature or plant, we may
be able to discover forms that nature snuffs out because of inferior
survival skills. All naturally surviving organism do not necessarily
produce the best plant/animal molecules.
It is possible to preserve plant and crop diversity in seed banks. But
there are no animal banks. Breeds of animals that are not raised die
away, and the invaluable genetic archive they represent vanishes. This
may look like a simple test of economic efficiency. It is really a
colossal waste, of genes and of truly lovely, productive animals that
are the result of years of human attention and effort. From one
perspective, a cloned animal looks like a miracle of science. But from
another, it looks like what it is: a dead end.
The possibility space of all possible molecular/cellular
configurations is all the "bank" we will eventually need. But the long
road to efficient cellular manipulation could cause alot of harm to
humans along the way.
end quote
Shop at any supermarket and the meat will taste exactly exactly the
same. Every day for the rest of your life, wherever you live.
You need to show how it would be impossible for us to discover a way
to make more diversity instead of less.
Wasn't there some play or movie about hell being like that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D_zNcKa0KfNY
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: On Cloning |
24 Jan 2008 06:10:46 AM |
|
|
On Jan 23, 10:42 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 23, 1:32 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
From NYT:
Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: January 23, 2008
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the way for the
eventual sale of meat and dairy products from cloned animals, saying,
in effect, that consumers face no health risks from them. The next
day, the Department of Agriculture asked farmers to keep their cloned
animals off the market until consumers have time to get over their
anticloning prejudice. That is one prejudice I plan to hold on to. I
will not be eating cloned meat.
Any cell that divides in two has cloned itself. Therefore you already
eat the cloned.
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by
Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board >>
The reason has nothing to do with my personal health or safety. I
think the clearest way to understand the problem with cloning is to
consider a broader question: Who benefits from it? Proponents will say
that the consumer does, because we will get higher quality, more
consistent foods from cloned animals. But the real beneficiaries are
the nation's large meatpacking companies -- the kind that would like it
best if chickens grew in the shape of nuggets. Anyone who really cares
about food -- its different tastes, textures and delights -- is more
interested in diversity than uniformity.
Once the process is cheap and portable then it may not be just the big
companies that use it. Like the internet everyone can use it to
profit. It might actually put the idea of the big company out of
business.
As it happens, the same is true for anyone who cares about farmers and
their animals. An agricultural system that favors cloned animals has
no room for farmers who farm in different ways. Cloning, you will hear
advocates say, is just another way of making cows. But every other way
-- even using embryo transplants and artificial insemination -- allows
nature to shuffle the genetic deck. A clone does not.
Mostly true.
To me, this striving for uniformity is the driving and destructive
force of modern agriculture. You begin with a wide array of breeds, a
truly diverse pool of genes. As time passes, you impose stricter and
stricter economic constraints upon those breeds and on the men and
women who raise them. One by one, the breeds that don't meet the
prevailing economic model are weeded out. By the beginning of the 21st
century, you've moved from the broad base of a genetic pyramid to its
nearly vanishing peak, which is to say that the genetic diversity
present in the economically acceptable breeds of modern livestock is
minute. Then comes cloning, and we leave behind all variation.
There will probably come about various ways to alter the cell to be
cloned so that it can result in many different forms. It may come down
to one universal stem cell which can be programmed to grow into any
animal or animal part.
Cloning is not unnatural. It is natural for humans to experiment, to
try anything and everything. Nor is cloning that different from
anything else we've seen in modern agriculture. It is another way of
shifting genetic ownership from farmers to corporations. It is another
way of creating still greater economic and genetic concentration in an
industry that has already pushed concentration past the limits of
ethical and environmental acceptability.
As others have hinted at in this topic, what is natural? Is it a
slippery slope where we would reduce all civilization to the primitive
living in tribes with no clothes or any alteration of the environment
because it is not nature's course? Or is there a line that can be
drawn with clear reason as to why one human change to nature is good
and another change to nature bad?
It always bears repeating that humans are only as rich as the
diversity that surrounds them, whether we mean cultural or economic
diversity. The same is true of genetic diversity, which is an
essential bulwark against disease. These days there is less and less
genetic diversity in the animals found on farms, and farmers
themselves become less and less diverse because fewer and fewer of
them actually own the animals they raise. They become contract
laborers instead.
Once we learn to turn one stem cell into any creature or plant, we may
be able to discover forms that nature snuffs out because of inferior
survival skills. All naturally surviving organism do not necessarily
produce the best plant/animal molecules.
It is possible to preserve plant and crop diversity in seed banks. But
there are no animal banks. Breeds of animals that are not raised die
away, and the invaluable genetic archive they represent vanishes. This
may look like a simple test of economic efficiency. It is really a
colossal waste, of genes and of truly lovely, productive animals that
are the result of years of human attention and effort. From one
perspective, a cloned animal looks like a miracle of science. But from
another, it looks like what it is: a dead end.
The possibility space of all possible molecular/cellular
configurations is all the "bank" we will eventually need. But the long
road to efficient cellular manipulation could cause alot of harm to
humans along the way.
end quote
Shop at any supermarket and the meat will taste exactly exactly the
same. Every day for the rest of your life, wherever you live.
You need to show how it would be impossible for us to discover a way
to make more diversity instead of less.
You make some good points Mort, but I don't have to show that. In
fact, you are asking me to 'prove a negative' as they say. People just
have to ask themselves what they would prefer. Some would prefer
absolute uniformity, I'm sure, since we observe a number of
authoritarian personalities on this group. But they can find
uniformity already.
The problem is that we don't have a market system that allows for the
kind of diversity you are talking about----there may be old fashioned
butcher shops in some urban areas but mostly it is a matter of shelf
space in supermarkets.
-tg
Wasn't there some play or movie about hell being like that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zNcKa0KfNY
-tg
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On Cloning |
23 Jan 2008 06:33:47 PM |
|
|
On Jan 23, 4:32 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
From NYT:
Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: January 23, 2008
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the way for the
eventual sale of meat and dairy products from cloned animals, saying,
in effect, that consumers face no health risks from them. The next
day, the Department of Agriculture asked farmers to keep their cloned
animals off the market until consumers have time to get over their
anticloning prejudice. That is one prejudice I plan to hold on to. I
will not be eating cloned meat.
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by
Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board >>
The reason has nothing to do with my personal health or safety. I
think the clearest way to understand the problem with cloning is to
consider a broader question: Who benefits from it? Proponents will say
that the consumer does, because we will get higher quality, more
consistent foods from cloned animals. But the real beneficiaries are
the nation's large meatpacking companies -- the kind that would like it
best if chickens grew in the shape of nuggets. Anyone who really cares
about food -- its different tastes, textures and delights -- is more
interested in diversity than uniformity.
As it happens, the same is true for anyone who cares about farmers and
their animals. An agricultural system that favors cloned animals has
no room for farmers who farm in different ways. Cloning, you will hear
advocates say, is just another way of making cows. But every other way
-- even using embryo transplants and artificial insemination -- allows
nature to shuffle the genetic deck. A clone does not.
To me, this striving for uniformity is the driving and destructive
force of modern agriculture. You begin with a wide array of breeds, a
truly diverse pool of genes. As time passes, you impose stricter and
stricter economic constraints upon those breeds and on the men and
women who raise them. One by one, the breeds that don't meet the
prevailing economic model are weeded out. By the beginning of the 21st
century, you've moved from the broad base of a genetic pyramid to its
nearly vanishing peak, which is to say that the genetic diversity
present in the economically acceptable breeds of modern livestock is
minute. Then comes cloning, and we leave behind all variation.
Cloning is not unnatural. It is natural for humans to experiment, to
try anything and everything. Nor is cloning that different from
anything else we've seen in modern agriculture. It is another way of
shifting genetic ownership from farmers to corporations. It is another
way of creating still greater economic and genetic concentration in an
industry that has already pushed concentration past the limits of
ethical and environmental acceptability.
It always bears repeating that humans are only as rich as the
diversity that surrounds them, whether we mean cultural or economic
diversity. The same is true of genetic diversity, which is an
essential bulwark against disease. These days there is less and less
genetic diversity in the animals found on farms, and farmers
themselves become less and less diverse because fewer and fewer of
them actually own the animals they raise. They become contract
laborers instead.
It is possible to preserve plant and crop diversity in seed banks. But
there are no animal banks. Breeds of animals that are not raised die
away, and the invaluable genetic archive they represent vanishes. This
may look like a simple test of economic efficiency. It is really a
colossal waste, of genes and of truly lovely, productive animals that
are the result of years of human attention and effort. From one
perspective, a cloned animal looks like a miracle of science. But from
another, it looks like what it is: a dead end.
end quote
Shop at any supermarket and the meat will taste exactly exactly the
same. Every day for the rest of your life, wherever you live.
Wasn't there some play or movie about hell being like that?
-tg
A couple more points. First all of this is based upon the assumption
that the FDA is correct with regards to its guess about the safety of
cloned products.
Growing up (and working on) dairy farm country, I know the great deal
of cost that dairy farmers put into breeding cows that are good
milkers. An exception milk cow produces a lot more milk then an
average milk cow. Since costs are directly tied to the number of cows
that the farmer has to maintain, a herd of only exceptionally good
milk cows to dramatically increase the farmers profits. We allow for
the same type of thing in other industries (if a company develops a
better search algorithm they use that algorithm in all of their
code). Maintaining and using multiple algorithms (for diversity sake)
does not make any sense. Why would you complain when the farmer wants
to do the same thing?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On Cloning |
23 Jan 2008 06:27:29 PM |
|
|
On Jan 23, 4:32 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
From NYT:
Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: January 23, 2008
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the way for the
eventual sale of meat and dairy products from cloned animals, saying,
in effect, that consumers face no health risks from them. The next
day, the Department of Agriculture asked farmers to keep their cloned
animals off the market until consumers have time to get over their
anticloning prejudice. That is one prejudice I plan to hold on to. I
will not be eating cloned meat.
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by
Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board >>
The reason has nothing to do with my personal health or safety. I
think the clearest way to understand the problem with cloning is to
consider a broader question: Who benefits from it? Proponents will say
that the consumer does, because we will get higher quality, more
consistent foods from cloned animals. But the real beneficiaries are
the nation's large meatpacking companies -- the kind that would like it
best if chickens grew in the shape of nuggets. Anyone who really cares
about food -- its different tastes, textures and delights -- is more
interested in diversity than uniformity.
As it happens, the same is true for anyone who cares about farmers and
their animals. An agricultural system that favors cloned animals has
no room for farmers who farm in different ways. Cloning, you will hear
advocates say, is just another way of making cows. But every other way
-- even using embryo transplants and artificial insemination -- allows
nature to shuffle the genetic deck. A clone does not.
To me, this striving for uniformity is the driving and destructive
force of modern agriculture. You begin with a wide array of breeds, a
truly diverse pool of genes. As time passes, you impose stricter and
stricter economic constraints upon those breeds and on the men and
women who raise them. One by one, the breeds that don't meet the
prevailing economic model are weeded out. By the beginning of the 21st
century, you've moved from the broad base of a genetic pyramid to its
nearly vanishing peak, which is to say that the genetic diversity
present in the economically acceptable breeds of modern livestock is
minute. Then comes cloning, and we leave behind all variation.
Cloning is not unnatural. It is natural for humans to experiment, to
try anything and everything. Nor is cloning that different from
anything else we've seen in modern agriculture. It is another way of
shifting genetic ownership from farmers to corporations. It is another
way of creating still greater economic and genetic concentration in an
industry that has already pushed concentration past the limits of
ethical and environmental acceptability.
It always bears repeating that humans are only as rich as the
diversity that surrounds them, whether we mean cultural or economic
diversity. The same is true of genetic diversity, which is an
essential bulwark against disease. These days there is less and less
genetic diversity in the animals found on farms, and farmers
themselves become less and less diverse because fewer and fewer of
them actually own the animals they raise. They become contract
laborers instead.
It is possible to preserve plant and crop diversity in seed banks. But
there are no animal banks. Breeds of animals that are not raised die
away, and the invaluable genetic archive they represent vanishes. This
may look like a simple test of economic efficiency. It is really a
colossal waste, of genes and of truly lovely, productive animals that
are the result of years of human attention and effort. From one
perspective, a cloned animal looks like a miracle of science. But from
another, it looks like what it is: a dead end.
end quote
Shop at any supermarket and the meat will taste exactly exactly the
same. Every day for the rest of your life, wherever you live.
Wasn't there some play or movie about hell being like that?
-tg
Nobody is forcing farmers to clone other then market forces. Your
argument is essentially saying lets preserve inefficiencies in the
system in order to maintain this ideal that has no market value.
Plus I think this is a moot point. Some farmer most likely will
market his product as "not cloned" and be able to get stupid people to
pay more for it.
It is the preventing of marketing of cloned animal products that is
inhibiting diversity in the market.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: On Cloning |
23 Jan 2008 06:33:21 PM |
|
|
On Jan 23, 7:27 pm, wrote:
On Jan 23, 4:32 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
From NYT:
Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: January 23, 2008
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the way for the
eventual sale of meat and dairy products from cloned animals, saying,
in effect, that consumers face no health risks from them. The next
day, the Department of Agriculture asked farmers to keep their cloned
animals off the market until consumers have time to get over their
anticloning prejudice. That is one prejudice I plan to hold on to. I
will not be eating cloned meat.
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by
Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board >>
The reason has nothing to do with my personal health or safety. I
think the clearest way to understand the problem with cloning is to
consider a broader question: Who benefits from it? Proponents will say
that the consumer does, because we will get higher quality, more
consistent foods from cloned animals. But the real beneficiaries are
the nation's large meatpacking companies -- the kind that would like it
best if chickens grew in the shape of nuggets. Anyone who really cares
about food -- its different tastes, textures and delights -- is more
interested in diversity than uniformity.
As it happens, the same is true for anyone who cares about farmers and
their animals. An agricultural system that favors cloned animals has
no room for farmers who farm in different ways. Cloning, you will hear
advocates say, is just another way of making cows. But every other way
-- even using embryo transplants and artificial insemination -- allows
nature to shuffle the genetic deck. A clone does not.
To me, this striving for uniformity is the driving and destructive
force of modern agriculture. You begin with a wide array of breeds, a
truly diverse pool of genes. As time passes, you impose stricter and
stricter economic constraints upon those breeds and on the men and
women who raise them. One by one, the breeds that don't meet the
prevailing economic model are weeded out. By the beginning of the 21st
century, you've moved from the broad base of a genetic pyramid to its
nearly vanishing peak, which is to say that the genetic diversity
present in the economically acceptable breeds of modern livestock is
minute. Then comes cloning, and we leave behind all variation.
Cloning is not unnatural. It is natural for humans to experiment, to
try anything and everything. Nor is cloning that different from
anything else we've seen in modern agriculture. It is another way of
shifting genetic ownership from farmers to corporations. It is another
way of creating still greater economic and genetic concentration in an
industry that has already pushed concentration past the limits of
ethical and environmental acceptability.
It always bears repeating that humans are only as rich as the
diversity that surrounds them, whether we mean cultural or economic
diversity. The same is true of genetic diversity, which is an
essential bulwark against disease. These days there is less and less
genetic diversity in the animals found on farms, and farmers
themselves become less and less diverse because fewer and fewer of
them actually own the animals they raise. They become contract
laborers instead.
It is possible to preserve plant and crop diversity in seed banks. But
there are no animal banks. Breeds of animals that are not raised die
away, and the invaluable genetic archive they represent vanishes. This
may look like a simple test of economic efficiency. It is really a
colossal waste, of genes and of truly lovely, productive animals that
are the result of years of human attention and effort. From one
perspective, a cloned animal looks like a miracle of science. But from
another, it looks like what it is: a dead end.
end quote
Shop at any supermarket and the meat will taste exactly exactly the
same. Every day for the rest of your life, wherever you live.
Wasn't there some play or movie about hell being like that?
-tg
Nobody is forcing farmers to clone other then market forces. Your
argument is essentially saying lets preserve inefficiencies in the
system in order to maintain this ideal that has no market value.
Plus I think this is a moot point. Some farmer most likely will
market his product as "not cloned" and be able to get stupid people to
pay more for it.
I see. If there's a market for something you approve of, that's cool.
But people who make market choices that you don't approve of are
'stupid'. Have you considered moving to Cuba?
-tg
It is the preventing of marketing of cloned animal products that is
inhibiting diversity in the market.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On Cloning |
24 Jan 2008 10:08:52 AM |
|
|
On Jan 23, 7:33 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Jan 23, 7:27 pm, wrote:
On Jan 23, 4:32 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
From NYT:
Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: January 23, 2008
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the way for the
eventual sale of meat and dairy products from cloned animals, saying,
in effect, that consumers face no health risks from them. The next
day, the Department of Agriculture asked farmers to keep their cloned
animals off the market until consumers have time to get over their
anticloning prejudice. That is one prejudice I plan to hold on to. I
will not be eating cloned meat.
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by
Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board >>
The reason has nothing to do with my personal health or safety. I
think the clearest way to understand the problem with cloning is to
consider a broader question: Who benefits from it? Proponents will say
that the consumer does, because we will get higher quality, more
consistent foods from cloned animals. But the real beneficiaries are
the nation's large meatpacking companies -- the kind that would like it
best if chickens grew in the shape of nuggets. Anyone who really cares
about food -- its different tastes, textures and delights -- is more
interested in diversity than uniformity.
As it happens, the same is true for anyone who cares about farmers and
their animals. An agricultural system that favors cloned animals has
no room for farmers who farm in different ways. Cloning, you will hear
advocates say, is just another way of making cows. But every other way
-- even using embryo transplants and artificial insemination -- allows
nature to shuffle the genetic deck. A clone does not.
To me, this striving for uniformity is the driving and destructive
force of modern agriculture. You begin with a wide array of breeds, a
truly diverse pool of genes. As time passes, you impose stricter and
stricter economic constraints upon those breeds and on the men and
women who raise them. One by one, the breeds that don't meet the
prevailing economic model are weeded out. By the beginning of the 21st
century, you've moved from the broad base of a genetic pyramid to its
nearly vanishing peak, which is to say that the genetic diversity
present in the economically acceptable breeds of modern livestock is
minute. Then comes cloning, and we leave behind all variation.
Cloning is not unnatural. It is natural for humans to experiment, to
try anything and everything. Nor is cloning that different from
anything else we've seen in modern agriculture. It is another way of
shifting genetic ownership from farmers to corporations. It is another
way of creating still greater economic and genetic concentration in an
industry that has already pushed concentration past the limits of
ethical and environmental acceptability.
It always bears repeating that humans are only as rich as the
diversity that surrounds them, whether we mean cultural or economic
diversity. The same is true of genetic diversity, which is an
essential bulwark against disease. These days there is less and less
genetic diversity in the animals found on farms, and farmers
themselves become less and less diverse because fewer and fewer of
them actually own the animals they raise. They become contract
laborers instead.
It is possible to preserve plant and crop diversity in seed banks. But
there are no animal banks. Breeds of animals that are not raised die
away, and the invaluable genetic archive they represent vanishes. This
may look like a simple test of economic efficiency. It is really a
colossal waste, of genes and of truly lovely, productive animals that
are the result of years of human attention and effort. From one
perspective, a cloned animal looks like a miracle of science. But from
another, it looks like what it is: a dead end.
end quote
Shop at any supermarket and the meat will taste exactly exactly the
same. Every day for the rest of your life, wherever you live.
Wasn't there some play or movie about hell being like that?
-tg
Nobody is forcing farmers to clone other then market forces. Your
argument is essentially saying lets preserve inefficiencies in the
system in order to maintain this ideal that has no market value.
Plus I think this is a moot point. Some farmer most likely will
market his product as "not cloned" and be able to get stupid people to
pay more for it.
I see. If there's a market for something you approve of, that's cool.
But people who make market choices that you don't approve of are
'stupid'. Have you considered moving to Cuba?
-tg
It is the preventing of marketing of cloned animal products that is
inhibiting diversity in the market.
You are putting words in my mouth that I never said or implied. I am
for market forces sorting all of this out. Which are compared to your
statements which indicate that you support government intervention in
limiting market forces. Just because I think some markets are
"stupid" does not mean I think the government should limit them (in
fact I am strictly opposed to this type of intervention). Let the
markets work. If non-cloned animal products survive - well good for
them. If not then they join the ranks of horse and buggy - isn't
progress grand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: On Cloning |
24 Jan 2008 11:29:27 AM |
|
|
On Jan 24, 11:08 am, wrote:
On Jan 23, 7:33 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Jan 23, 7:27 pm, wrote:
On Jan 23, 4:32 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
From NYT:
Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: January 23, 2008
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the way for the
eventual sale of meat and dairy products from cloned animals, saying,
in effect, that consumers face no health risks from them. The next
day, the Department of Agriculture asked farmers to keep their cloned
animals off the market until consumers have time to get over their
anticloning prejudice. That is one prejudice I plan to hold on to. I
will not be eating cloned meat.
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by
Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board >>
The reason has nothing to do with my personal health or safety. I
think the clearest way to understand the problem with cloning is to
consider a broader question: Who benefits from it? Proponents will say
that the consumer does, because we will get higher quality, more
consistent foods from cloned animals. But the real beneficiaries are
the nation's large meatpacking companies -- the kind that would like it
best if chickens grew in the shape of nuggets. Anyone who really cares
about food -- its different tastes, textures and delights -- is more
interested in diversity than uniformity.
As it happens, the same is true for anyone who cares about farmers and
their animals. An agricultural system that favors cloned animals has
no room for farmers who farm in different ways. Cloning, you will hear
advocates say, is just another way of making cows. But every other way
-- even using embryo transplants and artificial insemination -- allows
nature to shuffle the genetic deck. A clone does not.
To me, this striving for uniformity is the driving and destructive
force of modern agriculture. You begin with a wide array of breeds, a
truly diverse pool of genes. As time passes, you impose stricter and
stricter economic constraints upon those breeds and on the men and
women who raise them. One by one, the breeds that don't meet the
prevailing economic model are weeded out. By the beginning of the 21st
century, you've moved from the broad base of a genetic pyramid to its
nearly vanishing peak, which is to say that the genetic diversity
present in the economically acceptable breeds of modern livestock is
minute. Then comes cloning, and we leave behind all variation.
Cloning is not unnatural. It is natural for humans to experiment, to
try anything and everything. Nor is cloning that different from
anything else we've seen in modern agriculture. It is another way of
shifting genetic ownership from farmers to corporations. It is another
way of creating still greater economic and genetic concentration in an
industry that has already pushed concentration past the limits of
ethical and environmental acceptability.
It always bears repeating that humans are only as rich as the
diversity that surrounds them, whether we mean cultural or economic
diversity. The same is true of genetic diversity, which is an
essential bulwark against disease. These days there is less and less
genetic diversity in the animals found on farms, and farmers
themselves become less and less diverse because fewer and fewer of
them actually own the animals they raise. They become contract
laborers instead.
It is possible to preserve plant and crop diversity in seed banks. But
there are no animal banks. Breeds of animals that are not raised die
away, and the invaluable genetic archive they represent vanishes. This
may look like a simple test of economic efficiency. It is really a
colossal waste, of genes and of truly lovely, productive animals that
are the result of years of human attention and effort. From one
perspective, a cloned animal looks like a miracle of science. But from
another, it looks like what it is: a dead end.
end quote
Shop at any supermarket and the meat will taste exactly exactly the
same. Every day for the rest of your life, wherever you live.
Wasn't there some play or movie about hell being like that?
-tg
Nobody is forcing farmers to clone other then market forces. Your
argument is essentially saying lets preserve inefficiencies in the
system in order to maintain this ideal that has no market value.
Plus I think this is a moot point. Some farmer most likely will
market his product as "not cloned" and be able to get stupid people to
pay more for it.
I see. If there's a market for something you approve of, that's cool.
But people who make market choices that you don't approve of are
'stupid'. Have you considered moving to Cuba?
-tg
It is the preventing of marketing of cloned animal products that is
inhibiting diversity in the market.
You are putting words in my mouth that I never said or implied. I am
for market forces sorting all of this out. Which are compared to your
statements which indicate that you support government intervention in
limiting market forces. Just because I think some markets are
"stupid" does not mean I think the government should limit them (in
fact I am strictly opposed to this type of intervention). Let the
markets work. If non-cloned animal products survive - well good for
them. If not then they join the ranks of horse and buggy - isn't
progress grand.
It all depends on whether you see markets in terms of outcomes or
process. Monopolies arise, commodification happens. Many see those end
results as not being the same as the nominal condition that is
described as a free market. If you are simply interested in a
political agenda, then you are not discussing economic philosophy.
To go back to what the author was talking about: It may well be that
some people will continue to raise different animals; we see that
going on all the time with local produce. But what you will end up
with is a bimodal price structure, where you have the ubiquitous
commodity--- completely uniform cloned meat at a cheap price---and
then some boutique products that are not generally available, sold
mostly to restaurants, and very expensive.
Diversity means having a wide range of products avalilable to a wide
range of people---that's what markets do when they are operating
properly. In the situation where you have either very cheap or very
expensive, introducing new products becomes very difficult. So I would
say that you don't have a free market, even though you arrived there
*from* a free market.
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On Cloning |
24 Jan 2008 12:28:03 PM |
|
|
On Jan 24, 12:29 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Jan 24, 11:08 am, wrote:
On Jan 23, 7:33 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Jan 23, 7:27 pm, wrote:
On Jan 23, 4:32 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
From NYT:
Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: January 23, 2008
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the way for the
eventual sale of meat and dairy products from cloned animals, saying,
in effect, that consumers face no health risks from them. The next
day, the Department of Agriculture asked farmers to keep their cloned
animals off the market until consumers have time to get over their
anticloning prejudice. That is one prejudice I plan to hold on to. I
will not be eating cloned meat.
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by
Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board >>
The reason has nothing to do with my personal health or safety. I
think the clearest way to understand the problem with cloning is to
consider a broader question: Who benefits from it? Proponents will say
that the consumer does, because we will get higher quality, more
consistent foods from cloned animals. But the real beneficiaries are
the nation's large meatpacking companies -- the kind that would like it
best if chickens grew in the shape of nuggets. Anyone who really cares
about food -- its different tastes, textures and delights -- is more
interested in diversity than uniformity.
As it happens, the same is true for anyone who cares about farmers and
their animals. An agricultural system that favors cloned animals has
no room for farmers who farm in different ways. Cloning, you will hear
advocates say, is just another way of making cows. But every other way
-- even using embryo transplants and artificial insemination -- allows
nature to shuffle the genetic deck. A clone does not.
To me, this striving for uniformity is the driving and destructive
force of modern agriculture. You begin with a wide array of breeds, a
truly diverse pool of genes. As time passes, you impose stricter and
stricter economic constraints upon those breeds and on the men and
women who raise them. One by one, the breeds that don't meet the
prevailing economic model are weeded out. By the beginning of the 21st
century, you've moved from the broad base of a genetic pyramid to its
nearly vanishing peak, which is to say that the genetic diversity
present in the economically acceptable breeds of modern livestock is
minute. Then comes cloning, and we leave behind all variation.
Cloning is not unnatural. It is natural for humans to experiment, to
try anything and everything. Nor is cloning that different from
anything else we've seen in modern agriculture. It is another way of
shifting genetic ownership from farmers to corporations. It is another
way of creating still greater economic and genetic concentration in an
industry that has already pushed concentration past the limits of
ethical and environmental acceptability.
It always bears repeating that humans are only as rich as the
diversity that surrounds them, whether we mean cultural or economic
diversity. The same is true of genetic diversity, which is an
essential bulwark against disease. These days there is less and less
genetic diversity in the animals found on farms, and farmers
themselves become less and less diverse because fewer and fewer of
them actually own the animals they raise. They become contract
laborers instead.
It is possible to preserve plant and crop diversity in seed banks. But
there are no animal banks. Breeds of animals that are not raised die
away, and the invaluable genetic archive they represent vanishes. This
may look like a simple test of economic efficiency. It is really a
colossal waste, of genes and of truly lovely, productive animals that
are the result of years of human attention and effort. From one
perspective, a cloned animal looks like a miracle of science. But from
another, it looks like what it is: a dead end.
end quote
Shop at any supermarket and the meat will taste exactly exactly the
same. Every day for the rest of your life, wherever you live.
Wasn't there some play or movie about hell being like that?
-tg
Nobody is forcing farmers to clone other then market forces. Your
argument is essentially saying lets preserve inefficiencies in the
system in order to maintain this ideal that has no market value.
Plus I think this is a moot point. Some farmer most likely will
market his product as "not cloned" and be able to get stupid people to
pay more for it.
I see. If there's a market for something you approve of, that's cool.
But people who make market choices that you don't approve of are
'stupid'. Have you considered moving to Cuba?
-tg
It is the preventing of marketing of cloned animal products that is
inhibiting diversity in the market.
You are putting words in my mouth that I never said or implied. I am
for market forces sorting all of this out. Which are compared to your
statements which indicate that you support government intervention in
limiting market forces. Just because I think some markets are
"stupid" does not mean I think the government should limit them (in
fact I am strictly opposed to this type of intervention). Let the
markets work. If non-cloned animal products survive - well good for
them. If not then they join the ranks of horse and buggy - isn't
progress grand.
It all depends on whether you see markets in terms of outcomes or
process. Monopolies arise, commodification happens. Many see those end
results as not being the same as the nominal condition that is
described as a free market. If you are simply interested in a
political agenda, then you are not discussing economic philosophy.
To go back to what the author was talking about: It may well be that
some people will continue to raise different animals; we see that
going on all the time with local produce. But what you will end up
with is a bimodal price structure, where you have the ubiquitous
commodity--- completely uniform cloned meat at a cheap price---and
then some boutique products that are not generally available, sold
mostly to restaurants, and very expensive.
Diversity means having a wide range of products avalilable to a wide
range of people---that's what markets do when they are operating
properly. In the situation where you have either very cheap or very
expensive, introducing new products becomes very difficult. So I would
say that you don't have a free market, even though you arrived there
*from* a free market.
-tg
You are defining a "free market" by some pre-determined outcome -
cheap diverse products. A free market system does not promise a
diverse selection of products or even cheep products (in the short
run).
While certainly the government has the responsibility to regulate the
market (so as to provide a safe and "fair" environment for all), in my
opinion the government become a force of inefficiency when it
attempts to dictate an outcome (e.g. diversity of products offered on
the market or price of products on the market). While certainly the
government is already doing this in some market (and screwing them
up), I see no need for the government to increase their amount of
involvement in this market (animal products). In fact I would support
them reducing their involvement (i.e. reduce farm subsidies).
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: On Cloning |
24 Jan 2008 12:37:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Jan 24, 12:29 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Jan 24, 11:08 am, wrote:
On Jan 23, 7:33 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Jan 23, 7:27 pm, wrote:
On Jan 23, 4:32 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
From NYT:
Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: January 23, 2008
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the way for the
eventual sale of meat and dairy products from cloned animals, saying,
in effect, that consumers face no health risks from them. The next
day, the Department of Agriculture asked farmers to keep their cloned
animals off the market until consumers have time to get over their
anticloning prejudice. That is one prejudice I plan to hold on to. I
will not be eating cloned meat.
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by
Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board >>
The reason has nothing to do with my personal health or safety. I
think the clearest way to understand the problem with cloning is to
consider a broader question: Who benefits from it? Proponents will say
that the consumer does, because we will get higher quality, more
consistent foods from cloned animals. But the real beneficiaries are
the nation's large meatpacking companies -- the kind that would like it
best if chickens grew in the shape of nuggets. Anyone who really cares
about food -- its different tastes, textures and delights -- is more
interested in diversity than uniformity.
As it happens, the same is true for anyone who cares about farmers and
their animals. An agricultural system that favors cloned animals has
no room for farmers who farm in different ways. Cloning, you will hear
advocates say, is just another way of making cows. But every other way
-- even using embryo transplants and artificial insemination -- allows
nature to shuffle the genetic deck. A clone does not.
To me, this striving for uniformity is the driving and destructive
force of modern agriculture. You begin with a wide array of breeds, a
truly diverse pool of genes. As time passes, you impose stricter and
stricter economic constraints upon those breeds and on the men and
women who raise them. One by one, the breeds that don't meet the
prevailing economic model are weeded out. By the beginning of the 21st
century, you've moved from the broad base of a genetic pyramid to its
nearly vanishing peak, which is to say that the genetic diversity
present in the economically acceptable breeds of modern livestock is
minute. Then comes cloning, and we leave behind all variation.
Cloning is not unnatural. It is natural for humans to experiment, to
try anything and everything. Nor is cloning that different from
anything else we've seen in modern agriculture. It is another way of
shifting genetic ownership from farmers to corporations. It is another
way of creating still greater economic and genetic concentration in an
industry that has already pushed concentration past the limits of
ethical and environmental acceptability.
It always bears repeating that humans are only as rich as the
diversity that surrounds them, whether we mean cultural or economic
diversity. The same is true of genetic diversity, which is an
essential bulwark against disease. These days there is less and less
genetic diversity in the animals found on farms, and farmers
themselves become less and less diverse because fewer and fewer of
them actually own the animals they raise. They become contract
laborers instead.
It is possible to preserve plant and crop diversity in seed banks. But
there are no animal banks. Breeds of animals that are not raised die
away, and the invaluable genetic archive they represent vanishes. This
may look like a simple test of economic efficiency. It is really a
colossal waste, of genes and of truly lovely, productive animals that
are the result of years of human attention and effort. From one
perspective, a cloned animal looks like a miracle of science. But from
another, it looks like what it is: a dead end.
end quote
Shop at any supermarket and the meat will taste exactly exactly the
same. Every day for the rest of your life, wherever you live.
Wasn't there some play or movie about hell being like that?
-tg
Nobody is forcing farmers to clone other then market forces. Your
argument is essentially saying lets preserve inefficiencies in the
system in order to maintain this ideal that has no market value.
Plus I think this is a moot point. Some farmer most likely will
market his product as "not cloned" and be able to get stupid people to
pay more for it.
I see. If there's a market for something you approve of, that's cool.
But people who make market choices that you don't approve of are
'stupid'. Have you considered moving to Cuba?
-tg
It is the preventing of marketing of cloned animal products that is
inhibiting diversity in the market.
You are putting words in my mouth that I never said or implied. I am
for market forces sorting all of this out. Which are compared to your
statements which indicate that you support government intervention in
limiting market forces. Just because I think some markets are
"stupid" does not mean I think the government should limit them (in
fact I am strictly opposed to this type of intervention). Let the
markets work. If non-cloned animal products survive - well good for
them. If not then they join the ranks of horse and buggy - isn't
progress grand.
It all depends on whether you see markets in terms of outcomes or
process. Monopolies arise, commodification happens. Many see those end
results as not being the same as the nominal condition that is
described as a free market. If you are simply interested in a
political agenda, then you are not discussing economic philosophy.
To go back to what the author was talking about: It may well be that
some people will continue to raise different animals; we see that
going on all the time with local produce. But what you will end up
with is a bimodal price structure, where you have the ubiquitous
commodity--- completely uniform cloned meat at a cheap price---and
then some boutique products that are not generally available, sold
mostly to restaurants, and very expensive.
Diversity means having a wide range of products avalilable to a wide
range of people---that's what markets do when they are operating
properly. In the situation where you have either very cheap or very
expensive, introducing new products becomes very difficult. So I would
say that you don't have a free market, even though you arrived there
*from* a free market.
-tg
You are defining a "free market" by some pre-determined outcome -
cheap diverse products.
No, the outcome I described was diverse---a range of products at a
range of prices.
A free market system does not promise a
diverse selection of products or even cheep products (in the short
run).
What does it promise?
-tg
While certainly the government has the responsibility to regulate the
market (so as to provide a safe and "fair" environment for all), in my
opinion the government become a force of inefficiency when it
attempts to dictate an outcome (e.g. diversity of products offered on
the market or price of products on the market). While certainly the
government is already doing this in some market (and screwing them
up), I see no need for the government to increase their amount of
involvement in this market (animal products). In fact I would support
them reducing their involvement (i.e. reduce farm subsidies).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: On Cloning |
23 Jan 2008 04:04:43 PM |
|
|
tg wrote:
From NYT:
Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: January 23, 2008
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the way for the
eventual sale of meat and dairy products from cloned animals, saying,
in effect, that consumers face no health risks from them. The next
day, the Department of Agriculture asked farmers to keep their cloned
animals off the market until consumers have time to get over their
anticloning prejudice. That is one prejudice I plan to hold on to. I
will not be eating cloned meat.
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by
Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board >>
The reason has nothing to do with my personal health or safety. I
think the clearest way to understand the problem with cloning is to
consider a broader question: Who benefits from it? Proponents will say
that the consumer does, because we will get higher quality, more
consistent foods from cloned animals. But the real beneficiaries are
the nation's large meatpacking companies -- the kind that would like it
best if chickens grew in the shape of nuggets. Anyone who really cares
about food -- its different tastes, textures and delights -- is more
interested in diversity than uniformity.
As it happens, the same is true for anyone who cares about farmers and
their animals. An agricultural system that favors cloned animals has
no room for farmers who farm in different ways. Cloning, you will hear
advocates say, is just another way of making cows. But every other way
-- even using embryo transplants and artificial insemination -- allows
nature to shuffle the genetic deck. A clone does not.
To me, this striving for uniformity is the driving and destructive
force of modern agriculture. You begin with a wide array of breeds, a
truly diverse pool of genes. As time passes, you impose stricter and
stricter economic constraints upon those breeds and on the men and
women who raise them. One by one, the breeds that don't meet the
prevailing economic model are weeded out. By the beginning of the 21st
century, you've moved from the broad base of a genetic pyramid to its
nearly vanishing peak, which is to say that the genetic diversity
present in the economically acceptable breeds of modern livestock is
minute. Then comes cloning, and we leave behind all variation.
Cloning is not unnatural. It is natural for humans to experiment, to
try anything and everything. Nor is cloning that different from
anything else we've seen in modern agriculture. It is another way of
shifting genetic ownership from farmers to corporations. It is another
way of creating still greater economic and genetic concentration in an
industry that has already pushed concentration past the limits of
ethical and environmental acceptability.
It always bears repeating that humans are only as rich as the
diversity that surrounds them, whether we mean cultural or economic
diversity. The same is true of genetic diversity, which is an
essential bulwark against disease. These days there is less and less
genetic diversity in the animals found on farms, and farmers
themselves become less and less diverse because fewer and fewer of
them actually own the animals they raise. They become contract
laborers instead.
It is possible to preserve plant and crop diversity in seed banks. But
there are no animal banks. Breeds of animals that are not raised die
away, and the invaluable genetic archive they represent vanishes. This
may look like a simple test of economic efficiency. It is really a
colossal waste, of genes and of truly lovely, productive animals that
are the result of years of human attention and effort. From one
perspective, a cloned animal looks like a miracle of science. But from
another, it looks like what it is: a dead end.
end quote
Shop at any supermarket and the meat will taste exactly exactly the
same. Every day for the rest of your life, wherever you live.
Wasn't there some play or movie about hell being like that?
-tg
Your definition of 'natural' is anything we can do. So, it would be
natural to strip nature of its diversity if we decided to do it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: On Cloning |
23 Jan 2008 05:48:41 PM |
|
|
On Jan 23, 5:04 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
tg wrote:
From NYT:
Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: January 23, 2008
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the way for the
eventual sale of meat and dairy products from cloned animals, saying,
in effect, that consumers face no health risks from them. The next
day, the Department of Agriculture asked farmers to keep their cloned
animals off the market until consumers have time to get over their
anticloning prejudice. That is one prejudice I plan to hold on to. I
will not be eating cloned meat.
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by
Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board >>
The reason has nothing to do with my personal health or safety. I
think the clearest way to understand the problem with cloning is to
consider a broader question: Who benefits from it? Proponents will say
that the consumer does, because we will get higher quality, more
consistent foods from cloned animals. But the real beneficiaries are
the nation's large meatpacking companies -- the kind that would like it
best if chickens grew in the shape of nuggets. Anyone who really cares
about food -- its different tastes, textures and delights -- is more
interested in diversity than uniformity.
As it happens, the same is true for anyone who cares about farmers and
their animals. An agricultural system that favors cloned animals has
no room for farmers who farm in different ways. Cloning, you will hear
advocates say, is just another way of making cows. But every other way
-- even using embryo transplants and artificial insemination -- allows
nature to shuffle the genetic deck. A clone does not.
To me, this striving for uniformity is the driving and destructive
force of modern agriculture. You begin with a wide array of breeds, a
truly diverse pool of genes. As time passes, you impose stricter and
stricter economic constraints upon those breeds and on the men and
women who raise them. One by one, the breeds that don't meet the
prevailing economic model are weeded out. By the beginning of the 21st
century, you've moved from the broad base of a genetic pyramid to its
nearly vanishing peak, which is to say that the genetic diversity
present in the economically acceptable breeds of modern livestock is
minute. Then comes cloning, and we leave behind all variation.
Cloning is not unnatural. It is natural for humans to experiment, to
try anything and everything. Nor is cloning that different from
anything else we've seen in modern agriculture. It is another way of
shifting genetic ownership from farmers to corporations. It is another
way of creating still greater economic and genetic concentration in an
industry that has already pushed concentration past the limits of
ethical and environmental acceptability.
It always bears repeating that humans are only as rich as the
diversity that surrounds them, whether we mean cultural or economic
diversity. The same is true of genetic diversity, which is an
essential bulwark against disease. These days there is less and less
genetic diversity in the animals found on farms, and farmers
themselves become less and less diverse because fewer and fewer of
them actually own the animals they raise. They become contract
laborers instead.
It is possible to preserve plant and crop diversity in seed banks. But
there are no animal banks. Breeds of animals that are not raised die
away, and the invaluable genetic archive they represent vanishes. This
may look like a simple test of economic efficiency. It is really a
colossal waste, of genes and of truly lovely, productive animals that
are the result of years of human attention and effort. From one
perspective, a cloned animal looks like a miracle of science. But from
another, it looks like what it is: a dead end.
end quote
Shop at any supermarket and the meat will taste exactly exactly the
same. Every day for the rest of your life, wherever you live.
Wasn't there some play or movie about hell being like that?
-tg
Your definition of 'natural' is anything we can do. So, it would be
natural to strip nature of its diversity if we decided to do it.
What's your point? Who said that natural is something that I would
prefer?
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: On Cloning |
24 Jan 2008 03:21:15 PM |
|
|
tg wrote:
On Jan 23, 5:04 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
Your definition of 'natural' is anything we can do. So, it would be
natural to strip nature of its diversity if we decided to do it.
What's your point? Who said that natural is something that I would
prefer?
-tg
You imply that it's natural for man to strip nature of its diversity AND
natural for man to promote its diversity. You also imply that you don't
have to support what is natural. But what would you be supporting in
that case?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: On Cloning |
24 Jan 2008 03:26:40 PM |
|
|
On Jan 24, 4:21 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
tg wrote:
On Jan 23, 5:04 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
Your definition of 'natural' is anything we can do. So, it would be
natural to strip nature of its diversity if we decided to do it.
What's your point? Who said that natural is something that I would
prefer?
-tg
You imply that it's natural for man to strip nature of its diversity AND
natural for man to promote its diversity. You also imply that you don't
have to support what is natural. But what would you be supporting in
that case?
I prefer diversity in food products to homogeneity. This has nothing
to do with whether either is natural (or both.)
-tg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
