Meat of the future: Without animals!?

my apoligies to the op, i ment to try and seperate this in my first few posts!! again my apoligies! peace!

 

i don't think the'll be a future for us without continuing to share our planet with other creatures. the web of life the air we breathe comes from is quite complex, and while plants did start producing oxygen before mamels and even reptiles evolved, all are a part of its complexity now, and the loss of their diversity threatens all.

that being said, non-moving living but imobile 'mountains' of meat cells might be very possible, however, and harvesting of other living creatures for the table may well diminish. certainly today's meat industry, its practices, policies and treatment of the creatures it depends upon would not be sorely missed.

as with many if not most things, there isn't a one size fits all solution here. but i don't see us existing on a planet without other creatures of some kind, though i can see the possiblity, as many cultures have, of living without raising living organisms for the sole and specific purpose of dining upon their flesh.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Say what you mean, mean what you say. Transgenome transfers produce, by definition, genetically modified organisms.

First, the biological definition of a species is very loosly and poorly defined in many species. Different species in a genus can and do produce viable offspring not only in captivity, but in nature as well. Some species in different genera produce viable offspring in captivity and in nature as well.

Viruses transfer genes from one organism to another all of the time. In plants at least, genes can transplant themselves among the tissues of an organism after they've been introduced virally. This is all natural and has been been going on for billions of years. The idea that a gene being transferred from one organism to a completely new organism is new shows serious ignorance of genomics and virology at the very least.

The only thing that has changed is that we now understand enough about these processes to selectively transplant genes. If declare by fiat that this should not be done, then please explain to tens of millions of people around the world why they need to go blind due to vitamin A deficiency (genes to produce beta carotene were put into the rice genome). While you're at it, explain to every diabetic around the planet why most of them are going to have to go without insulin and may well die from diabetic shock (genes inplanted into E. coli). Explain why the vast majority of biochemical and biomedical research is going to be stopped. Granted, all of this manipulation has done nothing but wonderful things, but for whatever reason some folks seem to take offense to the very idea (out of ignorance, I would argue) and therefore many more of us should be made to suffer and die so as to protect their sensibilities. If you're prepared to make those arguments, go for it.

When we get beyond knee-jerk reactions along the lines of "it's not natural," the very premise of which is wrong, as I mention above, then we can get to a point of making good decisions. There are some GMOs that are extraordinarily beneficial (e.g., bacteria that produce insulin en masse) and there are others that could be harmful in the wrong circumstances (e.g., escape of GM salmon). That's what we should be discussing. Arguments from ignorance do nothing but spread more ignorance.

 

When we get beyond knee-jerk reactions along the lines of "it's not natural," the very premise of which is wrong, as I mention above, then we can get to a point of making good decisions. There are some GMOs that are extraordinarily beneficial (e.g., bacteria that produce insulin en masse) and there are others that could be harmful in the wrong circumstances (e.g., escape of GM salmon). That's what we should be discussing. Arguments from ignorance do nothing but spread more ignorance.

never said they were in a enclosed laboratory enviroment such as negitve pressur environs but to allow it into the wild is irrissponsible!!!
aparently none of my links addressed this issue, ill get back with you on that and show you how it already done UNTOLD, damage!!!

 

When we get beyond knee-jerk reactions along the lines of "it's not natural," the very premise of which is wrong, as I mention above, then we can get to a point of making good decisions. There are some GMOs that are extraordinarily beneficial (e.g., bacteria that produce insulin en masse) and there are others that could be harmful in the wrong circumstances (e.g., escape of GM salmon). That's what we should be discussing. Arguments from ignorance do nothing but spread more ignorance.

are you saying that we as a group calld mankind should allow multinational companies to spread there untested tech through the natural world????????? on a genetic levell??

 

sorry for the doble post!

 

http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/001015a.html

 

http://www.greens.org/s-r/33/33-04.html

 

sorry for the doble post!http://www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/companies/monsanto.html