SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the swine-version-of-the-universe-championships dept.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals claims that Cambodian farmers are breeding "double-muscled" pigs. "Double-muscled" refers to a mutation in the myostatin gene (MSTN) which normally keeps muscle growth in check. Disruption of MSTN can lead to the abnormal proliferation of muscle cells in an organism:
Mutant pigs bred to grow to an enormous size just to be slaughtered and eaten? No, we aren't talking about the plot of the eye-opening Netflix sensation Okja—rather, this is the very real horror that seems to be unfolding on a Cambodian farm, where genetically altered pigs are being bred to develop heaping knots of muscle mass. Disturbing video footage and images captured on the farm have exploded around the web, sparking discussions about the many ways that animals suffer and are abused when they're treated as nothing more than "food."
[...] When South Korean and Chinese scientists created 32 double-muscled piglets in 2015, according to reports, only one was considered even marginally healthy. But pigs suffer even without this "Frankenscience"—on typical pig farms, their tails are cut off, their sensitive teeth are ground down, and the males are castrated, all without so much as an aspirin. Then, even though we have a wealth of nutritious plant-based foods to eat, these intelligent, playful, sociable animals' throats are slit and their bodies are turned into pork chops or sausages.
Breeders have exploited natural double-muscling, which occurs in Belgian Blue cattle, to create behemoth animals who suffer from a slew of health problems—just to yield slightly larger profits.
[Note: On Google News, only corroborating sources seem to be British tabloids right now]
Previously: "Double-Muscled" Pigs Created Using Simple Gene Modification
Scientists Create Extra-Muscular Beagles
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Grishnakh on Monday October 02 2017, @02:39PM (3 children)
If we are not watchful, or "leaders" will sell our souls to enrich themselves at our expense. Also known as "Tragedy of the Commons".
Interesting post, however I have to disagree on the "Tragedy of the Commons" bit you have here: that's the wrong term. The term you're looking for here is "corruption".
"Tragedy of the Commons" is something entirely different, and doesn't involve any leaders at all (really, it's caused by a lack of sound leadership). Basically it's when a bunch of people of equal standing deplete a common shared resource because they're all too greedy. The name comes from some public grounds in England I think, where people were allowed to graze their sheep. But the problem was that there was only so much ground and grass, and too many people with sheep wanted to use it, so they overused it and then the grass was all dead and no one could graze their sheep there any more. The whole idea is that individuals, all acting in their own self-interest (or selfish interest), won't work together to best manage a shared resource, and will ruin it, in the absence of leadership which manages the resource.
One good economic collapse, and we have all sorts of people out there who are not used to doing anything useful in society
That's most of society these days: various paper-pushers whose jobs are ripe for automation, all their layers of management, plus HR workers and managers. None of them really do much useful work.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @03:52PM
Logical arguments and centuries of history have taught us that such leadership should take the form of strong private property rights for each individual.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by anubi on Tuesday October 03 2017, @06:27AM (1 child)
I meant "Tragedy of the Commons" in the sense that those financially empowered to buy things ( housing, patent and copyright, water, mineral, food, etc. ) for the purpose of rent-seeking, generating yet more and more money to do more of the same.
A real live monopoly game. Its like carrying a tray of water... the slightest imbalance and all the water goes to the heavy side, making it more and more so. An inherently unstable system.
Enabled people will often do this, regardless as to how that kind of activity economically drains the rest of the people for the enrichment of the one doing it.
The definition of "Tragedy of the Commons" you stated is exactly the one I had in mind as well. I was extending it to financial commons.
While I believe patent/copyright is necessary *for a limited time*, it has grown to absurdity. With most copyright to the point of absurd unenforceability. The most egregious example I can think off off the bat is those epi-pens. Many other "artificial monopolies" are "turf wars" which rely on governmentally-granted law to enforce.
Personally, I consider a "natural monopoly" to be the only kind of monopoly that should exist... that is, say, I have a light bulb manufacturing plant, which is only economically viable if I make a million light bulbs a day, and sell them for a dime each. No one else can make 'em that cheap, and even if they did buy another plant, the market isn't big enough for both of us to make a profit, so as long as I make a lot of bulbs cheap, I am the only one on the planet making this particular light bulb. Raise my price, then others will start making them too. This places a check on me that I give the public a good price, but should I abuse my monopoly, someone else will enter the fray.
Economics, not law, guides this.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday October 03 2017, @03:17PM
I'm sorry, but you have your definitions wrong. Tragedy of the Commons is an actual term in economics, and it's not what you're describing. There's a Wikipedia page about it that you should read. You're right about monopolies, but it just isn't related to rent-seeking and monopolization at all. It's an entirely different phenomenon.
As for natural monopolies, again you're misusing the term. A natural monopoly is something where it's plainly infeasible to have competition; the typical example is a municipal water and sewer system. You can't have 15 different sewer systems running under the city streets. This isn't the case with light bulbs, and things there just don't work the way you say at all; in the real world, the one company making that thing will jack up their prices because the barrier to entry for would-be competitors is significant (it takes a lot of money to tool up a factory), so the bulbs won't be that cheap.