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: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday October 03 2017, @10:36AM (3 children)
Right. So meat was needed THEN to get us to where we are NOW. But there is a powerful argument that it is NO LONGER needed.
Let's take fire for example. Not fire in general, which is obviously still used in all sorts of ways, but specifically fire as in "big blazing pile of logs with people sat around it and dinner cooking on top of it". There's no doubt that we, as a species, would never have gotten to where we are now without countless generations of our ancestors chopping down trees and setting them on fire. Does that mean that every human on 21st Century Earth must have a woodpile and fire pit in the centre of their home? No. I don't have one. I don't know anyone who does. A roaring real fire in your hearth is nice, but it is no longer a necessity. We have more advanced technologies to keep us warm and cook our foods. More efficient technologies, cleaner ones. We've moved on.
So going back to meat, there's no doubt that by now technology, agriculture and nutrition have developed to a point where a person can a long, healthy and happy life without meat. This is not in dispute, the data is there, veggies and vegans have been doing it for centuries. Could we scale that up to the entire world's population? Theoretically, it ought to be possible. After all, carrot-huggers have been telling us for years that it takes way more farmland, water & energy to raise a meat-animal than its equivalent nutritional value in greenery. [1] Therefore if we handwave away all the social, political and traditional objections that would have to be overcome and look purely at the technicalities, a meat-free world is almost certainly possible, and it would probably healthier too. So we don't NEED meat any longer. We only WANT it.
I've met more than a few meat-eaters who insist that in order to justify their diet, they should at least have the manliness to kill and prepare an animal themselves, at least once, to "really understand what it means to eat meat". I'm sure you know the type I'm talking about. Invariably these people are either outdoorsy-types who regularly kill stuff anyway, or self-conscious city-dwellers who make occasional pilgrimage to some rural locale in order to ritually slaughter, clean, cook and eat a chicken / bunny / pig / whatever. Well, I don't personally subscribe to that philosophy, but I'm not going to disrespect it. I only bring it up because I do have my own take on it: I'm personally of the opinion that in this day and age, all meat-eaters should at least recognise that their choice of diet is just that - a choice, rather than a necessity.
[1] What's more, economically-viable, cruelty-free, vat-grown meat / meat substitutes are probably only just round the corner, but that kind of muddies my argument, so let's leave it aside for now.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday October 03 2017, @03:21PM (2 children)
I said in my initial post:
So yes, I already understood your point. In fact, I brought it up before you did.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday October 03 2017, @04:20PM (1 child)
Well yes, I saw that, but then you went immediately on to "Fuck you PETA guy, go eat some pork" or words to that effect, which gives the impression that you were offering your history lesson as an imperative for modern humans to eschew wimpy vegetarian diets and eat moar flesh. Looking at other peoples' posts, it looks like I'm not the only one who interpreted it that way.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday October 03 2017, @06:12PM
I understand how you might see it that way. So I'll clarify. PETA are a bunch of dishonest, unprincipled scumbags who ignore real science in favor of their own brand of unsupportable bullshit. I'm not sure how you made the jump from "Fuck you, PETA" to "I hate everyone who doesn't eat meat," especially since I welcomed everyone else onto my lawn.
I have no axe to grind with anyone who chooses to be vegetarian, vegan or has other dietary peccadilloes.
I do take umbrage with the corporate scum who pollute our ecosystems with industrial agriculture (both plant and animal). As you (and others) pointed out, it's not meat (although from an input volume to output volume standpoint, meat production is inefficient) that's the root of the problems with agricultural pollution (that's industrial agriculture) or health (that has much more to do with sedentary lifestyles and a lack of variety in one's diet) in developed economies.
I'll say it again and use exactly the same words:
Fuck you PETA!
Everyone else is welcome on my lawn.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr