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 boltronics on Tuesday October 03 2017, @11:21AM (2 children)
Can they not be genetically altered such that their offspring share the same alteration?
I find it interesting that in the absence of hard data, your default stance is that there is no added cruelty, despite the claims. If in doubt, should you not gather hard data one way or the other before making such a determination?
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:50PM (1 child)
This is across all areas of knowledge, not just anti-farming (or other) frenzied activism: If someone is lying or presenting a twisted view, then they tend to present no evidence nor sources, or twisted ones, to accompany sensational claims. Not 100% of the time (sometimes it's a legitimate misunderstanding (but not with PETA), for example). But high 90s.
If someone is telling the truth, they will generally be able to provide a source, and they tend to not oversensationalize, the truth being its own sensation. Again, not 100%, but again, very very likely.
When the probability that something is nonsense--especially nonsense aligning with someone's nutjob activist agenda--is in the high 90% range--as any unsourced claim from PETA has turned out to be--I find that life is too short to fly into a frenzy and personally investigate just on the off single-digit chance that they, like a broken clock, might be right despite the odds. I am at an age where I realize that life's too short for that nonsense.
If someone is going to gather hard data, who better than the man on the ground who has his panties in a twist about it already? I am ready to listen to hard data, but not to get involved in shrill sensationalistic nonsense.
Your black-and-white "determination" logic does not align very well with the knowledge contained above, and I don't share your position that you should personally devote your life to investigating every claim of nonsense ever put forth, regardless of how unlikely, if disturbingly sensational. Even James Randi didn't do that.
Protip: PETA is not a reliable source for information, unless you are looking for talking points to support their agenda.
(Score: 2) by boltronics on Tuesday October 03 2017, @10:55PM
I don't know all that much about PETA.
To put my stance into perspective, I know there were complaints about the greyhound racing industry, and it took a long time to get hard evidence. I forgot if it was a whistle blower or undercover investigator, but eventually Animals Australia was able to to provide video evidence of what was going on, which almost led to the industry getting shut down in NSW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyhound_racing#New_South_Wales_and_ACT_ban [wikipedia.org] Gathering hard evidence can take time. It doesn't mean they shouldn't bother telling everyone what they already know in the meantime.
It's also not hard to imagine that producing animals essentially with deformations might be problematic for said animals, and there are ethical considerations that should not be overlooked. If the animals were actually better off because of it, why would PETA complain? They would be all for it, right?
It's GNU/Linux dammit!