Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday October 02 2017, @06:47AM   Printer-friendly
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


Original Submission

Related Stories

"Double-Muscled" Pigs Created Using Simple Gene Modification 26 comments

Researchers from Seoul National University have created piglets with abnormal muscle growth by disrupting a gene that inhibits muscle cell growth:

Key to creating the double-muscled pigs is a mutation in the myostatin gene (MSTN). MSTN inhibits the growth of muscle cells, keeping muscle size in check. But in some cattle, dogs and humans, MSTN is disrupted and the muscle cells proliferate, creating an abnormal bulk of muscle fibres. To introduce this mutation in pigs, Kim used a gene-editing technology called a TALEN, which consists of a DNA-cutting enzyme attached to a DNA-binding protein. The protein guides the cutting enzyme to a specific gene inside cells, in this case in MSTN, which it then cuts. The cell's natural repair system stitches the DNA back together, but some base pairs are often deleted or added in the process, rendering the gene dysfunctional.

The team edited pig fetal cells. After selecting one edited cell in which TALEN had knocked out both copies of the MSTN gene, Kim's collaborator Xi-jun Yin, an animal-cloning researcher at Yanbian University in Yanji, China, transferred it to an egg cell, and created 32 cloned piglets. Kim and his team have not yet published their results. However, photographs of the pigs "show the typical phenotype" of double-muscled animals, says Heiner Niemann, a pioneer in the use of gene-editing tools in pigs who is at the Friedrich Loeffler Institute in Neustadt, Germany. In particular, he notes, they have the pronounced rear muscles that are typical of such animals. Yin says that preliminary investigations, show that the pigs provide many of the double-muscled cow's benefits — such as leaner meat and a higher yield of meat per animal. However, they also share some of its problems. Birthing difficulties result from the piglets' large size, for instance. And only 13 of the 32 lived to 8 months old. Of these, two are still alive, says Yin, and only one is considered healthy. Rather than trying to create meat from such pigs, Kim and Yin plan to use them to supply sperm that would be sold to farmers for breeding with normal pigs. The resulting offspring, with one disrupted MSTN gene and one normal one, would be healthier, albeit less muscly, they say; the team is now doing the same experiment with another, newer gene-editing technology called CRISPR/Cas9. Last September, researchers reported using a different method of gene editing to develop new breeds of double-muscled cows and double-muscled sheep (C. Proudfoot et al. Transg. Res. 24, 147–153; 2015).

A mutation in MSTN could occur naturally, and no gene transfer is involved. No genetically engineered animal has been approved for human consumption by any of the world's regulators, but the U.S. and Germany have passed on regulating gene-edited crops that do not incorporate new DNA in the genome.


Original Submission

Scientists Create Extra-Muscular Beagles 15 comments

In July we reported the creation of "double-muscled" pigs using a mutation in the myostatin gene (MSTN). Now CRISPR/Cas9 has been used to do the same in dogs:

Scientists in China say they are the first to use gene editing to produce customized dogs. They created a beagle with double the amount of muscle mass by deleting a gene called myostatin.

The dogs have "more muscles and are expected to have stronger running ability, which is good for hunting, police (military) applications," Liangxue Lai, a researcher with the Key Laboratory of Regenerative Biology at the Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, said in an e-mail.

Lai and 28 colleagues reported their results last week in the Journal of Molecular Cell Biology, saying they intend to create dogs with other DNA mutations, including ones that mimic human diseases such as Parkinson's and muscular dystrophy. "The goal of the research is to explore an approach to the generation of new disease dog models for biomedical research," says Lai. "Dogs are very close to humans in terms of metabolic, physiological, and anatomical characteristics."

Lai said his group had no plans breed to breed the extra-muscular beagles as pets. Other teams, however, could move quickly to commercialize gene-altered dogs, potentially editing their DNA to change their size, enhance their intelligence, or correct genetic illnesses. A different Chinese Institute, BGI, said in September it had begun selling miniature pigs, created via gene editing, for $1,600 each as novelty pets.

Generation of gene-target dogs using CRISPR/Cas9 system [paywalled]

Go from wimp to pimp with this one weird gene edit [photo from the article]. Expect your local police force to begin handling mutated extra-muscular canines soon.


Original Submission

Scientists Create "Low-Fat" Pigs Using CRISPR 25 comments

Scientists at the Chinese Academy of Sciences have used the CRISPR gene editing technique to create pigs with less body fat. The GMO pigs may be better from both a cost and animal welfare standpoint:

Here's something that may sound like a contradiction in terms: low-fat pigs. But that's exactly what Chinese scientists have created using new genetic engineering techniques.

In a paper [DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1707853114] [DX] published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists report that they have created 12 healthy pigs with about 24 percent less body fat than normal pigs.

The scientists created low-fat pigs in the hopes of providing pig farmers with animals that would be less expensive to raise and would suffer less in cold weather. "This is a big issue for the pig industry," says Jianguo Zhao of the Institute of Zoology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, who led the research. "It's pretty exciting."

[...] The animals have less body fat because they have a gene that allows them to regulate their body temperatures better by burning fat. That could save farmers millions of dollars in heating and feeding costs, as well as prevent millions of piglets from suffering and dying in cold weather. "They could maintain their body temperature much better, which means that they could survive better in the cold weather," Zhao said in an interview.

Previously: "Double-Muscled" Pigs Created Using Simple Gene Modification
eGenesis Bio Removes PERV From Pigs Using CRISPR
PETA Claims That Cambodian Farmers Are Breeding "Double-Muscled" Mutant Pigs


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by lx on Monday October 02 2017, @06:58AM

    by lx (1915) on Monday October 02 2017, @06:58AM (#575789)

    Buy some meat and get the DNA sequenced.

    It's more likely that these are ordinary pigs fed massive doses of steroids or growth hormone. Still very wrong but with far less novelty value.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:01AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:01AM (#575790)

    Whatever, I couldn't care less about some bourgeois screams of cruelty, so long as it tastes good.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:08AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:08AM (#575791)

      I don't care what it's made of or how it tastes, so long as it's nourishing and edible.

      • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @08:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @08:15AM (#575811)

        You must be a Soylent fan.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday October 02 2017, @06:52PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Monday October 02 2017, @06:52PM (#576076)

      I am highly worried that double-meat pigs, like growth hormones or steroid pigs, may not have the incentive to grow proper bacon.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by bradley13 on Monday October 02 2017, @07:17AM (9 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) on Monday October 02 2017, @07:17AM (#575792) Homepage Journal

    Because none of our other farm animals have been bred to their purpose. I mean, wild buffalo all produce 20 liters of milk per day, every day. Wild birds lay an egg every day. Etc. Heck, it's no different for plants. Wheat, or corn, or beans, or anything else that we eat is the result of selective breeding of weird mutations that make it better suited for our purposes.

    Even if you are a fruitarian, you will be selectively planting seeds that deliver the food you want to eat. That's what agriculture is all about.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by boltronics on Monday October 02 2017, @11:12AM (4 children)

      by boltronics (580) on Monday October 02 2017, @11:12AM (#575852) Homepage Journal

      That's right. It's just a matter of how cruel, or how low we are prepared to go. That's the issue here.

      --
      It's GNU/Linux dammit!
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by requerdanos on Monday October 02 2017, @03:09PM (3 children)

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @03:09PM (#575921) Journal

        It's just a matter of how cruel, or how low we are prepared to go. That's the issue here.

        TFS seems to be driving its narrative in that direction, but there are some problems with that.

        • Sources are PETA + Tabloids. I.e., none really.
        • PETA says the traits in question have been "genetically altered" but also says that they "are being bred" -- these things are not the same thing, nor remotely close.
        • There is an allegation that several animals with a similar mutation years ago in a different place were unhealthy, and that's contrasted against normal pig farm treatment which is described as being worse than simply unhealthy.
        • But, no evidence of "better" nor "worse" conditions nor treatment either way.
        • It is alleged by PETA (surprise, surprise) that the motive in growing more food is "more profit", rather than "alleviating more hunger" However, in actual reality (vs. PETAreality), the motive is probably both, and the latter is an important and good thing.

        Even if one finds the above random collection of allegations and information interesting, no added nor reduced "cruelty" or "low-going" seems to be attached to the increased muscle mutations. Rather, PETA is saying meat is murder.

        This is not a surprise; I can put it on a poster for you and you can just look at the poster instead of read news reports to see what PETA thinks, right or wrong.

        • (Score: 2) by boltronics on Tuesday October 03 2017, @11:21AM (2 children)

          by boltronics (580) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @11:21AM (#576524) Homepage Journal

          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)

            by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:50PM (#576581) Journal

            If in doubt, should you not gather hard data one way or the other before making such a determination?

            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

              by boltronics (580) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @10:55PM (#576835) Homepage Journal

              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!
    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday October 02 2017, @02:30PM (1 child)

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday October 02 2017, @02:30PM (#575904)

      Even if you are a fruitarian, you will be selectively planting seeds that deliver the food you want to eat. That's what agriculture is all about.

      Don't forget weeding. Your garden probably isn't going to do well unless you maintain it to keep the "weeds" out, since the plants which are edible don't compete well with wild "weeds". In doing this, you're brutally murdering all those helpless plants! And then you're being cruel to animals (esp. insects) by taking measures to keep them from eating your produce.

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday October 02 2017, @04:54PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @04:54PM (#575972) Journal

        Not strictly true, though usually true. But, e.g., dandelion greens are edible, especially when young. Wild grapes are tastier than the commercial varieties, though they're mainly seed. Etc.

        It's not being edible that compromises the competitiveness of a plant (or animal), it the degree to which it is edible. Berries are designed to be edible...but by birds rather than by mammals with grinding teeth. Most berries depend on birds eating them to spread the seeds. It's my guess that the wild tomato had a similar plan, but I don't really know anything about it. Things like peaches were evolved with the large mammals (currently extinct) which is why their pits are so well protected. These browsers would eat the fruit whole and the seed would pass safely through, and be embedded in rich fertilizer. This is actually similar to the deal the people made with fruit (you feed us, we'll plant your seeds) but in a wild form.

        OTOH, it's not clear to me that any animal has ever made a deal about being eaten, unless you go down the the insects, and even then it's usually in trade for sex.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @08:06PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @08:06PM (#576148)

      Fun fact, chickens produce eggs both faster and slower than most people think. Many people I talk to think that it is either something like once a day or once a week. Not even the top-end layers on the special diets routinely get one egg a day and none of the top-end broilers are as slow as once a week. But regardless, the key to keep birds of any kind to keep producing is to prevent clutch formation. As long as you keep taking eggs, the birds will keep making more. However, the instant your chicken, even if it is a commercial layer, hits a full clutch, then it will produce no more eggs until the next season.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:14AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:14AM (#576348)

        However, the instant your chicken, even if it is a commercial layer, hits a full clutch, then it will produce no more eggs until the next season.

        Sorry, but no. We have a mixed flock. A couple of our hens will go broody on a nest with no eggs -- one of them's doing it right now. Last two weeks, she's been the only one using a nest, and she's laid an egg every day or two, we always take it the same day, so it's empty in the morning. Today, she sat on the (empty) nest for 3 hours, acting mildly broody, and did not lay an egg. We're going to shut her away from that nest for a few days, but if we didn't, she'd go into full-on brooding over the next three days (yes, despite having no eggs to hatch -- chickens run on instinct, not a rudimentary understanding of biology). This bird has followed the same pattern several times over the past three years; she's really more pet than livestock, so we keep her around because she's beautiful and friendly, not for her egg production.

        On the other hand, some will keep laying even if you leave a half-dozen eggs in their nest at all times. I've found a nest outside, which at least three hens had been laying in for several days, and it had a full dozen eggs in it -- and they were still laying more. The threshold to switch from laying to brooding is largely determined by breed, though there's a fair amount of individual variation within a breed; the breeds used for commercial egg production (white leghorn, and leghorn crosses) are far and away the least likely to go broody.

        This makes sense, if you think about it. Given that the development of production layers started long before the battery system was invented, every hen had access to every nest; you may have a ratio of one nest to four or five hens, but that doesn't mean you get three or four eggs per nest. You'll end up with some nests empty, and some with much more than three or four eggs. Unless you collect eggs every hour or two, you're quite likely to wind up with a full clutch of eggs in some nest by the end of the day. So the broody instinct had to be more or less bred out of the production breeds to get any sort of decent egg production.

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:19AM (28 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:19AM (#575794)

    The faster white man figures out factory-grown meat, the better.

    In a century, white man (or the fake white man, known as the Jew) will finally perfect factory-grown meat, without the trappings of a sentient entity, and we can finally move past this nonsense.

    • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by lx on Monday October 02 2017, @07:22AM (25 children)

      by lx (1915) on Monday October 02 2017, @07:22AM (#575795)

      Anti Semitic , --check
      Vegetarian leanings, --check

      OMG It's Hitler!

      • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:29AM (23 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:29AM (#575797)

        The OP acknowledged power to the Jews, above all other than the so-called "white man". I don't think you can get away with calling the OP anti-Semitic.

        Most Jews I've met, in America anyway, do consider themselves to be white, but now I wonder. Are Jews white?

        • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by c0lo on Monday October 02 2017, @07:51AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @07:51AM (#575803) Journal

          Are Jews white?

          See Beta jews [wikipedia.org]

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:52AM (19 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:52AM (#575805)

          Most Jews I've met, in America anyway, do consider themselves to be white, but now I wonder. Are Jews white?

          And now it hits me, do most whites think that they are the chosen people? No wonder the Nazis and Neo-Nazis, and Eth, and khallow, all hate the Jews! They resent the claim of superiority! And this is why we cannot have White supremacy. Jews actually are superior.

          • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @08:06AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @08:06AM (#575809)

            Whites think they are Christian, and that Christians are the chosen people; Jews, irritatingly, scoff at Christians.

            I don't know where you get "Jews actually are superior". Up until about 250 years ago, most Jews were Sephardic (e.g., not much different from the gypsies). Around that time, German Jews, who have quite a bit of German DNA, and a majority of German culture, began their rise, and are now the vast majority of Jews, known as Ashkenazis…Yiddish is a dialect of High German, and both modern Jews and Germans value education, hard work, and stereotypical penny-pinching.

            If the Jews actually are superior, it's only because they are more German than Jew. Makes you wonder about the "master" race...

            • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @08:50AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @08:50AM (#575823)

              The only way Jews could be superior is if they were part German? I take it you do not know that many pure Germans. Take Arnold, and just know that he is above average intelligence. Germans are not too smart, in fact, really dumb. Defeated by the French, for God's sake, more than once? If anything, what makes the Jews of Wiemar Germany superior has to be their Jewish ancestry, since the German part is really, really, dummkopf.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by anubi on Monday October 02 2017, @12:02PM (15 children)

            by anubi (2828) on Monday October 02 2017, @12:02PM (#575862) Journal

            One of the big draws of religions is that each one teaches *it* is the *true* faith, its devotees are the Chosen People of God.

            Anyone who has read Stanley Milgram's "Obedience to Authority" knows how dangerous this meme can get if one comes to the belief he has been ordered to do something by God.

            This meme is just as dangerous in an ignorant public as a computer virus is among unpatched machines. It will spread like wildfire, executing the commands of some "neural hacker" aka "evangelist", "imam", "shaman", or anyone else proclaiming themselves as God's special representative.

            I have pontificated spirituality on these forums before, but even my own readings of the Bible seem full of warnings that this kind of thing will happen, and watch out for it.

            I do not believe I have committed any sin in the eyes of God by bringing it up; actually I feel compelled to post. I feel I am doing His work by pointing it out.

            Jesus himself, if you are so inclined to believe, also had run-ins with religious leaders. I have had run-ins as well. I think most of us have. Some have caused us a lot of problems, sometimes setting whole nations on retrograde courses. Because we apparently have been trained from birth that we are to be subordinate to "leaders". If we are not watchful, or "leaders" will sell our souls to enrich themselves at our expense. Also known as "Tragedy of the Commons".

            I have heard it said that politicians and diapers need to be changed frequently. For the same reason. I could not agree more. But we have got a major problem over which people are pre-selected for us to choose from. We are not fixing the USA until we address this.

            Political systems have been unstable from the get-go. Always have been. Bible's full of tales of how unstable human governments are. I guess it is part of the human condition. Probably always will be. I guess there are some things we simply cannot control. We may try and *think* we have it down pat, turn our back for a second, and the whole thing is a mess.

            One of the particularly nasty things recorded in history is when the governing elite have the physical means to enslave the populace... and I know a lot of us are wise to this, hence the anti gun control faction, as we know we are quite vulnerable to enslavement if only Government elite have the power to inflict physical harm.

            Anybody who can not defend themselves is ripe to be bullied. Unm, how about those pigs? They can't defend themselves either. Look what's happening to them.

            Don't think it can happen to us? It's already happening. I have hundreds of homeless people living a mile from me now. We are getting them thoroughly dependent on the Government dole.

            One good economic collapse, and we have all sorts of people out there who are not used to doing anything useful in society, all they know how to do is take. I see a helluva big problem brewing.

            My tagline pretty well sums up my take on the whole thing, penned almost two thousand years ago.

            --
            "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday October 02 2017, @02:09PM (1 child)

              by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday October 02 2017, @02:09PM (#575896) Journal

              This meme is just as dangerous in an ignorant public as a computer virus is among unpatched machines.

              The key difference, of course, is that we are able to patch security holes in software, but it's a hell of a lot harder (if not impossible) to do it on brains.
              Over the years I have come to view advertising as the science of exploiting these unpatchable vulnerabilities.

              • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by anubi on Tuesday October 03 2017, @05:59AM

                by anubi (2828) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @05:59AM (#576447) Journal

                For the human brain, education ( especially sites like this ), studies of critical thinking, and pure old common sense go a long way toward making one more immune to manipulation.

                I post this in the hope it does someone else good, as some friends and counselors to me showed me a few things which explained the human nature of the "controlling class", which were quite foreign to me, as a member of the "working class".

                Their guidance led me to understand completely new paradigms as to why boss-types were the way they are, and how businesses and religions manipulate people.

                Ignorance is sometimes bliss, as people having insight into manipulation by others are often seen as not being a "team player". Ever heard management types refer to "leading" engineers to be analogous to herding cats? By our very makeup and psychological type, we self-select ourselves to go into this line of work.

                Knowledge and intelligence seems to lead to insubordination when the giver of orders is evaluated as incompetent. I often will not do things just because someone else does it or tells me to do it. I see other factors, which can override "chains of command". Order-givers simply cannot tolerate this characteristic in subordinates.

                I see a lot of advertising almost as psychological warfare; the art of laying guilt trips if someone who has purchasing power to buy something fails to do so. Any parent can cite numerous examples.

                Or our need to "be one of the group". Advertiser-backed "trendsetters" define the path for "what's in" and "what's not", forcing us to continuously buy un-necessary stuff just to be accepted by "the in-crowd". Being left out is every bit as painful as the "Christian Ghosting", whose practice makes me extremely leery of organized religion. Advertisers will use that need of us to be accepted into a peer group to their advantage. Just find weak willed ones for use as a "Judas Horse".

                You may recognize what someone else is doing, but if you lack the ability to communicate with a person feeling under someone else's authority, its either take the shafting as well, or leave.

                Why we so easily subordinate ourselves puzzles me. Even that meme is discussed in the Bible. Start at 1 Samuel around verse 10 or so.

                Hopefully, no one will mind if I post this wordy off-topic rant onto this pig topic. SoylentNews in my primary blog site where I leave a lot of rants. I tell my friends or possible business associates that if they want to know more about what makes me tick, come over here and do a search under my username.

                --
                "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
            • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Grishnakh on Monday October 02 2017, @02:39PM (3 children)

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday October 02 2017, @02:39PM (#575909)

              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

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @03:52PM (#575939)

                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)

                by anubi (2828) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @06:27AM (#576458) Journal

                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

                  by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @03:17PM (#576617)

                  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.

            • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by HiThere on Monday October 02 2017, @05:00PM (4 children)

              by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @05:00PM (#575979) Journal

              You've misidentified the "tragedy of the commons". The tragedy of the commons is that when there is a shared resource that is beneficially consumed by everyone, there is always a limit on the rate of consumption before it becomes degraded. But it will often benefit each individual to consume more than their fair share of that limit.

              The example is taken from a shared village pasture that can safely graze one sheep (or cow, or whatever) from each family, but which will degrade if an extra animal is grazed. But the amount of degradation is sufficiently minimal that it will still benefit any particular family the graze more than one animal.

              --
              Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
              • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @08:12PM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @08:12PM (#576150)

                You've identified the accepted interpretation of the term.
                Grishnakh did a good job on this, a bit before you.

                Neither of you, however, mentioned that the concept didn't exist before it was invented as propaganda by Capitalists, after the Enclosure Acts of the 1600s (which privatized land ownership of what had previously been The Commons), synchronous with the explosion of Capitalism.

                Up to that point, The Commons had worked just fine, thank you very much.

                .
                anubi also included a howler when he mentioned The Bible containing History.
                There's a bunch of stuff in there that is so outrageous that you would think that a legit historian would have mentioned that stuff in his work.

                As an example there's Herod's massacre of the innocents. [skepticink.com]

                -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @03:14AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @03:14AM (#576397)

                  > Up to that point, The Commons had worked just fine,

                  Have to call you out on this one -- I'm pretty sure that the Romans ran themselves out of firewood in the later stages of their empire. Well before 1600...

                • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by anubi on Tuesday October 03 2017, @06:53AM (1 child)

                  by anubi (2828) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @06:53AM (#576466) Journal

                  The concept of land ownership is all over the Bible... Old Testament is full of it.

                  It seemed transfer of ownership was most readily performed by "smiting with the sword".

                  Thanks for the link, Original... There are a lot of places historian's accounts differ. I think its all the meme about "He who controls the past controls the future" and those in control have been known to edit the records of the past. I will not pick bones with anyone on the concept of which is more historically accurate - I have no way of knowing - all I can do is thank them for introducing another set of independently arrived-at research. I give more credence to historians than to leadership types - as leadership types ( political or religious ) have a dog in the fight and are apt to tamper with the evidence.

                  Oh yes, there are a *LOT* of howlers in the Bible. If one listens to preachers, it seems all about faith, giving, tithes, and hell and brimstone for those who resist. There is a helluva lot more in there than that.

                  Look at Luke 16 versus 1-9 [google.com], otherwise known as "the parable of the shrewd manager". Talk about screwing your boss!

                  I see the Bible more as a book about ethics and the human condition than exact history. Many people believed to be inspired by God wrote this thing. However, its also been finely cherry-picked by the Church as to what is to be included and what's not.

                  Fun Fact... Balaam had a talking ass! [google.com]

                  --
                  "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @07:26AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @07:26AM (#576478)

                    I hadn't heard that one.
                    It's right up my alley. 8-)

                    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 2, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday October 02 2017, @06:03PM (3 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday October 02 2017, @06:03PM (#576038) Journal

              Uh...if you're a Christian, you don't exactly have the moral high ground here. Your God runs an endless, eternal, inescapable concentration camp full of fear, fire, pain, torture, and suffering for nonbelievers, i.e., political prisoners. He is literally infinite Hitler, combined with a dash of Kim {Il Sung/Jong Il/Jong Un}'s "worship me!" narcissism.

              Wasn't there some passage in that anthology of yours about not giving your neighbor grief for the speck in his eye before you pull the beam out of yours?

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @06:43PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @06:43PM (#576068)

                "Uh...if you're a Christian, you don't exactly have the moral high ground here. Your God runs an endless, eternal, inescapable concentration camp full of fear, fire, pain, torture, and suffering for nonbelievers, i.e., political prisoners. He is literally infinite Hitler, combined with a dash of Kim {Il Sung/Jong Il/Jong Un}'s "worship me!" narcissism."

                God runs heaven. The Devil runs hell. If you are going to argue against religion, at least get the basics right. Unless you consider heaven "hell", but even then, your post makes little sense.

                • (Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday October 02 2017, @09:12PM

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday October 02 2017, @09:12PM (#576196) Journal

                  ...uh, no. No, the Devil does not run jack shit. It's a pop-culture trope that Satan is sitting on a throne of red-hot skeletons in Hell or something, but if you ACTUALLY READ THE GODDAMN BIBLE, you will see references to "...the fire prepared for the Devil and his angels" (Mt. 25:46) and various places in Revelation. Do your research before you post.

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday October 03 2017, @07:46AM

                by anubi (2828) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @07:46AM (#576484) Journal

                The Bible is a strange book... full of metaphor and symbolism. Different people seem to arrive at different interpretations. Who am I to disagree?

                I have my own interpretation ( which has got me into hot water with preachers ) of John 1:1 which states "In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God. The Word was God.".

                Something snapped in me when I read that.

                I parsed it thus: God is the very laws of physics under which everything operates. Those laws were in operation before the Universe existed. They will exist after the Universe burns out... that is if it does. Everything operates subject to those laws. The law is not a respecter of persons. If there is a hell, its when the Universe collapses back upon itself, and everything supposedly vanishes back into the nothingness from which it apparently became. "Let there be Light" is another word for "The Big Bang".

                Admittedly, I place the highest regard for what I consider God's law... the Laws of Physics. Math. Disrespect for that Law will certainly lead to my ruin.

                Seems like it is us that form this existence into what we perceive it to be.. not only do we do it to ourselves, we do it to everyone else as well. We have made both a paradise and a hell. We have a tendency to gravitate toward one or the other.

                I have to admit my ignorance on how to actually *communicate* with the laws of physics. I just try my best to understand them so the stuff I make will work as intended. I feel I am terribly naive to think I have more intelligence than something which fomented the creation of the universe. I feel more like comparing me as an ant to a human is more the scale, but even that is being quite generous to me. I *seriously* believe I could not possibly annoy God as much as an ant can annoy me. Even if I set doing that as my whole life objective.

                Tinfoil hat time ... I also have a strong suspicion that we are planted here ... Sumerians ... Ezekiel ... by a people of significant technological advancement that we have yet to accomplish. Maybe hundreds of thousands of years ago.

                I get the idea the books were written by men as leadership instruments. Some men were in the know about physical law and how stuff works. Even down to what is edible and what should be shunned. "Worshipping God", so to speak. Others degraded into what we would call foolish activity, failing to do the things we need to do to survive.. "Baal Worshippers". Spend their time in wine and song and fail to prepare for the winter. Eat stuff that isn't good for you. Doing things that are gonna get you in trouble with your neighbor.

                I believe we all are the "Children of God", while collectively we may well be the vessels in which God himself resides. I cannot explain consciousness, nor intelligence, nor explain how what looks like such simple things are capable of such profound things. Things like how my cat came from one tiny fertilized cell I can barely see with my microscope, yet that tiny cell it started as grew up into a momma cat that knows how to raise kittens.

                Take the above with large grain of salt. I WASN'T THERE. How would I know? Above is just a core dump of what's in me right now. That could change as I integrate more data.

                --
                "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:20AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:20AM (#576352)

            And now it hits me, do most whites think that they are the chosen people?

            Some of them sure do. [wikipedia.org]

        • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by jmorris on Monday October 02 2017, @04:09PM (1 child)

          by jmorris (4844) on Monday October 02 2017, @04:09PM (#575947)

          Most Jews I've met, in America anyway, do consider themselves to be white, but now I wonder. Are Jews white?

          Yes. And No. American and most Western Jews are always quantum beings. One minute they are a fellow white guy explaining why whatever you wanted to do is "not in keeping with our values" or otherwise trying to blend in as the enemy within and the next day that are playing the Jew card. They know it is important for most to stay "white" most of the time lest people notice them.

          They really DO have an outsized control over the country. Did ya notice how fast the system went into full overreaction when CNN threatened to dox that 4chan kid? It wasn't for what they said he did, it was the poster size graphic he was circulating showing everybody at CNN / Warner who is a Jew. There are other posters out there for NBC / Comcast and Fox. The problem was the reaction was so kneejerk it threatened to Streisand Effect the whole thing so somebody higher up with a brain squashed the witch hunt. The control is pretty much incontestable, boardroom to on screen talent to writers and producers. No story is going on the air that doesn't advance their cause.

          It was bad before, but the rebirth of Israel seems to have made it worse. The Diaspora Jews split, the saner ones went home and we got left with the most hard core Communist ones. But I doubt it could be truly said that, even before, that most Jews living in America were truly Americans, considering their primary loyalty as America. Jews are loyal to Jews, period. Any decision will be decided based on "Is this good for the Jews?" instead of "Is this policy good for America?" The Diaspora has exerted mighty evolutionary pressure to create that mindset, any who didn't exhibit it got assimilated long ago into whatever culture they were living in.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @06:34PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @06:34PM (#576060)

            Everything you're saying can be applied to every other group just as well. Everyone from Catholics and Muslims to Protestants have spotty allegiances they themselves have a hard time recognizing at times. e.g. The Protestant agenda has especially screwed the US in trade and industry by constantly reorienting foreign policy in favor of Europe. They compete against the US on everything except grain; They don't need American tech; They buy their fuel from the Arabs and Russians. And yet, when a US business talks about going global, they first look towards Europe and the UK. This is the result of decades worth of state department pouring resources into Europe despite the little value it presents to America. How many trillions went into keeping Europe out of German and Russian hands only to see them becoming a socialist common market regardless? If a fraction of that money would have been spent on a few Asian and African countries, maybe China wouldn't have owned the US now.

      • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @12:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @12:45PM (#575873)

        Wait. Does this mean that Aryans aren't white?

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday October 02 2017, @05:56PM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday October 02 2017, @05:56PM (#576034) Journal

      Why do you think it'll be a white dude who figures this out? My money is on China, at least figuring out a well-scaling, cheap process (the initial work is already done). They have 1.6 billion people to feed.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:21PM (#576111)

      iCows?

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Monday October 02 2017, @07:49AM (7 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @07:49AM (#575800) Journal

    these intelligent, playful, sociable animals' throats are slit and their bodies are turned into pork chops or sausages.

    Of course, PETA, what can one expect from you?!?
    You forgot the BACON!!! ... you... you... arghhh!

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday October 02 2017, @10:42AM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday October 02 2017, @10:42AM (#575843) Journal

      these intelligent, playful, sociable animals' throats are slit and their bodies are turned into pork chops or sausages.

      Of course PETA got it wrong. They're always so focused on the four-legged animals that they missed the real scandal in the operation, that the above quote was referring to the workers.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday October 02 2017, @11:44AM (2 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @11:44AM (#575857) Journal

      The avant-garde of "civilization" in Australia: pigs [wikipedia.org].
      The effects:

      As of 1987, feral pigs are considered to be the most important mammalian pest of Australian agriculture.

      The feral pig "society" [theland.com.au]

      Mr Wishart said the LLS had made some big achievements, but regrettably, feral pigs were “here to stay”.

      He expected a wave of piglets in six-months time, thanks to recent rain.

      “Feral pigs respond very quickly to rain events,” Mr Wishart said. “An abundance of green grass gives sows the perfect environment to breed in. They can reproduce when they hit 25-kilograms and can have two lots of up to 10 piglets a year.”

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @03:35PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @03:35PM (#575931)

        and can have two lots of up to 10 piglets a year.

        Worse than the mexicans.

        • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday October 02 2017, @03:52PM

          by LoRdTAW (3755) on Monday October 02 2017, @03:52PM (#575938) Journal

          WTF are you smoking? Mexicans don't produce bacon.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @12:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @12:07PM (#575865)

      PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals ?

    • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday October 02 2017, @01:26PM (1 child)

      by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @01:26PM (#575883)

      bacon++

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday October 02 2017, @06:57PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Monday October 02 2017, @06:57PM (#576082)

        Never quite understood that one. I prefer to pre-increment bacon before eating.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:49AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:49AM (#575801)
    Normal farm pigs already grow to "enormous sizes", get slaughtered and eaten. You can see from the photos these muscular pigs aren't unusually huge for pigs. They are just unusually muscled.

    The real issue is whether this is actually from a mutation or from illegal hormone/drug usage.

    The secondary issue is the taste factor. There might not be sufficient demand for roast pork or bacon without the fat.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 02 2017, @08:45AM (3 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @08:45AM (#575821) Journal

      Agreed. All over the civilized(?) world hogs are bred for no other purpose, but to be butchered and cut up into pork chops, bacon, rendered into lard, the real waste products put into dog food - this IS how we live. PETA routinely gets their panties wadded up over stupid crap. Hogs, chickens, cows, sheep, goats, and more - they are FOOD!

      On the other hand, I'm not much into genetic engineering of my food. Nor do I like all the hormones, antibiotics, and other crap force fed to our food animals.

      I think there's some line between PETA's positions, and that of industrial farming, that makes sense. Big Agriculture will sicken you, if you get behind the scenes to see how things are really done. But, I certainly don't want PETA to be the standard bearer in this crusade.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday October 02 2017, @10:46AM (2 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday October 02 2017, @10:46AM (#575846) Journal

        That's why it's safer to keep your own animals, if you can. Corporations are not to be trusted with important matters.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday October 02 2017, @03:17PM (1 child)

          by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @03:17PM (#575922) Journal

          That's why it's safer to keep your own animals, if you can

          Unless you're cloning them, your own animals are still going to be bred if there are to be any offspring, which is the basis for the evil, monstrous genetic manipulations being decried. I don't think the people who (claim to) oppose such manipulation quite grasp that aspect of it.

          CRISPR is another way to do it, but the "Breeding" way is (a) easier, and (b) much more popular.

          So you're either a wicked genetic manipulator or a mad-scientist cloner if you believe genetic change to be dark or satanic manipulation to be avoided.

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday October 02 2017, @04:34PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday October 02 2017, @04:34PM (#575958) Journal

            Uh, OK. I meant that if you're eating animals you raise then you know exactly what shots have been given them and what they've eaten. Everything else you're taking on faith, and it has happened entirely too often that companies betray that faith. Even the guys who certified the meat kosher for most of the US were caught doing all kinds of heinous things; previously my orthodox friend had always clicked his tongue and told me to buy their stuff every time a food contamination story came out.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 1) by anubi on Monday October 02 2017, @08:45AM

      by anubi (2828) on Monday October 02 2017, @08:45AM (#575822) Journal

      I don't know about that.

      They might be even tougher to eat than old boiled owl.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @01:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @01:50PM (#575888)
      This was my first reaction - "I saw bigger pigs at the state fair, and I don't particularly live in a farming state." They are unusually muscled - but even then it is only exploiting a naturally-occurring phenomenon (see: Belgian Blue Cows... which I have also eaten). Call me a terrible person, but I'm not actually seeing the problem.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:58AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:58AM (#575807)

    What? No one has seen it? Better than Snowpiercer and Oldboy, all rolled into one. Tilda Swinton, Jake Gyllenhaal, and some young Korean actress. OH, and a gigantic genetically engineered pig. Happy ending, though not the one American Soldiers stationed in Korea are thinking of. No one would want gigantic pig, if it came at such a cost. We would rather have a flute, a California Public Schoot Flute, like that.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday October 02 2017, @09:15AM (19 children)

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Monday October 02 2017, @09:15AM (#575826) Homepage Journal

    Humans (at least for now) are the top predator on this planet.

    In fact, if it weren't for sliced/cooked meat [sciencemag.org] and smaller jaws/chewing muscles [nytimes.com], we wouldn't have the big brains that make us top predators.

    While it's true that, given our current knowledge of nutrition, a vegetarian diet can provide all the nutrients needed to be healthy, meat has been an integral part of human diets for more than two million years.

    So, to the PETA morons I say, "Fuck you! Go eat some pork chops assholes!"

    To everyone else I say, "Go eat some pork chops! You are welcome on my lawn."

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday October 02 2017, @02:21PM (5 children)

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday October 02 2017, @02:21PM (#575901) Journal

      Meat-eater here, so I'm not particularly trying to shoot you down , but I have to say that "it's what nature intended" and "that's how it's always been" are really crappy arguments for anything.

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday October 02 2017, @08:30PM (4 children)

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Monday October 02 2017, @08:30PM (#576165) Homepage Journal

        Meat-eater here, so I'm not particularly trying to shoot you down , but I have to say that "it's what nature intended" and "that's how it's always been" are really crappy arguments for anything.

        I never said anything about what "nature intended." Nature doesn't intend anything. I was pointing out that without meat (or some other concentrated source of nutrients) we almost certainly wouldn't have evolved into the intelligent, technological, apex predator we are.

        I specifically did *not* say "that's how it's always been." Because it hasn't. Before 1.5-2.1 million years ago, our ancestors were *not* meat eaters. The argument is that eating meat allowed us to use more time and energy developing technology *and* allowed those with a certain mutation [nytimes.com] to make room for a larger brain, moving us along an evolutionary path which, by happenstance and good fortune, allowed us to become apex predators.

        I don't speak for anyone else, but I'm glad I have heat in the winter, artificial lighting, roasted coffee beans, and the ability to have this discussion with you.

        If our distant forbears hadn't started (and continued) eating meat, assuming our ancestors didn't die out completely, I would, most likely, be freezing in the dark and spending 8-10 hours a day struggling to find enough calories to keep myself alive.

        Again, I don't speak for anyone else, but I'm glad I don't have to do that.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday October 03 2017, @10:36AM (3 children)

          by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @10:36AM (#576516) Journal

          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)

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday October 03 2017, @03:21PM (#576620) Homepage Journal

            I said in my initial post:

            While it's true that, given our current knowledge of nutrition, a vegetarian diet can provide all the nutrients needed to be healthy, meat has been an integral part of human diets for more than two million years.

            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)

              by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @04:20PM (#576648) Journal

              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

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday October 03 2017, @06:12PM (#576706) Homepage Journal

                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.

                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
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by CoolHand on Monday October 02 2017, @03:42PM (12 children)

      by CoolHand (438) on Monday October 02 2017, @03:42PM (#575933) Journal

      Humans (at least for now) are the top predator on this planet.

      In fact, if it weren't for sliced/cooked meat [sciencemag.org] and smaller jaws/chewing muscles [nytimes.com], we wouldn't have the big brains that make us top predators.

      While it's true that, given our current knowledge of nutrition, a vegetarian diet can provide all the nutrients needed to be healthy, meat has been an integral part of human diets for more than two million years.

      So, to the PETA morons I say, "Fuck you! Go eat some pork chops assholes!"

      To everyone else I say, "Go eat some pork chops! You are welcome on my lawn."

      But we're not natural predators at all (or omnivores)... Can we hunt down our own food naturally? Can we eat meat without processing it? Your own first link says we can't.. We had to use stones to slice meat into small pieces to be able to eat it. Does the thought of biting into an animal really make you hungry? Studies are increasingly showing that meat is really really bad for us.. (although logically we already new it was from the cholesterol that clogs our blood vessels). Societies desire to continue with the madness of consuming animal products is ruining our planet besides the health of individuals, due to the pollution it causes as well as the land required to feed all those animals that you must eat.. https://www.livekindly.co/largest-study-proves-link-between-meat-major-diseases/ [livekindly.co] http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1957 [bmj.com] so, "Fuck you! eat your pork chops asshole! die a quick death so our planet is saved.." Just because PETA uses some outlandish tactics to try to grab attention does not mean they're incorrect...

      --
      Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Aiwendil on Monday October 02 2017, @05:21PM

        by Aiwendil (531) on Monday October 02 2017, @05:21PM (#575997) Journal

        Can we eat meat without processing it?

        Heck, we can even eat some meat alive - worms for instance and lots of bugs and some seafoods (like oysters and squid).

        Then we have some food which we basically just gut and clean (most fish if it was healthy) (and killing+gutting+cleaning can be done with your bare hands and the water it was caught in, I have done it with baltic herring, easier if you nails are a bit longer).

        The question rather is just where you draw the limit for processing? Burying food for a while and then digging it up and eating it raw was discovered as a sideeffect of just trying to store food (just like letting things ferment in brine (hello surströmming and gravlax)).
        If you allow for lightly salted and dried meat that is eaten by ripping it apart with your teeth I eat about 0.4kg (400g) of that each year as a snack (dried reindeer, tastes better when you tear it apart rather than cutting it).

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Zinho on Monday October 02 2017, @05:52PM (10 children)

        by Zinho (759) on Monday October 02 2017, @05:52PM (#576030)

        But we're not natural predators at all (or omnivores)... Can we hunt down our own food naturally? Can we eat meat without processing it? Your own first link says we can't.. We had to use stones to slice meat into small pieces to be able to eat it. Does the thought of biting into an animal really make you hungry? Studies are increasingly showing that meat is really really bad for us.. (although logically we already new it was from the cholesterol that clogs our blood vessels).

        Humans can hunt food naturally; there are still tribes in Africa who hunt gazelle by simply following them at a run until the gazelle dies of exhaustion. Since neither rice, wheat, nor pinto beans can be eaten without processing (i.e. grind/bake or boil) I don't see why needing to process meat (i.e. slice + cook) disqualifies it and doesn't disqualify the vegetables.

        Those points aside, however, be careful about blaming meat intake for heart disease; in 2009 the American Heart Association shifted the blame for that onto sugar. [webmd.com] This has subsequently been backed up by further research; [jamanetwork.com] sugar is what we're damaging our arteries with, not meat. Our bodies manufacture cholesterol naturally, we don't need to get it as a nutrient from meat, and one of its roles is to repair damage in inflamed blood vessels. Blaming cholesterol in your diet for heart disease is like blaming the fire department for arson [progressivehealth.com] because there are always fire trucks when a building is on fire. [1]

        Lastly, I'd recommend that you vet your sources a bit better; the "Live Kindly" website gives a different conclusion than the authors of the British Medical Journal article reached. BMJ concluded that red meat increased mortality, and that white meat reduced it; Live Kindly reads that red meat is bad, and concludes, "the case for eating meat is dwindling." Not surprising that a vegan-living magazine would focus on the points that support their ideological position, I guess. That doesn't change the fact that they're essentially lying by omission because the truth isn't convenient.

        [1] The analogy gets a bit strained, though, since we're not just blaming the cholesterol, we're blaming a diet that we think is responsible for increased cholesterol. So perhaps, it's like blaming the city's taxpayers for funding the purchase of the fire trucks? Or the raw material suppliers that feed sheet metal and parts to the fire truck manufacturers? The water district for providing water to fill the trucks? Whatever, stretched analogy is stretched.

        --
        "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
        • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Monday October 02 2017, @06:18PM (9 children)

          by CoolHand (438) on Monday October 02 2017, @06:18PM (#576046) Journal
          Yeah, I'd just read that article prior to reading the post that set me off a bit. It's just frustrating to me that meat (and dairy) is pretty obviously detrimental to us in the long term, and big animal-agriculture is killing our planet, but people just brush it off as if its nothing. I'm not a big fan of sugar either health-wise, and think its also horrible in that regard. I've only been without animal products for a year and a half and there's been so much progress on actual alternatives to meat and dairy that taste as good or better that its incredible. If more people would wake up and convert, it would be even faster. i.e. all vegan and plant based milks I tried a year and a half ago were awful, but now there are some pretty decent cheeses and some absolutely delicious non-dairy milks (Chocolate Ripple... mmmm... ). The pace of innovation in the plant based world is incredible, but so many people won't even keep an open mind (and I'm not even going into the ethics of torturing and slaughtering 60 billion land based sentient creatures per year).
          --
          Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday October 02 2017, @08:15PM (8 children)

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Monday October 02 2017, @08:15PM (#576154) Homepage Journal

            Yeah, I'd just read that article prior to reading the post that set me off a bit. It's just frustrating to me that meat (and dairy) is pretty obviously detrimental to us in the long term, and big animal-agriculture is killing our planet, but people just brush it off as if its nothing. I'm not a big fan of sugar either health-wise, and think its also horrible in that regard. I've only been without animal products for a year and a half and there's been so much progress on actual alternatives to meat and dairy that taste as good or better that its incredible. If more people would wake up and convert, it would be even faster. i.e. all vegan and plant based milks I tried a year and a half ago were awful, but now there are some pretty decent cheeses and some absolutely delicious non-dairy milks (Chocolate Ripple... mmmm... ). The pace of innovation in the plant based world is incredible, but so many people won't even keep an open mind (and I'm not even going into the ethics of torturing and slaughtering 60 billion land based sentient creatures per year).

            I'm going to ignore your earlier screed and reply to this, more reasonable, post.

            Firstly, I'm no fan of a variety of industrial agriculture (both meat *and* plant-based [npr.org]) practices. By your logic, eating soybeans and corn and wheat are also destroying the planet. You better stop eating plants or you'll kill us all!

            Industrial agriculture absolutely does cause environmental issues. But that's not limited to meat. Not by a long shot.

            Secondly, in my original post I said, "given our current knowledge of nutrition, a vegetarian diet can provide all the nutrients needed to be healthy," did you miss that? Or were you just so outraged that someone believes differently than you do that you missed or ignored that?

            My primary point WRT to eating meat is that without it, we most likely would not be intelligent beings. We would likely have been one more evolutionary dead end, and wouldn't be around (and even if we were, we wouldn't have the technology) to have this pleasant conversation.

            Meat, in and of itself, isn't the issue. Industrial agriculture and sedentary lifestyles are the issue. Blaming meat is (as Zinho [soylentnews.org] pointed out) is misguided at best, and disingenuous at worst.

            As for the argument that sentience is a reason not to consume animal products, I can certainly see your point. However, as I pointed out in my initial post, we are the apex predator on this planet. If we weren't (as we've seen in the paleontological record), we would be dinner and leftovers for breakfast too [wustl.edu]. If that were the case, I suppose we could write our congressperson to complain.

            All that said, I have no issue with you (or anyone else) shunning meat as a source of nutrition. I do have a problem with PETA, as their tactics and rhetoric are dishonest, unprincipled, and most of all, not rooted in well understood science.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Monday October 02 2017, @11:57PM (7 children)

              by CoolHand (438) on Monday October 02 2017, @11:57PM (#576313) Journal
              1) Thanks for being reasonable.. I was a bit triggered, but your "asshole" comment was a bit over the top and me throwing that back at you probably made me seem even more triggered. 2) A huge amount of the damage being done by plant based big ag would be reduced if we weren't feeding all the grain to animals. I've read estimates from 50-90% of the crops we produce go straight to animals. If we didn't eat animals, all that would be reduced on the plant side (and we could afford to grow a lot of the other plants more sustainably). Why feed all that to animals, then eat animals, when we could just eat a percentage of those plants ourselves directly? So blaming meat really isn't disingenuous. Not eating meat products does the least harm to the environment, period. Anything else is just carnivore justification. On the health side, here is a reputable source for meat and heart disease much newer than Zinho quoted.. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2014/11/researchers-find-new-link-between-red-meat-and-heart-disease-video/ [clevelandclinic.org] 3) We're not individually a natural apex predator, we're just smart. We have out smarted and out-bred all the other species (combined with good teamwork). We were almost surely initially smart scavengers and not predators. Care to get thrown into a cage with a big cat for a few days and see who the apex predator is? 4) The advent of farming has certainly done more to advance modern society than hunting animals did once we were past that primitive stage. Furthermore, just because at one time meat may have helped us gain an advantage in survival situations doesn't mean that is still gives us an advantage today. 5) I didn't want to be vegan, but I truly believe there are no good arguments against it. I also truly think that in the not too distant future killing animals for food will be very rare due to the current methods being unsustainable. If there is any real meat left it will be lab grown (possibly with the cholesterol engineered out), or possibly contained to the pleasures of the ultra-rich. Plant based meat and/or lab meat will be cheaper, more sustainable and more ethical so it is going to be almost impossible to stop. There has been a lot of advanced in the past year with more and more money going into it. 6) Peta is highly controversial even amongst vegans, I can't hardly blame you for disagreeing with them, especially coming at things from an omni perspective. I've never given money to PETA, although I have to Vegan Outreach.
              --
              Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday October 03 2017, @06:19PM (6 children)

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday October 03 2017, @06:19PM (#576711) Homepage Journal

                Care to get thrown into a cage with a big cat for a few days and see who the apex predator is?

                Who built the cage? Not the cat.

                We're not individually a natural apex predator, we're just smart. We have out smarted and out-bred all the other species (combined with good teamwork).

                Ahh, but we are. It's irrelevant *how* we became that way, but we became the apex predator because we had an evolutionary advantage (in this case, intelligence and the ability to communicate and cooperate with each other).

                Nature doesn't care what those advantages might be, only results matter. And the proof is, as they say, in the pudding.

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Tuesday October 03 2017, @10:52PM (5 children)

                  by CoolHand (438) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @10:52PM (#576829) Journal
                  The wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] on Apex Predator has an initial definition saying it's a species upon which no other species preys.. So humans would be left out there.. It then has a section on humans later in the article basically saying there's been a lot of dispute on whether humans are apex predators (and cites a lot of sources). So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In my mind, evolutionary advantages leading to domination is not the same thing..
                  --
                  Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
                  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday October 04 2017, @03:59AM (1 child)

                    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday October 04 2017, @03:59AM (#576914) Homepage Journal

                    From the page you linked:

                    An apex predator, also known as an alpha predator or apical predator, is a predator residing at the top of a food chain upon which no other creatures prey.

                    I'd say we were at the top of a food chain, wouldn't you? Who exactly is it that hunts humans for food except for some *human* groups that practice cannibalism?

                    --
                    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                    • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Wednesday October 04 2017, @11:45AM

                      by CoolHand (438) on Wednesday October 04 2017, @11:45AM (#576976) Journal

                      From the page you linked:

                      An apex predator, also known as an alpha predator or apical predator, is a predator residing at the top of a food chain upon which no other creatures prey.

                      I'd say we were at the top of a food chain, wouldn't you? Who exactly is it that hunts humans for food except for some *human* groups that practice cannibalism?

                      I think if you put yourself out in the true wild (what's left of it), you'll find the answer. Especially alone at night, that primordial fear will come to you with every little noise..

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-eater [wikipedia.org]

                      Although human beings can be attacked by many kinds of animals, man-eaters are those that have incorporated human flesh into their usual diet and actively hunt and kill humans. Most reported cases of man-eaters have involved lions, tigers, leopards,[1][2] and crocodilians. However, they are by no means the only predators that will attack humans if given the chance; a wide variety of species have also been known to adopt humans as usual prey, including bears, Komodo dragons, and hyenas.

                      --
                      Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
                  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday October 04 2017, @04:04AM (2 children)

                    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday October 04 2017, @04:04AM (#576916) Homepage Journal

                    So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

                    My apologies. I meant to include the following in my previous reply, but got antsy with the submit button:

                    Sure. We can agree to disagree. I have no axe to grind with you. What's more, I respect your opinion and appreciate the opportunity to discuss this topic with you, regardless of any difference of opinion.

                    --
                    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                    • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Wednesday October 04 2017, @11:49AM (1 child)

                      by CoolHand (438) on Wednesday October 04 2017, @11:49AM (#576978) Journal
                      Thanks man.. If you're interested in debating these topics with people that do it better than me, stop by /r/debateavegan... :D
                      --
                      Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
                      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday October 04 2017, @12:56PM

                        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday October 04 2017, @12:56PM (#576994) Homepage Journal

                        Thanks man.. If you're interested in debating these topics with people that do it better than me, stop by /r/debateavegan... :D

                        I appreciate the pointer, but no time for that. There's steak to be eaten!

                        --
                        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  • (Score: 2) by inertnet on Monday October 02 2017, @09:17AM

    by inertnet (4071) on Monday October 02 2017, @09:17AM (#575827) Journal

    I don't think an aspirin would help against the squealing.

    (I know, insensitive joke, but still funny)

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Aiwendil on Monday October 02 2017, @10:54AM (1 child)

    by Aiwendil (531) on Monday October 02 2017, @10:54AM (#575848) Journal

    Leave it to PETA to suggest giving an anticoagulant (aspirin) prior to castration or other dismemberment (tails).

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @03:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @03:48PM (#575936)

      But PETA wants animals to die, that is why their "ethical" treatment of animals typically involves loving administered euthanasia drugs.
      So the aspirin being an anticoagulant is most likely not over looked.

(1)