In the news

First thought I had was Bonsai Kitty, and Repet


Anyway.. is it ok to do this, genetically alter the feline to do this? Genetically altering things in general really is what I am asking about. The cats are a mere example.

Or is it wiser to spend more money to get to the core of the all-time increasing number of people WITH an allergy?

Only that from what I read they didn't do any genetic engineering with those cats (didn't change their DNA) they just look for rare cases of cats 1 in 15000 or so that are naturally non-allergenic and they used those cats for breeding.

Being the nature loving, all natural, tree hugger that I am, I have a problem with genetic altering...animals or food. Sure there are advantages such as pest resistant crops that grow in poor climates to help feed more people. But the problem comes in when you have to choose where to stop. This argument always comes back to the question "If Hitler had the technology for genetic engineering, where would it have gone?" So I ask the question..."How does mankind benefit from the (negative effect) inherent in the original product?" And, by genetically altering a plant or animal, is it in fact the same product?

Hehe...fence sitter that I am...one question always leads to more questions for me!

As Adrian already pointed out, in this case it isn't really altering, but breeding with cats that have non of the things that cause the allergies.

Nevertheless, let's suppose for a second they were altered And indeed have a topic on that.

I'll expand on my view in a little while, I have to concentrate on something else for a bit here, something came up.


Genetically altered food.. it is slowly becoming more and more known. I don't know what to think on it really, it would seem odd though to see a leek for instance of 6 feet long but.. would we even KNOW that thing is in our food?

I wonder if it will go the same way as with vegetarians, will we get nongennies to add to the bunch. I already know that cows get injected with growth hormones, isn't that a form of altering already? For me the boundry (when I think of it) lies at animals and suffering; I don't really know if I approve or not, but I definitely do not want an animal to suffer because of it.

I guess I don't really have a laid out yay or nay thing. Where is the limit, and what effects would make one say: no genetically altered food. I mean.. suppose there is nothing that will happen to you, that eating the leek for example will just be like any normal leek. Is it ok then? What determines when it is not?


Hrmm... sorry for the long yappy thing without head or tail I guess I am trying to make up my mind on this as I go.

yeppers. Adrian pointed out that the kitties weren't necessarily genetically altered. So I went with the theme of the thread.

I guess for me it comes down to the molecular level of it being the same food. I really don't give a rat's a** if my tomato is grown to be square because it makes packing and shipping easier. And I think it is nice to have the naturally occuring pest resistant foods.
I wonder if the snakes in nature that eat the pests that come with the crop think so, though? And then the varmits that eat the snakes, then the bigger critters, then the even bigger ones, and then us? What is the overall effect on the ecosystem from the genetically altered food?
But then I think..."Is the tomato any better than the one Mother Nature designed other than the shape? And if it is better, then why didn't Mother Nature design it that way to begin with? Ok...I am kind of tongue in cheek here, but really, did anything have to be changed on a nutritional level or a taste level to get it that way.
I know that there can be changes that do not really affect the overall product. But how could I be sure that I am not missing out on a certain trace nutritional element? (I want to make every bite of my veggie count!)
But that is with crops....
When it comes to animals, that to me is little over the line. Once again, what else is inadvertantly altered when an animal is genetically altered to fit the needs of another member of the food chain? We have cattle that are genetically altered to fatten up for slaughter...but then we have an epidemic of fat Americans that eat the extra fat meat from the cattle. And then come the medical issues and early death that comes with the side effects of eating the extra fat.

Sorry for the long post...I just was thinking out loud on the forum!

I have made a new topic regarding this bit:

You can find that here. I figured it deserves its own thread

On the topic of Genetically altering food sources I have a strange outlook.
I am both for and against it!

Genetic alteration has it’s place within a modern world, for sure it is a technology that can have far reaching conclusions such as the reduction of world hunger. The problem is that the choice is in the hands of big business. These are people who do things for money and not for the better good.

I point often to the case of the ‘suicide grain’ as a prime example of greed coming before common good. In short this gene prevents the seed from germinating, it is a strange strange thing but it is there. A large company found this gene and produced a seed that, along with other alterations, would increase production for farmers… for one generation. Seed produced from these mother seeds would be incapable of growth.

This was done deliberately to eliminate the tried and proven method of putting a few seeds aside for the next growing season. It was all to ensure that the farmer had to come back to the company to get the next crop, giving the company a ‘renewable’ income instead of a one off payment, which was large to start with, with the farmers then using the GM seeds from the last generation to produce the next, as nature intended.

BUT it doesn’t end there. These seeds where capable of cross breeding. That means a farmer down wind would suddenly find his field producing less after one season even if he didn’t purchase the grain or wanted to. His next generation would be weaker, plants would fail to grow and eventually he would be forced to turn to this company just to produce seeds because his whole crop would be contaminated.

It was one of the most evilest acts a corporations has ever tried to pull, one that could in have put in jeopardy the whole farming industry just for short term profits. We can NOT afford to have companies tinkering with the genetic code because they WILL use all the devious and evil quirks of nature to make a buck.

While this technology has the means to do a great deal of good in the world, it will never be able to do so while greedy people control it. They WON’T produce a plant capable of growing in desert climates that is able to feed the masses, there is no money in it….

As for fat Westerners, continued here

(Thanks Eadwine!)