Spider-goat! Spider goat!
Does whatever a spider won’t!
Any mention in that article of sharks with frickin’ lasers on their heads?
Amen. It’s SCIENCE folks. Not any different than breeding dogs for certain characteristics or tinkering wtih plants to get a better yield.
Though the “spider goat” trend the thread has taken has given me QUITE a laugh and cheered me up.
Thanks!
There’s nothing unusual about livestock being killed when they reach the end of the productivity. In some cases, as in disease and what-have-you, it’s actually more humane to have the critters put down, rather than letting them go about their way with an enormous tumor.
For instance, on our farm, we had a cow who developed a brain tumor, which caused her to go blind. (We think it was a brain tumor. It may have been something else. The vet said brain cancer; we believed him.) Because she was blind, she had to be led everywhere she went; it made her too nervous to walk on her own. 148 is in a way better place now: cow heaven. The goats in this circumstance have not been cleared by the goverment to be fit for human consumption because they’re genetically engineered. Because 148 illness was caused by unknown causes/causes that would take a crapload of money to discover, she also could not be sold for slaughter. It really sucked that she had to be killed. She was the nicest cow ever and would let you hug her and play with her. Gentle beyond all imagination. Because we loved her so much, we decided ending her suffering would be better than letting her waste away. Anyway . . .
Once domesticated animals reach the end of their productivity, they are commonly slaughtered or sold for slaughter. If every farmer/company kept every single animal until they died of natural causes, all people would get in the bargain is a bunch of shit, quite literally. Not only that, but the inhumane conditions that PETA bemoans constantly would only increase, as there would be no monetary gain.
Sarah
Why not indeed. Those are all excellent suggestions and it’s a shame no scientists are currently working on them.
Our own Verrain works in a facility with a transgenics division. He continues to claim that it is impossible for them to provide me with a ManBat serum. However, on a recent visit to his apartment, I noticed he’s been doing research on chiroptera. My guess is that he’s saving the serum for a Hannukah present.
Couple of problems with that.
-
Products? “As we see fit”? Who died and left people in charge??
-
That’s where the “sentient” part comes in. Animals aren’t products, just like people aren’t products. Just because we’re better with tools, and have the power to control them, and find some of them delicious, doesn’t make it any less necessary to respect them as living beings.
I think there’s a huge difference between killing animals for food (though I’m not unequivocally sold on that, either) and messing with them while they’re alive.
How can breeding 2 dogs in hopes of achieving some “desirable” trait be equated to “playing God” with creatures that would never in a million years breed on their own?
Is it so hard to conceive that the ability or power to do something does not make it a right?
Oh, what a tangled web we lactate from a goat’s tits.
Spider-Goats! Spider Goats! Like a Spider but eating Oats.
Are they strong? Listen Bud! They’ve got radioactive blood.
Hey There! There goes some Spider-Goats!!!
I, for one, welcome our new spider-modified goat overlords.
I really liked the “Spider Modified Goats” last CD.
An eight-legged chicken - You’d never be able to catch the fecker to find out if it tasted good.
Hmmmm . . . . These aren’t as scary as the mice with giant ears on their backs, or the telekinetic monkeys . . . “Drink up—it’s milk and it’s fiber!”
Goats aren’t sentient. Unless Primitive Goat Cavemen have evolved without the rest of the world knowing except you.
Put aside your fear of the unknown for a second. This is exactly the same thing, just at a higher scale. It is caused progress.
There is a difference between cloning people just cause some cult says they can and modifying goats to produce useful products.
That article totally sucks. I mean, where is all the important information? Like how far can the goats shoot their webbing? Can they form little shields over their 8 legs to protect them from harmful projectiles? And what kind of wind factors come into play when the goat tries swinging from one building to the next?
Well, at least the OP puts her age right in her username so we can all know where she’s coming from.
quote:
I believe that someone already clarified that they weren’t killed off “because better ones were made” but to prevent them from contaminating the “natural” goat population (which by the by I disagree with, I think that they should have taken responsibility to see that the goats were treated humanely, not just destroyed, they could have been sterilized). I’d wager that the goats were then used in the normal manner? Food, perhaps pet food, etc.
/Manduck:/
They’re just products to be used as we see fit. No different then any other goat, chicken, cow, or rat.
People have been using animals to survive since we’ve been on this planet. For food, clothing, transportation etc. Now that we’ve got other means for making clothing, and other means for transportation, we don’t need them for that so much.
But people do still eat meat. And that’s not a matter of “not respecting them”. I doubt that cow standing on the slaughter-line would feel any better about his fate if he knew that he was “respected as a living being”.
It’s just part of life. You think sharks stop to think “oh, I should respect this fish” before he chows down? Not likely. Using animals to better our lives doesn’t necessarily imply “lack of respect”. And really, despite a clear “We honor you brother deer for your sacrifice” I believe that the respect and gratitude to the animals for their contribution IS there even if it’s not verbalized to everyone’s liking.
I think manduck was just stating that, albeit in a slightly “cold” manner.
[quote]
I think there’s a huge difference between killing animals for food (though I’m not unequivocally sold on that, either) and messing with them while they’re alive.
How can breeding 2 dogs in hopes of achieving some “desirable” trait be equated to “playing God” with creatures that would never in a million years breed on their own?**First off, why is increasing a beneficial substance (spidersilk) “undesireable”? Second, it’s the same thing. Tinkering is tinkering. And it’s been going on for decades. Actually, if you add in grafting fruit trees and the like, way longer than that.
Without “playing God” as you call it, many of the benefits we enjoy today wouldn’t be possible, especially in the medical field.
Other than the unfortunate decision to destroy the animals, which I DO disagree with, the genetic tinkering didn’t hurt the animal, cause it discomfort, pain etc.
So why, other than the “idea” grosses out some people, and that there is more science involved in the genetics side of things, is this different than selective breeding? Or the aforementioned engineering of larger hardier grains?
No. But I think some of us would need a more compelling reason than “eeeuuuuwww gross” for why this is morally and/or ethically wrong.
argggh, bad Shoes,Bad, bad coding…
Has anyone else read Oryx and Crake, by Margaret Atwood? The whole book has a theme about genetic modification taken to its most extreme, and one of the creatures mentioned several times is the spoat/gider (no one ever agrees on which name it should have). And, the genetic modification was exactly that cited in this article. How bizarre.
Next I’ll read about a bunch of pigoons escaping and hunting people.
Re-Euthanizing The Goats
The only way to be sure that the genetic alteration doesn’t spread is to keep the transgenic specimens isolated from all other animals. Spaying and neutering them would prevent their reproducing. But what if the mutation can be spread to normal goats through blood or saliva? The odds are very low. But it’s a non-zero possibility. I also doubt very much that the carcasses were processed for use as animal feed. Again, the possibility of spreading the mutation is low but it does exist.