General Chat

[Chindie]

Many ways, for one cattle don't just produce beef.

No shit, really? I thought leather came from potatoes or something. And milk, well everyone knows that comes from the sky. :?.

...I used beef as a simple example, and because it was what the initial 'issue' that came from the debate was raised on. The point raised remains the same - higher yield cattle, bred from high yield clones, are a good thing. It doesn't matter whether the yield is beef milk leather you name it, it all helps.

But on beef I doubt it'll be sold much here and in other 'developed' countries. We have enough tasty beef as it is. Now, there is nothing wrong with providing a steady of supply of meat to poorer countries, but its more the process of developing rather than the final result which is the problem.

Why do you doubt it? Do our farmers who sell locally not want to improve their profits? Scratch that, any farmer providing to a developed nation will be interested in higher yields (in some cases they may have caveats on flavour/breeds/etc but ultimately they are interested in their return for their product). It doesn't matter if we provide enough already, it matters that we can provide enough better.

This assumption you make here, that it won't be developed nations benefitting, puts your entire argument that follows on such shaky ground as to make it collapse.

You are painting an ideal scenario (less cows, more beef etc) but ideal scenarios rarely pan out.

It's an ideal scenario based on a simple truism - producers produce to make money. The scenario may not work out exactly perfectly but roundly, I'll be right in saying this.

It'll still take a huge quantity of animals to provide the meat that the poorer countries don't get in their natural diet.

...assuming it's all for the benefit of the poorer nations (which it won't be... and thus far isn't)...

Where do these animals get bred? What are the conditions which they are bred in? You will still have massive areas of land with cattle which aren't used to having cattle.

This is an issue that already faces the cattle industry. However, it is an issue that can lessened if you are providing more per cow, which is the idea of high yields.

As we (the west) are the ones with the technology to produce high yield animals

...you can do it without any technology whatsoever. It's been done for centuries. It's called selective breeding. Anyone with a herd of cows can do it. Cloning is just a convenient way of, theoretically (which I add as a caveat because of the failings it currently has re. early deaths and costs), making the process much more efficient.

do we share that with and educate countries to enable them to do it themselves? Which would take a hell of a lot of time, but easily the better option, or will it be used as yet another way to exploit poorer nations?

As above, you can educate a farmer to selectively breed (should he want to) in about a day. The principal can be explained in seconds. He may not even have to, just buy in the right breed and run with it. Buy a cloned steer and start a breeding group if you want.

The nations don't need to be able to clone their own. And getting a developing nation to the level of being able to clone is a **** absurdly long process, thats generations of investment and even then the cost to that nation of doing it would potentially be disasterous. You'd be developing a laboratory economy in, potentially, a nation that doesn't have the ability to sustain that infrastructure, or even the need, or any of the inherent knowledge to do so. Not all nations provide for themselves, hence the globalised economy. Buying in cloned stock to breed from would be an example of a developing nation entering a new area of the global economy, which may well be good for them.

Why does that have to be exploitation?

The point is if it goes through it'll have to be regulated to the tee, because it is potentially something that could very damaging.

What needs to be regulated? 'Cloned' meat? No, that doesn't really at all if thats what you mean, and damaging it won't be at all. It's just meat.

Or do you mean the forced development of a nations ability to do things that are beyond it's means? That wouldn't need to be regulated so much as propped up. It'd be like going to Ethiopia and saying 'Hey, you guys, stop buying Microsoft stuff, start a software industry, we'll tell you how' and expecting them to be able to sustain it. They just don't have the ability as things stand, they need to develop, and yes they should have the West's help to do that, but just importing pretty top level technology or knowledge isn't going to help them.

I think our own gluttonous society can survive without more beef, basically, and should seek to find a better equilibrium with the enivronment without playing around with the very nature of it. The technology is at best used in order to provide meat in countries that need it and when it is done it shouldn't be patented and it should be given to those countries for free to do it themselves. A bit like the bloke that invented a cure for polio.

...but it doesn't have to be more beef. I daresay it wouldn't actually be much more beef regardless, as said, you can only feed a society so much, gluttonous or not. It'd be largely about efficiency in my view.

[ED]

What's the Hindu take on this?

What came first the chicken or the egg? ...................... Oh sorry you didn't Hen Do?

Wow, that one doesn't even make sense

[YLN]

What's the Hindu take on this?

What came first the chicken or the egg? ...................... Oh sorry you didn't Hen Do?

Wow, that one doesn't even make sense

I just hope it wasn't meant to

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Then our views differ.

What you call efficiency is in my view a rather depressing reflection of the human species when we have to take shortcuts through nature in order to find an equilibrium, it really highlights what a destructive and self absorbed creature we (generally) are.

As my initial point stated, it's greed. You can try and wrap it up in pretty packaging but when it comes down to core of the situation then it is obvious. Higher yield = more profit. Now, i'd say most people on here wouldn't find anything wrong with that, which is fair enough. I just hate the idea that it is money that drives our society rather than the desire to help our fellow man.

Meh.

[MrWeedMcGrass]

What's the Hindu take on this?

We don't do beef , pal :winkold:

[Jon]

What's the Hindu take on this?

What came first the chicken or the egg? ...................... Oh sorry you didn't Hen Do?

Wow, that one doesn't even make sense

I just hope it wasn't meant to

Am I missing the "gag" here? :?

[JulieB]

The problem is with cloned meat...is that we're all in un-chatered waters. No one knows if eating this stuff is going to be OK or cause us harm in the

long run..like GM food etc

Cloned meat is absolutely positively safe. It's just meat. It can't be anything other than safe because of the very nature of how it has come to be - its a copy of a perfectly natural being. Clones do have some health issues - they tend to age differently and also tend to partial to early death. But the meat and milk from those that survive is identical, it that's unsafe so is every bit of beef on the market. By cloning it it doesn't miraculously do something different to it, it wouldn't be a 'clone' otherwise.

Years ago polyunsaturated margarine was considered far more "healthy" than butter...yet have you looked at the list of chemicals in the stufF?!

Chemicals =/= bad. Everything contains chemicals. If you saw the chemical components of a slab of beef and had this idea that chemicals = bad you'd have a heart attack. Same goes for everything.

We've been eating margarine for years. It has some benefits over butter. Just because it's manmade and full of chemicals doesn't make it dangeorus.

IMHO. Responsibly grown, less chemical. natural food is surely best... I'm convinced that all the pollution & chemicals we injest contained in crap

food is harming our immune systems. However that's a personal opinion & it's up to each of us to draw our own conclusions.

Yes, it might be best, it's also spectacularly unefficient, and that isn't good for us as race since theres rather a lot of us to feed. It also isn't good for your bank account - that lack of efficiency gets reflected in the cost, as does the difficulty in growing completely organically.

You often say these kind of things whenever theres something scientific and it makes me cringe I hate to say.

No I'm sorry. I'm entitled to my opinion.

I don't use household chemicals as much as possible. I don't eat crap food full of chemicals and I personally eat very little meat.

I never said it was dangerous! What I said was it's not doing our immune system any good.

Whether it makes you cringe or not.....I think You are what you eat!

And what the heck has something scientific got to do with deciding to eat healthy natural food instead of a tub full of chemicals??!!!

[choffer]

What's the Hindu take on this?

What came first the chicken or the egg? ...................... Oh sorry you didn't Hen Do?

Wow, that one doesn't even make sense

I just hope it wasn't meant to

Am I missing the "gag" here? :?

Assuming it's an attempt on the old "What's a Hindu? Lays eggs" type of joke that only really works north of the border.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Stormfront forum.

Oh dear

:shock:

[MrWeedMcGrass]

Like I said , I used to Troll those forums , it was fun till it lasted. They believe Jews are responsible for everything from the World wars to Global warming. They are all of superior Aryan stock , the future of civilization on earth , ready to wipe out all non whites into oblivion along with their masters from the lands of Zion.

Fun reading.

[Chindie]

No I'm sorry. I'm entitled to my opinion.

I don't use household chemicals as much as possible. I don't eat crap food full of chemicals and I personally eat very little meat.

I never said it was dangerous! What I said was it's not doing our immune system any good.

I'd say anything that isn't good for your immune system probably qualifies as 'dangerous'. I'm still not sure how this ties into 'cloned meat' to be perfectly honest, since meat is meat. And the meat isn't even cloned, it's the offspring of a clone. It can't be any more dangerous than any other slab of meat is.

Whether it makes you cringe or not.....I think You are what you eat!

...so whats that got to do with cloning?

And what the heck has something scientific got to do with deciding to eat healthy natural food instead of a tub full of chemicals??!!!

I mentioned the scientific aspect because, whenever theres a discussion of something even vaguely sciencey, your contributions to them are always... well... ignorant of the facts of the matter. Hence here, this belief that 'cloned meat' has something in it that harms our immune systems, or could be dangerous 'because we don't understand enough about it yet' that you seem to have has a basis of just about... nothing.

On the marg thing, I assume you eat butter? Thats just a tub full of chemicals as well, it just so happens that the chemicals were unnaturally manipulated after being removed from a cow, as opposed to being derived from vegetable oil and so on and mixed in a vat.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Even while Jews hate Christ they make the claim He was a Jew. I wonder why they do that? Jews would have to be human for Christ to have been a Jew and - let's face it, Jews are as different from the rest of humanity as day and night. There's nothing Jews won't stoop to. The majority of human beings have limits to what they will do. The Jews stop at nothing.

Catholics don't say much about it, but Evangelicals believe Jesus was a Jew. Why? They rarely mention the virgin, Mary. She was from Galilee which at that time was looked down on by the Judeans in Jerusalem as "the land of the Gentiles." There must have been a large number of Gentiles in Galilee for it to have had such a distinction. Well, I guess we are left to wonder about Mary.

What was it about Jesus Christ to make the white Christian believe He was a Jew? Christ did not get along with the Jews from the beginning. They tried to kill him when he was a baby; Herod had all babies two years old and young slaughtered. What manner of people would murder babes and little children? The Jews did. They still do - with abortion and their atrocities against the Palestainian children. In one of David Duke's books he shows a photo of a headless toddler. It had been beheaded by Jewish soldiers.

As an adult, Jesus and the Jews were opposing forces. Christ'a position was contrary to everything the Jews stood for. Not once did He compromise.

The Bible says that the Devil [that means the Jews) took Jesus to the top of the mountian, tried to make Him cave in to their demands and when He would not they tried to throw Him off the cliff. Somehow, He got away. That does not sound like Jesus was a Jew.

But the Lord was a human being. Jesus Christ came as a human being instead of a Jew. We have been too dense to notice that. It is profoundly important.

My contention is this... God is God the Father, He came among us as God the Son and He acts as God, the Holy Spirt. We call this the trinity, but God is all of it, one person who functions in all capacities. And He chose to come among us as a human being like us and not as a Jew like the Jews.

I will try to get back to this later....it is midnight and I am so sleepy.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

We are a special, creative people, a stand out from the rest of the races. The planet needs us. We deserve to live. We deserve to fight for survival. Hitler did. But he was one in millions, a once in a life-time phenomenon. He gave his all to the White Race. How many white men to that?

These seem like nice people.

[MrWeedMcGrass]

^^Shhhh, they might find some new recruits in VT

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

They are just so dense.

Christian extremists is what they are. Which i find hillarious, as Jesus (obiligatory if he existed comment) was the biggest peace-loving socialist of them all. Plus he was an Israeli. And Jewish. Which makes me look at a comment like this:

If Christ was who He said He was then this means the White Race will not be defeated

And can't help but think, how can people be so thick. I just don't understand it!

Then again I guess if I did I would be one of them.

[JulieB]

I mentioned the scientific aspect because, whenever theres a discussion of something even vaguely sciencey, your contributions to them are always... well... ignorant of the facts of the matter. Hence here, this belief that 'cloned meat' has something in it that harms our immune systems, or could be dangerous 'because we don't understand enough about it yet' that you seem to have has a basis of just about... nothing.

If you think my responses are completely un-scientific then fine that's your opinion. However if there was nothing to worry about Cloned meat why all the commotion? I merely stated that's it's like GM food...we simply don't know.

Actually I have Lurpak lighter...because it was the only lower fat spread that isn't full of a list of chemicals. We have graves disease in our family & the doctors have warned to avoid injesting chemicals eg mono-sodium glutamate, which like aspartame is very often used as a filler. Presumably they'll be the non scientific doctors too! Who cares?!!

It's a bit like the oncologists who warn women diagnosed with breast & other cancers not to dye their hair, particularly using dark colourants. I've known about this for at least 15 years, since someone in my family was diagnosed. I've also spoken to a number of other women who've been told the same also. If they're telling cancer patients this Chindie...why aren't they telling the healthy public?!! I suspect it's all in the name of big business.

[mjmooney]

It's a bit like the oncologists who warn women diagnosed with breast & other cancers not to dye their hair, particularly using dark colourants. I've known about this for at least 15 years, since someone in my family was diagnosed. I've also spoken to a number of other women who've been told the same also. If they're telling cancer patients this Chindie...why aren't they telling the healthy public?!! I suspect it's all in the name of big business.

The is the first I've heard of this.

Which is both surprising and worrying, as my wife has (a) had breast cancer, ( dyes her hair on a regular basis (but has never been warned against it by any professionals) and © is a fairly obsessive web researcher on such things and has never mentioned seeing the subject mentioned.

EDIT: Just done some Googling. No statistically relevant links.

Example:

Hair Dye Use and Breast Cancer: a Case-Control Study among Screening Participants

Karen L. Koenig1,, Bernard S. Pasternack1, Roy E. Shore1 and Philip Strax2

1Laboratory of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Environmental Medicine, New York University Medical Center New York, NY

2Guttman Breast Diagnostic Institute New York, NY.

Reprint requests to Dr. Karen L. Koenig, Institute of Environmental Medicine, New York University Medical Center, 341 East 25th Street, New York, NY 10010

To investigate whether hair dye use increases the risk of breast cancer, a case-control study was conducted among patients attending a screening center in New York City. The study group consisted of 398 breast cancer cases identified at the screening center between 1977 and 1981, and 790 randomly selected controls screened during the same period. Subjects were interviewed by telephone to obtain information on known risk factors for breast cancer, along with a complete history of hair dye use detailing type of dye, color, duration, frequency, and temporal periods of use. Most subjects (77%) had used hair dye at least once, 38% of the subjects at least 100 times. However, little increased risk of breast cancer was found among hair dye users. The adjusted odds ratio for ever having used hair dye was 0.8 (95% confidence interval 0.6–1.1), and there was no evidence of a trend in risk with increasing number of hair dye uses. The results were the same whether all past exposures were considered or only exposures more than 10 years before disease. Breast cancer risk did not increase with increasing intensity of exposure, as measured by frequency of use or darkness of color. No effect was seen for different types or colors of dye, or for use during different periods of reproductive life. Although personal hair dye use was unrelated to breast cancer risk, there was an adjusted odds ratio of 3.0 (95% confidence interval 1.1–7.8 ) for 5 or more years of work as a beautician. Overall, the results of this study, taken in conjunction with the findings of other epidemiologic studies, do not implicate hair dye use as an important cause of human breast cancer.

Am J Epidemiol 1991 ;133:985–95.

[MrWeedMcGrass]

Christian extremists is what they are. Which i find hillarious, as Jesus (obiligatory if he existed comment) was the biggest peace-loving socialist of them all. Plus he was an Israeli. And Jewish. Which makes me look at a comment like this:

Check out the Stormfront UK section. They seem to have disowned the BNP because they think it has become too liberal

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I thought it was common knowledge that hair dye was carcinogenic, with chemicals being absorbed into your scalp.

I wouldn't worry too much though as most dyes these days had to get rid of the bad chemicals if i recall correctly.

[mjmooney]

Stormfront forum.

Oh dear

:shock:

Oh dear, indeed.

Choice example:

Jews push the propaganda that European Americans took this country away from the Indians. That is not true. The Indians are not indigenous to this Continent. Indians are Asian. They came from Asia.

Before somebody points this out, yes I know that Native Americans probably DID migrate across the Bering Strait from Siberia, very, very early on, but that isn't what the birdbrain above is on about. He's confused about "Indians".