This websites uses cookies for Google Analytics.

Due to privacy law you cannot use this website without accepting the use of these cookies.

View Privacy Policy

By accepting you give consent to Google Analytics tracking cookies. You can undo this consent by clearing the cookies in your browser.

Cows critically endangered by GMO

How many cows are in the field? Just 1 in 180,000 according to genetics!

While there are 9 million cows in the USA, from a genetic perspective, there are just 50 cows alive.

cow(2021) The way we breed cows is setting them up for extinction Chad Dechow โ€“ an associate professor of dairy cattle genetics โ€“ and others say there is so much genetic similarity among them, the effective population size is less than 50. If cows were wild animals, that would put them in the category of critically endangered species. Source: Quartz

โ€œIt's pretty much one big inbred family,โ€ says Leslie B. Hansen, a cow expert and professor at the University of Minnesota. Fertility rates are affected by inbreeding, and already, cow fertility has dropped significantly. Also, when close relatives are bred, serious health problems could be lurking.

Selective breeding is a form of eugenics that resides on the essence of inbreeding which is known to cause fatal problems.

With eugenics, one is moving 'towards an ultimate state' as perceived from an external viewer (the human). That is opposite of what is considered healthy in Nature that seeks diversity for resilience and strength.

A quote by a philosopher in a discussion about eugenics:

blond hair and blue eyes for everyone



The primary pro-GMO argument: GMO has been done for 10,000 yearsโ€ฆ

A primary argument of proponents of GMO is that humans have been practicing selective breeding for 10,000 years.

A special about synthetic biology in The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019) used that argument as the first argument. The special started with the following:

Humans have been turning biology to their own purposes for more than 10,000 yearsโ€ฆ

With genetic engineering, changes for an intended result can be applied on a massive scale, directly affecting millions of animals and plants at once.

The situation is quite different from selective breeding and the idea of the field synthetic biology is that the result of the whole endeavor will be that science will 'master life' and can create and control evolution of species in real time, as an 'engineering approach'.

It can be seen in the quote from the special in The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019):

Reprogramming nature is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance. But if you could synthesize nature, life could be transformed into something more amenable to an engineering approach, with well defined standard parts.

Can life have well defined standard parts for science to master and 'redesign' life?

2022: The first GMO cow is approved by the FDA

The GMO short-haired cow was created using a risky and unprecise genetic engineering technology called CRISPR. Studies show that CRISPR can cause off-target and unpredictable effects on the organism. No GMO label required and no proof the meat is safe to eat.

CRISPR GMO cow CRISPR GMO cow - meat sold without GMO label

GMO is eugenics

economist gmo eugenics nature synthetic biologyThe multi-trillion dollar synthetic biology revolution reduces plants and animals to meaningless bundles of matter that can be โ€œdone betterโ€ by a company.

A flawed idea (a dogma) โ€“ the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy, or a belief in uniformitarianism โ€“ lays at the root of synthetic biology or โ€œeugenics on natureโ€.

When it concerns a practice that profoundly disrupts the foundation of Nature and human life, it can be an argument that caution is required before the practice is started and that letting it 'run dumb' by companies with a short term financial profit motive is not responsible.

Reprogramming nature (synthetic biology) is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance. But if you could synthesize nature, life could be transformed into something more amenable to an engineering approach, with well defined standard parts.

The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019)

The idea that plants and animals are meaningless bundles of matter is not plausible for diverse reasons.

If plants and animals are to posses of meaningful experience then they are to be considered meaningful within a context that can be denoted as 'vitality of Nature' or Nature's bigger whole (Gaia Philosophy), of which the human is a part and of which the human intends to be a prosperous part.

From that perspective, a base level of respect (morality) may be essential for Nature to prosper.

Vitality of nature โ€“ the foundation of human life โ€“ is a motive to question the validity of eugenics on nature before it is practiced. A purposeful Natural environment and food source may be a stronger foundation for humanity.

Morality, like ๐Ÿ’— love, cannot be โ€œWritten Downโ€, ๐Ÿฟ๏ธ animals need you!