4 ms·

Yes we should definitely prohibit anything that could help having a healthier population, by for an example eradicating genetic diseases.

phkahler 9y ago
GATICA
- hycaria 9y ago
  Works reasonably well in pure breed pets and production animals.
  - seren 9y ago
    Purebred are notorious for having plenty of health issues. see for example : https://www.petmd.com/dog/care/evr_dg_purebred_dogs_complications# https://www.petmd.com/dog/care/evr_dg_purebred_dogs_complica...
    - hycaria 9y ago
      Yes, that's exactly my point. For maybe ten years there has been huge efforts thanks to genetic diagnosis to promote health with esthetic standard. Serious breeders test their reproducers against the common diseases in their breed and so on. It works rather well. As for production animals it has been going on for even longer, especially in cattle. And we've got good perfomance there too on mesurable metrics.
    - matte_black 9y ago
      This happens if you just breed pure breds blindly and pay no attention to the underlying genes. We could do the same with humans, if two people want to have a child but have high risk genes, it would be cruel and irresponsible to conceive a child, perhaps even criminal. No child should have to endure a lifetime of suffering with a bad quality of life under a crippling genetic disease because of their parents ignorance or apathy. But of course, we have Anti-Vaxxers and whatnot in this world so maybe some people will just do it on purpose anyway because it’s “the natural way”. Sickening.
      - seren 9y ago
        I believe genetic tests already exist for people at high risks to be sure that they are not(sane)carriers of deadly disease that could be passed on to their offspring. I don't think it is a wrong or morally reprehensible idea. However, in the long term, it might not be a good idea to select, and likely reduce the human gene pool, because you can not know what will be useful in the future. For example, the Spanish Flu of 2087. On the other hand, it is possible humans will become that good at genetic engineering that a small gene pool won't be an issue because we will be able to update and adapt it easily if new conditions arise.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikro2nd 9y ago
    It works /terribly/ in pure-bred animals. The extreme selection for desired traits (e.g. milk-production in dairy cows, wool-fibre length in wool sheep) leads to a host of deformities and abnormalities. For example, (I live in Cow Country) I see the farmer-next-door's cows walking to and from the milking "parlour" (factory would be more accurate), their /enormous/ distended udders knocking against their ankles. This is not normal. This is grotesque. Every one of those cows is severely prone to mastitis and a host of bacterial infections. Routine antibiotic dosing is the factory-farm answer. They all suffer from a variety of skeletal problems. On average they last about 3 years before being culled for dogfood and McD's. These distortions are ALL a result of extreme selection pressures. I could go on about my (Belgian Shepherd purebred) dogs who suffer from an insufficiency of grandparents, but life is short. I love them anyway, but in future will be looking for crossbred puppies.
    - hycaria 9y ago
      I'm really sorry to have to say such things, but you clearly don't know what you are talking about. No correlation between udder size and milk production, so you can clearly try to orientate your production towards nice shaped udders. Especially crucial with milking robots anyways, so that's going the right way. Each bull and its offspring has genetic testing to try to give such indicators. See https://issuu.com/eurogeneais/docs/spring_2016_low_res https://issuu.com/eurogeneais/docs/spring_2016_low_res for an example, you can see udder there amongst other regarding milk of course but also posture, with positive or negative factors. The skeletal problems are 1 - not the most common factor of reform, and not really that common 2 - not hereditary most of the times but come from housing and such. The average is certainly not 3 years but a bit higher, around the double actually, as at 3 years you barely had the time to end the first lactation, which is the worst one for milk production. Antibiotics are needed because of the environmental pressure and modern breeding methods more than genetic factors, by far. Honestly you just threw a bunch of non-sense about a field you clearly don't know at all. I really would like to know how people can have such vigorous claims about things they don't know an ounce about. As for your dog you're proving my point : hereditary diseases are a big thing in purebred and you sadly got one that wasn't from a very clean pedigree (honestly Belgian Shepherd are by the way really far from the worst breed in that aspect btw so either you're unlucky or you didn't search too much for a good breeder before acquiring your pet). But good breeders now are systematically testing reproductors and offspring for well known diseases in each breed and it helps reducing their incidence.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  Yeah that ended with a man prone to heart problems, risking a billion-dollar space shot for personal glory. That movie seemed flat and unconvincing to me.

phkahler 9y ago

GATICA

hycaria 9y ago
Works reasonably well in pure breed pets and production animals.
- seren 9y ago
  Purebred are notorious for having plenty of health issues. see for example : https://www.petmd.com/dog/care/evr_dg_purebred_dogs_complications# https://www.petmd.com/dog/care/evr_dg_purebred_dogs_complica...
  - hycaria 9y ago
    Yes, that's exactly my point. For maybe ten years there has been huge efforts thanks to genetic diagnosis to promote health with esthetic standard. Serious breeders test their reproducers against the common diseases in their breed and so on. It works rather well. As for production animals it has been going on for even longer, especially in cattle. And we've got good perfomance there too on mesurable metrics.
  - matte_black 9y ago
    This happens if you just breed pure breds blindly and pay no attention to the underlying genes. We could do the same with humans, if two people want to have a child but have high risk genes, it would be cruel and irresponsible to conceive a child, perhaps even criminal. No child should have to endure a lifetime of suffering with a bad quality of life under a crippling genetic disease because of their parents ignorance or apathy. But of course, we have Anti-Vaxxers and whatnot in this world so maybe some people will just do it on purpose anyway because it’s “the natural way”. Sickening.
    - seren 9y ago
      I believe genetic tests already exist for people at high risks to be sure that they are not(sane)carriers of deadly disease that could be passed on to their offspring. I don't think it is a wrong or morally reprehensible idea. However, in the long term, it might not be a good idea to select, and likely reduce the human gene pool, because you can not know what will be useful in the future. For example, the Spanish Flu of 2087. On the other hand, it is possible humans will become that good at genetic engineering that a small gene pool won't be an issue because we will be able to update and adapt it easily if new conditions arise.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mikro2nd 9y ago
  It works /terribly/ in pure-bred animals. The extreme selection for desired traits (e.g. milk-production in dairy cows, wool-fibre length in wool sheep) leads to a host of deformities and abnormalities. For example, (I live in Cow Country) I see the farmer-next-door's cows walking to and from the milking "parlour" (factory would be more accurate), their /enormous/ distended udders knocking against their ankles. This is not normal. This is grotesque. Every one of those cows is severely prone to mastitis and a host of bacterial infections. Routine antibiotic dosing is the factory-farm answer. They all suffer from a variety of skeletal problems. On average they last about 3 years before being culled for dogfood and McD's. These distortions are ALL a result of extreme selection pressures. I could go on about my (Belgian Shepherd purebred) dogs who suffer from an insufficiency of grandparents, but life is short. I love them anyway, but in future will be looking for crossbred puppies.
  - hycaria 9y ago
    I'm really sorry to have to say such things, but you clearly don't know what you are talking about. No correlation between udder size and milk production, so you can clearly try to orientate your production towards nice shaped udders. Especially crucial with milking robots anyways, so that's going the right way. Each bull and its offspring has genetic testing to try to give such indicators. See https://issuu.com/eurogeneais/docs/spring_2016_low_res https://issuu.com/eurogeneais/docs/spring_2016_low_res for an example, you can see udder there amongst other regarding milk of course but also posture, with positive or negative factors. The skeletal problems are 1 - not the most common factor of reform, and not really that common 2 - not hereditary most of the times but come from housing and such. The average is certainly not 3 years but a bit higher, around the double actually, as at 3 years you barely had the time to end the first lactation, which is the worst one for milk production. Antibiotics are needed because of the environmental pressure and modern breeding methods more than genetic factors, by far. Honestly you just threw a bunch of non-sense about a field you clearly don't know at all. I really would like to know how people can have such vigorous claims about things they don't know an ounce about. As for your dog you're proving my point : hereditary diseases are a big thing in purebred and you sadly got one that wasn't from a very clean pedigree (honestly Belgian Shepherd are by the way really far from the worst breed in that aspect btw so either you're unlucky or you didn't search too much for a good breeder before acquiring your pet). But good breeders now are systematically testing reproductors and offspring for well known diseases in each breed and it helps reducing their incidence.
JoeAltmaier 9y ago
Yeah that ended with a man prone to heart problems, risking a billion-dollar space shot for personal glory. That movie seemed flat and unconvincing to me.