From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed May 22 2002 - 03:15:36 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Edmund Grech wrote:
>
>>I've just seen on the news that an Isreali Scientist has genetically
>>engineered a chicken without any feathers; its slated to cause a storm in
>>the poultry business. As you an expect the Anti-GM folk are hopping mad. The
>>chickens look just like an oven ready bird but walking around still with its
>>head attached; it actually quite freaky. It certainly illustrates the speed
>>with which we are gaining understanding of genetics; I only hope nothing
>>turns out to be wrong with the birds or this could prove another costly blow
>>in the public forum for GM products.
>>
>
> Well, in this case it's much ado about nothing. A featherless bird
> obviously has much lower survivability in the wild than a feathered
> bird, so the risks of naked chickens escaping to the wild to dominate it
> over the wild feathered chickens of the world is obviously a bit of a
> stretch. So, the more rational luddite arguments have no purchase here.
> The only reason the luddites will make hay of it is because a naked
> chicken is so damn ugly it's useful for scaremongering.
And it illustrates that we are willing to produce living
creatures tailored to be less able to survive ( a chicken
without feathers can't stand the range of temperatures and
probably will sunburn badly) just for our convenience. It quite
likely will not mate. There is a streak of the frivolous and
arrogant in that that some may object to.
>
> I am surprised, though, that Tipper Gore and the feminazis aren't up in
> arms about the indecency of having pornographic pictures of naked
> chickens (females) and no pictures of naked roosters (males), how it is
> furthering the cultural memes of exploitation of women. Doesn't the
> Communications Decency Act forbid animal pornography like this? ;)
>
Apparently your own decency doesn't preclude such baiting.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:16 MST