Chicken Genome Sequenced

I doubt it... by oldosadmin · 2004-12-09 06:11 · Score: 1

I think that the genome in general is so confusing and complicated that we only *think* we have it mapped.

In 1k years, people will be laughing at the ignorance of today's genetic scientists.

FP

--
Jay | http://oldos.org

Re:I doubt it... by Otter · 2004-12-09 06:27 · Score: 1

I assure you that genomes are, in fact, "mapped" within the bounds of what that term implies. (Determining the nucleotide sequences of chromosomes, with some low percentage of gaps.) Undoubtedly there are going to be vast improvements in the understanding of what those sequences and the rest of the cell machinery do, but that's the question for which the mapping is a tool. No one is claiming that that process is anywhere but the begining.

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Re:I doubt it... by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2004-12-09 07:32 · Score: 1

To clarify: sequencing != mapping. We have the human genome, and the chicken genome, and a few others, sequenced; a sequence is often compared to a map without any labels. "Mapping" the genome involves putting labels on the things on the map. A map without labels isn't really all that useful by itself, but it's a place to start.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:I doubt it... by Otter · 2004-12-09 07:51 · Score: 3, Informative

"Mapping", in the context of genomics, refers to the generation of orientation frameworks to specify physical and recombinational locations. That step precedes sequencing, or at least precedes sequence assembly. The maps we have today are extremely unlikely to change substantively.
You can quibble over whether it is an appropriate term, but that's the sense in which the word has been used for nearly a century and in which it's used today.

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Re:I doubt it... by Otter · 2004-12-09 08:16 · Score: 1

By the way -- nitpickers may note that I've defined the word two different ways. The former was a response to the original poster in the terms in which I understood him to be speaking; the second was a technical definition in response to a technical objection. Mea culpa, but it doesn't affect the point.

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Re:I doubt it... by dancingmad · 2004-12-09 15:33 · Score: 1

How do you think we'll get to that level in 1000 years if we don't study and make mistakes now? Do people belittle Aristotle, even though he was often wrong? Great science is built on the back of others work, both right and wrong.

--
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
Re:I doubt it... by oldosadmin · 2004-12-09 15:49 · Score: 1

I belittle the idea that we'll have "5 foot, all white meat chick-monsters".

--
Jay | http://oldos.org
Re:I doubt it... by dancingmad · 2004-12-09 15:57 · Score: 1

Because we all know the /. editors are genetic scientists, right?

--
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
Re:I doubt it... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2004-12-09 16:01 · Score: 1

I belittle the idea that we'll have "5 foot, all white meat chick-monsters".

A convention of Caucasian feminists will soon change your mind.
Re:I doubt it... by Angry+Toad · 2004-12-10 08:19 · Score: 1

I'd just like to archive a note to all those thousand-year-from-now people laughing at us

"Oh bite me, you come back here and see how easy it is."

That's all.

5-foot-tall overlords by EnronHaliburton2004 · 2004-12-09 06:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

I, for one, welcome our new 5-foot-tall, all-white-meat, pre-coated-with-tasty-batter chicken overlords.

I'm waiting for meat animals without heads or brains, so you can eat meat without the animals having to live unpleasent cruel lives. I love meat, but I feel really bad for the animals.

--
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act

Re:5-foot-tall overlords by chris_mahan · 2004-12-09 06:17 · Score: 0, Flamebait

>I'm waiting for meat animals without heads or brains... Those would be republicans. /me ducks

--
"Piter, too, is dead."
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by chris_mahan · 2004-12-09 06:22 · Score: 0, Offtopic

dang, I notice the PST morning moderators have no funny bone (drum drum hihat).

--
"Piter, too, is dead."
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 06:31 · Score: 0

Wow, you should read "Oryx and Crake".

And pass me a ChickieNob.
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by Jason+Ford · 2004-12-09 06:45 · Score: 1

so you can eat meat without the animals having to live unpleasent cruel lives

This is exactly why I became vegan. I began to notice that I was preventing myself from thinking about where my food came from (it turns out it was from factory farms); at one point, it became easier to become vegan than it was to ignore these thoughts.

Fortunately, the love for meat disappears quickly in most of the ethical vegetarians and vegans who I know. (Ethical, as opposed to people who become vegetarian or vegan for religious or health reasons, and not in a holier-than-thou sense.) Once I was no longer eating meat, I could allow myself to confront the suffering that my lifestyle caused, and learned and saw things I would never have learned or saw otherwise.

I'm never going back.

--
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 07:01 · Score: 0

I'll bite, why? I Googled it, read a few reviews and synopses but couldn't figure out how this was related at all.
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by bcattwoo · 2004-12-09 07:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

you can eat meat without the animals having to live unpleasent cruel lives
I feel the same way. The lives these farm raised animals live bothers me more than they have to die for my consumption. I don't eat a lot of meat, but I can't see cutting it out completely.
It confuses me when fellow meat eaters are repulsed by hunting, even if the hunter plans on eating his kill. Seems to me a free life cut short by a swift death is preferrable to short life crammed in a cage. I had a suitemate in college who didn't eat meat but would eat eggs. He didn't seem to realize that the enslaved chicken whose eggs he was eating was going to end up just as dead and be eaten by either another person or farm animal.
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 07:10 · Score: 0

I'm waiting for sweat-shop workers without heads or brains, so you can buy Nike without the workers having to live unpleasent cruel lives. I love Nike, but I feel really bad for the workers.
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by fireduck · 2004-12-09 07:17 · Score: 1

I'm waiting for meat animals without heads or brains

So you're waiting for Mike, the Headless Chicken. Don't know how pleasant life without a head really was for the critter.
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 07:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

Well, you can always raise your own or buy livestock and kill them yourself. I like meat and wouldn't mind having to kill it myself. I've severely reduced my meat intake due to the factory farms feeding all that antibiotics, hormones, and starlink feed.

I only buy organic eggs(The shells are thicker - anyone else noticed that there's no longer any grade AAA eggs and only grade AA eggs in the supermakets since the mid to late nineties) and chickens. Most of my beef are from Niman Ranch. I buy lamb, since that's not really a big industry so they're not quite up to gigantic factory farms. I blame McDonalds and people who buy that swill for the decline in our food quality. I also blame the Corporate stooges in government for allowing the vast consolidation that allows the horrendous factory farms to exist. Corporations are not responsible to people. Corporations are only responsible to their bottom line.

There are places that sell livestock, but public transportation doesn't allow it and most North Americans in the big cities are too squeemish. A friend who was riding SF Muni saw an old Asian woman try to bring a chicken on a Bus and the driver wouldn't let her board because the chicken was still breathing. After a short argument, the woman just grabbed the chicken on by the neck and twisted. Well, now that it was just plain poultry, she was allowed on the bus.

If I lived closer to an area that allowed hunting, I'd probably go once a year. I know eating meat means killing, but I'm ok with that. That's what food is about. I'd even use a bow instead of a rifle. I don't believe in going vegan, but I definitely understand the choice people make. Too many urban dwellers just forget where their food comes from. Fish is served as a fillet or a steak in resturaunts. Asian restaurants at least leave the head - which many urbanites seem to be squeemish about. Most of the vegans I know seem to have become vegans after finding out about factory farms. A few of them, mostly younger ones, seem to have become vegan after seeing movies like Babe and realizing where pork came from.
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 08:53 · Score: 0

"Oryx and Crake" is a distopian novel by Margaret Atwood, set in the near future, where science and multinational corporations have run wild.

One of the main characters (Crake) is a biotech genius who at one point in the novel attends "university" at Watson Crick Institute. The fad among the students is to create new species - they get a share of any profits/royalities their inventions might generate. One of the "wave of the future" species is the ChickieNob, which is a genetically modified chicken that produces only white meat, has no brain, and only a rudimentary digestive system. The franchise selling ChickieNobs Bucket O'Nubbins is a smash hit.

Hence, the original poster could have his/her guilt free chicken - almost.
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by WormholeFiend · 2004-12-09 09:03 · Score: 1

Plants have the right to live too you know.

There are also environmental consequences to being a vegetarian/vegan (though minimized or eliminated if you grow your own without using pesticides and chemical fertilizers).

If everyone was vegan on an overpopulated planet, we'd turn the place into a dustball pretty quick too.

I choose to assume responsibility for what I am. Omnivorous. I eat what's available.
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by Jason+Ford · 2004-12-09 09:29 · Score: 1

Even though we fall on opposite sides of the 'animals as food' debate, I very much respect your position. It is consistent and well-thought out. It's too bad you posted as an Anonymous Coward.

If I were to consider eating animals again, a highly improbable event, I think I would need to adopt your approach.

--
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by Jason+Ford · 2004-12-09 09:36 · Score: 1

Plants have the right to live too you know.

I'll be sure to think about that next time I take the life of a soy bean in cold blood. That's my rule: if I can kill it, I'll eat it.

There are also environmental consequences to being a vegetarian/vegan

This is certainly true. However, since I'm a primary consumer and not a secondary consumer, I consume much less than an omnivore consuming a herbivore consuming plants consumes. In other words, if I ate as many plants as the chicken and cows you eat do, you'd have a great point.

If everyone was vegan on an overpopulated planet, we'd turn the place into a dustball pretty quick too.

True.

I choose to assume responsibility for what I am. Omnivorous. I eat what's available.

I choose to accept responsibility for eating what I deem morally conscionable. I eat what I am comfortable with eating.

--
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by Jason+Ford · 2004-12-09 09:38 · Score: 1

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but you make a great point. They're not Nikes, but Adbusters has the sweatshop free Blackspot Sneaker.

--
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by hal9000 · 2004-12-09 09:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

"There are also environmental consequences to being a vegetarian/vegan (though minimized or eliminated if you grow your own without using pesticides and chemical fertilizers)."

Most serious vegetarians are aware of this. I don't see how it stands as an argument against vegetarianism though. There is no such thing as a diet with zero footprint on the environment. But in general, for those of us living in the modern world who get food from modern sources, a true vegetarian diet is better on the environment than an omnivorous one.

"If everyone was vegan on an overpopulated planet, we'd turn the place into a dustball pretty quick too."

How do you mean? People eat meat that comes from herbivorous and omnivorous animals that have to be fed. It's more efficient for people to eat the crops directly. Anyway, in reality, there is obviously no danger of everyone on Earth suddenly becoming vegetarian.

"I choose to assume responsibility for what I am. Omnivorous. I eat what's available."

Appeal to nature. Societal pressures have us go against "what we are" (our genes) all the time. Someone who is hot tempered has no more right than anyone else to assault a person.

--
Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by EnronHaliburton2004 · 2004-12-09 13:29 · Score: 1

I buy shoes made in the European Union. The shoes are usually made in one of the poorer EU countries or petitioning EU countries, like the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary or even Spain or Italy.

The EU has pretty high labor standards.

These are easily available at high-end shoe stores-- with brands like Joseph Seibel and Ecco.

They are high quality leather shoes (not vegan), and incredibly comfortable. A typical pair costs $100-200. This may sound like alot for shoes, but consider that these shoes typically last me 3-4 years (more with the proper care).

Shoes (from Nike or Blackspot) will cost me $70, and I'd be lucky if they last a year. It's cheaper to buy the $150 shoes then to buy the $70 shoes.

--
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by R.Mo_Robert · 2004-12-09 16:48 · Score: 1

There are also environmental consequences to being a vegetarian/vegan (though minimized or eliminated if you grow your own without using pesticides and chemical fertilizers).

Or buy organically grown foods. Unfortunately, they're usually, if not always, a bit more expensive, but they're grown without the pesticides and chemical fertilizers you mention.

Off-topic thought to self: I love it when Hy-Vee (for those who don't know, that's a midwestern U.S. grocery store--you can't go to a "big" town out here without seeing one, or, in the case of Davenport, three, maybe more I don't know about) has organic soymilk on sale for the same price as regular. :-)

--
R.Mo
Re:5-foot-tall overlords by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-10 16:01 · Score: 0

Dude, grow some fucking balls! Killing and eating other animals is the way nature works. Everything lives on the suffering of something else. In summary: Don't be such a whiny wimpy cunt!

The what? by sarlen · 2004-12-09 06:19 · Score: 5, Funny

International Chicken Genome Sequencing Consortium

Does that make anyone else scratch their head and wonder what other kind of downright stupid consortiums we have? I mean it's a noble cause, no doubt, but calling it a consortium feigns a certain amount of dignity to chicken research that I'm not prepared to give.

Re:The what? by Lars+Arvestad · 2004-12-09 20:25 · Score: 1

I am not sure if you are simply joking or are just curiously amused. But the name is quite on-the-mark describing what it is, and also follows a naming "tradition": The natural name variants have been used for at least human, mouse, rat, chimp, malaria, fugu, and a slew of more pathetic lifeforms.

--
Reality or nothing.
Re:The what? by Bioinfo · 2004-12-10 00:50 · Score: 0

Consortium
Etymology: Latin, sharing, partnership, from consort- consors sharer, partner
1 : an agreement, combination, or group (as of companies) formed to undertake an enterprise beyond the resources of any one member

What's your problem?
Re:The what? by jim_v2000 · 2004-12-10 01:08 · Score: 1

Just think of the dinner conversation you could start by telling everyone that you're a member of the International Chicken Genome Sequencing Consortium!

--
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Re:The what? by sarlen · 2004-12-10 01:16 · Score: 1

Just think of the dinner conversation you could start by telling everyone that you're a member of the International Chicken Genome Sequencing Consortium!
Me: Mom, Dad! I'm now a member of the International Chicken Genome Sequencing Consortium!
Dad: Robotic chickens will never rule me! WE DO BATTLE!

all WHITE meat? by Naikrovek · 2004-12-09 06:22 · Score: 3, Funny

hmm all WHITE meat from the WHITE chicken farmers? who may one day visit the WHITE house? Huh. I see how you are.

I for one welcome our DARK meat 8 foot tall DARK feathered chickens, with the crushing toes and the beak and the poking and the crushing and the hey hey it hurts me.

Re:all WHITE meat? by Zerth · 2004-12-09 08:49 · Score: 1

Um, what's a Nubian?
Re:all WHITE meat? by Striker770S · 2004-12-09 14:36 · Score: 1

yes but i dont like the fact that the dark meat gets affirmative action from the white meat just because they were discriminated in the past...

--
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. - Catcher in the Rye

This is a dupe! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 06:25 · Score: 0

I'm pretty sure someone has previously sequenced the chicken egg DNA.

Proving once and for all that the egg is sequenced first.

yay progress by Zareste · 2004-12-09 06:29 · Score: 1

Great. Now if we could just figure out how limestone came from tree bark and why the sun diverged from the Pacific...

--
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!

Question by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 06:38 · Score: 4, Funny

Q: How do you know when a joke has jumped the shark?

A: When even the Slashdot editors are making it!

Come on, they don't even read the site! It's like when your parents start using a slang term, you automatically realise that it's no longer cool.

Re:Question by Hwaguy · 2004-12-09 15:40 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, the shark jumps you?
Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 18:40 · Score: 0

"It's like when your parents start using a slang term, you automatically realise that it's no longer cool."

When I was a kid, "cool" was a cool slang term. Now that I'm 50, does that mean that "cool" is no longer cool?

With the new sequencing... by CokoBWare · 2004-12-09 06:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Can we eventually inject chicken genes into a soy bean so we can make tofu taste like chicken?

MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by hummassa · 2004-12-09 06:41 · Score: 1

Chicken research is *extremely* important. Chicken is one of the most energy-efficient, cheap-to-produce forms of livestock meat, if not *the* most.

Don't be silly, please. There is a lot of hungry people living in the same planet as you. Any way of feeding them without hurting the wilderness areas would be nice.

--
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048

Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by sarlen · 2004-12-09 06:43 · Score: 1

Since we eat a lot of chicken you deem is appropriate this group be labeled a consortium?
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by Jason+Ford · 2004-12-09 07:48 · Score: 1

While chickens may be the most 'energy-efficient, cheap-to-produce forms of livestock meat' available, eating chickens who eat plants is still much less energy effecient then eating the plants directly.

Chickens are heterotrophs, and so must rely on plants for food. However, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, these primary consumers are only able to extract a fraction of the energy that plants have stored. Secondary consumers introduce another level of inefficiency.

From Why Vegan

'Yet another way to do more with less water is to reconfigure our diets. The typical North American diet, with its large share of animal products, requires twice as much water to produce as the less meat-intensive diets common in many Asian and some European countries. Eating lower on the food chain could allow the same volume of water to feed two Americans instead of one, with no loss in overall nutrition.'

Some estimates put the acreage requirements for a vegan diet at 1/12th those of an omnivorous diet.

--
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by bcattwoo · 2004-12-09 07:57 · Score: 1

Chicken is one of the most energy-efficient, cheap-to-produce forms of livestock meat, if not *the* most.
I'm no animal rights activist, but if we are really concerned with nutritional efficieny, we should skip the middle man and feed the starving masses the grains, etc., that the chickens would be getting.
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by WormholeFiend · 2004-12-09 09:09 · Score: 1

The typical North American diet, with its large share of animal products, requires twice as much water to produce as the less meat-intensive diets common in many Asian and some European countries.

I call BS on this. I just returned from a one month long trip in Asia, and there are way more "meat" restaurants than vegetarian/vegan ones.

At some point, in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, my friends and I got so tired of constantly eating meat-rich meals, we had to search long and hard for vegetarian fare.
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by Jason+Ford · 2004-12-09 09:49 · Score: 1

Interesting. I've never been to Asia, so I'm not qualified to converse on the number of meat or vegetarian restaurants. I was under the impression that, in many other countries, the meat is a complement to the meal. For instance, maybe a meal would consist of mostly rice and seaweed, with a portion of meat along side it.

My co-workers (one Chinese, one Indian) just came back from trips to their home countries. Both seem to agree that the portions are inverted in their home countries, so that meat is less prominent than plant-based foods. They say it has to do with the cost of meat.

I've heard Japan is quite the opposite.

--
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by PhoenixFlare · 2004-12-09 09:50 · Score: 1

From Why Vegan

Some of these arguments have merit, maybe you should find more recent data, though - The latest date I see anything referenced from is 2002, and a few things from 1993-1997.

There's a lot of other sites out there that can provide counter-arguments better than I can, so I won't get into that.

Some estimates put the acreage requirements for a vegan diet at 1/12th those of an omnivorous diet.

First of all, my apologies, as i'm going to rant a bit here. If you are a vegan or vegetarian and you are actually rational+respectful to other people about it - I may not agree with you, but I have no problem at all with you personally. I have two relatives who follow such a lifestyle, and they are awesome people.

That said:

If a lot of other vegans weren't so dammned overbearing about following that lifestyle, it would be a lot more attractive.

The latest example i've encountered has been the guy living in the apartment upstairs from me - when he first moved in, he took issue with my grilling outside, claiming that he abhors meat and that meat smell was going to make him sick and ruin his furniture or something. Somehow, though, it's still perfectly acceptable to him that he smokes pot and cigarettes like a chimney, making anywhere he walks in the building reek of smoke for hours afterwards.

Anyway, that pretty much sets the tone. I start grilling out in the middle of the backyard to try and show some courtesy, but every single time he's outside...As soon as he sees me carry something out or the slightest meat smell becomes evident, he hightails it inside, doors and windows loudly slam, and so on.

This has been especially fun lately, when he's tried to justify his violations of the town noise ordinance (among other things) with the whole smell thing - claiming horrible abuse and generally feeling that subjecting him to the horrible meat is worse than anything he could possibly do.

That pretty much sums up the experiences i've had with 99% of the vegetarians/vegans i've ever met - disrespectful individuals that believe their views and lifestyle are vastly superior to anyone else's. It's gotten so that I can't even talk to my "buddy" here directly anymore, I have to ignore him or call the police if he crosses the line with something.
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by hal9000 · 2004-12-09 09:58 · Score: 1

"If a lot of other vegans weren't so dammned overbearing about following that lifestyle, it would be a lot more attractive."

As a vegan, I totally agree with you. Your neighbor sounds like a smug uptight asshole.

"That pretty much sums up the experiences i've had with 99% of the vegetarians/vegans i've ever met"

Fine, but please be careful not to let that influence your actions too heavily against the vegetarian you meet tomorrow.

--
Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by Jason+Ford · 2004-12-09 10:21 · Score: 1

Your neighbor sounds like a jerk. (Smoking tobacco doesn't sound very vegan, either; it does not reflect care for himself, and, if he can't care for himself, it must be harder to care for others.) At the very least, he could be consistent and understand that many non-smokers abhor the smell of smoke as much, if not more, than many vegetarians abhor the smell of cooked flesh.

It's very unfortunate that your neighbor does not seem to understand that veganism is essentially about reducing the amount of suffering in the world. His actions seem to indicate that he does not respect your right to not suffer.

I'm sorry that you're having so much trouble with your neighbor. I, too, have had my share of unpleasant neighbors, and it is very draining.

I believe that I portray veganism in the best light when I make it appealing and accessible to other people, in a non-judging way. I'm happier now that I'm vegan, and I hope my behavior towards others reflects that.

If you have the time, you might check out a Vegan Message Board. Hopefully, you'll see that many vegans are very sensitive and caring people, who genuinely want the best for others.

Best of luck with your obnoxious neighbor.

--
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by blincoln · 2004-12-09 10:59 · Score: 1

I was under the impression that, in many other countries, the meat is a complement to the meal. For instance, maybe a meal would consist of mostly rice and seaweed, with a portion of meat along side it.

A Korean friend of mine was telling me awhile ago that that's exactly how it used to be over there a few hundred years ago. Originally, Korean food was mostly vegan, but the Western influence got them adding side bits of meat. Now, they mix it in wholesale.

Friend++ for the rest of your posts attached to this article, by the way.

--
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 11:00 · Score: 0

eating chickens who eat plants is still much less energy effecient then eating the plants directly.
Really? This doesn't seem obviously true to me. Is eating what is in your compost heap more efficient than using it to grow vegetables?
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by Guignol · 2004-12-09 11:03 · Score: 1

I don't have anything against vegans or even the second law of thermodynamics but I have with your argument.
According to the same law you state, why don't you just eat dirt and glare at the sun ?
The fact that some energy was necessarily lost in the first process (grain->chicken) says nothing about wether you'll get more energy from one source or another.
How much energy are you able to take from grain ?
How much are you able to take from chicken meat ?
How much energy will require your kid to process grain into flesh ?
Meat into flesh ?
Of course your parent falls for the same reason, but it wasn't bringing in thermodynamics...
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by PhoenixFlare · 2004-12-09 11:42 · Score: 1

Thanks much. I suppose I shouldn't have really gone off like that, but it felt good to get that out of my system. I'll be moving at the beginning of March, so one way or another I won't have to deal with it anymore.

Further, just like any other group, there's always some bad apples - rest assured that I know there's caring people like you out there as well :)

At any rate...I have pretty much no hope of changing my meat-eating ways, but i'm always looking for interesting new stuff to browse and learn about, so i'll take your sugesstion and do some reading in my spare time.
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by Mprx · 2004-12-09 13:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Insects are a much more energy efficient source of meat. Sure, people might be squeamish now, but sell them ground up, give them a fancy name, and pay some celebrities to publicly eat them, and you've got the meat of the future.
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 17:45 · Score: 0

"Chicken is one of the most energy-efficient, cheap-to-produce forms of livestock meat [...] There is [sic] a lot of hungry people living in the same planet as you. Any way of feeding them without hurting the wilderness areas would be nice."

A more efficient way than eating chicken would be to stop eating animals altogether, and just eat plants.
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 18:17 · Score: 0

"That pretty much sums up the experiences i've had with 99% of the vegetarians/vegans i've ever met"

-- that you know about. My guess is that there may be vegans you know who you don't know are vegan. (Wow, that's phrased badly; what I mean is that you may know some people who are vegans, but you don't know that they're vegans.) That would tend to bring your percentage down.

Also, it tends to be the case that once a person is "enlightened", that person tends to proseletize (sp?) to anyone who will listen, and even to those who won't. Recently born-again Christians are a great example of this.

Finally, some people have difficulty keeping their emotions in check concerning things about which they feel strongly. Many vegans believe that killing animals for food and clothing is truly evil. I am in this catagory myself. Also, I find the smell of grilling meat nauseating, and I won't go with friends/relatives to seafood reataurants because the sound of lobster/crabs shells cracking is more distubing to me than fingernails on a blckboard.

My method of dealing with this is to try to avoid confrontation (by saying "No thanks" when invited to a seafood restaurant, by standing upwind of the grill at a picnic, etc.). Sometimes, though, this is impossible, because many non-vegans simply can't understand how strongly we feel about these things. Here is an example of a conversation I had once with a non-vegan that illustrates this difference (paraphrased because I don't remember it exactly):

Her: I have to leave early to go to a meeting tonight. A convicted child molester is trying to move into our neighborhood, and we're trying to prevent it.
Me: Well, they have to live somewhere.
Her: I don't want some pervert living near me!
Me: You have children?
Her: No.
Me: Then what's your problem? Why do you care?
Her: Would you like someone living near you who had done such an immoral thing?
Me: I have immoral people living all around me.
Her: ???
Me: I consider eating meat immoral.
Her: Surely you can't compare eating meat with molesting children.
Me: Of course not. At least a child molester's victims are usually still alive at the end of the encounter.
Her (getting slightly hysterical): Are you saying that a child molester is more moral than someone who eats meat?
Me: I am saying that, in my opinion, a person who eats meat is less moral than a child molester. Now, if I can live near a whole bunch of meat-eaters, surely you can live near one child moles -- hey, where are you going?
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 18:28 · Score: 0

Sorry, I replied before reading this post, which makes the point a lot better.
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by vidnet · 2004-12-10 00:58 · Score: 1

The number of restaurants is not the best property to compare on. Meat is relatively expensive and most of the world tune their meat intake based on cost, but if you go to a restaurant, you have money to spare.

In some places, you might even have trouble getting them to make meatless food. Since the concept of ethical vegetarianism is unknown, they might throw in some chicken just to be nice.

And just forget trying to make them lay off the broth and fish sauce.
Re:MODERATION MADNESS == NOT FUNNY. by Jason+Ford · 2004-12-10 02:51 · Score: 1

If I could eat dirt and glare at the sun, I just might. However, I'm not an autotroph, and so, if I wish to live, I have two choices: I must consume things which produce their own food, or I must consume things who consume other things which produce their own food.

More energy was consumed by the plants that I eat than I derive from the plants. More energy was consumed by the chicken you ate than you derive from the chicken. Look up "trophic levels" and "energy pyramids" on google and you'll see what I mean.

How much energy are you able to take from grain?
How much are you able to take from chicken meat?

I'm NOT arguing that you get more energy from an ounce of soybeans than from an ounce of chicken flesh. I'm saying that, at 90% energy loss at each trophic level, described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that you're introducing a lot of energy loss by being a secondary consumer.

--
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer

chickens diverging from mammals? by kendoka · 2004-12-09 07:02 · Score: 3, Informative

My bio's a little rusty but aren't chickens in the aves (family? order? whatever? =)) Aves didn't descend from mammals. Aves and mammals share a common ancestor in perhaps the dinosaurs...

Re:chickens diverging from mammals? by Dragonmaster+Lou · 2004-12-09 07:06 · Score: 1

I think it was a case of the language in the article summary above being a bit vague. It should've said "how mammals and birds diverged from their common ancestor" -- at least that's what the article says.

Oh, and the mammal/bird common ancestor predates the dinosaurs, FYI.
Re:chickens diverging from mammals? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 07:14 · Score: 0

Actually, mammals are not decended from dinos, but both are decended from reptiles. I think the consensus now is that birds are decended from dinos. But right now it is still unclear if dinos were decended from mammal-like reptiles, or if they were a diffent branch of reptilian evolution.
Re:chickens diverging from mammals? by Acy+James+Stapp · 2004-12-09 08:13 · Score: 4, Informative

Mammals are descended from cynodonts from therapsids (mammal-like reptiles) which descended from the synapsid reptiles, which descended from the early amniotes.

Birds are descended from theropods, one of the two groups of saurischian dinosaurs, from archosaurs, which descend from the diapsid reptiles, from amniotes. Notable theropods are the raptors, tyrannosaurus, and allosaurus, and of course, aves.

The sauropods also descended from the saurischian dinosaurs. Notable here are the thecodonts, brachisaurus, and diplodicus.

The ornithician dinosaurs descended from archosaurs as well. Notable here are ankylosaurus, stegosaurus, iguanadon, etc.

Other ancient lineages are the turtles (from anapsids, from amniotes), crocodilians (from the archosaurs), and modern reptiles and snakes (from diapsids).

--
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
Re:chickens diverging from mammals? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 09:28 · Score: 0

The author used the term diverged. Meaning, they might have had a common ancestor, but then the two classes branched out and developed.
Re:chickens diverging from mammals? by hal9000 · 2004-12-09 10:30 · Score: 1

Not to be pedantic, but everything shares a common ancestor. From humans to birds to dinosaurs to bacteria. It all came from the same organism.

--
Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
Re:chickens diverging from mammals? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-12 14:35 · Score: 0

My bio's a little rusty but aren't chickens in the aves (family? order? whatever? =))

Rusty or not, but are you seriously asking if chickens are birds?

Big Money. The goal is no wings and smaller talons by human+bean · 2004-12-09 07:09 · Score: 3, Informative

And possibly no feathers.

A commercial chicken's purpose in life (if you can call it living) is to eat and produce eggs, meat, or more chickens.

When you farm chickens, the goal is to get as much non-human-consumable protein and carbohydrate into salable form as possible. Feathers, beaks, feet, and less desireable parts need to be minimized in order to fulfill the goal.

Gene-spliced chickens can solve some of this, producing more usable foodstuff.

The previous solution, however, was to simply have the USDA regulate that ALL parts of a chicken are "chicken". Remember that the next time you eat a chicken nugget.

--

*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"

Gallus Gallus? by DamienMcKenna · 2004-12-09 07:12 · Score: 2, Funny

The chicken (Gallus gallus)

Shouldn't that be Bokkus bokkus?

Damien

Re:Gallus Gallus? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-10 00:19 · Score: 0

The chicken (Gallus gallus)

Shouldn't that be Bokkus bokkus?

No. It's Biggus Dikkus.

Cibo Matto by yet+another+coward · 2004-12-09 07:43 · Score: 1

This accomplishment fulfills an important Cibo Matto mandate. You got to "Know Your Chicken."

Re:Big Money. The goal is no wings and smaller tal by b-baggins · 2004-12-09 07:44 · Score: 3, Funny

---
A commercial chicken's purpose in life (if you can call it living) is to eat and produce eggs, meat, or more chickens.
---

Exactly. Whereas a chicken's purpose in the wild is to eat, produce eggs, more chicken and feed foxes.

The commercial exploitation of chickens is absolutely horrible.

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.

Buckethead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 07:46 · Score: 0

They may have sequenced the chicken genome, but can they sequence the Buckethead genome?

Re:Big Money. The goal is no wings and smaller tal by bcattwoo · 2004-12-09 08:08 · Score: 1

The previous solution, however, was to simply have the USDA regulate that ALL parts of a chicken are "chicken". Remember that the next time you eat a chicken nugget.

The questionable contents of chicken isn't exactly a secret. Can't remember the last time I bit into a chicken breast and had something go crunch.

I am more afraid to think about what is in sausage though, especially down here in the Southeastern U.S. Pig's feet and ears are on display for sale in the grocery store, so what parts do they try to sneak into the sausage?

Re:Big Money. The goal is no wings and smaller tal by Jason+Ford · 2004-12-09 08:15 · Score: 1

Here's something else to consider the next time you eat a chicken nugget:

Meat, as defined in 9 CFR 301.2(rr):

(1) The part of the muscle of any cattle, sheep, swine, or goats, which is skeletal or which is found in the tongue, or in the diaphragm, or in the heart, or in the esophagus, with or without the accompanying and overlying fat, and the portions of bone, skin, sinew, nerve, and blood vessels which normally accompany the muscle tissue and which are not separated from it in the process of dressing. It does not include the muscle found in the lips, snout, or ears. This term, as applied to products of equines, shall have a meaning comparable to that provided in this paragraph with respect to cattle, sheep, swine, and goats.

Hmmm, the definition of chicken meat must be defined somewhere else. Anyone know where?

--
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer

Re:Big Money. The goal is no wings and smaller tal by gstoddart · 2004-12-09 08:22 · Score: 1

When you farm chickens, the goal is to get as much non-human-consumable protein and carbohydrate into salable form as possible. Feathers, beaks, feet, and less desireable parts need to be minimized in order to fulfill the goal.

Emphasis mine.

Oooh, how much ambiguity can the English language introduce ...

1) non-human, consumable --> not from human sources, consumable

2) non human-consumable --> not consumable by humans

3) non-human-consumable --> consumble by non-humans OR not of humans but consumable, OR neither of humans nor consumable.

Man, talk about a language that needs parentheses in it. =)

Cheers

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

But let me guess... by Telastyn · 2004-12-09 08:58 · Score: 3, Funny

They still do not know what came first.

Re:But let me guess... by tzanger · 2004-12-09 09:52 · Score: 1

They still do not know what came first.

It was obviously the rooster.
Re:But let me guess... by Da+Penguin · 2004-12-11 04:07 · Score: 1

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

It is of course semantics: do you define a chicken egg to be an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg containing a chicken. Clarify this and it becomes trivial.

Next step, I need to find a tree falling in the woods.

KFC by the+eric+conspiracy · 2004-12-09 09:04 · Score: 1

Didn't KFC have this mastered years ago? To the point where they had to take the word Chicken out of their company name becasue what they sold was so genetically modified that it didn't count as a species of chicken anymore?

Re:KFC by Jason+Ford · 2004-12-09 09:52 · Score: 1

Ah, one of my favorite Urban Legends.

--
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
Re:KFC by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 16:54 · Score: 0

The one I heard was that McDonalds had to start calling their milk shakes "shakes", because there was an insufficient amount of dairy product in them to warrant billing them as a dairy product.
My understanding is that they are mostly a mixture of sawdust ( cellulose gum ), sugar, and water.
Nothing poisonous, or even unhealthy ( sans sugar ), and probably even better for you if you consider the animal-fat angle.
Personally, I have a hard time keeping them down, because they foam them up at the spigot so a given amount of product takes up more volume in the cup, but the problem is once I drink it, the foam won't sublime, and I percolate the mixture up and down the esophagus for hours after a meal.

Re:Big Money. The goal is no wings and smaller tal by Jason+Ford · 2004-12-09 09:08 · Score: 1

Sorry to respond to my own post. Of course, 'chicken meat' is poultry, the definition of which follows:

Poultry, as defined in 9 CFR 381.1(b):

(40) "Poultry" is defined as edible skeletal muscle derived from a domesticated bird (chicken, turkey, duck, goose or guinea), with or without accompanying intramuscular or overlaying fat, bone or skin, nerve and blood vessels that are not separated from the muscle meat (see 9CFR 381.1(b)(40)). Ratite species (emu, ostrich, rhea) and birds not defined as poultry (water fowl, game birds, squab, etc.) do not automatically fall under USDA jurisdiction; however, if the processor opts to process them under voluntary USDA inspection, they are treated as poultry.

Any ideas how well an "'edible skeletal muscle derived from a domesticated bird' nugget" would sell?

--
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer

Re:Big Money. The goal is no wings and smaller tal by bergeron76 · 2004-12-09 09:23 · Score: 1

Why would the need talons at all? They are raised on farms in protected environments (except for the occasional fox). They could be engineered to have the absolute minimum of unedible parts.

--
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.

Chicken and Egg by Satai · 2004-12-09 09:50 · Score: 1

This reminds me of an article Penn Jillette wrote in Jan 1992 for PC/Computing... which he has so graciously put up on his webserver here.

GM Chicken by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 09:56 · Score: 0

Guy: "Hey, those chickens have three legs!"
Farmer: "Yeah, we engineered 'em that way because we really like drumsticks."
Guy: "So... how do they taste?"
Farmer: "I dunno. Ain't been able to catch one yet."

Re:Big Money. The goal is no wings and smaller tal by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 11:07 · Score: 0

Any ideas how well an "'edible skeletal muscle derived from a domesticated bird' nugget" would sell?

I'd buy it. It sounds exactly like what you would expect "poultry" to mean when sold as food.

April Fools by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 11:13 · Score: 0

I'm still waiting for someone to yell "April Fools"!

What's next? Monkey?

My answer to you... by hummassa · 2004-12-09 12:00 · Score: 1

And to the other guys that answered my post.

I am a carnivore (an omnivore really). I mean I, me, personally. I have canine teeth (ok, and I have nails that are made to open fruits).

I am in the top of the chain food -- barring the worms I'll feed 100+ years from now. And I don't feel bad or unethical about that. My problem with being vegetarian/vegan is the protein. The (poor) people of my country survive (barely) on a diet of rice and (brown) beans. Meat here is expensive (chicken is cheaper, but beef/pork/fish/seafood are VERY expensive). I grew up eating meat 6 days a week. Wednesday was a nightmare.

I need meat to feel OK. And I know rice and beans (which are cheap enough almost everyone can eat in this country -- Brasil) do NOT have enough protein to feed a person, but rice, beans AND chicken do. That is nutritional efficiency.

--
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048

Re:My answer to you... by Jason+Ford · 2004-12-10 03:22 · Score: 1

It may be true in your country that a nutritionally sufficient vegetarian diet is difficult to follow; I'm not familiar enough with Brazil to make any claim otherwise. I do know that, in general, this is not the case.

I need meat to feel OK

This attitude is not unique to Brazil; many of my friends from the Midwest express this sentiment, too. One friend even claims she can tell when she's 'low on protein.' In the United States, insufficient protein consumption is not typically a problem: as usual for my country, it's overconsumption that's the problem.

That is nutritional efficiency.

s/efficiency/sufficiency

--
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
Re:My answer to you... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-12 05:59 · Score: 0

"...barring the worms I'll feed 100+ years from now."

Boy, you since I'm presuming that you are probaly, posting on slashdot, at least in your teens... I'd say you are quite generous with your estimate of "100+ years from now". I'd probably bet on 80+.

The only thing I am interested in is by Repran · 2004-12-09 19:16 · Score: 1

Does it solve the chicken or egg question?

--

-- Contradictions only exist in thought - not in reality.

Re:The only thing I am interested in is by le_jfs · 2004-12-10 00:22 · Score: 1

Does it solve the chicken or egg question?

The eggs were there before, for dinosaurs layed eggs long before the chicken appeared.

--
main(char O){O++&&(((O-291)*O+27788)*O-868020?1:putchar(O++) )&&main(O);}

Re:Big Money. The goal is no wings and smaller tal by miyako · 2004-12-09 19:39 · Score: 1

Any ideas how well an "'edible skeletal muscle derived from a domesticated bird' nugget" would sell?
well, personally I think they would sell quite well if you put them in a combo with a Krusty Partially Gelatinated Non Dairy Gum Based Beverages.

--
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"

On the use of the chicken genome by Lars+Arvestad · 2004-12-09 20:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Several posters seem to assume that the main objective of having the chicken genome available is to make better and cheaper food products. There is of course some truth to that, but there are also other advantages.

Through domestication and long time (traditional) breeding, the farm chicken has become quite frail and there are several genetic dispositions for problematic conditions for chickens. Knowing its genome could help breeding (both traditional and more modern directed) generate a healthier bird. It is worth noting the man's best fried, the dog, also has these problems due to breeding.

The sequenced genome is actually from the wild Red Jungle fowl, and not the domestic chicken, so there will be plenty of "healthy genome" to learn from.

For scientists, finally having a bird genome is also great. It is further away from chimp, mouse, rat, dog, and other "close" genomes, while closer than, say, fly and nematode. It lands somewhere between us and fish, of which we today have something like three genomes (zebrafish, fugu, and tetraodon). A goal for choosing species to sequence today is having a good and even species sampling to make what is called comparative genomics better materials for comparisons. A nice resource for genomics of higher organisms is Ensembl, where you can get a glimpse of some of the more interesting animal genomes available.

--
Reality or nothing.

Re:Big Money. The goal is no wings and smaller tal by fluffy666 · 2004-12-09 21:12 · Score: 1

The big money goal, if we're allowed to be futuristic, is to use biotech to allow chicken breast meat to be grown in vats.

These would have to be sterile to start with, and engineered to avoid the need for too many hormones; hence the result should be far more '(nasty)chemical free' than battery chicken.

It would also be more vegan than crop plants, since wild animals have to be killed to protect crops, but obviously not to grow meat in vats.

It's a pipe dream at the moment... but if we are ever going to give 9 Billion people the standard of living enjoyed by the west today, it is essential.

Re:Big Money. The goal is no wings and smaller tal by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-09 22:25 · Score: 0

Growing chicken meat in vats is absolutely crucial to our world future. How else can we feed Rwandans enough McNuggets to make them as fat and bloated as Americans are today?

Oh, Chicken's genome, not 'chicken' genome. by baadfood · 2004-12-10 00:03 · Score: 1

I thought they'd found the gene for cowadice actually.

why by witte · 2004-12-10 01:01 · Score: 1

Well then, now that we have the chicken dna, could somebody please explain why the chicken crossed the road ?

Re:why by 1iar_parad0x · 2004-12-10 17:28 · Score: 1

Clearly crossing the road was a process that was hard-wired into his brain.

--
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....

Less junk-DNA by Dice+Fivefold · 2004-12-10 01:21 · Score: 1

Chickens and birds in general have less junk-DNA than mammals. The reason for this, is to save some weight and make the flying easier. A little bit of DNA in billions of cells, actually adds up to some percent of the total body-weight.

Re:Less junk-DNA by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-10 09:03 · Score: 0

So what if it adds up? Does it add up to much?
(Perhaps the moisture accumulated in the features on a humid day is 1E9x as much...

Re:Big Money. The goal is no wings and smaller tal by Jason+Ford · 2004-12-10 02:55 · Score: 1

It's too bad very few people will ever get the chance to read your post: it made my day. =)

--
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer

Re:Big Money. The goal is no wings and smaller tal by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-10 16:07 · Score: 0

No wings!?!?!

Buffalo Wings are essential to my continued sanity this god forsaken rock... I can not, no, I WILL NOT live without my weekly wing fix!

Insects. by hummassa · 2004-12-12 20:01 · Score: 1

Really? It seems difficult to me to gather 300-600g of insect meat to eat every day.

--
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048

107 comments