|
|
|
September 25, 2006
Antidote to bureaucratistas
Via Alan Sullivan I found something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime -- a specially bred hypoallergenic cat! US biotech firm Allerca says it has managed to selectively breed them by reducing a certain type of protein that triggers allergic reactions.I'm allergic to cats, but Coco wants one, and she's not alone. The market for these cats (which are genetic standpoint "naturally divergent") is huge: The BBC's Pascale Harter says there could soon be a global market for the kittens - in the US alone 38 million households own a cat, and around the world an estimated 35% of humans suffer from allergies.I'm too tired to research the issue but I'm sure the animal rights activists will find a reason to complain. [Yes, they have. Plus, the hypoallergenic cats would be illegal in California!] By the way, Alan is still blogging up a storm despite some very serious health problems, and if there's one thing I admire, it's such sticktuitiveness. (No, that's not a word, but I just felt like inventing one for Alan, who has been a daily blogger since 2002.) By the way, Alan also discusses a very disturbing trend -- "violent versions of Islam recruiting in American prisons": Is it rehabilitation when a crackhead robber becomes a disciplined fanatic? No, it’s something else altogether. IMO, there should be no “religious freedom” for felons. Muslim outreach should not be permitted in prisons. But what about Christian outreach? The results of that are arguably more constructive.As usual, activism and bureaucracy work hand in hand to defeat their worst enemy, which is common sense. If you like common sense, and find yourself allergic to bureaucratic activism, check out Alan's blog. posted by Eric on 09.25.06 at 09:43 AM
Comments
Thanks for the kind words. As for the kitties, my understanding is that cat saliva contains the allergens that trouble many humans. Saliva gets on fur when cats groom. There is probably some evolutionary advantage for the cat that carries these proteins in its saliva, so I imagine this creation, like many domestic plants, would not fare well in the wild. Is it immoral to breed such a "defective" creature for human convenience? Only if you value Gaia above humankind. Alan Sullivan · September 29, 2006 11:18 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Selective breeding is different than cloning or genetically altering, else no cats would be legal in California. Even being a non-betting person, I would bet money that every conception involves some mutation, almost always benign of course. If you couldn't selectively breed, you shouldn't allow any modifications whether they are intentional or not.
And what of run of the mill animal breeding. Does that mean you can't intentionally bring together two cats in California because you like how both cat's fur looks? That outcome would be ridiculous.