Actually! I’ve been having a different argument and I think your input would be interesting.
What do you think about inoculating babies with an alpha gal allergy so they grow up allergic to red meat? Red meat has many health and environmental and humane costs, so there would certainly be a societal benefit if no one consumed it. Surely there’d be no problem with taking that choice away from babies before they’re old enough to even remember it!
What do you think about inoculating babies with an alpha gal allergy so they grow up allergic to red meat?
I don’t particularly like the idea of giving people a life threatening allergy. Nor do I like the idea of forcibly restricting a person’s diet, thereby restricting their personal autonomy. I try to stick with white meat and fish as much as possible. But I do like being able to eat red meat like pork, beef, and goat.
Scientists have come up with ideas for circular food economies that incorporate animals that produce red meat. We could all have some red meat in our diets, a lot less than what is currently consumed, and the system as a whole could be less resource intensive than if we were all on a vegan diet. So I’m not convinced that introducing a food allergy for red meat is strictly necessary if the goal is reducing the health, environmental, and humane costs or red meat consumption. I found out about circular food economies in this article:
That being said, climate change is going take drastic action to course correct at this point. Our current societies are not sustainable and something about the way we all live is going to have to change if we want to avoid the worse effects of climate change. That change doesn’t have to be giving up red meat entirely, but it certainly could. I would rather we stop producing cattle entirely, then not be able to eat any form of red meat at all.
I’m in favor of it just because I think we need drastic action to not see the end of civilization due to climate change. I’d also favor other radical moves, like gasoline rationing.
Nor do I like the idea of forcibly restricting a person’s diet, thereby restricting their personal autonomy.
So! This actually brings me back to circumcision and is why I brought it up - because I am circumcised, it would be much harder for me to have vaginoplasty because there’s literally less material to work with. This, in fact, restricts my personal autonomy.
About 1% of babies are going to be trans. Is whatever benefit you think comes from circumcision worth restricting their personal autonomy if they decide to transition and undergo genital reconstructive surgery?
It restricts my personal autonomy too, since it would make it harder for me to get a vaginoplasty. I still kind of want to have kids though and womb transplants probably aren’t going to ready in time for me, and I’m not sure if I want to go the extra mile. You’re in luck though, they can grow another penis on your arm to give you more tissue to work with. Although, you might be the first person to get a new penis just to add to an existing penis to then make it a vagina.
Edit: Also this article claims it can be done with distal shaft skin for circumcised patients, but doesn’t really go into the details. Circumcision still made for additional hoops for the surgeons to jump through.
The benefits seem to be too minimal to justify mass circumcision. Individuals should just make the call for themselves if they get infections.
Yeah, I think growing vaginas and wombs will happen at some point. It probably is less common to have a vagina fall off than a penis, so there hasn’t been a demand for it. edit: typo
Yikes.
Actually! I’ve been having a different argument and I think your input would be interesting.
What do you think about inoculating babies with an alpha gal allergy so they grow up allergic to red meat? Red meat has many health and environmental and humane costs, so there would certainly be a societal benefit if no one consumed it. Surely there’d be no problem with taking that choice away from babies before they’re old enough to even remember it!
I had to read up on what alpha gal allergy is and what causes it normally.
https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/alpha-gal/index.html
https://www.garvan.org.au/news-events/news/genetic-and-molecular-insights-into-dangerous-tick-bite-related-meat-allergy-revealed
I also read about red meat and the various issues associated with red meat consumption. This included the nutritional benefits.
https://www.diabetes.co.uk/food/red-meat.html
https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-environment/
I don’t particularly like the idea of giving people a life threatening allergy. Nor do I like the idea of forcibly restricting a person’s diet, thereby restricting their personal autonomy. I try to stick with white meat and fish as much as possible. But I do like being able to eat red meat like pork, beef, and goat.
Scientists have come up with ideas for circular food economies that incorporate animals that produce red meat. We could all have some red meat in our diets, a lot less than what is currently consumed, and the system as a whole could be less resource intensive than if we were all on a vegan diet. So I’m not convinced that introducing a food allergy for red meat is strictly necessary if the goal is reducing the health, environmental, and humane costs or red meat consumption. I found out about circular food economies in this article:
https://knowablemagazine.org/article/food-environment/2022/how-much-meat-can-we-eat-sustainably#:~:text=The upshot is,the right amounts
That being said, climate change is going take drastic action to course correct at this point. Our current societies are not sustainable and something about the way we all live is going to have to change if we want to avoid the worse effects of climate change. That change doesn’t have to be giving up red meat entirely, but it certainly could. I would rather we stop producing cattle entirely, then not be able to eat any form of red meat at all.
I’m in favor of it just because I think we need drastic action to not see the end of civilization due to climate change. I’d also favor other radical moves, like gasoline rationing.
So! This actually brings me back to circumcision and is why I brought it up - because I am circumcised, it would be much harder for me to have vaginoplasty because there’s literally less material to work with. This, in fact, restricts my personal autonomy.
About 1% of babies are going to be trans. Is whatever benefit you think comes from circumcision worth restricting their personal autonomy if they decide to transition and undergo genital reconstructive surgery?
It restricts my personal autonomy too, since it would make it harder for me to get a vaginoplasty. I still kind of want to have kids though and womb transplants probably aren’t going to ready in time for me, and I’m not sure if I want to go the extra mile. You’re in luck though, they can grow another penis on your arm to give you more tissue to work with. Although, you might be the first person to get a new penis just to add to an existing penis to then make it a vagina.
https://www.aninews.in/news/lifestyle/quirky/man-lost-his-penis-had-new-one-attached-to-his-arm-for-six-years-now-is-a-real-man-again20220507152347/
Edit: Also this article claims it can be done with distal shaft skin for circumcised patients, but doesn’t really go into the details. Circumcision still made for additional hoops for the surgeons to jump through.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30511988/
It all seems so pointless, when we could just stop mutilating baby penises. 🤨
Though tbh if they’re just going to grow new tissue, why the hell can’t they just grow a fkn vagina lol
The benefits seem to be too minimal to justify mass circumcision. Individuals should just make the call for themselves if they get infections.
Yeah, I think growing vaginas and wombs will happen at some point. It probably is less common to have a vagina fall off than a penis, so there hasn’t been a demand for it. edit: typo