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.

The cats will not cause the red eyes, sneezing and even asthma that some cat allergy sufferers experience, except in the most acute cases.

Despite costing $3,950 (£2,104), there is already a waiting list to get one.

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





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4043






Comments

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.

anomdebus   ·  September 25, 2006 05:47 PM

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


December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits