Saw on the news the other day that the feds are trying to mandate the use of biochips in all livestock farming, then want to push it to all domestic pets such as horses and dogs and whatever.
I think this is wrong. This is just one step closer to the ultimate goal - control. This would get people used to biochip technology, then the next step would be obvious and more acceptable - when they want to put them in us!
I see the biochip as the Mark of the Devil. As described in the Bible - in the end days we will be forced to accept this mark to buy or sell and accepting this mark is the same as selling your soal to Satan.
I see no real use in biochipping my horses, or cats. And they will have to kill me to get one of those things in my forhead or forehand.
What are your thoughts?
__________________
We were made by God and for God, and until you figure that out, life isn't going to make sense.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a civilization, it expects what never was and what never will be.
I know a couple of guys who have there dog chipped, and it makes sense to me, if it's a choice of yours. And I can also follow the theory of why the want livestock chipped to, although I don't agree.
With that said, don't like it. Doesn't ***an have some type of program like this already? I don't know if it's some type of manditory thing, but I know I've heard about it over there.
__________________
Caution - Some posts may contain sarcasim
I think making it mandatory is ludicrous. That is the goobermint once again dictating to private business.
But in some instances, it would be a great boon for the farmer. Case in point:
A friend of mine is a PhD in electrical engineering and developed an implantable device for cows. It transmitts a signature of what cow it is and what it's internal temperature is.
Apparently this saves farmers MILLIONS over the course of the years because they can't milk a cow with a fever. So this way, they know immediately which ones not to milk.
Let me clarify something I wasn't too clear on. I could care less if a farmer wants to chip his cattle or pigs or whatever. If this benefits his business, great. Mandatory? Different deal altogether. Same with chipping pets - you want to chip your pet, fine. Just don't want it to be mandatory for me to have to chip my pets.
__________________
We were made by God and for God, and until you figure that out, life isn't going to make sense.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a civilization, it expects what never was and what never will be.
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
RE: New argument - biochips
I dont have a problem with this. If we are talking about animals, it makes sense to me. This way cattle orgins can be detected and keep density dependent problems from occuring, or at least the ability to trace the source.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
50 years ago it was required that cows be vaccinated for TB and Bangs disease, each animal that was vaccinated was marked with an ear tag with a number. What is the difference in an ear tag and a micro/biochip? The ear tags were easily lost and the records required to prove that your stock had been vaccinated was a drain on every farmer. Ranchers, for years, have been marking their cattle and horses with brands to prove ownership and to track what they owned, a chip will do the same thing but less obtrusively.
Hog farmers mark their swine with notches in the ear to identify the litter, mother and father among other information so what if they opt to do it by injecting a chip under the skin?
The government has been mandating things for centuries, usually in response to a clamorous demand from the public. Today the demand is to be able to identify the origins of the meat we eat and if it is possible it may have come from a heard exposed to some disease or another, not necessarily a bad thing is it? Especialy since the farmers and ranchers have been doing it in other ways for years anyway?
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
RE: New argument - biochips
I dont like the idea of government mandates, but in this case I see no harm.
The only harm I see is the possible opening of other doors, leading to more
intrusive mandates. Personally I dont mind a cow having any kind of tag on
them as long as its over all purpose is to protect from infectious diseases. I
can also see where this can help cure problems with infectious diseases,
by allowing the government the ability to track the source of the disease. I
can also see where this can be advantageous in stopping cattle rustling.
Sounds odd, but I have been on two jury selections for cases involving cattle
rustling.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
New argument - biochips
