genetically enhanced fish

i see nothing wrong with purchased gm fish, but i also have nothing against genetically engineering a baby to my liking...
 
We've been genetically engineering animals for years, or I wouldn't have an 8 pound dog. The ethical considerations are different in humans.
 
I dont like dying fish, or tattooing them.... thats sick and twisted.
Tattoos cause pain... i know, I have one on my head... I wouldnt do that to a fish that doesnt have the choice or ability to say "hey dude, lets go get some ink" like a human does.

Genetically modified fish however, I dont see a problem with, because they don't suffer.
 
However, your point was about choice, we already take choice away when we control fish in captivity, is it right to take the choice completely away before birth by gm?

So, if the ethical considerations are different in humans, what are the ethical consideration with fish - can anyone summarise / list them, ir is it that we simply feel its right or wrong?

Can anyone separate the emotion from the pragmatic in this debate?
 
nickmcmechan said:
So, why are they different...I dont want to get into the human debate because its off topic, but why do we believe its acceptable for animals?
Click to expand...

This is because an animal can't go hey man why do that. it hasn't got a highly evolved mind like a human. by highly evolved i mean dogs didnt invent the wheel or dogs can't drive a car. ect.
 
didy said:
We've been genetically engineering animals for years, or I wouldn't have an 8 pound dog. The ethical considerations are different in humans.
Click to expand...

What breed of dog? as far as i was aware the only gm "product" that is used by the public is things like wheat and other grains or food stuffs(oh and glo fish but thats only new to the public). Correct me if i'm wrong but most animals that are different in that way is from selective breeding to create a new style.
 
yeah a cross-bred dog isnt a GM animal, its more of a hybrid or something..... glofish are the first genetically modified "pet" for humans, i dont like them since there just not natural..... If these are accepted very well who knows whats next, go up the line to birds, GM them, then maybe move up to reptiles, get a glow in the dark lizard, maybe have some GM amphibians, why stop there, we would have reached mammals by then......
 
True, I was using "genetically engineered" in the broader sense, to include selective breeding of qualities we want in companion animals, such as small size.

But this isn't correct, either,
"glofish are the first genetically modified "pet" for humans"

They were not genetically modified for the purpose of being pets. They were genetically modified for environmental science purposes.

From their website:
GloFish® fluorescent fish are beautiful and unique fish that were originally bred to help detect environmental pollutants. It was only recently that scientists realized the public's interest in sharing the benefits of this research. GloFish® fluorescent fish are safe for the environment and make wonderful pets for new hobbyists and experienced enthusiasts alike. To help address some common curiosities about GloFish® fluorescent fish, the following information is provided:

http://www.glofish.com/about.asp
 
but now they are pets..... look at the second sentence, they are the first GM pets for humans, even if they werent GMed for that purpose they are still the first GMed pet.

p.s. lets not argue here, pm me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom