You guys dont see the big picture. You guys complain about a minor glofish and how invasive they might be. But no one has looked at the goldfish. The goldfish has perhaps been the most abused fish in all history. They are put in tanks of inadaquite size, it has been inproperly cleaned, and mal nutritioned. People have overstocked them to hell. Now look, in north america, especialy ontario there overstocking my local ponds. I mean this literaly as you walk over to the pond and all you see is a orange mass. So you guys complain horrficly about a fish that has a improbable chance of suriving and bieng an alien speicies, but no one is giving a thought to the simple goldfish. We all proclaim "Humans are playing god." Yet no one has addressed that we are keeping animals in conditions that we controll. Essentialy the fish we keep, we are playing god for. So having glo fish, this is just an arguement of where to draw the line, which is all subjective in nature. The thing though is that you cannot rightfully say that its wrong to "play god" as a general statement, because that would be hypocritical due to the fact that most of us are fish keepers!
Omg Glow In The Dark Fish!-what The?
- Thread starter DeBree420
- Start date
the risk of the glo gene getting into the wild is very very low IMO. Not only would they be the first ones singled out as food, but they are also mostly sterile. I feel that this is a much more humane thing to do than injecting dye into a living fish. People have been saying the injected fish is so wrong for years, but the demand for them is there, so i feel this is a better way of doing it. they also have to do it with captive bred fish since they have to treat the eggs very soon after fertilization.
Oh man. I apologize if I'm reposting some ideas that have already been hashed out here....I just don't have the patience to read every page in this thread. I think I stopped at page 6. That, and the argument against glo-fish was established by page 2...the rest is just repetitive gobbley-gook.
The nay-sayers here really need to open their eyes regarding the world they currently live in:
Some examples of things that man has tinkered with:
1) Um, let's see, every vegetable crop you eat.
2) Every domestic farm animal that is bred for consumption (ever see the organism that the cow was developed from? It's still around in some parts of the world. It would kill you just as soon as look at you....not a very docile creature...same holds true for pigs).
3) Dogs and cats, which have already been mentioned, I suppose.
4) Every commercially-bred aquarium fish in the trade....either intentionally or unintentionally.
It's in our nature to change the things around us to suit our needs, be they practical or otherwise. That's how we rose to the point that we're at. If we didn't tinker, we'd still be wandering the wilderness, running from the local predators. It's ridiculous to ignore that fact about our evolution. Not only is it ridiculous when the "morally upright" argue against man changing nature, it's downright hypocritical. Every human being, in every part of the modern world, owes their existence to genetically modified foods, and that's before we started engineering and inserting new genes. If you don't like the fact that we tinker with organisms everyday, go grow your own food....but you better not grow the common veggies you see in the supermarket. You'd better start finding the wild-types that they came from, assuming they even exist anymore. And, I can guarantee you that, if you do find them, you'll be hard-pressed to know what to do with them since most of them look nothing like the food you eat today.
In the modern day, we've taken the extra step of introducing new genes on our own. Is it dangerous? Oh, hell yeah. Is it any different than cross-breeding/selectively breeding strains of wheat to get a more vigorously growing, super competitive strain that can outgrow anything that naturally grows around it? No. But somehow when man figured out how to engineer genes and incorporate them into the organisms he wished to change, thus eliminating the need for the lengthy and somewhat random process of cross-breeding/selectively breeding over generations, he started "playing god".......as if we haven't been doing just that since the first hand axe was made.
With regards to glo-fish.....big deal. This technology is nothing new. I remember when I was in AP biology in high school (for those who don't know what that is, and this is merely for the sake of clarity not some vain attempt to make me look smart, it's college-level biology) I remember seeing pictures of a tobacco plant that glowed because of genes from fireflies. And that was in 1997. So, we've been doing stuff like this for a long time, now, and the world has not imploded. These fish can and should be looked at as just another strain of a common fish type. That's it. Don't be stupid and release them to the wild. It's not the glo-fish gene that you have to worry about, here. Any fish carrying that gene would stick out like a sore thumb. I'm sure the danio's natural coloration gives it some sort of survival advantage that would be nullified by the glo-fish gene. It's the potential impact that introducing a commercially-bred fish into the wild could have on the ecosystem around it. And, guess what....the same applies to ANY fish we get from a pet store.
So, for the purists out there, if you don't like it, destroy your fish, kill your dog/cat, and throw away every food item you have in your home. While you're at it, you should probably get rid of all of the petrochemical products in your home since they're the result of man tinkering with chemistry. After all, life is chemistry. Isn't tinkering with chemistry just another version of "playing god?" Or, recognize the stupid fish for what it is, be responsible about how you treat it (as you should with ALL of your aquarium fish/plants) and get on with your lives. If you don't like it, don't buy it. And don't blame the LFS for wanting to make a buck. They are a business, after all. That's what they're supposed to do.
But,.don't get on a pedestal bashing genetically modified organisms as if your hands have never touched the stuff. If you believe that, then you live a life of complete ignorance and you should probably hang yourself for the good of our species.
Rant over.
The nay-sayers here really need to open their eyes regarding the world they currently live in:
Some examples of things that man has tinkered with:
1) Um, let's see, every vegetable crop you eat.
2) Every domestic farm animal that is bred for consumption (ever see the organism that the cow was developed from? It's still around in some parts of the world. It would kill you just as soon as look at you....not a very docile creature...same holds true for pigs).
3) Dogs and cats, which have already been mentioned, I suppose.
4) Every commercially-bred aquarium fish in the trade....either intentionally or unintentionally.
It's in our nature to change the things around us to suit our needs, be they practical or otherwise. That's how we rose to the point that we're at. If we didn't tinker, we'd still be wandering the wilderness, running from the local predators. It's ridiculous to ignore that fact about our evolution. Not only is it ridiculous when the "morally upright" argue against man changing nature, it's downright hypocritical. Every human being, in every part of the modern world, owes their existence to genetically modified foods, and that's before we started engineering and inserting new genes. If you don't like the fact that we tinker with organisms everyday, go grow your own food....but you better not grow the common veggies you see in the supermarket. You'd better start finding the wild-types that they came from, assuming they even exist anymore. And, I can guarantee you that, if you do find them, you'll be hard-pressed to know what to do with them since most of them look nothing like the food you eat today.
In the modern day, we've taken the extra step of introducing new genes on our own. Is it dangerous? Oh, hell yeah. Is it any different than cross-breeding/selectively breeding strains of wheat to get a more vigorously growing, super competitive strain that can outgrow anything that naturally grows around it? No. But somehow when man figured out how to engineer genes and incorporate them into the organisms he wished to change, thus eliminating the need for the lengthy and somewhat random process of cross-breeding/selectively breeding over generations, he started "playing god".......as if we haven't been doing just that since the first hand axe was made.
With regards to glo-fish.....big deal. This technology is nothing new. I remember when I was in AP biology in high school (for those who don't know what that is, and this is merely for the sake of clarity not some vain attempt to make me look smart, it's college-level biology) I remember seeing pictures of a tobacco plant that glowed because of genes from fireflies. And that was in 1997. So, we've been doing stuff like this for a long time, now, and the world has not imploded. These fish can and should be looked at as just another strain of a common fish type. That's it. Don't be stupid and release them to the wild. It's not the glo-fish gene that you have to worry about, here. Any fish carrying that gene would stick out like a sore thumb. I'm sure the danio's natural coloration gives it some sort of survival advantage that would be nullified by the glo-fish gene. It's the potential impact that introducing a commercially-bred fish into the wild could have on the ecosystem around it. And, guess what....the same applies to ANY fish we get from a pet store.
So, for the purists out there, if you don't like it, destroy your fish, kill your dog/cat, and throw away every food item you have in your home. While you're at it, you should probably get rid of all of the petrochemical products in your home since they're the result of man tinkering with chemistry. After all, life is chemistry. Isn't tinkering with chemistry just another version of "playing god?" Or, recognize the stupid fish for what it is, be responsible about how you treat it (as you should with ALL of your aquarium fish/plants) and get on with your lives. If you don't like it, don't buy it. And don't blame the LFS for wanting to make a buck. They are a business, after all. That's what they're supposed to do.
But,.don't get on a pedestal bashing genetically modified organisms as if your hands have never touched the stuff. If you believe that, then you live a life of complete ignorance and you should probably hang yourself for the good of our species.
Rant over.
Oh, and another thing....does anyone even know if the gene is a heritable trait found in the gametes? The video at the beginning states that the eggs have to be treated soon after fertilization. Are they doing that simply so they can be guaranteed a pure-strain or does the gene not attach itself to the genes in the sperm/egg cells? If that's the case, then the whole argument against is even more moot since the gene wouldn't even be passed on to the next generation.......assuming the fish wasn't eaten the second it hit the water.
johnlarson66
These Pandas Rock
opcorn:
these fish are not natural, they are not a cave fish, they are zebra danios that have had a gene from a jellyfish(green colours) or corral(red colours)
in terms of human selection and dogs etc...
dog breeds have evolved over hundreds of years through human selection, this happened by people selecting dogs with certain traits, and breeding them together by providing the right environment, food etc, the genetic footprint of the offspring of said cross will contain half the genes from the mother, and half from the father, so, logically all of these genes existed naturally together to begin with... then sometimes a gene mutates naturally, and we get another trait (spots on a dalmatian for example), in the wild, sometimes this new set of genes proves to be an advantage, and the animal/plant thrives and reproduces...this is what we call natural selection... in human selection, the only difference is that it is humans, not the environment that defines weather or not the mutated gene is a 'success' -which sometimes turns out to be very wrong in the cases of sterility in mules(genes are too different), hip displasia in German shepherds,deafness in dalmatians and respiratory problems in pugs etc etc.....
now take the glofish, they have the regular genes of a zebra danio, plus one more...from either a jellyfish or a corral (depending on colour)
now call me crazy, but no amount of 'human selection' as i just described, could make a tropical fish breed with a saltwater jellyfish or corral.... unnatural!
and the fact that their excuse to develop this fish was to 'help the environment' -which by the way they have not figured out how to do yet-is a bit tough to swallow
we dont send canarys into mines anymore for obvious animal rights reasons, why they would then create a fish simply for this purpose is beyond me.
there are countless chemical tests for pollutants, why do we need a live one?
and i totally agree l.MetalHead.l ... goldfish are a terrible problem, and people are idiots... everytime i fish, and catch carp i kill them, NEVER EVER put them back!!!
that goes the same for all aquarium fish NEVER EVER release aquarium fish into the wild regardless of type, even if they are a native-type fish, you may be carrying a non-visible disease back to your local waterway, or releasing the fish in the wrong area....
why are there so many self-centered people out there....its just a darn fish....some people will like them and some people wont, some people think its wrong and some people thinks its right, it all doesn't matter just deal with it, it really pisses me off when people argue about the most stupid thing....theres more important issues to argue about like GOBAL WARMING. people just need to calm down
