This is a myth.
I have not problem with that. Or de-clawing cats for that matter.
As to the OP. If someone could figure out how to keep a RTC to only grow to be a foot, and remain healthy and affordable, I'd buy one.
Would it be wrong to surgically or genetically alter a fish to keep it small?
- Thread starter Piranha86
- Start date
As to the OP. If someone could figure out how to keep a RTC to only grow to be a foot, and remain healthy and affordable, I'd buy one.
--
in my opinion no its not wrong, man had made animals the size he's needed always. through line breeding, who cares if we can manipulate a gene in one generation now its the same end. if, in a given scenario person X was going to rob my stereo equipment immediately, or after a series of steps that would still lead up to stealing my equipment, I care the same. for example.
in my opinion no its not wrong, man had made animals the size he's needed always. through line breeding, who cares if we can manipulate a gene in one generation now its the same end. if, in a given scenario person X was going to rob my stereo equipment immediately, or after a series of steps that would still lead up to stealing my equipment, I care the same. for example.
Line breeding, inbreeding, crossbreeding is one thing. Genetically altering DNA (by that, meaning inserting a gene, enhancing a gene, deleting a gene, etc) is a slippery slope, and to mess with it for sheer amusement is not something we should be doing imo.
So the ends justify the means? Do you realize how many fish would be killed in the process of genetic alteration? Simply for human amusement.
I thought that genetically was okay - really that's all breeders are doing when they're selectively breeding. They're altering the genome of a strain of fish. The way I see it as long as the selective breeding doesn't lead to fish that are unusually unhealthy it's fine to selectively breed for whatever characteristics you like.
Amen to this.
PETA is a horrible, manipulative, misleading, corrupt organization, I urge anyone who sincerely wants to help animals to do so through other, more responsible, means. ALF is simply a criminal organization and their supporters should be punished.
--
In counterpoint Id still say one shouldn't invalidate a science just because of the potential for abuse. None of us would like to have surgery without anesthetics right, but the dude on the street corner hooked on the 'done is getting the bad side of the science that helps us by giving comfort when being cut open and having parts rearranged.
If genetic rendering can achieve the same means as line breeding thousands of generations of cattle just to control meat marbling, ratio of feed to poundage gained etc and all the other things agroscience does, it has a validity. theres just as much potential to help as there is to hurt.
The type of engineering I support is the monster sized trouts and salmon that hit the news and made everyone freak out last month. If we took 100 years to line breed them in isolated colorado stock ponds and named them something local we'd all be enjoying them on our plates but someone does it in one generation and all of the sudden its bad. Try to imagine naming how controlling genes for size in an animal could harm a human eating it, you break down the DNA as you digest the animal its genotype is lost in a stomach. its not like they manufacture self poisons or anything, they are just larger or fatter!
we all benefit from that, because you and I like steaks lol
so, why is it bad if a scientist took skinny cattle originating from the african plains (the origin of all our steaks, they rarely eat, are unadapted for adipose body fat stores and had to transform to serve our porterhouse desires) and genetically turned them into a brangus in one fell swoop?
In counterpoint Id still say one shouldn't invalidate a science just because of the potential for abuse. None of us would like to have surgery without anesthetics right, but the dude on the street corner hooked on the 'done is getting the bad side of the science that helps us by giving comfort when being cut open and having parts rearranged.
If genetic rendering can achieve the same means as line breeding thousands of generations of cattle just to control meat marbling, ratio of feed to poundage gained etc and all the other things agroscience does, it has a validity. theres just as much potential to help as there is to hurt.
The type of engineering I support is the monster sized trouts and salmon that hit the news and made everyone freak out last month. If we took 100 years to line breed them in isolated colorado stock ponds and named them something local we'd all be enjoying them on our plates but someone does it in one generation and all of the sudden its bad. Try to imagine naming how controlling genes for size in an animal could harm a human eating it, you break down the DNA as you digest the animal its genotype is lost in a stomach. its not like they manufacture self poisons or anything, they are just larger or fatter!
we all benefit from that, because you and I like steaks lol
so, why is it bad if a scientist took skinny cattle originating from the african plains (the origin of all our steaks, they rarely eat, are unadapted for adipose body fat stores and had to transform to serve our porterhouse desires) and genetically turned them into a brangus in one fell swoop?
Last edited:
I said both are wrong.. BUT.. there are purposes for it depending on your reasons.
Genetically speaking, some fish are a scientists goldmine because of their properties. Zebra Danios, for example, are highly prized for some geneticists due to the fact that the first few days of their life their bodies are transparent, making it easy to study how mutations develop inside of them. This can, eventually, create advances in sciences and medicine such as gene therapy, metabolism, and finding cures for genetic defect. So, if used scientifically, humanely, and in a properly sanctioned lab, then I would say it servies its purpose.
But pretty much all other mutilations I think are wrong, personally..
There are plenty of examples of animals who have been modified.. bubble-eyes goldfish, persian cats, and pug dogs for example. They have been genetically modified and bred for defects for various reasons, and all of them can end up with health problems as a result (for a few examples in cats, breeding for short tail, ie: Manx, can lead to unnatural shortening of the spine, breeding for albinism can lead to deafness, breeding stump-nosed cats like persians can lead to cleft lip, cleft palate, nasal issues and brain disorders, breeding for polydactylism can lead to twisted appendages).
Essentially, the moral behind my reasoning is that messing around with a creatures natural growth, in short, can impair them and casue suffering.
So.. I would say, unless you can predict with ABSOLUTE certainly all of the long term effects of modifying a creature, then it is wrong to do so.
Just my 2 cents worth..
(sorry if I repated anyone elses posts.. there were too many so I did not read em all
) ..
Genetically speaking, some fish are a scientists goldmine because of their properties. Zebra Danios, for example, are highly prized for some geneticists due to the fact that the first few days of their life their bodies are transparent, making it easy to study how mutations develop inside of them. This can, eventually, create advances in sciences and medicine such as gene therapy, metabolism, and finding cures for genetic defect. So, if used scientifically, humanely, and in a properly sanctioned lab, then I would say it servies its purpose.
But pretty much all other mutilations I think are wrong, personally..
There are plenty of examples of animals who have been modified.. bubble-eyes goldfish, persian cats, and pug dogs for example. They have been genetically modified and bred for defects for various reasons, and all of them can end up with health problems as a result (for a few examples in cats, breeding for short tail, ie: Manx, can lead to unnatural shortening of the spine, breeding for albinism can lead to deafness, breeding stump-nosed cats like persians can lead to cleft lip, cleft palate, nasal issues and brain disorders, breeding for polydactylism can lead to twisted appendages).
Essentially, the moral behind my reasoning is that messing around with a creatures natural growth, in short, can impair them and casue suffering.
So.. I would say, unless you can predict with ABSOLUTE certainly all of the long term effects of modifying a creature, then it is wrong to do so.
Just my 2 cents worth..
(sorry if I repated anyone elses posts.. there were too many so I did not read em all
) ..
nice input I didn't know cats had all those inbreeding probs. Over the years Id always heard of labs w hip issues, bulldogs and sinuses etc but in all my time id never heard of those mutations. then again the only cats ive ever known were tabby and mixed alley cats lol never seen a fancy breed only online funny huh and Im 35.
