Well that brings up the point of ethics.
While GloFish are pretty, I would NEVER buy one. Blood Parrots are cute, but I would NEVER buy one... And then there are fancy goldfish... I do not feel like genetically altered [or strange hybrids] should be sold. I don't think scientists should be focusing their efforts on creating a profit by selling un-natural fish to the public.
I sort of agree. But it's good for getting people into the hobby. As a 6 year old, are you going to go in and select the 'boring, brown, zebra danio', or the 'bright, colorful, glofish'?
Sometimes you just have to accept that you can't have everything you want. Whether that be a smaller redtail catfish, a friendly pet lion or an affordable Ferrari.
A good point. But if we have the power to do so, why not do it?
Being a geneticist I see nothing wrong with genetically altering a fish. BTW, selective breeding is a type of genetic alteration (if you don't believe me compare a chihuahua to a wolf). Has anyone ever tried to breed mini goldfish? I for one would love a goldfish or two, but in my current housing don't have a space for a large enough tank so a mini goldfish would be perfect (and maybe could actually be humanely housed in a Fluval Chi
).
I actually want to be a geneticist when I grow up
(I'm 14) And yeah, very true
I voted no to both. However, I don't object to breeding healthy but smaller strains. I would love miniature goldfish, especially comets or shubunkins, that were small enough for a 10 or even 20 gallon when full grown and I also like oscars but don't have a tank big enough for an adult. A 55 is as big a tank as we're likely to get. And I refuse to buy fish I cannot house when fully grown.
So why can't we alter them in an easier way? Lab-type mutation is pretty much a speedier way of selective breeding and hybridization.
I voted for genetic only, with the assumption that it means selective breeding. If that is wrong then basically all domestic animals are wrong - meaty hogs, super fast thoroughbreds, Holsteins that give 10 gallons of milk a day, all small dogs, Persian cats, Angora rabbits, etc, etc. There are toy dogs, mini horses, mini goats, if fish have the genetic potential in their genome, I don't have a problem with it.
Like I said before, why not speed up the process?
I mean we probably are already torturing these animals by having them in a cage in our living rooms. At least as far as environmentalists think. So might as well alter them too.
IMO, our 20g tanks are just as good as what a minnow would live in in the wild. I mean, go to your local stream, and look at one of the pools. In Maryland, you see a pool that looks to be the size of a...30g tank maybe. There are multiple minnows, crayfish, suckers, and the occasional trout or smallie. But in our tanks, there is no freezing, no predators, no pollution in the way it can happen in the wild, etc.
Genetic mutations withing the realm of natural selection and selective breeding is allowed by creation and therefore done for thousands of years without which we would not have the gentile and beautiful selection of pets some of have a social symbiotic relationship with man since the garden..
True, but all that we're doing is speeding it up. What's wrong with speed?
One great example are my medium size blood parrots that have been deliberately cross bred with convicts (not by me) so they remain under 4" in size. Now I can look forward to looking at those comic book fish faces without worry that they will outgrow their 80 tank which I believe is a is a good thing....
I'm really curious to see a picture of them.
As far as surgical alterations purely for amusement or appeal is completely unnecessary and most likely wrong. For medical reasons or tagging in the case of farming its acceptable IMO. Of course there are extreme cases like the story of the 3 legged pig the farmer loved but that's a story for a different time.
A valid pont, but who's to say that something in unnecessary or wrong?
