David said:
Teelie said:
David said:
Personally I am totally against hybridization. I find it unnatural and pointless, in fact it is often harmful for the species as a whole.
Actually, you're completely wrong there. Hybrids are one of the ways evolution creates new species. I have nothing against
viable hybrids, provided they aren't sold to unsuspecting customers who have no idea what they're getting into.
What I meant was ARTIFICIAL hybridization. I have absolutely no problem with it occurring in the wild, heck, it actually serves to strengthen the species, not weaken them. However when people purposely cross two species for their own personal gain, I am against it, especially if they are creating crosses that they think look attractive but in turn compromise the fish's swimming ability and whatnot. Example: fancy goldfish, butterfly discus, blood parrot etc. Also the hybrids are often sterile which is just as well, IMO.
But what is to say WHAT is beneficial to the species? What is the point of the species? All these fish are trying to carry on their genes-- the continuation of those genes/species continuation is the ultimate goal of the species right? Maybe spreading the species' territory as well.
Here's my thoughts (NOT MY OPINION):
1) Fish are natural organisms trying to survive
2) Humans are natural organisms that have come from our own evolutionary background
3) Organisms on this planet often pair up in symbiotic relationships-- meaning the two organisms have a relationship, such as predation where one eats the other, or parasitism, where one is a parasite on the other. However, some of these relationships are BENEFICIAL to BOTH species. Cleaner wrasse set up cleaning stations on the coral reef. Other fish go there to be removed of parasites and uneaten food while the wrasse gets a free meal. Some crabs carry anaenomes for protection, and in exchange the anaenome gets transportation to new feeding grounds. We would die without the beneficial bacteria that also benefit from living inside our bodies.
Here's the question I pose:
Couldn't man's relationship with fish be seen as just another one of those "mutually beneficial relationships?"
We are obviously all here because we believe our lives to be bettered by caring for fish, so the question of how we benefit is moot. The fish benefit, because as long as they are in favor of man and being domestically bred and cared for, the species will not die out unless man dies out.
Look at how cows have benefitted. The number of the species would be no where near its number today if not for man. The cow would not be the dominant grazing species all accross the world if not for man. As long as man exists, the species will continue to excel. We are obviously a very valuable ally, and to come into man's favor is obviously beneficial to the species.
In that case, why can't we say that domestically bred features ARE the "beneficial" traits?
Species adapt all the time to better the relationship between itself and other organisms so that better benefit can come to both species. Many species of flower have changed themselves radically just to suit different pollinating insects. There's a species of flower in africa that smells like carcus and feeces so it will attract flies. Many flowers have adapted to the point where they can only pollinate with one species of bee or wasp, and with no other.
So aren't the fish simply evolving characteristics to benefit itself by coming to a better relationship with another species in a mutually beneficial relationship?
Or: Isn't it good for the fish to change to make us happy which will make us increase the species' number and sustain the species' survival?
If you look at it this way, fertile hybrid fish (like all the guppy species), albino fish, long finned breeds and domestic color variation fish are the fish that are "fittest." Why? Because they have evolved for greater appeal to another species in which theirs is in a simbiotic relationship.
The fact that many of these specimens could not survive in the wild makes little difference. Many species in mutual relationships evolve to the point where one could not survive without the other. Most of the above mentioned plant species would die off with out the insect it has specifically evolved to be pollinated by. In Hawaii one of our native bee species is extinct, so the plants it pollinated now depend on our botanists to polinate them or else the plants will go extinct as well.
Because I am an idiot and not very sophisticated in biology and ethics, I am not able to understand how our manipulation is any different from other species' in nature.
I personally think there is something really wrong with this idea I have come to, but am unbale to refute it. Anyone else have a good reason why our hybridazation and breeding certain strains should be immoral?
