Glow in the dark fish in the U.S.A. yay!

[andyt_uk]

Genetically modified stuff is illegal to import into Denmark.

arent you part of the eu?
cos the eu are trying to stop us from stopping people selling GM foods

 

[Cian McLiam]

I agree everyone is entitled to their own opinion, the fish concerned however seems to be exempt from this, as is usually the case with humans. We somehow have come to believe that every other living thing on the planet has no right to its own dignity no matter how small or large. We have become so egotistical to believe that modifying millions of years of evolution in one stroke is not only a possibilty for us, but somehow our right, even if it is for superficial and commercial purposes like this. Fish have evolved many striking colours and patterns for themselves, this must be for a specific purpose as fish that live in zero visibility have not. I think colouring a fish genetically or mechanically is a perversion of this.
Besides, it takes all the wonder out of it. Compare the two cases,a fish that has evolved over millions of years such beautiful colours is a thing of wonder that should be respected as such and admired, these fish are coloured by artificial means for no other purpose except money grabbing, probably in a greasy back alley in Singapore. Where is the wonder and fascination in that?
Personally I appreciate the fish for being what they are, not for what I want them to be.
Comparing these coloured fish with fancy bred varities is not a vaild argument. The fancy coloured varities were allowed to perfrom their natural breeding patterns, we simply arranged a partner for them. Unfortunately even this has become corrupted with horomone treatment, which I personally find abhorrent also, except in dire cases like that of the red tail shark which is extinct in the wild and can only be bred succesfully in numbers using this method.

While it may seem to some reading this that I am over-reacting, what I am concerned about is this:
When we tire of these coloured fish, what will they do next to come up with something new and amazing? Not in my name, thank you very much.

If these fish do not catch on, or are even completely shunned by consumers, what will be their fate? Down a toilet bowl if they are very lucky is my guess.

My feeling is, if you want an amazing glow in the dark 4 headed fish with legs, please let a japanese marketing company know so they can create the perfect computer controlled super fish for you, leave mother nature and the danios alone.

Ken

 

[Lateral Line]

>>> arent you part of the eu?

Yes.

>>> cos the eu are trying to stop us from stopping people selling GM foods

I am not aware of any EU action against us - could be wrong of course.

Ken:

Even hormone assisted breeding wouldn't get a Danio to breed with a jelly fish! I agree with you bro - it's got to stop.

 

[Losi]

Mt two pence worth

Whether we agree or disagree we can all take something from this thread if it remains open and debatable. I'd like to learn along with you all but it's up to you guys.

It seems that everyone has a different opinion. It is obviously up to the individual as to whether this a a humane excercise or not so if you do not agree with it then dont buy them.

If you do agree with it and want the fish then buy them and at least they will have a good home and a happy life with you.

Personally I dont agree with genetically modifying fish but this is just my opinion.

good debate though as everyone made good points and did'nt get nasty or sarcastic with eah other.

 

[guppymonkey]

I think the problem the EU has is that none of the genetically modified foods (or animals) have been tested enough. The only testing done was to see if they would contaminate their environment. They haven't tested them to see how they would effect humans over the long term. Many animals are given modifications in growth hormones that can be passed on to humans making really freaky tall people (like players in the NBA).

With the glofish (tm), I just find them to be a stupid idea. No one likes looking at a dark tank, which would be the only way to see them glowing. In a dark tank you can't see anything (except the glowing fish) after the first couple times of viewing it would get old. This basically would mean that a lot of kids would get the glofish and get bored with them and then we would end up with a lot of dead fish. The glofish are created by injecting their eggs with jellyfish stuff and I am thinking that this can't be too healthy. If we tried injecting human embryos with glowing substances it would definately be illegal even if we were using it to "test conditions". I still don't understand the justification of doing things to animals to test things on them (chemicals, cosmetics, water conditions etc) that can be tested without hurting animals or just doing things to animals just because we can (injecting them with ink, making them glow in the dark).

 

[knutty]

it was said in an earlier post that 'there are worse things going that we dont know about'. this was one fo them. these were in labs for 10 years and are just now hitting shelves. isn't it refreshing to know that one of these 'horrible clandestine' practices can result in providing good homes for fish that would otherwise die while testing water conditions? also, we are all against genetically altered species and animal testing, but what about tank cycling? are all of you using the fishless cycle method? jsut adding questions for discussion. cycling is part of our hobby. we lose a few here and there to provide a great home for others to come - others that might end up in a horrible fish bowl or die in the store. we use hardy fish as a tool. hoping not to lose any but always running that risk. glofish are a tool to better the waters of the world. introducing a gene into an egg is very different than injecting with a dye. dye is unnatural and is injected to the spinal area. genes are injected into embryos. again, just offering topics for discussion. i welcome and respect all points of view. i think everyone has done a wonderful job displaying their views in a respectful and professional manner.

 

[Sinuhe]

*has no aspirin to put away* lol I don't believe (much) in modern medicine. I stick to herbal tea remedies. It's worked great for me

Just a thought: Will you also not believe in modern medicine when you or a loved one gets seriously ill? I'm aware that a huge % of people use alternative "medicine", many in combination with traditional medication, too. If that helps them, and they don't get side-effects, then it's fine (even tho using certain natural remedies with traditional drugs can sometimes have serious side-effects). But when people get seriously ill, tho, and especially when there is an emergency, I'd say nearly 100% of people turn to Western medicine, and want every possible help they can get to stay alive. As far as I know, most alternative medicine is not backed up by reliable research, and if there was a way homeopathy, or herbal tea, for example, would cure cancer, I'd like to see. I do agree that Western medicine is not very "natural", but it's the best we have to treat diseases and keep people alive for as long as possible.

Just to clarify: The GloFish wasn't originally created for commercial purposes. As some other people have pointed out, it was created for environmental research. I can understand it still doesn't make it right for everyone, but people who talk about consumers getting tired of GloFish and demanding more seemed to be under the impression it was created for commercial purposes only. They only figured people might like it as a pet after they'd developed it.

 

[Cian McLiam]

Just to clarify: The GloFish wasn't originally created for commercial purposes. As some other people have pointed out, it was created for environmental research. I can understand it still doesn't make it right for everyone, but people who talk about consumers getting tired of GloFish and demanding more seemed to be under the impression it was created for commercial purposes only. They only figured people might like it as a pet after they'd developed it.

Does this make it ok to subject more fish to this treatment to satisfy consumer demand? I sincerely doubt any of the fish available in the shops were ever used for testing purposes, they took a dubious research idea and commercialised it for gain, pure and simple. I was also refering to the 'painted' fish available, there is no medical or enviornmental argument for injecting fish bound for the aquarium hobby with dyes.
According to the Aquaolg team there is upwards of 40,000 species of fish on the planet at a rough estimate, if not one of these is enough to satisfy you as a fishkeeper that you have to turn to artificially enhanced fish, then I really believe that fishkeeping is not for you.

They cloned a sheep some years ago, is it ok then to sell cloned sheep with luminous pink hair just because it may or may not be achievable.

I have a strong belief that when you take a wild animal from its habitat, undertake to breed it or just keep it in your home, you have also taken on the moral responsibilty to look after its welfare and wellbeing. Without this fundemental moral responsibility, keeping any animal captive is barbaric and reprehensible. I think subjecting these animals to this kind of treatment is a breach of this responsibilty and starts us on a very slippy slope where the value of life itself becomes a cheap commercial interest rather than a fundemental right for every creature.

Ken

 

[akhtar]

i understand what everyones talking about, basically i dont like crossbred creatures, i think we should leave it to nature (giv the kid a say ey!! ) anyway, i like the glofish, looking forwards to see it in action, sounds cool, but i know what ur talking bout by genetically modifying the creature is wrong, but i wouldnt get one coz it feels funny to have a lab fish designed by some stupid scientists (no offence if anyone here does any kinda job like that ) any way i think we should leave it here, because ppl will have different oppinions and we all know what thats gonna be!?

 

[Cian McLiam]

Ok, it seems I have forgotten this is supposed to be a fair and un-emotional debate of the issues, so in the interest of fairness, I have sent the following email to the 'manufacturers' through their website:

Hi,
There has been great debate about the recent appearance of the Glofish to the aquarium hobby. I have given my own opinions to these fish in one such debate (details below) but in the interest of fair hearing, I am forwarding my opinion for your consideration and would like to hear your response to the issues raised. I realise that you perhaps recieve dozens of such request every day but I am afraid that assumptions I have made are incorrect, so would appreciate some more information to satisfy my doubts. Should such information be available, I would have no hesitation in withdrawing my remarks.

Yours Sincerely,

Ken Williams

I agree everyone is entitled to their own opinion, the fish concerned however seems to be exempt from this, as is usually the case with humans. We somehow have come to believe that every other living thing on the planet has no right to its own dignity no matter how small or large. We have become so egotistical to believe that modifying millions of years of evolution in one stroke is not only a possibilty for us, but somehow our right, even if it is for superficial and commercial purposes like this. Fish have evolved many striking colours and patterns for themselves, this must be for a specific purpose as fish that live in zero visibility have not. I think colouring a fish genetically or mechanically is a perversion of this.
Besides, it takes all the wonder out of it. Compare the two cases,a fish that has evolved over millions of years such beautiful colours is a thing of wonder that should be respected as such and admired, these fish are coloured by artificial means for no other purpose except money grabbing, probably in a greasy back alley in Singapore. Where is the wonder and fascination in that?
Personally I appreciate the fish for being what they are, not for what I want them to be.
Comparing these coloured fish with fancy bred varities is not a vaild argument. The fancy coloured varities were allowed to perfrom their natural breeding patterns, we simply arranged a partner for them. Unfortunately even this has become corrupted with horomone treatment, which I personally find abhorrent also, except in dire cases like that of the red tail shark which is extinct in the wild and can only be bred succesfully in numbers using this method.

While it may seem to some reading this that I am over-reacting, what I am concerned about is this:
When we tire of these coloured fish, what will they do next to come up with something new and amazing? Not in my name, thank you very much.

If these fish do not catch on, or are even completely shunned by consumers, what will be their fate? Down a toilet bowl if they are very lucky is my guess.

My feeling is, if you want an amazing glow in the dark 4 headed fish with legs, please let a japanese marketing company know so they can create the perfect computer controlled super fish for you, leave mother nature and the danios alone.

Ken

QUOTE
Just to clarify: The GloFish wasn't originally created for commercial purposes. As some other people have pointed out, it was created for environmental research. I can understand it still doesn't make it right for everyone, but people who talk about consumers getting tired of GloFish and demanding more seemed to be under the impression it was created for commercial purposes only. They only figured people might like it as a pet after they'd developed it.



Does this make it ok to subject more fish to this treatment to satisfy consumer demand? I sincerely doubt any of the fish available in the shops were ever used for testing purposes, they took a dubious research idea and commercialised it for gain, pure and simple. I was also refering to the 'painted' fish available, there is no medical or enviornmental argument for injecting fish bound for the aquarium hobby with dyes.
According to the Aquaolg team there is upwards of 40,000 species of fish on the planet at a rough estimate, if not one of these is enough to satisfy you as a fishkeeper that you have to turn to artificially enhanced fish, then I really believe that fishkeeping is not for you.

They cloned a sheep some years ago, is it ok then to sell cloned sheep with luminous pink hair just because it may or may not be achievable.

I have a strong belief that when you take a wild animal from its habitat, undertake to breed it or just keep it in your home, you have also taken on the moral responsibilty to look after its welfare and wellbeing. Without this fundemental moral responsibility, keeping any animal captive is barbaric and reprehensible. I think subjecting these animals to this kind of treatment is a breach of this responsibilty and starts us on a very slippy slope where the value of life itself becomes a cheap commercial interest rather than a fundemental right for every creature.

Ken

I will post their reply, no matter what it may contain, here. Watch this space!!

Ken

 

[Sinuhe]

Does this make it ok to subject more fish to this treatment to satisfy consumer demand? I sincerely doubt any of the fish available in the shops were ever used for testing purposes, they took a dubious research idea and commercialised it for gain, pure and simple. I was also refering to the 'painted' fish available, there is no medical or enviornmental argument for injecting fish bound for the aquarium hobby with dyes.
According to the Aquaolg team there is upwards of 40,000 species of fish on the planet at a rough estimate, if not one of these is enough to satisfy you as a fishkeeper that you have to turn to artificially enhanced fish, then I really believe that fishkeeping is not for you.

As far as I know, they don't need to subject every fish to the treatment. When the glo-gene is injected to a genome, when the fish breed, their offspring will have that same gene automatically. They don't need to keep injecting the gene to new fish. Therefore, the fish should not suffer at any point. It's weird and unnatural, yes, but the fish wouldn't know. Painted fish are a different story.

Personally, I have no interest in getting a GloFish.

 

[Cian McLiam]

It's weird and unnatural, yes, but the fish wouldn't know.

As I said in my earlier post, fish have evolved their huge diversity and colours for a reason, as I stated above fish that live in enviornments with no light do not develop such colours and patterns. This indicates that the colours and patterns perform a basic function for the fish or why bother evolving the colours in the first place? They are markers of species and sex that in a huge population of many species gives a fish its identity and identifies itself as part of its group.
This science has stripped the fish of this basic part of their being, and as I remarked earlier, says more about our attitudes towards other creatures than most people would like to consider.

Ken

 

[Mogo]

Well said Ken! I totally agree with you, and all of your points. Seems to me like a lot of humans think that just because we've developed this wonderful thing called technology, that gives us the right to tamper with whatever we want, just because we can.

 

[Sinuhe]

Ken, I was just replying to the line "Does this make it ok to subject more fish to this treatment to satisfy consumer demand?" in your previous post, because it sounded like each fish would have to go through a treatment to become GloFish. I wasn't commenting on the ethics of playing with nature in general.

 

[Cian McLiam]

Ken, I was just replying to the line "Does this make it ok to subject more fish to this treatment to satisfy consumer demand?" in your previous post, because it sounded like each fish would have to go through a treatment to become GloFish. I wasn't commenting on the ethics of playing with nature in general.

Sorry Sinhue!! )
This thing gets me boiling thats all!
No offence meant...

Ken