GloFish: ethical or not?

I do think it is interesting that in a thread debating ethics in fish keeping that people are ascribing human characteristics such as psychosis to fish when they are behaving in the most natural way possible given the unnatural conditions that we keep them in...
Touche!!:;juan
 
Wow, I had no clue glo-fish were such a hot topic! Where would we be as a society without science, trial and error? As someone stated earlier, scientist use animals for testing to help cure things like cancer and diseases and such and yes, those animals probably did suffer but we wouldn't be where we were if they didn't. And yes it is sad that they suffer, but think about this, one animal suffers so that millions of people don't have to anymore. To me that's worth it. I'm sorry if you think otherwise and I am not trying to offend any animal right's activists but we are a better society because of it.

Now how this pertains to glo fish...they were an experiment gone "bad" and they never accomplished what they had wanted but we honestly have no idea if the previous eggs that were expirimented on were harmed or deformed or what not. But I don't see anything wrong with the current ones we have.

We alter dogs all the time-anything that is called "miniature" is altered. And yet people adore them. But no thought is given to how many other dogs they went through trying to make the "perfect" one.

And one last thing and I'll get off my soap box ;D

Meenu had said that just because the glo fish today aren't being hurt doesn't necessarily make it ok because there were some hurt in the past (loosley summarizing what you actually said) but how do you think we know so much about the fish we keep today? Someone had to catch a wild fish one day, stick in a bowl, and go from there. I know tons of fish have died in trial and error so that we can now enjoy and love them today. Going by your logic, no one should have aquariums today because fish would have had to die in the process....

Just a thought!
 
I do think it is interesting that in a thread debating ethics in fish keeping that people are ascribing human characteristics such as psychosis to fish when they are behaving in the most natural way possible given the unnatural conditions that we keep them in...

But then, some psychiatrists/psychologists believe that you have just described psychosis. We don't live in a natural way, and it is believed that this may be the reason that there are so many mental problems.
Others disagree, suggesting that mental instability is not inherent to the unnatural methods that humans live in, and will point to wild animals that exhibit signs of similar psychoses.
 
Lucy's right.
Let's try to drag this back on topic.

Meenu had said that just because the glo fish today aren't being hurt doesn't necessarily make it ok because there were some hurt in the past (loosley summarizing what you actually said) but how do you think we know so much about the fish we keep today? Someone had to catch a wild fish one day, stick in a bowl, and go from there. I know tons of fish have died in trial and error so that we can now enjoy and love them today. Going by your logic, no one should have aquariums today because fish would have had to die in the process....

Some good points here, but this last sentence is a logical fallacy.
First, it's something of a straw man in that it is attributing an argument that was not actually made. I don't believe that Meenu ever stated that GloFish are bad because early examples were hurt. I know that I didn't, and I am usually the first one to bring up the point that, just because they aren't harmed now, doesn't mean no harm was done. At least when I make the statement, I am making it because it is a point to consider.

Second, it's ignoring discussion of intent. While the ends may not always justify the means, they do play a part. In the case of GloFish, the intended result was very different from the intended result of originally keeping aquarium fish.

Third, it's ignoring the matter of timing. By full extension of your logic, people who believe that GloFish are unethical should not use any technology, considering that nearly all technology comes in some way from the wish/need to harm another being. But philosophers agree that the idea of ethics changes with time. Even two decades ago, it was presumed by most people that bettas ranked only slightly higher than Christmas decorations as far as the need for care. (I'm sorry, this particular point is straying from GloFish, but it's a necessity in the argument. I'll drag things back in a moment). Meanwhile, GloFish are a modern invention, and a use of a very new type of technology, so there is nothing wrong with examining the ethics of it (in fact, it's a good thing).

In short (though it's really too late for that ), yes, the keeping of aquarium fish hurt fish, but that is an entirely different argument with an even wider range of points to be made.
In the discussion of GloFish, the consideration of whether or not fish were harmed in the creation is of utmost importance. If we choose to ignore this point, the argument, and nearly every argument of ethics, becomes completely moot.
 
Meenu had said that just because the glo fish today aren't being hurt doesn't necessarily make it ok because there were some hurt in the past (loosley summarizing what you actually said) but how do you think we know so much about the fish we keep today?

No, I didn't. At least I don't think I said this. It certainly isn't what I believe.
 
I think we're straying for the original topic:

GloFish: ethical or not?

I have a quesion about the question.... Are we talking about whether glofish were ethical BACK THEN or if they are ethical NOW?
 
This is the original question:
Saw the new GloFish. What's your opinion on them? Do you or would you own? How do you feel about "changing fish genetic in lab?"

The OP refers to them as "new". I'm assuming that they don't realize how long they've been around.
I imagine both can be addressed.
 
Although it has been stated sveral times, ther seems to still be some confusion.
No dye and no needle has come anywhere close to the glofish for sale.
their parents or grandparents had additional DNA added to them when they were embryos. they felt no pain from it, and were not stressed by a dye. the fish in the store did not even get the injection as an embryo, the colored gene was passed onto them from birth.

I think they were orginally created in hopes that they would flourece in polluted waters, which would help identify the worst contaminated waterways. this did not work, and they were left with a genetically modifeid fish that glows under black lights, so they decided to sell them at pet stores.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Although it has been stated sveral times, ther seems to still be some confusion.
No dye and no needle has come anywhere close to the glofish for sale.
their parents or grandparents had additional DNA added to them when they were embryos. they felt no pain from it, and were not stressed by a dye. the fish in the store did not even get the injection as an embryo, the colored gene was passed onto them from birth.

I don't think there's any confusion about this. I don't think anyone has said otherwise.
 
Question: did the genetic engineering conducted on glofish them horribly deformed and unable to experience a good quality of life?

That's what it comes down to for me. The potential suffering that was caused making them this way us so much less of an issue. It seems odd to single out one incident of animal cruelty among many and take a stand on it. You are welcome to disagree, but I find it strange that some seem to value the lives of these fish less than others because of their origins.

I would never own a flofish they get injected by the stuff and all the stress , and just think I you were glowing your a nightlight , it looks just too unatural

I think this is an example of the misconceptions at potatos was referring to.

Hello,
I have merged your back to back posts. Being a new member you may not be aware of the EDIT key at the bottom of every post. You can use this for additional thoughts and or corrections. It helps to save a little space on the forum.
Too, feel free to respond to more than 1 member in a post.
Thanks!
Ken
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good morning,

Please note: SirDarkSol is not suggesting that he is going to close the thread (post #64). He is only trying to keep the thread on topic and prevent hijacking this thread.

Thank you!
Ken
 
some people will not like this but in the end glofish were created for a greater good and although they were not successful you can't scold geneticst for trying to save countless human lives which is a very good cause in my opinion also we do not know how many trys it took to make the glofish and shouldnt instantly jump to the idea that these fish were held captive and had their eggs injected with dna ruthlessly It couuld have easily been the first time go. Also I would like to ask howmany of you out there care for the life of a pond minow? the danio is just a foreign minow that is very readily available. The scientist must have taken in the consideratio of harming the fish because the used the danio in the first place extremely hardy, over population(I'm sure they arnt endangered in any way by this do to the countless ones born daily in peoples tanks on accident.) Had they truely not cared for the fish they would have used something much more adored like a molly or parrot fish. If you find it wrong to do these things for greater good theb I will ask you not get a flu vaccine, antivenom, any other vaccine or bacI medication because these are all tested on animals most the time. I here no cry of attention for lab rats. This can't be a strict glofish conversation if were simply questioning the ethics of animal testing. In my opinion we should pay our respects to the glofish who made saccriffice(glowing in the dark?) and if you don't buy them because they arnt natural then remember that they are now and not buying them won't stop their being born we should not punish the fish for gloing in the dark.
 
However, in the realm of ethics, the fact that we don't have to do harm now to breed them does not negate harm that was done previously.
It's a very seductive type of argument that, sadly, wins out all too often today. "Well, things are okay now, so they must have always been okay."



Sorry guys, I totally mis quoted...it was sirdarksol's comment that I was referring to not Meenu. Sorry about that....


And Catman you said it better than I could...I totally agree!
 
Last edited:
also we do not know how many trys it took to make the glofish and shouldnt instantly jump to the idea that these fish were held captive and had their eggs injected with dna ruthlessly It couuld have easily been the first time go.

This is not the case, I can nearly guarantee it. It's not how this type of experiment generally happens. There's a reason that this kind of thing is usually years in the making, and that's because mistakes are made. If it was a first time go, this would hardly be such a novel enterprise, and there would hardly be so few fish like this. Even when working with plants, which have a lot simpler DNA than fish, there are many mistakes before they get it right.

Also, close to the end of your post, you suggest that glowfish are natural now. No government in the world agrees with that statement, and I doubt that very many scientists do, either. "Natural" means that its development wasn't shaped by the hand of man. For example, dogs, goldfish, koi, and domesticated cats aren't natural.

I think this is an example of the misconceptions at potatos was referring to.

And that quote is from the first page. That's not "still" having some confusion. What potato said has been explained several times since that post.

Here's the reason that I'm taking such issue with this statement:
I am acting as moderator here; not just Moderator (as in of the forum) but moderator (as in a debate). You'll note that I have not once in this discussion given a concrete "yes" or "no" to the question of whether or not the creation of and/or continued sale of GloFish is unethical. I have no real opinion about GloFish. I don't care either way.

So in acting as moderator, I've been trying to keep people focused on the facts and likelihoods of this issue. The problem is that, with something that seems viscerally wrong to one group of people, and that seems so nifty-keen that there can't be anything wrong with it to another, keeping the arguments logical is sometimes a pretty big challenge.

Saying "there still seems to be confusion" is projecting a false negative onto the side that dislikes the idea. For nearly forty posts, there were no members expressing any sort of confusion about how the process worked. It probably wasn't on purpose to portray this false negative, but it's there, nonetheless, and so it hampers the efficacy of the debate.
 
Last edited:
Interesting take on the mechanics of the debate, SDS.

I don't think that the way glofish were developed originally is an ethical problem. I understand that the casualties probably numbered in the thousands. I also don't think owning them in their current incarnation is wrong in any way.

I won't own them because I do not care for danios. I have owned them in a proper school, in a 30 gallon that was understocked with only compatible community fish, and I still had severe problems with nipping and bullying from them. My original stock plan had glofish in it, but once I figured out how much I dislike danios, they got scratched off.

That being said, I can certainly, on an intellectual level, understand why someone would have problems with owning a genetically-modified fish. And I would absolutely have to agree with governments and scientists that these fish are not "natural" although they do reproduce naturally.
 
I don't think that the way glofish were developed originally is an ethical problem. I understand that the casualties probably numbered in the thousands. I also don't think owning them in their current incarnation is wrong in any way.

That being said, I can certainly, on an intellectual level, understand why someone would have problems with owning a genetically-modified fish.

Wonderfully said.
 
Hey everyone. I asked this question to get varies opionion on the subject and was shocked to see so many posts since then. I wanted to know what people thought of biologically enginereed fish vs natural born fish. One is made by God the other by man. I guess that's what it all boils down to, our opionions on how we feel or don't feel about it. Everyone has a right to think/feel how they do. If you want to own one do, if not don't. We all have a right to disagree or agree, but don't fight over it!
 
Thanks psalm18.2 even though we have kept it civil for the most it is nice to know someone is predicting possible occurence
 
Threads like these always end up with someone feeling battered because their morality towards fish isn't "up to snuff" as some others, or "too high and mighty" than others. It's dangerous to ask one's opinion of a topic when some feel there is a right and a wrong opinion to be had.

So far, genetically modified species for the "glow" gene:
Zebra Danio
Convict Cichlid (Coming to the market in a couple years.)
Angelfish (Coming to the market in a couple years.)

Tattoing exists. (multiple impossible colors)
Interspecies crossbreeding exists (blood parrot ciclids, livebearer variatus, etc.)
Inbreeding for specific genes exists (long-finned, lyretail, bug-eyed, black/albino-koi, high-back, short-bodied, pot-bellied goldfish.)

All this and more exists. We all have our own opinions. Someone would take offense to my opinion. Someone would probably take offense to yours. They're dangerous topics that can make people who used to be your online buddies your online enemies.
 
We all have our own opinions. Someone would take offense to my opinion. Someone would probably take offense to yours. They're dangerous topics that can make people who used to be your online buddies your online enemies.

Just because a topic is controversial does not mean it cannot be discussed maturely. You're new to FL, but you will see that threads like this are heavily moderated. The mods try their best to keep them on track and to make sure that there is no flaming. We've had many controversial discussions on this site... heck, even on this very subject, and nobody has stopped being friends.
 
Good morning,

Yes, the moderators try to keep the threads from turning into hurt feelings, no flaming allowed, no arguing or rude posts and so on.

Everyone has an opinion and that is all it is, an opinion. Too, that is what the original poster is asking for, our opinions. Instead of getting angry or upset over someone's opinion, it's best to just exit the thread and let it go.

Too, it helps to stay on topic. With that being said, next opinion please

Have a good day everyone!

Ken
 
Last edited:
I've noticed how active you guys are. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't impressed. Most sites these types of conversations devolve into name calling. I've seen none of that here.

I own glofish. They don't glow unless you put them under black/blue light. I've heard conflicting stories over whether it's coral or jellyfish genes the F1 fish were given. Personally I don't have them under black or blue light. Even on the glofish site it says those lights will cause undue stress on the fish if kept in that environment for too long.

I like how they look, but would probably not buy them again. All the reports have been great about their health, but I haven't personally had much luck lately. I'm not sure if the tank came down with something or if they're little time bombs, but I'm down to three remaining glows. (They've been treated for internal parasites as that was a best guess and now it's just a waiting game.)

The ethics of it put it in about the same league as cross-breeding for desired traits, if not a little higher. Scientists are usually more clinical in their experiments than some of the fish breeders doing these cross-breeds for money.

Scientifically, I hope something that can translate into saving human lives comes out of this "for-profit" genetic research. Maybe we can find an in-vitro gene therapy that cures tasacs or downs, some other gene related disease.
 
Top Bottom