When does this end?

[RyanScanner]

What about snails or invertebrates, where do people draw the line on lines. Pun intended.

In the end it’s all market driven, if people don’t want a novelty then it fades into obscurity.

If they do then on and on it goes, at one stage Neon Tetras were worth their weight in gold. Now a few $$ for 20.

Wild strains are like classic cars, for the diehards to show off to other enthusiasts, everyone else is buying Teslas that won’t last a decade.

 

[esoxlucius]

"Ultimate Glo Dragon Kamfa f97 with Bluetooth speakers".

Are those speakers in surround sound? If so, can you send me a link, I want one of those bad boy f97 thingys!

but when does the Dr Frankenstein experiments stop?

It's like anything else in life. Whilst there's a demand for these things, whatever grotesque species are on offer, there will be a supply chain somewhere to cater for that demand.

How do you stop it? Everybody's got to be on the same page and stop buying them. Will this happen? Very unlikely. We all have different tastes and although most of us clearly dislike these mutts, there will always be a bunch of other people who want them.

 

[Conchonius]

While the glowing gene may not necessarily harm the fish, the idea of splicing saltwater coral or jellyfish genes into a freshwater fish is an odd ethical issue. So what exactly is a Glofish…can it still even be considered a freshwater fish at this point? Part invertebrate??

What’s even more mind boggling is the idea that companies can patent living creatures.

Well, I guess they're part invertebrate in the same sense that we're part bacterium. Many viruses can edit DNA (in fact, some of the techniques for splicing imitate the way retroviruses work), and viruses are messy little things that do very sloppy work. As a consequence, a virus can sometimes pick up a gene or two from the microbes in your intestines, enter your cells, and paste that bug's DNA all over your genome. Human DNA is kind of full of junk, so much so that the useful and useless sections can be hard to tell apart.

These alien genes mostly stay in your guts and don't pass down to your kids, but some in other animals have been shown to be permanently integrated, and there's debate about how many human genes have been "stolen" from other species. Sometimes you don't even need a virus to do it, mitochondria are remnants of ancient symbiotic bacteria and their genes made their way into the human genome so that we can maintain and produce the things.

As for patenting animals, I agree completely. It's ridiculous.

Do they actually glow in the dark?

Sort of. They work by absorbing light at one wavelength and throwing out light at a different wavelength. But if the incoming light is the sort we can't see, and the outgoing light is, you can make them look like they glow on their own.

You will need specialized lighting for that, however.

 

[Cal Amari]

Actually it is much like humans and dogs. Everyone has their own taste, and though I strive to find the muttiest mix of free dogs available when I want a dog, there are some line bred, and inbred examples I find quite stunning, though I would never pay hundreds of dollars to own a genetically weaker specimen who is likely to suffer more health issues down the road. But thats just my opinion. There's nothing inherently good or evil about breeding animals, it's just a diversion, something we do because we want these animals in our lives and homes, even though others line they wont cross may conclude that keeping an animal in a home all day is cruel and evil.

 

[Cal Amari]

Well ok, to amend that, the big difference is that in dogs, the mutts are still the same species, in fish and dogs I try to get closer to the natural version as I can. Both are getting harder.

 

[Kayden]

Actually it is much like humans and dogs. Everyone has their own taste, and though I strive to find the muttiest mix of free dogs available when I want a dog, there are some line bred, and inbred examples I find quite stunning, though I would never pay hundreds of dollars to own a genetically weaker specimen who is likely to suffer more health issues down the road. But thats just my opinion. There's nothing inherently good or evil about breeding animals, it's just a diversion, something we do because we want these animals in our lives and homes, even though others line they wont cross may conclude that keeping an animal in a home all day is cruel and

Dogs are far worse than fish.. the health issues in breeds like pugs, exotic bullies, and frenchies are straight up abuse and a short life committed to long term pain. Inbreeding in mammals is also a far more significant issue than fish.

And there is inherent wrong in breeding animals simply to suffer. Doing something that provides no benefit to your life at the determent to another being is the definition of inherent wrong or "evil". Also keeping animals in captivity is demonstratable to be beneficial to the animals life expectancy and psychological wellbeing when done properly (other than in obvious cases like cetaceans, monkeys, etc.). Ignoring facts to satisfy ones skewed definition of justice or to redescribe depravity is eventually what moral relativism leads to.

 

[jjohnwm]

As for patenting animals, I agree completely. It's ridiculous.

I vividly recall the first time I saw, in person, the then-newish Parrot Fish being sold at a large aquarium store in Toronto...gotta be more than 35 years ago? Not Parrot Cichlids or marine Parrotfish, I'm talking about the goofy hybrid cichlids that we all know and some of us think we love.

They were then just as polarizing, or maybe even more so, than they are now. Some folks loved 'em, others...not so much. But there was a lot of discussion and debate about how they were created. The "recipe" for what was being crossed with what was apparently very hush-hush, and the store (Big Al's) claimed that they were all males to prevent anyone but the original breeder from starting to produce them. I don't know if they were patented, or if that was even a thing with animal varieties.

I do remember standing in front of the tank with a few other aquarists I knew and discussing them. We couldn't even agree if their mouths were open and wouldn't close properly...or if they were closed and wouldn't open properly. We knew something just wasn't right about them.

I opined to the effect that such a stupid stunt as developing these critters was a waste of time, a crime against nature, doomed to fail on the market; I thought they'd be a passing fad that would quickly fade and be forgotten. Of course, that was back when I thought my opinion of my fellow man was about as low as it could be. I was wrong on both counts.

I've actually made a couple of mistakes since then, but none quite so spectacular.

 

[Hybridfish7]

Do they actually glow in the dark?

not the dark but under a black/blue light yes, the fluorescent pigment comes from cnidarians

 

[Cal Amari]

But you see my friend, it is only "inherently evil " in your opinion. evil and wrong are opinions, even if most of us agree on them, they are not objective adjectives. There was a time when I thought my opinion really mattered too. Now I realize it only matters to me, what a relief it was learning that.

 

[Kayden]

But you see my friend, it is only "inherently evil " in your opinion. evil and wrong are opinions, even if most of us agree on them, they are not objective adjectives. There was a time when I thought my opinion really mattered too. Now I realize it only matters to me, what a relief it was learning that.

This is something the greatest philosophers of our time have argued over and over. The two solutions are might makes right, or you believe in a higher power that has provided a moral code for humanity to live by. And since this is not a philosophy forum and merely a discussion on the ethics of creating mutant fish Im not gonna entertain this thread of discussion unless we can pull it back to aquariums.