California Bans Genegineered Fish 519
Cheeko writes "California regulators have announced that they are blocking the sale of genetically engineered fish. The arguments of the regulators seem to echo some of those discussed earlier here."
Blocking breeding is key. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blocking breeding is key. (Score:5, Funny)
Switching sex? Quite common for some fish (Score:3, Informative)
That's a possibility I suppose. There are several species of fish (IIRC) on the Great Barrier Reef that can do this. In some the top female will become a male and in others it's the other way around.
Breeding is only one part (Score:5, Funny)
In the case of genetically engineered trees, how does one such tree (parts, stuff, etc.) biodegrading affect the environment? Will that spur some fun new super-efficient/robust termite evolution?
But a more important question (and more on topic), how many of these fish does a cat need to ingest to get the cat to glow?
Oh Me! Me! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh Me! Me! (Score:5, Funny)
Get pregnant?
Re:Oh Me! Me! (Score:2)
More importantly (Score:2)
Re:Breeding is only one part (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's not forget, it's not like nature is an ordered and delicately balanced thing like some eco-freaks try to make out. Instead it's a random conglomeration of random mutations. When one of natures random mutations lives and breeds we call it evolution. We call the wiping out of other plants, animals and creatures, and the ecological shifts "natural".
When we do the same
Re:Breeding is only one part (Score:4, Insightful)
Many cannot deal with this thought for various reasons. Usually because their religion doesn't allow it. Religion vs. Science- nothing new here.
Re:Breeding is only one part (Score:3, Insightful)
It's because we are far more powerful than anything else. In other words, it is the our view that we are more intelligent than anything else on earth. What this means is that we can cause massive damage. For instance, it would be very difficult for nature or some other animal to kill off 90% of all 4-legged creatures on earth. Humans, in contrast, should be able to do that easily if we wanted to. Nature will take a long time
Re:Breeding is only one part (Score:4, Insightful)
That would depend on what you consider environmentally degrading. I would argue that evolution is self balancing. Evolution has destroyed ecosystems or parts thereof just as readily as we have.
What keeps it going is continuing to produce more randomness until eventually another mutation survives, either causing a change in the existing environment or learning to survive within it. Over time both happens, the changing elements cause the co-existing elements to fade away if they do not (by random chance) produce the right random evolution capable of coping with the change rapidly enough. Other changing elements appear and this happens over and over again.
Now of course individual creatures evolve and adapt differently (even within a single species, sometimes becoming different enough we'd call them another). Some of those individuals within the human species have adapted as (mostly) co-existing elements (of course it's not really true, even those "co-existing" actually change the environment a great deal, just more subtly). Some have adapted as changing elements, these may well expend the resources they and some of the other species depend on. Exactly how do you determine that the changing elements are somehow less natural than the co-existing ones? Even if we evolve ourselves out of existance and eliminate the resources we depend on, not everything depends on those resources. Even if we eliminate all life as we know it including ourselves (an unlikely scenerio, there are lifeforms on earth that could survive a climate change of pretty much any type we could foresee, freezing cold, or hot as lava, even extreme radiation.) Evolution and nature are not limited to our planet, they span the Universe.
George Carlin was cracking jokes of course when he said it, but he made a good point saying "Who the fuck are we to think we can save the planet?". The planet will likely be around long after us and any other species or even all life on it. And certainly any claim that our actions have significant impact on a Universal scale is absurd.
So how about we stop playing games pretending the terms "natural" and "unnatural" as they are actually commonly used (not as I've used them above) mean anything more or less or with less impact than "not done by man" and "done by man". In terms of being part of grand scheme and it's actions being "natural" then everything we do is certainly quite natural. If you accept that, then you also accept that your attempts prevent the demise of a species or certain eco system you prefer are every bit as "unnatural" as the actions you believe would destroy them. Either way, please don't fool yourself into genuinely believing that your actions can make or break the greater scheme of the Universe.
Think about what I've said and please realize the "balances" you speak of are merely temporary snapshots and that evolution WILL introduce a changing element and change (or destroy in view) in what to it is a brief period whether we are that element or not. All eco-systems are eventually broken and changed. That IS nature.
Who are we to kill off the fuzzy bunnies? We are evolutions archangel of death, it's the purpose for our existance as much as anything else we do.
Re:Blocking breeding is key. (Score:2)
GM crops are significantly less clear cut area, with the possible risks being high, but little research to show whether the risks are real. On the other hand,
Blocking breeding isn't feasible (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, the geneticists can claim that they could "turn on" sterility in the target animal/plant genome. But that begs the conundrum:
If one modification can have unintended consequences than all of them can. If neither can have unintended consequences, why bother with the safeguard?
Okay, it's an oversimplification of a vastly complex subject, but I think the proposition is oversimplified as well. It is all well and good to cite genetic sterility as a safeguard when making other genetic modifications, but what are the unintended consequneces of genetically inducing sterility? More importantly, the unintended consequnces of the two in combination. After all, at one point, adding an extra Y chromosome might have looked like a viable way to block breeding, but now we know that would have resulted in billions of sociopathic fish (but sterile).
Power corupts, but absolute power is kinda neat... at least until your three hundred pound, opposable thumbed, parthenogenic guppies decide that they are entitled to the six pack of Weinhards in the fridge...
We simply don't know enough to know what we have to do to minimize the impact of mistakes, malice and general human stupidity.
Re:Blocking breeding isn't feasible (Score:4, Interesting)
And I would argue that you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Caution is definitely a good thing, but without taking some risks we cannot advance. Mistakes, malice and stupidity are something we are stuck with regardless of any advance planning.
The psychotic four-year-old in me says "let's make everything as dangerous as possible!" That way a mistake, malicious or stupid act will only occur once on the part of any given individual.
Can that be done? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then there's the very real and frightening specter of species jumping of genetic modifications. It has already been documented in engineered
Re:Blocking breeding is key. (Score:3, Insightful)
Man has no clue how to manage species in a way that is consistent with keeping balance in the environment. Every time we try to manipulate something there are unexpected consequences.
Re:Blocking breeding is key. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really see the problem here.
I mean just think about if for a second. Glowing fish. Now how long do you think you're going to survive if you're glowing like a neon sign saying "Eat Me" (this is where Slashdot should support the blink tag :). Bioluminescent fish do exist yes, but they can turn it off at times of danger (from what I remember) ... these fish can't ... they are evolutionary mistakes. Selection of the fittest will take care of it. Mind you I'm very wary of importing fish etc because what seems like a harmless thing can end up in your rivers as a self reproducing curse ... but that's almost another issue.
Might be useful mimicry... (Score:4, Insightful)
Depending on the chemicals that make them glow, other
fish might quickly learn to view them as neon signs
saying "I AM TOXIC" or at least "I TASTE BAD".
Re:Blocking breeding is key. (Score:4, Informative)
As a Californian, I'm glad we won't have them here. Let them experiment on the ecosystem somewhere else and then, in ten or twenty years, allow them in if there hasven't been any problems. There have just been way too many environmental disasters caused by introducing species (engineered or not) into new environments. If you want colorful fish, buy some Neon Tetras or a Jack Dempsey or just go saltwater where there are plenty of flourescent fish to choose from.
Ironic sig (Re:Blocking breeding is key.) (Score:3, Insightful)
The researcher noted that making them sterile greatly reduced whatever risk there might be for problems later on.
It's an ironic point for you to be making, given your sig: 'Abolish "intellectual property"'
Power, government, and fish (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Power, government, and fish (Score:2)
Re:Power, government, and fish (Score:5, Insightful)
The odd thing is that cats, which do go feral, all the time, are perfectly legal. Additionally, they have caused the deaths of several native species, and a cat parasite is erradicating otters.
This is just another example of government justifying its existance by passing worthless laws.
*Wild stouts were purposefully released into New Zealand. They bred with domesticated ferrets and due to a completely lack of predators (not a problem in California) have entered the environment quite successfully.
But that's only Cali (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But that's only Cali (Score:4, Insightful)
When glowfish are outlawed, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But that's only Cali (Score:3, Informative)
Californians will have the option of buying them out-of-state, but it's way too much of a hassle IMHO just to have a few glowing fish.
Re:But that's only Cali (Score:2)
Yeah I guess its a hassle, but having them be contaband makes it all the more worth it.
Re:But that's only Cali (Score:2)
Re:But that's only Cali (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't see how this ban will do any good at all, regardless of interstate commerce. It seems like a completely kneejerk reaction intended to pacify certain special interests.
That's okay (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's okay (Score:3, Funny)
They shalt call it the Hollywood life cycle.
Re:That's okay (Score:2)
wrecking the world one piece at a time (Score:2, Funny)
Evolution... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Evolution... (Score:5, Funny)
A victory for nature lovers everywhere! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere! (Score:5, Funny)
- Paid for by the SPBYD (Society to Prevent the Breeding of Yippy Dogs)
Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere! (Score:3, Insightful)
how is this so wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
To condemn a technology on the claim it is tampering with life is a flimsy stance. We've been tampering with life forever and no one has complained. It's just that now it's more readily apparent.
Re:how is this so wrong? (Score:3, Interesting)
> To condemn a technology on the claim it is tampering with life is a flimsy stance
They are not stopping, banning or condemning the technology. They're stopping the results from using the technology, which is quite common if you think about it.
Re:how is this so wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:how is this so wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't seem to have formulated any ethical principles or guidelines AT ALL in judging genetic research. We have reactionary people pulling "rules" out of their asses like "No stem cell research" and "no human cloning" without considering the political realities and context. I am frightened by THAT. I am also frightened by genetic engineering and what it can do, but my fear of the former (which have turned out to be true) overrides the latter.
Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere! (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope that you are already boycotting other "genetic monsters" created by older methods of genetic engineering (selective breeding of spontaneous mutants that would normally die or fail to reproduce). These include corn, lima beans, bananas and plantains, virtually all identified breeds of dogs and cats, many ornamental fish, milk from dairy cows, most grains, etc., etc.
Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere! (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I disagree with your opinion. Quoting Galileo, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect, has intended us to forego their use."
Furthermore, I don't believe morality can be legislated. I would not force my own beliefs upon another and I am appalled that others would applaud successful attempts by the state to do so.
Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere! (Score:3, Insightful)
Morality is legislated everyday. The simplest example: :Thou shalt not kill" and statutes that implement it.
Hmmm, that's a straw man. There is evidence that allowing people to kill one another more or less wantonly is harmful to the whole group in the long run. There is a difference between legislating morality (homosexual marriage is illegal) and legislating practical laws to prevent problems before they happen (marriage is a state-recognized institution, however crappy it may be currently implemented)
Genetic engineering goes back centuries. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not the same. (Score:5, Insightful)
Genetic engineering allows introduction into a species of genes that express proteins (and other molecules) not available within the host species' existing gene pool.
Whether or not that's a good thing is not known, as the U.S. government does not currently require either environmental impact testing nor FDA safety-type testing. Those regulations were swept away during the Clinton administration so that biotech firms could more quicly bring products to market and thereby boost their revenues -but at what cost?
Genetic engineering is actually being tested on an enormous scale -every one of us is a subject.
Personally, I'm not against development of GE products, but believe they really need to be tested. One day there may come a product whose consequences aren't foreseen, and the impact could mean the loss of another species, or worse.
An example of this is the salmon that grows seven times faster than wild salmon. The developers of these want to raise them in netted pens off the coasts of North America, as salmon are currently farmed.
But what would the consequences be of an accidental release of those fish to the wild? A salmon that grows seven times faster than its wild relatives? C'mon, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what the impact would be -the wild salmon would probably get starved out of existence, and it'd be impossible to prevent that from happening. Once in the wild, you couldn't sweep them up.
Re:No, not the same. (Score:5, Interesting)
And guess what --- this happens all the time.
Ignoring simple mutation, which can add new encodings to a species' gene pool that weren't there before, there's a well-established and uncontroversial mechanism that allows gene sequences to be passed from one species to another, entirely different species.
It works like this: viruses reproduce by injecting their genetic material into a host cell. The new material hijacks the host cell, which starts producing more viruses.
Sometimes this doesn't work properly, and you end up with fragmented viral genetic material in the host cell, which doesn't work. What does the host do? What it always did, largely. Except that when it reproduces, it will now reproduce the viral genetic material as well. (If the viral genetic material isn't completely disabled, this can cause really odd effects, like cancer.)
What happens if the host cell happens to be a sex cell, like in the testes? Well, the sperm produced will contain the viral genetic material, as well, which will get reproduced into every cell in the offspring, etc. So you've now transferred viral genetic material into the gene pool.
It works the other way, too --- the host cell can start producing viruses containing fragments of host genetic material. So if one of these contaminated viruses infects a sex cell in another species of creature, you've now transferred genetic material from one species to another completely different species.
Does this sound far fetched? Yes, it is. But it happens. There are sections of human DNA that have been positively identified as coming from viruses, and there are sections that show clear signs as having come from other species --- although it's a bit hard to tell.
(Embarassingly, I can't remember the technical name for this process.)
It gets even more complicated with plants, because plants don't have the single-cell-zygote bottleneck between generations. It's entirely possible for several pollen cells to fertilise a plant, and the resulting offspring will be a chimera. (This happens surprisingly frequently with humans, too.) There are also some specialised processes for incorporating foreign genetic material that I don't really understand or remember enough of to describe.
DNA's not as sacred as you think it is.
Yes, It is the same -- Horizontal Gene Transfer (Score:3, Interesting)
Where do these people get the idea that genes can't cross species? They can. Look up horizontal gene transfer in any molecular evolution text. Like Creationists, the anti-GE crowd simply ignores science when it doesn't serve their purposes.
Re:Yes, It is the same -- Horizontal Gene Transfer (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, they sound just like the pro-GE crowd.
bugged (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, lets talk about better living through chemistry breaking to a whole new level.
Petaluma (Score:5, Funny)
Reasons (Score:3, Funny)
Yes... (Score:2, Insightful)
(Pssst..genetic manipulation has been going on for a LONG time. we're only making more dramatic changes, not inventing it.)
Psst... (Score:5, Interesting)
More dramatic changes (Score:3, Informative)
If an experiment that involves genetic engineering goes wrong, it will go wrong fast, and nobody can foresee the effects of that because there is absolutely no prior incident it could be compared to. That kind of scares me.
Re:Yes... (Score:2)
At no point did the Indians crossbreed corn with jellyfish. How can you even compare the two?
Re:Yes... (Score:2)
but a cow is.. yet it wouldn't exist without human intervention..
and dogs..
and cats..
Increases market value. (Score:5, Funny)
California regulators read slashdot! (Score:2)
Now if only the read Your Rights Online...
Consistency (Score:2, Informative)
Fish (Score:2, Funny)
I'm sure the RIAA is behind this
So long, and thanks for all the (glowing) fish... (Score:2, Funny)
Alternativly (Score:2)
Rus
Isn't all corn genitically modified? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Isn't all corn genitically modified? (Score:2)
Sure, doesn't matter now, but a breakdown in civilization could lead to loss of the knowledge to create our 'new and improved' corn and eventually end in widespread starvation, as native plants are 'contaminated'.
IIRC, /. had a article on this about 8-10 months ago - how even the Mayan corn (grown locally f
They're wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
As a CA resident and fish hobbyist, I wrote them a letter expressing my displeasure. No matter how I feel about genetically modified fish, it simply wasn't right to make their decision the way they did.
So how do I get these on the Internet? (Score:2)
This bodes very ill for my hopes for a glow-in-the-dark cat.
So... let me get this straight (Score:2)
Just the first (Score:4, Insightful)
And why not? (Score:2)
IMO (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm no PETA member, far from it -- I love a good steak -- but this could open up into a serious mess. What's going to happen when genetically modified cats, dogs, birds, fruit bats, orangutans, ad naseum, become the new trend?
Re:IMO (Score:2)
I really dont see what the big deal is with glowing fish. Worst case you have to make sure the trout you eat doesnt glow in the dark before you cook it
Thank God it's not about science (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm nearly at a loss for words. It stupidity that oozes from that sentence is frightening.
"I have no idea what this is about, by my knee-jerk response is no" would have been a more succinct way of putting it.
Boy oh boy! (Score:5, Funny)
"Do you have any fruits or vegetables or seeds?"
"No."
"Well, how about genetically engineered fish?"
"Aw, crap...I mean, NO!"
"We're going to have to search your car. Please get out of the vehicle."
Especially the Master and Slave fish. (Score:4, Funny)
it's not neccessarily a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
While there is no evidence that fluorescent proteins have prion-like properties, I bring this example up because prions have only been accepted doctrine among biochemists within the past decade. In the 80's if you proposed that there was an epigenetic disease-causing agent consisting of misfolded protein, people would have laughed in your face. There is just not enough information as to what may happen. IN addition, I can think of other, simpler, more plausible scenarios regarding glowing fish. Green fluorescing fish may affect native algae populations, which would certainly affect aquatic ecosystems. Also, in introducing the transgene, there are probably also antibiotic drug resistance genes used during the cloning process that are present in the organism. Introducing these genes into the wild is not a good idea for obvious reasons.
The truth of the matter is, we know very little about how heterologous proteins and transgenes will behave in the wild. I myself am a molecular geneticist, and I'm all for promoting biotechnology, but I think it's not a bad idea to keep this kind of technology out of the hands of your average "well the kids are bored of the fish, let's flush it down the toilet" type of consumers. Having genetically modified agriculture is pretty scary in and of itself, although I do believe that the benefits outweigh the risks in that case. Certainly, more studies on environmental and ecosystem impact may be prudent.
Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing (Score:4, Interesting)
I have to disagree. I think few people would disagree that biotech is a phenomenally influential tool.
However, I don't think that it's all that efficient to put a hold on biotech work and try to do research out of the hands of the public.
If a zebrafish escapes, it has a gene that is potentially very damaging -- it's easy for predators to see. It's unlikely to do very well. Glowing zebrafish will probably die out in the wild quickly, leaving only regular zebrafish. Nature is pretty robust.
On the other hand, there are a few things that we might want to avoid. One is introducing poisonous variants of nondomesticated edible fish. As long as it isn't too expensive to be poisonous, there's a pretty clear evolutionary advantage to an animal in being poisonous. A poisonous, say, tuna could take over and beat out the nonpoisonous tuna -- and then we wouldn't be able to just catch and eat tuna any more.
As long as we do our best to avoid things that clearly could have very negative side effects (such as the poisonous tuna above), I think we'll be okay. Dragging feet on technology has never worked. We're better off working with biotechnology and understanding it, and learning to deal with it. And enjoying its fruits.
Think of fire. Fire is can have *phenomenal* destructive value. You can literally wipe out thousands of acres of life with a flick of your fingers and the aid of fire. Many people have died from and been hurt by fire (and still are). However, we adopted fire, and learned to work with it, and would never dream of going back.
I agree that we will probably muck up some of the existing state of things. We'll probably wipe out some species and muck up some ecosystems. We've been doing that for a long, long time, though.
Good comment, though I disagree with some of it.
Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a very interesting article in Science News a few issues back about studies of GM plants. There were several solid conclusions:
- The gene *will* escape into the wild. In every single case studied, it escaped despite all precautions in production settings. Lab settings were more successful in keeping the lid on.
- Whether the escaped gene propagates widely beyond the escape point depends on its survival advantage.
- Survival advantages are not easy to guess. Setting up test ecosystems was fairly successful in determing survival advantage. The results were often quite surprising.
- Bt corn has a high survival advantage, and has escaped whereever it has been planted. It will continue to spread rapidly in the wild.
- Problems like those with Bt can be compensated for by adding additional transgenes that convey a survival disadvantage in the wild (without comprising desired function too much). This doesn't always work, because the traits can become separated.
We won't know whether the glowing fish might have your guessed disadvantage without trying it. For instance by putting some normal and glowing fish in a tank with predators in conditions as close to natural as can be arranged without letting the glowing fish escape. These fish should not be put into the hands of consumers until it is demonstrated that they don't last long if released. As others have pointed out, large numbers of these fish can easily have unforeseen consequences. Self-reproducing unforeseen consequences are a Very Dangerous Thing.Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing (Score:3, Informative)
These are PLANTS we are talking about. Obviously it's much more difficult to contain plant pollen than it is to contain a zebrafish.
Furthermore, plants can reproduce much faster than zebrafish or other animals. Bt corn is an extreme case: it has been SPECIFICALLY engineered to survive better than normal corn in the wild.
Most people only care about cute and cuddly... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to make this debate more interesting. I'm going take come cute breed of dog, and genetically modify them the face of a human baby.
Then, I'll take the cute puppy for a walk in busy shopping districts, big media events, political debates, the fancy resturants where the politicians have their fancy meals. Anywhere where many people will see it.
I'll treat it like a dog. Teach it tricks, yell at it when the dog disobeys, when it poops in the wrong place, I'll rub it's nose in it. When I go have dinner, I'll leave the poor thing in the rain.
That'll get the debate going.
Tell me, do you think people would accept this dog as "normal" and just go about their business? What do you think people will do then?
After all, what's the difference between a transgenic fish and a transgenic dog? Sure, a baby face will require more modifications to get the right bone structure, skin texture, etc. , but it's no more then what we'll be seeing in the genetically-modified pet market in a few years.
Really, this is on the level of what we'll be seeing in the genetically-modified pet market in a few years.
Re:Most people only care about cute and cuddly... (Score:5, Insightful)
People build up mental barriers to doing things that are discouraged and rarely done. Nudity, for instance, is certainly not abnormal -- we ran around in the nude for zillions upon zillions of years. However, most folks in a Western culture still get uncomfortable when faced with stripping off their clothes in front of others. Hurting or abusing humans is one of these things that people have mental barriers about. By not allowing people to, say, run around and kill people, we keep the shock and horror of killing people alive. This is (arguably) a good thing, since a person that is horrified by killing people is less likely to kill people.
This is one reason why a lot of people complain bitterly about violent video games (though they tend to couch it in more emotional terms). It hits their mental barrier, makes them uncomfortable, and they worry about it destroying the barriers of others, resulting in people that are less averse to killing.
The same thing would be true of abusing the baby's face that you mention here. So, yes, I think there is a significant social difference between a glowing fish and a dog with a baby's face. Regardless of whether I have a problem with the dog, I can understand why a number of people *would* be upset with it.
"I think..." (Score:3, Interesting)
"For me it's a question of values, it's not a question of science. I think selling genetically modified fish as pets is wrong.
Well, good for you. So you're not prepared to go there.
So why are you using a law to prevent anybody *else* from going there? What about the folks who *do* think it's okay to have a genetically-modified animal as a pet?
I think smoking is wrong. I think doing drugs is wrong. I think driving an SUV is wrong. But is "I think X is wrong" ever in itself a good enough reason to ban X? Should things be banned until there's a good reason to believe they're okay, or allowed until there's a good reason to believe they're not?
Re:"I think..." (Score:2)
Good points. I wonder if the commissioners knows that they already consume geneticly modified foodstuffs. The potato for one. Without the domestication of the potato, it would still be poisonous. Genetic engineering has been around for a long while, look at the mule. The crossing of a horse and donkey. While, the sorts of engineering you could do pre-computer age were severly limited, it was still possible to engineer crops and animals. Think of all the different breeds of dogs and cats. There are o
Ferrets (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not suprised the same attitude is applied to fish.
All I have to say is (Score:2)
Not glow-in-the-dark fish. (Score:2)
Actually "glowing" fish would manufacutre light from food energy. "Fluorescing" fish need a light shining on them to light up (though the light might be ultraviolet and so not itself visible).
Fluorescing fish nevertheless emit more light in the band of interest than strikes them, which under the right circumstances makes them much "brighter" (in that color) than a perfect reflector.
Speaking of Dangerous Tampering (Score:2)
If we're all so morally opposed to such "dangerous tampering with the natural state of the universe" and if its truly wrong to "influence the natural order by means that were never intended".
Maybe we should ban California!
Someone call hell... (Score:3, Funny)
And it was AFTER electing Ahnold as Governor.
Reminds me of nuclear power (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Tropical Fish Profesional ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is stupid (Score:2)
clearly arnold just wants to protect himself from that horrible scenario!
or maybe it's the twins..
.
maybe it's just because i watched the arnold clone movie mad tv clip.
Re:This is stupid (Score:2)
i'm pretty sure he received more than one "hummer" in his life... "ein" does mean "one", right? and hummer does mean b.j., right?
Science need not apply (Score:3, Insightful)
So we see the naked core of the environmentalists. This is not about science, it's about imposing their values on the rest of us. Even though 99% of earth creatures have died in past extinctions, the one's living now are the right ones. Why is it that nature can alter her specie mix, but ma
Re:Science need not apply (Score:2)
Wonderful. Choose one choice quote and use it to bash an entire spectrum of political activists. I mean, who died and made this commisioner mouthpiece for all environmentalists? Plus, he has a point, even if it is worded horribly. By that I mean that there is, above and beyond the scientific concern a base fear of the potential for this shit to hit the fan. Just like Einstein's opposition to the A-Bomb wasn't purely for sc
Environmentalists? (Score:3, Insightful)
I share your objection. But let's be clear about who's who: nowhere in the article is there any indication that commissioner Sam Schuchat is an environmentalist. All we really know is that he's a commissioner and a moralist.
It's entirely possible that he is morally offended for non-environmental reasons. He might be a non-environmentalist Christian who objects to man tinke
Re:Genegineered? (Score:3, Funny)
Beep boop boop bip boop... beep.
"I'm sorry Dave, you're just making shit up."
Re:Darwin, "Jesus Fish", and genetic engineering.. (Score:3, Funny)