Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Genetically modified salmon

View Poll Results: for or against frakenfish
Poll Options:
ye 10 votes (41.67%)
ne 14 votes (58.33%)
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll
Genetically modified salmon (Page 2)
Thread Tools
King Bob On The Cob
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2010, 06:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Actually, it isn't, and it is a point to consider.
No. Anytime you're dealing with complex systems, you're never going to know every variable. If humans waited to implement something until every variable was known we would have no modern medicine, and that's just for starters. There is always another layer of complexity with another unknown, and natural models are just about the worst when it comes to figuring out every variable. We just act with the best information at hand, and that's all we can ask of anyone.
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2010, 06:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
But bringing it to harvest is still more

"
corn is vastly cheaper than grass in the use of animal feed due to the difference in yeild per area between the two. Between that and the amount of subsidies farmers get to grow it corn is the primary food source of almost all the animals we eat.
It would be economically impossible for US farmers to grow it in the quantity they do now if it wasn't artifically held up by those subsidies. Farmers would never be a le to turn a profit.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2010, 08:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Okay, now you're just picking nits and arguing with my agreement to your statement that I was in err.
You're the one spreading FUD to sabotage my ability to eat delicious futuristic fatted salmon. It's not your wording I take issue with, it's your message.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2010, 10:43 PM
 
FUD? What is that? I don't care if you want to eat it, but keep it away from my table; I don't want some mutant fish conjured up by scientists. But if you want to eat something that doesn't naturally occur without human intervention, be my guest.
     
brassplayersrock²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2010, 11:23 PM
 
Definitions of FUD on the Web:

FUD (pronounced like the English word food) is a brand name for hot dogs, sausages,bacon and cold cuts produced by the Mexican company Sigma Alimentos, which itself is part of the ALFA industrial conglomerate.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD_(food)
FUD works for this thread.

Either that, or this thread is now about Female Urinary Devices
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2010, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
FUD? What is that? I don't care if you want to eat it, but keep it away from my table;
I'll stay off of your table, and you stay off of my table, just don't put on airs that your preference is more sound or factual than mine, ok? It's nothing more than a preference.

I don't want some mutant fish conjured up by scientists. But if you want to eat something that doesn't naturally occur without human intervention, be my guest.
Do you think that any of the crops or livestock we eat are naturally occurring without human intervention? Selective breeding is a far more wide-reaching "human intervention" than transgenics. There wouldn't be any Holstein cows if not for humans. Nor wheat, maize or baker's yeast. They are all intentional creations of human civilization.

What's more, "natural" species can be just as damaging as "artificial" ones. Invasive species like the aforementioned Asian Carp and the Zebra Muscle are more potently destructive, because they are optimized to live, not to be food, so they're annihilating the native species. The point is, there is nothing magically "right" about "natural" animals. That is simply a marketing gimmick you've fallen for.

Besides which of course the demarcation between "natural" and "human" is completely arbitrary. We're just another invasive species among many.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2010, 10:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
FUD? What is that? I don't care if you want to eat it, but keep it away from my table; I don't want some mutant fish conjured up by scientists. But if you want to eat something that doesn't naturally occur without human intervention, be my guest.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2010, 10:23 AM
 
I walk to work, because I don't want some mutant metal contraptions conjured up by scientists. Cars don't naturally occur without human intervention.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2010, 10:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'll stay off of your table, and you stay off of my table, just don't put on airs that your preference is more sound or factual than mine, ok? It's nothing more than a preference.


Do you think that any of the crops or livestock we eat are naturally occurring without human intervention? Selective breeding is a far more wide-reaching "human intervention" than transgenics. There wouldn't be any Holstein cows if not for humans. Nor wheat, maize or baker's yeast. They are all intentional creations of human civilization.

What's more, "natural" species can be just as damaging as "artificial" ones. Invasive species like the aforementioned Asian Carp and the Zebra Muscle are more potently destructive, because they are optimized to live, not to be food, so they're annihilating the native species. The point is, there is nothing magically "right" about "natural" animals. That is simply a marketing gimmick you've fallen for.

Besides which of course the demarcation between "natural" and "human" is completely arbitrary. We're just another invasive species among many.
I never said that my preference was better than yours; I was just giving you reasoning behind my preference. We're not just another invasive species, I don't see humans getting clubbed to death by seals
     
macaddict0001
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2010, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
I never said that my preference was better than yours; I was just giving you reasoning behind my preference. We're not just another invasive species, I don't see humans getting clubbed to death by seals
What makes us different?
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 12:33 AM
 
I don't see other species raising their own animals to eat, creating institutions of learning, inventing things, etc, etc...
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 09:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
I don't see other species raising their own animals to eat, creating institutions of learning, inventing things, etc, etc...
What does any of that have to do with whether or not we're invasive?
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 09:50 AM
 
Oh, I was speaking generally. I know humans are invasive and have been since day one; obviously the world isn't like it was now before there were humans.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 10:06 AM
 
When man meets a force he can't destroy, he destroys himself. What a plague you are.
Brownie points for knowing where that's from without Google assistance.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 10:06 AM
 
You know, it's not like I can't understand the skepticism, but the reasoning presented is so preposterous.

It's like being afraid of touching fire because it could give you cooties.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 10:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I walk to work, because I don't want some mutant metal contraptions conjured up by scientists. Cars don't naturally occur without human intervention.
Scientists don't build cars, accountants do.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Scientists don't build cars, accountants do.
Nice try, kid. Accountants didn't create cars.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 10:33 AM
 
True. But they do now. However, something that you use as a tool and something that you put into your body aren't exactly equally comparable.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
True. But they do now.
Your inability to grasp simple points astonishes me.
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
However, something that you use as a tool and something that you put into your body aren't exactly equally comparable.
Both were created by manipulating nature. And one of these we know can be quite unsafe.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 02:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
I was just giving you reasoning behind my preference.
"Reasoning" this unreasonable is called "rationalization."
I never said that my preference was better than yours;
That's what rationalizations are, they try to justify why your preference is better than others. It's no different than if I say people shouldn't eat fungus for the "reasoning" that it's a different biological Kingdom than our "proper" foods. The real reason is just that I'm squeamish, simple as that. Just admit you have an irrational distaste for it and leave it at that.

We're not just another invasive species, I don't see humans getting clubbed to death by seals
No, we just get clubbed to death by HIV and malaria.

I don't see other species raising their own animals to eat, creating institutions of learning, inventing things, etc, etc...
Leafcutter ants raise their own fungal livestock to eat. Dolphins, crows, chimps, etc have all been known to use tools and teach each other skills. Just FYI.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 03:10 PM
 
Whatever. I guess it's just unreasonable to have preferences. In my mind, the fact that after getting rid of off-the-shelf ground beef in late 2008 in my diet and never having been sick since is big enough reason for me to stay away.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 03:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post

Both were created by manipulating nature. And one of these we know can be quite unsafe.
And many suspect both to be quite unsafe.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 03:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
And many suspect both to be quite unsafe.
No shit, sherlock.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You know, it's not like I can't understand the skepticism, but the reasoning presented is so preposterous.

It's like being afraid of touching fire because it's could give you cooties. God's wrath.
So do you have any coherent arguments against the fish that doesn't contain scare words like "mutant" and "conjured" ? Or you willing to admit you'd like to avoid it on a gut feeling?
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 03:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So do you have any coherent arguments against the fish that doesn't contain scare words like "mutant" and "conjured" ? Or you willing to admit you'd like to avoid it on a gut feeling?
I think I've stated already, but I'll make a list.

One major personal reason: Hormone-free always seems to taste more "fresh" and is juicier, like if I actually went out and caught it.

Non-personal reasons:
1) We don't really know the potential health risks, if any, however there is evidence to suggest that these fish do increase risks for at least breast cancer.
2) It worries me a bit that whatever hormones go into these fish don't have to be labeled.
3) These fish are fed diets of food that they wouldn't normally have access to such as corn and even other fish.
4) We do know that fisheries, especially those using hormones are a huge contributor to pollution in rivers, including said hormones.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 03:38 PM
 
So if GM fish were raised "naturally" you'd be ok with eating them?
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 03:46 PM
 
You mean without being given hormones and additives and stuff? I'd feel safer, but still cautious. The environmental impact would probably be significantly lessened.
     
macaddict0001
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 09:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
I don't see other species raising their own animals to eat, creating institutions of learning, inventing things, etc, etc...
So the only difference is in the complexity?


Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
3) These fish are fed diets of food that they wouldn't normally have access to such as corn and even other fish.
Fish definitely eat each other.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2010, 09:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by macaddict0001 View Post
Fish definitely eat each other.
Sure, but do they eat dead fish of the same type (honest question)?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:16 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,