California just doesn't get it...

[Franz Schubert]

Well, it's sad to say, but apparently we Californians can't handle the bizarro-ness of glowing fish, which I posted about a week ago.

According to this story, California passed a law prohibiting the sale of biotech fish because of ethical concerns. Every other state is allowing it.

[Forty-six & Two]

Somehow, ethical concerns are abit... unethical?

We eat animals for crist sake! How can we violate them anymore?! Making them glow kinda doesnt top that, or cloning them for that sake.

[trythebill]

i love animals.



they're delicious.

[Franz Schubert]

The funny thing is that I consider myself to be an animal lover. I'm all in favor of animal rights and all that stuff, but I don't take it to fanatical levels.

Back on topic, I actually find it odd that it's California that is soley against this, since it's always been my opinion that California is usually one of the most sensible states when it comes to policies on "morality" and "ethics".

[Kashluk]

If the fishes live a happy life as glowing pets, how can that harm animal rights? I really can't understand the mainstream logic sometimes...

[S4ur0n27]

They be glowing or not, the fish will pass their 2 years life in a fuckin aquarium. I don't think it'll hurt them or that they're gonna get laughed at because they are glowing. This is downright stupid, paying politicians so they can waste time and vote on stupid laws like this.

Tax dollars at work!

[OnTheBounce]

Hmmm...Maybe there's something Tofflerian going on here. Too much change too quickly. A case of Future Shock in the CA legislature.

While I can see some bioethical issues cropping up over bioengineering such as what impact some of the gene-salads will have on extant ecosystems, I don't see the hoopla over something engineering for "pure visual pleasure". To take a stand against this would seem to be to take a stand against all sorts of extant animals, such as various lap dogs.

As long as people take a balanced approach toward not only genetically engineered animals, but also those brought to us by the old fashioned method of selective breeding I can see the complaint. Since this doesn't seem to be the case, I really can't see the argument as holding any value beyond a few grabbed headlines.

Certainly not a giant leap for bioethics.

OTB

[Franz Schubert]

"Balanced approach" doesn't belong in the same sentence with conservative thinking (and I'm not talking political parties). It's easy to imagine how and why a person could hear the phrase "genetically modified pet" and go "BAN IT" without really knowing what it's all about.

[OnTheBounce]

"Balanced approach" doesn't belong in the same sentence with conservative thinking (and I'm not talking political parties). It's easy to imagine how and why a person could hear the phrase "genetically modified pet" and go "BAN IT" without really knowing what it's all about.

Yes, but that "conservative thinking" is caused by something, right? What I'm referring to by "Tofflerian" is what's called "Future Shock", which Alvin Toffler wrote a book about back in '70. He talks about how the ever-increasing pace of change would literally make people sick. It's happened before in various societies, when things change too quickly there's a conservative backlash, where people try to put the brake on and/or turn the clock back, keeping things as they are, or even taking an atavistic stance. (China poised on the edge of Africa back in the 15th Century, for instance.)

(The funny thing about that book, reading it today, is that you have to remember how much the pace of change has actually accelerated since then...)

On a related token, I find it disconcerting how people's thinking is nowhere near where technology is. For instance, I still hear people saying things like, "Computers are the future." No, Captain Platitude, computers are the present! I think it's basically the same w/bioengineering, that people think it's the stuff of sci-fi, but they are terribly dated in their thinking. It's not science fiction it's science fact. This seems to scare people.

While I do think that there are serious issues of bioethics that need to be solved before we charge ahead blindly with biotech, whether things are modified for aesthetic reasons seems to be irrelevant. The issues run along the lines of safety for various ecosystems, whether the modified creatures are viable lifeforms, etc. Biotech is offering humanity the chance at reinventing itself, rather than coming up with band-aid fixes all the time. It's offering us the opportunity to remake humanity with better stronger minds and bodies, rather than loading us down with more haphazard ways to try to stave off old age and disease with what -- in a comparative sense -- are more akin to witch's brews of dietary supplements.

Edit: There are also some serious political issues that go along w/biotech, such as who will have access to it. That's a can of worms indeed, but it's something we do need to address.

Of course, there's also the issue -- addressed in Gattaca -- about what exactly constitutes a flaw. Tons of historically important people had what could be termed "deficiencies", but one person's deficiency is another person's spur that drives them on where others turn back...

OTB

[Megatron]

Well that's stupid. There I was, hoping for glow-in-the-dark deer for road safety and some slobbering crazies sentence billions to death. How unethical.

I hope biotech get's accepted. It's about as unethical as medicine. I don't really mind about 'future shock'. So long as there's at least a few hundred people knowing how it works, fair enough. Most people don't know how radios or electricity works, so future shock isn't that bigger deal really? The majority don't (think they) need to know how something works, so long as some dork does.

I can't wait for my glow fish. That'll be a kewl ambient light.