Vote for BP.Net for the 2013 Forum of the Year! Click here for more info.

» Site Navigation

» Home
 > FAQ

» Online Users: 3,380

1 members and 3,379 guests
Most users ever online was 6,337, 01-24-2020 at 04:30 AM.

» Today's Birthdays

None

» Stats

Members: 75,100
Threads: 248,542
Posts: 2,568,763
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, Scott L.

View Poll Results: Do you think making or owning a transgenic/genetically engineered pet is wrong?

Voters
102. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, it is "playing God"

    10 9.80%
  • Yes, for another reason though

    14 13.73%
  • No, and I would consider owning a transgenic pet

    46 45.10%
  • No, but I would never own one

    6 5.88%
  • Not sure/undecided

    26 25.49%
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 62
  1. #11
    Registered User ncbloods's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-02-2008
    Location
    Fairview, NC
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 25 Times in 23 Posts

    Re: Ethics of Transgenic Pets

    I think that as long as they are infertile it's fine. Who knows what impact an escaped genetically engineered pet would have on the natural ecosystem if it were able to breed.
    George


  2. #12
    BPnet Veteran blackcrystal22's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-15-2008
    Location
    Geneva, Illinois, United States
    Posts
    4,059
    Thanks
    394
    Thanked 555 Times in 435 Posts
    Images: 6

    Re: Ethics of Transgenic Pets

    I don't know.
    I personally think that messing with these things could lead to a lot of pain to animals. If they screw something up, and it turns out bad, I really don't like that.
    Also, this really bothers me about what it could do to humans. In the future if you decide to genetically modify your baby to be blond, strong, athletic, green eyed, you end up with a super race which instantly forgoes a new reason of prejudice and hate... on everyone that wasn't genetically modified.
    What's even worse about this, is when people start messing with diseases. If you look at what has evolved already disease wise, all of the antibiotics are slowly becoming useless towards more and more types of bacteria as they become immune and mutate into something new.
    This has a record with many types of diseases, bacterias, viruses..
    If we genetically remove all of the birth diseases, something new will come. Something will mutate so that it can't be genetically removed, and it will be much worse to the point where theres no stopping it, and it can't be treated nearly as well as the previous diseases.

    Wow I went slightly off topic.. but there you go. It's not all guaranteed scientific stuff, but it's a large possibility, one I would personally not like to create or take a chance for my grandchildren.

  3. #13
    BPnet Veteran Mendel's Balls's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-07-2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,073
    Thanks
    94
    Thanked 39 Times in 22 Posts
    Images: 40

    Re: Ethics of Transgenic Pets

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcrystal22 View Post
    What's even worse about this, is when people start messing with diseases. If you look at what has evolved already disease wise, all of the antibiotics are slowly becoming useless towards more and more types of bacteria as they become immune and mutate into something new.
    This has a record with many types of diseases, bacterias, viruses..
    If we genetically remove all of the birth diseases, something new will come. Something will mutate so that it can't be genetically removed, and it will be much worse to the point where theres no stopping it, and it can't be treated nearly as well as the previous diseases.
    You did go off topic a bit...genetically engineering humans and animals/plants are really two separate issues.

    Also it seems like you are confusing genetic diseases and infectious diseases. A infectious disease is caused by a pathogen while a genetic disease is caused by inherited factors. And while there is some overlap between the two (for example there is genetic resistance to HIV strains), there is certainly a distinction.
    ~ 1.0.0 Python regius ~ Wild-type ~
    ~
    1.0.0 Canis familiaris ~ Blue Italian Greyhound ~

    ~ 0.0.9 Danio rerio~ Wild-type and Glofish




  4. #14
    BPnet Veteran Mendel's Balls's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-07-2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,073
    Thanks
    94
    Thanked 39 Times in 22 Posts
    Images: 40

    Re: Ethics of Transgenic Pets

    Quote Originally Posted by ncbloods View Post
    I think that as long as they are infertile it's fine. Who knows what impact an escaped genetically engineered pet would have on the natural ecosystem if it were able to breed.
    Just to point out the issue you raise is not specific to transgenic pets....it really applies to almost any pet. Releasing any pet, especially a non-native exotic pet, can have negative impacts on a "natural" ecosystem. Though most ecologists now question the idea of a "natural ecosystem". And "natural" doesn't necessarily mean "better" in any sense.
    ~ 1.0.0 Python regius ~ Wild-type ~
    ~
    1.0.0 Canis familiaris ~ Blue Italian Greyhound ~

    ~ 0.0.9 Danio rerio~ Wild-type and Glofish




  5. #15
    BPnet Veteran PythonWallace's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-26-2007
    Location
    Woodridge, IL
    Posts
    2,967
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 346 Times in 210 Posts
    Images: 23

    Re: Ethics of Transgenic Pets

    I don't think it's right to mess with that kind of thing. They're already saying that man made bees could be the reason for the dramatic decline in natural bee colonies. If that's true, one of the first signs that maybe we shouldn't be messing around with genetic engineering could be disasterous on a global scale. No bees > no pollination > no new plant growth > no food > ...

    Beside problems like that, I basically don't trust humans enough to think we should have these expanding engineering capabilities. Even if everything goes fine, what happens down the road when there's no limit to what we are capable of doing with genetics, and someone like Hitler comes along? A super race of engineered humans? Man made germs and diseases used to accomplish eugenics or genecide?

    The fish are cool looking, but nature has already made thousands of fish that look cooler than those. Plus I'm sure there are better ways to detect pollution than engineering man made fish and releasing them. I'm sure there will be a few benefits along the way, but I don't think they outweigh all the negative possibilities.
    Last edited by PythonWallace; 08-08-2008 at 03:23 PM.
    What are these mojavas I keep hearing so much about?

    J. W. Exotics

    Reptile Incubators

  6. #16
    BPnet Veteran icygirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-02-2007
    Location
    Mass.
    Posts
    1,439
    Thanks
    186
    Thanked 139 Times in 117 Posts
    Images: 11

    Re: Ethics of Transgenic Pets

    Quote Originally Posted by PythonWallace View Post
    I don't think it's right to mess with that kind of thing. They're already saying that man made bees could be the reson for the dramatic decline in natural bee colonies. If that's true, one of the first signs that maybe we shouldn't be messing around with genetic engineering could be disasterous on a global scale. No bees > no pollination > no new plant growth > no food > ...
    I thought the question was about transgenic pets?

    edit: As far as "playing God" with animals, didn't we do that a long time ago with selective breeding?

  7. #17
    BPnet Veteran PythonWallace's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-26-2007
    Location
    Woodridge, IL
    Posts
    2,967
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 346 Times in 210 Posts
    Images: 23

    Re: Ethics of Transgenic Pets

    Quote Originally Posted by icygirl View Post
    I thought the question was about transgenic pets?
    Yes it is. My answer was implied.
    Answer: Yes it's wrong. Reason: other.
    What are these mojavas I keep hearing so much about?

    J. W. Exotics

    Reptile Incubators

  8. #18
    BPnet Veteran Spaniard's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-02-2006
    Location
    Farmingdale, Long Island
    Posts
    4,405
    Thanks
    355
    Thanked 580 Times in 487 Posts
    Images: 2

    Re: Ethics of Transgenic Pets

    I'm undecided. I think there would be pros and cons just like anything else. I'm leaning towards the "Yes its wrong" just because tampering with nature is never good, especially if you just want a unique pet. However if this genetic engineering could improve the environment in anyway or further mankind in a benenficial way then I would be more inclined to be in favor of it.

    What scares me is if this stuff got into the wrong hands. Terrorism could become very sneaky if you could genetically engineer bugs to devour a countries food source or create biological weapons from mosquitos.

    I think the possibilities would be endless and thats a very scary notion.
    ~*Rich
    1.0 100% Het Albino
    1.3 Normal
    1.0 Spider
    0.1 Mojave
    1.0 Pastel 100% Het Goldfinger
    0.1 Pastel 66% Het Goldfinger
    0.1 Pastel PH Goldfinger


  9. #19
    BPnet Veteran Mendel's Balls's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-07-2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,073
    Thanks
    94
    Thanked 39 Times in 22 Posts
    Images: 40

    Re: Ethics of Transgenic Pets

    Quote Originally Posted by PythonWallace View Post
    I don't think it's right to mess with that kind of thing. They're already saying that man made bees could be the reason for the dramatic decline in natural bee colonies. If that's true, one of the first signs that maybe we shouldn't be messing around with genetic engineering could be disasterous on a global scale. No bees > no pollination > no new plant growth > no food > ...
    Never heard of this...is this just hearsay? A few reliable references would help here.


    Beside problems like that, I basically don't trust humans enough to think we should have these expanding engineering capabilities. Even if everything goes fine, what happens down the road when there's no limit to what we are capable of doing with genetics, and someone like Hitler comes along? A super race of engineered humans? Man made germs and diseases used to accomplish eugenics or genecide?
    There are good and bad uses for any technology. Since most powerful technology has the potential to use both--I dont think this is a realistic or good reason for not utilizing a technology for good. The technology will probably be used for evil, but that will happen in secret rogue and government labs anyway. Why not use the technology for good as well?

    The fish are cool looking, but nature has already made thousands of fish that look cooler than those. Plus I'm sure there are better ways to detect pollution than engineering man made fish and releasing them. I'm sure there will be a few benefits along the way, but I don't think they outweigh all the negative possibilities.
    You assume that the technology can only be used to make an organisms look different or "cool". What if the technology could be used to decrease the chance of cancer by 30% in dogs, for example? Or make hypoallergenic animals as many groups are trying to accomplish?

    And dont underestimate the importance of appearance in our culture. Sometimes it can have far reaching consequences. The development of bioluminescent Christmas tree that expresses a luciferase would probably cut down on fires around Christmas time.
    Last edited by Mendel's Balls; 08-08-2008 at 03:53 PM.
    ~ 1.0.0 Python regius ~ Wild-type ~
    ~
    1.0.0 Canis familiaris ~ Blue Italian Greyhound ~

    ~ 0.0.9 Danio rerio~ Wild-type and Glofish




  10. #20
    BPnet Veteran Mendel's Balls's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-07-2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,073
    Thanks
    94
    Thanked 39 Times in 22 Posts
    Images: 40

    Re: Ethics of Transgenic Pets

    Quote Originally Posted by Spaniard View Post
    I'm undecided. I think there would be pros and cons just like anything else. I'm leaning towards the "Yes its wrong" just because tampering with nature is never good, especially if you just want a unique pet.
    If humans didn't tamper with "mother nature", then we would have no pets or technology. If we leave things up to "mother nature", why do you assume we would be better off? Chance-filled Mother Nature doesn't look out for us or any other species for that matter.
    ~ 1.0.0 Python regius ~ Wild-type ~
    ~
    1.0.0 Canis familiaris ~ Blue Italian Greyhound ~

    ~ 0.0.9 Danio rerio~ Wild-type and Glofish




Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1