Mad scientist, Genetic Engineering, Playing God, Blah, Blah, Blah.

[wolfy-hound]

Saying that breeding different morphs together is "genetic engineering" is akin to me telling anyone who has children that they "genetically engineered" them.

Of course, everyone has a line they draw. "I'd never assist feed a hatchling, if it dies, it was meant to die." "I'll never cut eggs, if they don't pip they weren't meant to live." "I'll never own a mixed breed dog, they're mutts." "I'll never own a purebred dog, they're all inbred"

It's always easy to be kennel blind and think that YOUR way is the right way. It is right FOR YOU. It does not mean that everyone else is wrong.

In opinions, there is no right or wrong. If you don't like morphs, then don't buy them. What is wrong is when someone starts talking nastily about someone else's opinion or belief. Saying that someone breeding a morph combo is wrong and unnatural, while keeping your snakes and breeding them is rather ridiculous. Your snakes would not be together if you didn't pick them out. "Those morphs wouldn't combine in the wild" is an invalid argument unles you're allowing your snakes to wander an area and pick their own mates, while also being exposed to parasites and predetors etc. Any pet is not "in the wild" and therefor is "unnatural". So it's merely where YOU draw the line at "unnatural".

[Simplex]

I could argue that designer morphs are unnatural and most morphs are defects that wouldn't survive in the wild. The fact that you keep your animals in a cage is playing god, controlling the life of another.

OOOOOH SNAP

OH NO HE DIDNT

Haha but seriously..valid point

[MidSouthMorphs]

I could argue that designer morphs are unnatural and most morphs are defects that wouldn't survive in the wild. The fact that you keep your animals in a cage is playing god, controlling the life of another

It's actually nothing like playing God. If that is the case, is adotping a child playing God? You are basically taking a child out of foster care and giving them a chance. Is protecting an endangered species playing God, no it isn't. Playing God would be more like recreating an extinct animal. Alot of you misconstrue what Mike is talking about, what we do is selective breeding. So much different from playing God or Geneteic engineering, by the way poeple selective breed. We choose to be with someone and "mate" to ones that have attractive traits.

[purplemuffin]

It's actually nothing like playing God. If that is the case, is adotping a child playing God? You are basically taking a child out of foster care and giving them a chance. Is protecting an endangered species playing God, no it isn't. Playing God would be more like recreating an extinct animal. Alot of you misconstrue what Mike is talking about, what we do is selective breeding. So much different from playing God or Geneteic engineering, by the way poeple selective breed. We choose to be with someone and "mate" to ones that have attractive traits.

Of course a child would not be in a cage(hopefully )

I agree with both points. I think it's important to conserve and protect the species we love. I have my pets because I feel I can give them the best care. Part of that IS playing god a little. If I chose, my ball python would die. I could let him starve, or die of dehydration. He could drown. All of this is under my control. He could also live the best life he could possibly live, given proper heat gradients we fully control, given food to let him thrive, and given veterinary care to ensure he gets to live a long healthy life. We get to make every decision for our animals. Same goes for houseplants. I could go pluck my succulents right now, force them to reproduce by using cuttings/leaves, or over water them.

A child gets to grow up, make decisions, move out, run away, make friends, meet others, etc. It's a very different situation. Yes you could force your child to starve to death, keep him in a cage, etc, but good lord, SANE people don't do that.

I think that's why I consider most animals to be more 'pets' and less 'companion animals'. A pet is an animal that an owner is fully responsible for. It could die in our care, or thrive in our care, and that is fully in our hands. That's why it is our responsibility to provide the best care possible for an animal. In the wild, this creature might survive, it might not. In a cage, if you give it bad care, it WILL die. We need to be responsible for our actions like that. That's why ignorance is unacceptable in reptile care, and we need to constantly be learning. We can't force them to be in a cage if we are going to end up depriving them of something needed for their survival. If we are going to give them a better life than they would have...then by all means, take care of your pet and have fun!

Playing god just means the control. yes there are more extreme ways to do it(genetically forcing genes together, putting hybrids together in a test tube situation that would normally fail even for hybrid breeders), but this is a lesser form of that complete control!


Not against breeding or caring for captives, but I do think that we need to be aware of the control we have over a living thing.

[snake lab]

Lmao this thread is pretty entertaining. Whatever you want to call it, its all splitting hairs. The number one dominant gene is the normal gene. Weve seen naturally produced morphs such as albinos which albinos are consistant in alot of species in the wild of various animals. But 90% of morphs we have today were created by breeders selectively putting genes together to produce new animals. So that would not technically be considered genetic engineering by dictionary definition. But it would be closer to playing god if you first believe in god and not evolution.( I AM NOT TOUCHING THAT DEBATE. ) we are creating characteristics in an animal that nature did not create and in most cases would never be able to create. So this would be closer to playing mad scientist as well. Unless you want to jump all over the , we arent using science argument, and mike if you started this thread with me in mind im flattered, if ya didnt then i guess im just arrogant lol either way a very entertaining thread.

[Serpent_Nirvana]

If you want to try and make us as breeders into something other than breeders, how about artists? To be sure, those who just toss any old morph in with six normal females to pump out babies don't really get to fit in that category, and I think those who breed more for the fascination and joy of coaxing a species to reproduce in captivity often lean more towards the biologist/scientist (not "mad," just scientist) aspect of things.

However, for those of us who are doing this with a specific goal, a vision for an animal that we want to see that doesn't quite exist yet -- if we want to be something loftier than just breeders, how about artists? ... I think that's what draws me towards breeding animals as opposed to just owning or collecting them -- I can love and appreciate the animals I have, but I also get to think of them as a means for creating something new and exciting. If you wanted to, you could take that creative aspect and use it to call yourself an artist.

... This thread is about semantics, ultimately; what name, other than "breeder," do we get to rightfully call ourselves ... Some other points have been raised, though, that I think justify a new thread ...

[CCfive]

I would take the "mad scientist" term with a grain of salt. Kevin Mccurley refers to himself as this. I personally see that one as more of a playful title. I do agree with the playing God and other comments as being more critical.

[Wh00h0069]

Genetic engineering, sounds fun. Where do I sign up?