Ethics of genetically engineered octopuses....

Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Messages
181
Jean;91445 said:
ouch! Your view is a tad too simplistic. Predators can wipe out species and then switch prey so they survive. It is especially difficult in a situation where the natives have been isolated a very long time. Take NZ birds for example, the majority are flightless, they CANNOT develop predator escape responses because they HAVE NO WINGS (eg Kiwi). They nest on the ground, predators such as weasels, stoats, ferrets, rats, cats and even hedgehogs can get into their ground nests killing the chicks and eggs, all of them (except hedgehogs) can climb too so there is no escape for the likes of the Kakapo which can climb a little. In NZ we're not talking about the destruction of single species, but entire ECOSYSTEMS and I'm sure there are other examples from around the world (Madagascar, Mauritius and the Galapagos spring to mind).

The environment is not that resilient, there was a time (not so very many years ago) in your country when buffalo herds covered the prairies as far as the eye could see, and passenger pidgeon flocks took hours to pass overhead. Then Europeans arrived ...........................!

As for your extinction "theory" it's not so much that man drives species to extinction, it's HOW MANY we drive to extinction in a very short period of time. You don't see any other animal wreaking the kind of carnage we do. We are about the only species on the planet that eats from EVERY LEVEL of the food chain and one of the few that habitually takes more than we need.

J

so essentially you see the white man as a cancer on society. do you realize that before the dinosaurs there was an asteroid that wiped out most of the life on earth? and yet look where we are now. life can never be exstiquished. even entire ecosystems can regenerate like an octo's arm. it takes a long time but the effects of even the worst catastrophy AREN'T PERMANANT. many of the speicies that man has supposedly made endangered actually were doomed by the ice age. the cheetah for example, has a 50% sperm count, not because of polution but because of the cold period that was the ice age. they were forced to inbreed, and if it weren't for man they would all be dead now.

we don't take more than we need, and one example i can think of right now is oil. because of the greens we are actually taking less than we need. we are a large speicies and we need alot to function. certainly more than the greens would allot us.

I am also convinced that global warming is a scam. and if you don't beleive me i reccomend the Politicaly Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.
 

Jean

Colossal Squid
Registered
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
4,218
Bob the kracken;91448 said:
so essentially you see the white man as a cancer on society.

No but there is no doubt we are doing immense damage.


Bob the kracken;91448 said:
do you realize that before the dinosaurs there was an asteroid that wiped out most of the life on earth?

Not proven, although 1 out of 10 mass extinctions MAY have been caused by an asteroid hit (there have been 50 impacts of larges asteroids [although producing craters less than 100km wide] which did not cause mass extinctions.


Bob the kracken;91448 said:
and yet look where we are now. life can never be exstiquished. even entire ecosystems can regenerate like an octo's arm. it takes a long time but the effects of even the worst catastrophy AREN'T PERMANANT. many of the speicies that man has supposedly made endangered actually were doomed by the ice age. the cheetah for example, has a 50% sperm count, not because of polution but because of the cold period that was the ice age. they were forced to inbreed, and if it weren't for man they would all be dead now.

And of course hunting, inbreeding (so we can use them as hunting animals), habitat degredation played no part in that what so ever!

Bob the kracken;91448 said:
we don't take more than we need, and one example i can think of right now is oil. because of the greens we are actually taking less than we need. we are a large speicies and we need alot to function. certainly more than the greens would allot us.

Of course we do! Oil reserves are in decline, the most optimistic estimate of our fisheries resources is that they will be wiped out by 2040 at our current rate of fishing, deep sea environments are being destoyed every day, before we even know what's there. We don't even know what we're destroying. Orangutan habitat is being destroyed by illegal logging (in reserves) at the rate of 137ha a day. The list goes on

Bob the kracken;91448 said:
I am also convinced that global warming is a scam. and if you don't beleive me i reccomend the Politicaly Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.

The juries still out on that one........there is evidence to suggest that such climactic perturbations have been occuring for millenia, but we are accelerating them.

No life can't be extinguished, but personally I'd like to see a little more variation in species than just us, the plants and animals that are useful to us and those we magnanimously allow to exist.

At this point I'm not going to reply any more to this thread. It's getting a bit heated (& before you say anything, no I'm not scared by alternative opinions!) but I don't want this to end up nasty. I would respectfully suggest however, that you do some reading on human impacts, look up orange roughy, pollution, dodo, passenger pigeon, stephens island wren, tasmanian tiger etc



J
 

cthulhu77

TONMO Supporter
Registered
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Messages
6,638
Silliness. If you honestly can look in the mirror, and insist that we are having a positive impact on this planet, there are some mental issues about. :roll:

I think this thread has gone off tangent enough, when I first read it, I took it as a joke (it couldn't be anything else), but it is degrading rapidly into something bizarre.
 

Tintenfisch

Architeuthis
Staff member
Moderator (Staff)
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
2,104
Hi Bob,

Many of the people here have studied the environment in some way (whether formally or simply informing themselves as responsible citizens of this planet), and all of the people here are ceph enthusiasts, like yourself. As such, statements like 'obviously you don't understand the resilience of the environment' and 'who cares if a few birds go extinct' will not be taken well - after all, who cares if a few cephs go extinct? We do. What if we lose the Giant Squid? Or Mimic, or Wunderpus? Those would be tragedies to us. And although terrestrial extinctions have had many diverse causes including ice ages and more recently many man-made problems, the oceans have managed to come through until recently with a lot more relatively unchanged species (although there have also been considerable marine extinctions). One of the reasons we have to care about our effects on the planet is that those effects are now everywhere, from highly visible on land to remote abyssal marine ecosystems we have never seen and may never see. And I hope we can all agree that it's not right to be destroying ecosystems so far removed from ourselves.
But even if we can't agree, this site aims to provide information and help for all types of ceph enthusiast, as well as healthy and respectful discussions. As someone who is currently looking for a lot of information on how to keep cephs, I suggest you voice your opinions in a less confrontational way - after all, if you alienate the staff who are otherwise willing to help you, your own future cephs may suffer.

Cheers
Kat
 

Cairnos

O. vulgaris
Registered
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
98
HI Bob, a point that I think should be mentioned here is that quite a few of us are from New Zealand :kiwiflag: where the effects are a trifle more dramatic than in many other places.

I won't go on at length but you'll note that noone said anything about white man being a cancer on society. I just wish my ancestors hadn't brought ferrets, etc here and released them.
 

Jean

Colossal Squid
Registered
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
4,218
Bob the kracken;91530 said:
I see your point, but if the people on this site choose to hold grudges I can always go somewhere else

Breaking my own word here:biggrin2:

Bob, I'm not inclined to hold grudges, all I meant was that we both obviously feel very strongly about our point of view and I didn't want the thread to detriorate into a slanging match as it was threatening to do. By all means pm me with some reading material on your point of view, BUT be prepared to read up on mine..........this is how we ALL learn stuff.

BTW I'd love it if the Tasmanian Tiger still existed! One of my alltime favourite non ceph critters are the Tasmanian Devils.......they have ATTITUDE!!!!!!!

J
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Messages
181
Cairnos;91534 said:
HI Bob, a point that I think should be mentioned here is that quite a few of us are from New Zealand :kiwiflag: where the effects are a trifle more dramatic than in many other places.

I won't go on at length but you'll note that noone said anything about white man being a cancer on society. I just wish my ancestors hadn't brought ferrets, etc here and released them.

jean said something about europeans being the reason that their are no more buffalo. which is true. but right now i'm tired, i just got home from school, and I just want to post some nonsensical thread and not debate on something that acutally has nothing to do with the thread were on right now. if I may make a suggestion, I would say that we go back to debating about genetic engenering, to forstall any bitterness that we might be headed for

to you jene I say that we forget our differences in the environmental standpoint and focus on our mutual interest in all things cephy.

from now on forget man's imapact on the environment and get back to what we were talking about in the first place
 

Cairnos

O. vulgaris
Registered
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
98
Bob the kracken;91539 said:
if I may make a suggestion, I would say that we go back to debating about genetic engenering, to forstall any bitterness that we might be headed for

Good plan :smile:

To kick off, I'm intrigued about whether this is really an ethical issue. I mean I can see that it may or not be a wise idea but is there really a question of is it an ethical idea?
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Messages
181
like i said, I don't know much about genetic science, but it seems like it would be fine for the octopus if you took baby steps.

the problem is what people could do with this technolegy. could this lead to our enemys getting hold of super octo soldiers with 8 arms for holding 8 guns and the ability to squeeze through an inch wide hole? more realistically however, a trained octopus with increased inteligence and a longer lifespan could do amazing things for the salvage and research industry.
 

Jean

Colossal Squid
Registered
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
4,218
Bob the kracken;91539 said:
jean said something about europeans being the reason that their are no more buffalo. which is true. but right now i'm tired, i just got home from school, and I just want to post some nonsensical thread and not debate on something that acutally has nothing to do with the thread were on right now. if I may make a suggestion, I would say that we go back to debating about genetic engenering, to forstall any bitterness that we might be headed for

to you jene I say that we forget our differences in the environmental standpoint and focus on our mutual interest in all things cephy.

from now on forget man's imapact on the environment and get back to what we were talking about in the first place

OK by me!
 

Jean

Colossal Squid
Registered
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
4,218
Bob the kracken;91542 said:
like i said, I don't know much about genetic science, but it seems like it would be fine for the octopus if you took baby steps.

the problem is what people could do with this technolegy. could this lead to our enemys getting hold of super octo soldiers with 8 arms for holding 8 guns and the ability to squeeze through an inch wide hole? more realistically however, a trained octopus with increased inteligence and a longer lifespan could do amazing things for the salvage and research industry.

I think to change them that much (at least I sincerely hope so!) would be beyond us! Freaky thought tho! The main issue is that with their copper based blood their stamina would be low. Armed (pun sorry) octopus squeezing through holes would make great SF, I can see it now "CEPH WARS: THE REVENGE OF CHTHULHU!" :biggrin2:

In salvage and research tho'.........tis interesting, I know in some parts of the world researchers who want to study something elusive have trained "judas" animals eg trained goats to entice ibex close, that sort of thing. Might work.

But is all comes back if we can should we? the old ethics question! I have to fill in a 20 odd page ethics approval form which goes to a committee if I even want to hold squid in captivity, never mind do anything with them!

J
 

Cairnos

O. vulgaris
Registered
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
98
I think the 'should' question comes down to 'once we have the abililty, is there a sufficient reason to do it that counteracts the reasons not to do it'. (OK, yes I know I'm stating the blindingly obvious :wink: )

Now I think that the primary reason not to do it would be potential cruelty to the animal, in this case this is most likely to occur when a change we made had unfortunate side effects on the ceph in question. The risks of this can be reduced if we take baby steps as bob suggests rather than trying to do the whole mad scientist thing.

Which leaves as required decisive element, why are we doing this?

For the salvage and research options I think that there could well be an argument that it is worth it, particulalry in salvage where it could alleviate a risk otherwise taken by a human.

Even better, think where one of these modified octos could take an air hose, medical supplies or messages in case of an underwater accident. I'd say that's a definite argument to go for it.

Returning to the origin of the thread I think that modifying one to make it more interesting for collectors would fall short of a sufficient reason (cool though it would be) unless being collected for this purpose was the primary reason the population was endangered AND we were sure that collectors wouldn't then want to have a glowing one and a natural one to complete thier collection.
 

cthulhu77

TONMO Supporter
Registered
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Messages
6,638
:roll:

Nonsensical. We barely know enough to understand the most basic of cephalopod science, behaviour, etc...to leap off to another tangent at this time is just plain not possible, ethical or not.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Messages
181
if we gave the octopus an inate and instinctual desire to be with humans and to serve them, then there would be no reason for the octo to escape into the wild. then again there is the theological point of view that it is god's role to play with nature and not man's, but then again(and i'm speaking from a christian point of view. If your a different religion speak up) god told adam and eve to rule over the animals. weather this means that we should go mucking around with the genetic code is up to you
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Messages
181
cthulhu77;91568 said:
:roll:

Nonsensical. We barely know enough to understand the most basic of cephalopod science, behaviour, etc...to leap off to another tangent at this time is just plain not possible, ethical or not.

mabe it's nonsinsical, but all we need is more ceph information. in japan they inserted jellyfish genes into a fish to make it glow in the dark. these assumptions are for the future. plus i was kind of kidding about the soldiers.
 
Top