Our complicated relationship with ‘Sea’food

Lots of fascinating conversations this week, and there is much for us to discuss. There were two emerging themes I heard: one was real concern about GMO animals for human consumption. Maya, in her post, sums this up by saying: “More than anything else I despise the idea of engineering animals of any kind just to continue to waste food. Human food waste is atrocious and the consumption has gotten to the point of intense greed. We need to stop consuming what we don’t have. Yes, we need to find a food solution. No, it should not in any way have to do with engineering animals for our liking. “

In contrast, others like Yvette felt that GMO is part of the solution towards confronting world hunger “In my opinion genetically made fish benefits the people since it gives the fishing experience they want while also feeding people and on the other side of the spectrum it gives the natural fish time to repopulate grow and rise in the fish stocks. “

Regardless, it seems we have a strange relationship with seafood rather than ‘land’ food. Linnaea, said as much when challenging her mother’s claims that they shouldn’t eat fish that were “raised in their own filth” but somehow cows, pigs, and chickens were ok.

Do we really NOT farm like we FISH? Let’s think critically

Check out this video by WWF

One thought on “Our complicated relationship with ‘Sea’food”

  1. This is a very controversial topic. Not only controversial but a conversation that must be had either way. When it comes to GMOs and genetically modified food sources, I feel resiliencies in corn and other plants are acceptable in terms of growing the ideal tempered plant that suit our purposes. However, we are addressing gene manipulation in domesticated fish and livestock. The case of Salmon farming and genetic manipulation to produce resilient, fast maturing , resource options vs. what is ethically “right” and allowable in our shared political culture today. In my opinion, gene manipulation in the organism itself is not a viable solution to support our growing needs. The reason why I mention this is the bypass of natural selection we currently use in breeding animals such as dogs can produce the same results we look for over time. The Kodiak bear is undoubtedly so large because of the selection process of the females make over generations producing large, genetically similar but slightly different bears to their existing neighbor the Grizzly. My point is that I feel we should not adopt the practice of genetically modifying our food sources. Although the ability is there, we can also study other ways of sustainability and protein food sources. That being said the weight of the problem we are considering facing with this controversial practice is world hunger. Arguably one of the most important problems our species has faced since record began. What is ethically right may not be practical at our current position on the timeline and what has already come to pass.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.