September 10, 2019 at 9:08 pm #195736Kortney BirchParticipant
In this section of Four Fish, Greenberg discusses possible pros and cons of the AquaAdvantage salmon: they grow at an exponentially faster rate but are genetically engineered. This breed of fish would be grown in “physically contained production systems’ to prevent escapes (Greenberg 67). From AquaBounty’s point of view, this fish would be revolutionary because the fish being produced would be strictly females that are sterile. This tactic would immediately one-up the Salmo domesticus fish species earlier discussed in the book because any escaped salmon couldn’t have the chance to reproduce and alter the gene pool. But subsequently, this new species crosses another line in what’s morally correct when altering an organism. So sure, from a marketer’s point of view, the AquaAdvantage salmon is an awesome money maker, but at least the Salmo domesticus fish weren’t sterilized and sexually pre-determined. When considering the statement “genetic engineering is the obvious next technological step in the history of human’s cultivating our food,” it is inferred that humans are already on a clear path to genetically modifying more animals for food due to demand. Nearly all “wild’ salmon actually began their lives in hatcheries, so humans are already too involved to back out. This never-ending chain of events pretty much forces humans to continue re-spawning and farming fish as long as the consumers demand fish. The path of technology in this generation continues to grow and expand, as a result, consumers could potentially begin to accept the idea of genetically engineered food. Greenberg doesn’t necessarily entail whether this is a good or bad step, but he doesn’t seem to approve of humanity’s tendency to over-exploit something and then half-heartedly fix the mistake with something completely different.September 11, 2019 at 9:01 pm #195786ramaldonadoParticipant
I think you make an interesting point about how humans are already too involved to back out. It basically puts humans at the ultimatum of if they want to continue eating salmon, they are going to have to continue on the path that they are on. I wonder if humans have become too involved that if they took their attention away from salmon altogether, they would reach extinction. I agree that Greenberg doesn’t explicitly say whether he believes it’s a good or bad thing, but his writing definitely leads me to believe that he feels strongly that these are negative things.September 11, 2019 at 11:40 pm #195814dcousarParticipant
You hit directly on one of my inner points and feelings: the fact that the line of morale is being crossed in the altering of genetics. I personally feel as if we in turn of events find ourselves eating this Aqua Advantage salmon will it began to effect us. Because Greenberg tells us that at each level of the food chain the levels of PCB are higher and linked to cancer. Is the gene altering that we’re in danger of by eating the Aqua Advantage cancer?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.