In comparison, AquAdvantage salmon is simply a copy/paste of Salmo domesticus. The only real difference is that they grow twice as fast (in comparison, that’s about four times as fast as wild stock), and do not run the risk of having PCBs like Salmo domesticus. They attained this lightning fast growth through genetic manipulation, as many other animals and plants are to keep up with the diet of our world (most commonly known as a genetically modified organism, or GMO). In my honest opinion, genetic manipulation is most certainly an avenue of great success in the need for a more quantitative and possibly more healthy way for a food source, so long as it is done with added caution and is kept away from wild stock, so as not to run the risk of damaging the natural ecosystem.
I agree with this, as long as the genetic manipulation is kept an eye on and made sure that it does not get out of hand it could be extremely helpful, but I still do not think that this is the next best idea for the future of our food stock for the world.
I agree that the genetically modified fish should be kept separate from the wild fish so it does not harm the ecosystem, but I don’t believe that genetic manipulation is the most healthy way of a food source.
Your idea that genetic manipulation has potential makes sense, yet I found it interesting that you put constraints on this by saying that the stocks must be created with caution and entirely separate from wild populations. I agree, but I wonder if “added caution” is something that is able to be regulated, because extra caution doesn’t necessarily prevent any negative consequences, and domesticated stocks aren’t necessarily entirely separated from wild stocks. What counts as a reasonable amount of added caution, and is it enough to keep most people placated when it comes to genetic modification?