I'm sorry, I have reduced visual acuity so I can't see my pitch fork. Sorry.As with your post, put your pitch fork down. Members are discussing and can have opposing opinions, as your welcome to yours
Do you think we have gone too far with clownfish breeding?
- Thread starter JoshH
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Phildago
Well-Known Member
What I'm saying about the dogs is that they aren't bred for a certain look that causes hip dysplasia, or a look that causes cancer, it's just a co-occurrence that resulted from lack of genetic diversity and an inability to identify the issue before they were introduced into the breeding population.
If they bred a clownfish for long fins then we found out that they have half the life span of a wild type clownfish and the fins degraded to the point that they could not swim in a zero flow environment which is exactly what happens to pure bred dog's that have half the expect life span of mix breeds and spend the last few years of life bed ridden it would be another story.
The only difference between human selection and natural selection is that humans have the ability to show compassion. We can seperate the animals rather than just simply killing them like the environment. We can try to avoid or mitigate Co-occuring traits by introducing some genetic variability. Natural selection doesn't do this, it just kills and whatever is left passes on its genes. These genes aren't always the best. Peacocks aren't the most fit birds, they just have an easy life where sex appeal matters more than fitness. These clownfish have the same, just instead of being attractive to each other, they're attractive to us.
Phildago
Well-Known Member
Not only do fish not suffer, since we know this from studies that have been done (they don't have neural components necessary to feel pain/suffer), but why do they need good vision. Of course they do in the ocean, but in a home aquarium? Even if they could suffer, I would still argue that impaired vision would not impact the quality of their life. I used the example of the blind cave fish for this reason. There's no advantage to them being blind, it's just not necessary to see so the traits for good vision were never selected for. Or even consider moles, higher order animals that certainly can suffer. I don't think they're suffering from their blindness because they don't need vision to survive.
JoshH
Tank Status: Wet...ish, growing things....
You can't equate a clownfish with a cave fish. Evolution clearly gave a clownfish sight for a reason and didn't give the cave fish sight for a reason. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one and I'm going to leave it at that.
Please stop. You are now comparing animals that have evolved other heightened senses in environments where vision isn't useful.
A blind clownfish would be more correctly compared to a mole you have cut the nose off of. You have removed a sense it relys on but not replaced it with anything.
Phildago
Well-Known Member
We can agree to disagree on it. I don't want to argue in a way that anybodys feeling are hurt. I'm just interested in the discussion of it, but I wouldn't be able to not equate it. I see my clownfish as very well treated and thriving..
JoshH
Tank Status: Wet...ish, growing things....
No feelings hurt but my point is mentioned in greater detail above. You can't equate the two because they are nowhere near the same thing....
Phildago
Well-Known Member
There's plenty of animals that don't replace one sense with another. You're making a lot of assumptions here about an animals desire to have senses affecting their well being and there's no evidence for that. Nothing needs to be substituted ever in nature. Animals either survive or they don't, nature doesn't cater to these desires that you've attributed to them.
I have a fairly logical view on this topic, as far as I can tell, and it is that if the outcome limits the life expectancy or quality of the life for the organism it is inappropriate and should be perused further. So, while zombie clown may seem neat on the surface, the fact that they are bred knowing the outcome includes partial blindness is inexcusable in my opinion.So I got this email the other day about ORAs new breed of clown fish "Zombie Clowns". Reading through this these new clowns look pretty cool, not something I would want myself but I could see the allure to them.
Upon further reading near the bottom of the article theres a little disclaimer stating that contrary to belief these fish aren't blind, but partially blind.
I don't know for sure if this is a byproduct of the particular type of breeding it takes to get this type of clowns or not. But I would think it's somewhat related.
ORA Unleashes Zombie Clownfish on the Masses - CORAL Magazine
It's taken several years, but Robert King's Zombie Albino Black Clownfish will now see wider distribution as a result of breeding efforts by ORA.www.reef2rainforest.com
So my question is, do you think we have gone too far trying to come up with new patterns of clowns? Have we gone so far as to accept breeding to the point of relatively disabled fish? What are your thoughts on this?
I would love to hear how breeders like ORA could stand behind this practice...
I am sorry. I dont get any sense of anything from this.
Similar threads
