Ethics Of Scientific Aquarists

[Bignose]

Well this again is a fair point, but what about the mass extinctions(75% of all species) that are believed to be caused by a virus?

This statement requires a citation. Because there are very few viruses that can jump species easily, and usually are restricted to affecting only closely related species. One virus is not adaptable enough to take out 75% of all species. Even if you are saying that 75% of all extinctions in time have been caused by (different each time) viruses, I'd like to see a citation for that belief.

In 1993, Cesare Emiliani tried to make a case for viral extinctions, two papers I could find ("Extinction and Viruses" Biosystems vol 31 and "Viral Extinctions in Deep-Sea Species" Nature vol 366) Neither has made a very large impression upon the scientific community as the above papers have 5 and 6 citations, respectively (and that 6 includes 1 paper refuting Emiliani's idea). 11 Citations in 13 years is incredibly poor; all indications are that most active researchers do not agree.

The refutation by Buckwold ("Viral-induced Extrinctions Unlikely" Nature vol 368, 1994) is pretty simple: Viruses are obligate parasites, and as such their survival depends upon the host. If a virus were to be so overwhelming to the host as to kill the host, the virus dies too. A virus would have to be so virulent, and so able to mutate as to jump host species repeatedly if it caused extinctions. In Buckwold's words "A virulent virus can only eliminate a host population if the virus can also live in another host which it does not kill. In the absence of an alternative host population for these viruses, it is improbable that lethal mutant viruses arose repeatedly during evolution and completely eliminated their hosts."

If you have a different source for your virus extinction idea, I'd really appreciate it if you posted it.

and p.s. to both Xebadir and Lynden, when you post such long and detailed posts, it would really, really nice if you guys could cite some sources for these ideas. Even if it is just webpages, at least then everyone could look at the originals from where you formed your opinions and make an opinion of their own as well as critique the sources.

 

[Jules H-T]

Man already lives for three or four times the length he did before industrialization.

This could be slightly misleading to some. The average length of a human life may well be 4 times longer, but this is due to very high infant mortality bringing the average down. The maximum age reached by adults has hardly changed, if at all.

Planet Earth has reached a point of mass extinction unmatched by any other period of time.

I suspect that over the history of the planet there have been far greater extinctions than we are witnessing now- the dinosaurs for one.

--------------------------------

On the overall topic, we obviously all support fishkeeping or we wouldn't be here keeping fish.

There are degrees though. Professional research for the advancement of science is one thing, personal experimentation with live stock is another- for me. I know some on here have got involved in the latter, and I would give them a proper slap around the ear hole if they weren't over the other end of the internet.

Experimenting on your fish because you don't know how something works, or because you disagree with accepted wisdom, is not acceptable to me, or society at large, unless you are a trained, qualified, research scientist. It's like pulling the legs off spiders FFS. I hope lessons have been learned.

Negligence in fishkeeping is not acceptable to me either whilst we're at it (overstocking, lack of maintenance, potentially large fish in small tanks).

Research on animals generally is a difficult debate. Personally, I'm all for it if there are benefits for humans and it is conducted as ethically as this sort of thing can be. However, my girlfriend is very very against it. She insists that the only people who could do the job are people who don't care about the animals, and that therein lies the paradox- the ethics just aren't there, and never will be. She has leaflets illustrating her point very well. I won't call her an activist, but she's quarter of a degree away from being one.

You need to decide for yourself where your morals lie. There is no right or wrong answer, only your ability to reconcile what you have done with yourself and with society.

I will make the point that my girlfriend supports my fishkeeping (although I will concede she was a bit cross when I left my Krib fry in the main tank to be eaten). If it's good enough for her, I can only deduce that the vast majority of the population would agree. I have reconciled my fishkeeping with myself, and with society. I am happy with what I am doing.

By the way, you may wonder how a meat eating, animal testing supporting, scientifically minded, leather wearing gadget freak, can have a successful relationship with an alternative therapy believing, animal rights campaigning, vegetarian hippy.

Tolerance is the key, the understanding that not everyone has the same views as you, and the attitude that this doesn't necessarily make them any less right than you are.

Ps. To those who think we're going to become extinct, come on, that's no way to take over the universe.

 

[OohFeeshy]

Heh, when you think of all the things we can't contol that can and will happen, we're pretty stuffed. We're overdue a reversal of the magnetic poles if I recall, if that happens then a vast quantity of species on Earth will become extinct. There's that huge volcano thing under Yellowstone Nation Park. Earthquakes, although not extinction-worthy, can be a right pain in the backside in human terms. There's a plethora of things that can happen, and probably will some day.

 

[Xebadir]

Thank you for your posts. Note to cite most of the references from which my conclusions are drawn is exceedingly difficult, ive read alot into this topic. An interesting view is aforementioned in my previous post: Ian Plimer is the head of Geology at the University of Adelaide and a former lecturer of mine, and is considered one of the experts of paelontogically interpreted history of the planet.

QUOTE(Lynden @ Aug 19 2006, 11:20 PM)
Planet Earth has reached a point of mass extinction unmatched by any other period of time.


I suspect that over the history of the planet there have been far greater extinctions than we are witnessing now- the dinosaurs for one.

Now this one i thought i adressed, but id better mention that there was a mass extinction worthy of this: 96% of ALL MULTICELLULAR LIFE due to unknown causes(The smoking gun appears to be the siberian volcanics, possibly mass impact related, but due to the age(~480mill yrs) the event horizons(ash layers) are very poorly represented.)

With respect to meteorology I cite my own knowledge as a Meteorologist. With Volcanology and meteorology I refer to the 10 years of reading everything on natural diasters i could get my hands on.

Oh and I acknowledge the difficulty in believing the evidence of a inter species virus wiping out 75% of multicelluar life however as yet no other solution has been realised: event horizons are negative(250mya approx), so no impact or volcanics, so causes still unknown, and this was one of the theories. I look forward to Lyndens, and anyone elses replies.

PS: i dont like to read much besides the american meteorological journal online due to the misinformation predominant on the web.

 

[LiveLifeGoJump]

Well I kindof changed my opinion... domestic animals cannot be released into the wild again (excluding pigs, dogs, ect.) and need us to survive. The Farmed fish are the same deal, and they do not know what they are missing, as do not the wild fish that are that are collected as babies. And I guess my metaphores where wrong too... fish are just too different from humans. I'm kinda glad I started this thread... it changed my views for the good. But I was never no tree-hugging veggie-loving hippie... just so that's clear.


-Lynden

Reintroduction into the wild, of any species, is a difficult task and requires more time, effort & cash than most of us can afford. While it may easy to breed a number of species & let them go free after a few day/weeks months or years depending on the species, if they are used to too much human intervention (feeding, health checking etc.) they may not be best equiped to survive whereas born in the wild they are taught natures way from bith & it becomes survival of the fittest producing a strong healthy line.

Do farmed fish know what they are missing? We can only guess at that as we do not know how they think, but because many of their actions are instinctive (ie. reproduction, eating etc.) then it they are not allowed to do them they know they are missing somthing, they just may not know what it is till they get it (and if the get the chance to get it they'll know what to do without being told).

Are we wrong to keep fish? There is no absolute right & wrong, it's all down to our (collective) interpretation of right & wrong and what the majority agree on. Most fishkeepers would think it wrong to keep fish without giving them the care they require to survive & 'be happy' (in quotes as it is our interpretation of their actions that makes us believe they are happy).

No matter what we do there is at least one person out in the world that wants to ban it because it's 'wrong'. I personally think fox hunting is wrong but then there are many who think one of my activities should be banned as I am in danger of killing or seriously injuring myself or others yet they drive and are in danger of killing or seriously injuring themselve or others but do not want driving banned.

Provided what we do is done responsibly & the majority belive it's not 'too wrong' then it must be 'right' (or as right as it gets).



Anyone else think the some of the replies are a bit 'heavy man!' (I'm not & never was a hippy (but I'll admit to being a budding 'flower person'

 

[Lynden]

I start the best threads, don't I, guys?

Anyone else think the some of the replies are a bit 'heavy man!' (I'm not & never was a hippy (but I'll admit to being a budding 'flower person'

I was kind of kiding about what I said about hippies...
I'm a bit of a wussy myself (if saving animals and plants from certain destruction is what one calls "wussiness" ) , just that I don't do drugs, and I beleive strongly in my own species, and their achievements. .

-Lynden

P.S. sorry for flaming you, Xebadir... it was almost midnight and I hardly knew what I was typing... but thats hardly an excuse.

 

[Bullrock74]

Oscars in fact have false eye-spots to defend themselves, as well as their large size. Oscars are a bad example because Oscars are not fast fish, nor are they hiders.

Good point about the false eye-spot. But, come on, surely you don't really believe oscars in the wild just swim out in open water regardless of what other animals are around them? My oscar hides anytime I take the lid off the aquarium to do cleaning.

 

[Lynden]

Oscars in fact have false eye-spots to defend themselves, as well as their large size. Oscars are a bad example because Oscars are not fast fish, nor are they hiders.

Good point about the false eye-spot. But, come on, surely you don't really believe oscars in the wild just swim out in open water regardless of what other animals are around them? My oscar hides anytime I take the lid off the aquarium to do cleaning.

My Oscar doesn't hide.

 

[Boids-n-more]

i didn't say anthing about hippies , if those posts were aimed at me. LOL my wife is a hippy.

 

[blue acara]

Ohh and i needed a laugh to get me started:

i know what ure saying-i was just making the point that were cleaver but not cleaver or wise enough to protect the environment we live in-which may eventually be our downfall, and therefore we became too powerful for our own good

Do you really think we are that powerful: we are just a speck in time and a blight that will soon disapear.

You admit we are powerful to the animals-that is why we are dissusing this thread-

no other species apart from plants and trees has directly changed the planet as we have.
we have cut down rainforests and many trees across the world which has major effect.
also there is the use of CFC's which are warming the planet and could result in the melting of ice caps-which would be a major change to the earth. this may have happened anyway but we are changing the timing of it and history of the planet. We are a quite major(and interesting) part of this planets history

'powerfulness' is all relative
looking at the bigger picture i agree with you, humans have been on the planet for a very small time and may not be here for much longer.
volcanoes as you say are very powerful-the biggest very recent eruption was Tambora. 1815. its blast was equivalent to 60,000 Hiroshima sized nukes, which caused serious problems to humans. and if Yellowstone blows it could be even worse, and its due.

however looking at the even bigger picture Earth is just 1 of billions and billions of planets and is insignicant- it depends on what scale you look at things thats determins its power and influance on history. there has been 1 or 2 major events in all of our universe's history.
1. the big bang(or however our universe was created)
2.(possibly) the 'birth' of living organisms

p.s i love this thread-it is very interesting to read what ppl think.

 

[newfishaddict]

My view on this is unusual I think…

Here is my “logicâ€:

The MAJORITY of Humans are inherently selfish, as are all organisms….
I am sure some creative thinker will find an example where the above is not true, but I have 1000s of examples from everything from bacterium to humans where it is true…

Since humans are inherently selfish, anyone with the means will always take advantage of another….(In today’s society we have found ways to do this that are very indirect and thus the connection is “weak†eg any economic system)

Since the majority of humans will behave (exploit) in a way that is detrimental to other humans, and other organisms it is OUR duty as benevolent scientists to learn as much as possible to help “counter act†all organisms inherent selfishness towards each other. For example, the amount of tax is proportional to our income…

This inherent selfishness of all organisms is not surprising; it is a very positive evolutionary force.

And to more directly answer your main question, no we are NOT do the right thing,,,,but that is natural...

 

[Tolak]

Well I kindof changed my opinion... domestic animals cannot be released into the wild again (excluding pigs, dogs, ect.) and need us to survive. The Farmed fish are the same deal, and they do not know what they are missing, as do not the wild fish that are that are collected as babies. And I guess my metaphores where wrong too... fish are just too different from humans. I'm kinda glad I started this thread... it changed my views for the good. But I was never no tree-hugging veggie-loving hippie... just so that's clear.


-Lynden

Reintroduction into the wild, of any species, is a difficult task and requires more time, effort & cash than most of us can afford. While it may easy to breed a number of species & let them go free after a few day/weeks months or years depending on the species, if they are used to too much human intervention (feeding, health checking etc.) they may not be best equiped to survive whereas born in the wild they are taught natures way from bith & it becomes survival of the fittest producing a strong healthy line.

One of the problems with introducing fish to the wild is the introduction of foreign diseases to the wild. Obviously Diseases found in the natural habitat may be harmful to reintroduced fish, but this doesn't harm the environment. These fish have to be bred & raised in a quar situation, seperate from any foreign fish. Equipment for use only with those fish, and tanks preferrably in a seperate room.

You would be surprised how quickly fish adapt to predators. I have an oscar, his job is dealing with angel culls. When you put pea sized angels in his tank, they recognize the danger nearly instantly, hiding behind the few plants, filter intake, or often trying to blend in with the trim above or below the tank. I thought they would be an easy meal for him, he has to work for it. These angels have only been exposed to other angels, a cory or 2 and a plec or 2.

 

[newfishaddict]

Well I kindof changed my opinion... domestic animals cannot be released into the wild again (excluding pigs, dogs, ect.) and need us to survive. The Farmed fish are the same deal, and they do not know what they are missing, as do not the wild fish that are that are collected as babies. And I guess my metaphores where wrong too... fish are just too different from humans. I'm kinda glad I started this thread... it changed my views for the good. But I was never no tree-hugging veggie-loving hippie... just so that's clear.


-Lynden

Reintroduction into the wild, of any species, is a difficult task and requires more time, effort & cash than most of us can afford. While it may easy to breed a number of species & let them go free after a few day/weeks months or years depending on the species, if they are used to too much human intervention (feeding, health checking etc.) they may not be best equiped to survive whereas born in the wild they are taught natures way from bith & it becomes survival of the fittest producing a strong healthy line.

One of the problems with introducing fish to the wild is the introduction of foreign diseases to the wild. Obviously Diseases found in the natural habitat may be harmful to reintroduced fish, but this doesn't harm the environment. These fish have to be bred & raised in a quar situation, seperate from any foreign fish. Equipment for use only with those fish, and tanks preferrably in a seperate room.

You would be surprised how quickly fish adapt to predators. I have an oscar, his job is dealing with angel culls. When you put pea sized angels in his tank, they recognize the danger nearly instantly, hiding behind the few plants, filter intake, or often trying to blend in with the trim above or below the tank. I thought they would be an easy meal for him, he has to work for it. These angels have only been exposed to other angels, a cory or 2 and a plec or 2.

Nature vs Nuture - a big never ending debate

 

[Captain Retardo]

What's so "natural" about humans

 

[Lynden]

What's so "natural" about humans

No matter how advanced we are, we are still animals and still had to evolve at some point.

-Lynden