Slashdot Mirror


Japanese Creating "Super Tuna"

motherpusbucket writes "The Telegraph reports that Japanese scientists hope to be breeding a so-called 'Super Tuna' within the next decade or so. They have about 60% of the genome mapped and expect to finish it in the next couple months. The new breed will grow faster, taste good, have resistance to disease and will totally kick your ass if you cross them."

280 comments

  1. Fish Overlords by Andruil · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Since this is Japan are we sure that they won't be cybernetic super fish? All hail the new fish overlords!

    1. Re:Fish Overlords by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That last bit is likely not far from the truth. Tuna is already a kind of superfish- they're a red meat fish with fast-twitch muscles that allow them to swim at up to 60 MPH for some breeds.

      If the Japanese try to improve on them, we're going to need steel nets to catch them as they end up with southern migration patterns around both S. America and Africa......

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:Fish Overlords by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      This assumes, of course, that their research on tuna is less weird and unproductive(except of tasty food substances) than their "research" on whales.

    3. Re:Fish Overlords by vishbar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Since this is Japan, we would need to be more worried about tentacles. Anything Japanese that has tentacles is bad, bad news for schoolgirls the world over.

      --
      Ride the skies
    4. Re:Fish Overlords by timlyg · · Score: 0

      What happened to Gozillas?

    5. Re:Fish Overlords by S77IM · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!

      --
      Student: Is it true that the foundation of the universe is paradox?
      Master: Well, yes and no.
    6. Re:Fish Overlords by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Gillzilla

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    7. Re:Fish Overlords by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Yep, the Japanese are exceedingly worried about a surge in the numbers of jellyfish. Super-colonies of ants on land. Genetically modified tuna and thousands of jellyfish by sea. I fear the human race is soon to be overwhelmed.

      Our only hope is to pit ant against jellyfish and hope to convince the tuna that they should be on our side.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    8. Re:Fish Overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was eaten by Super Tuna apparently...

    9. Re:Fish Overlords by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      Yet the population is kept in check by hungry salarymen eating anything with tentacles.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    10. Re:Fish Overlords by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      If the Japanese try to improve on them, we're going to need steel nets to catch them

      Peaceful protesting is one thing, but I think it's a little unnecessary to start catching the Japanese in steel nets.

  2. Obligatory..... by segedunum · · Score: 5, Funny

    Have they bred them with frickin' laser beams though?

    1. Re:Obligatory..... by Stargoat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Stupidass n00b moderator. How the deuce can this be redundant if it's the first reference to frickin' laser beams? If you don't like it or if you feel it is too high a score, mod it too high. But to mod it Redundant is just dumb.

      If some admin would be so good as to find out who modded this redundant and pull all their future mod points, you would be doing the slashdot community the greatest of service.

      MOD POST UP in other words.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    2. Re:Obligatory..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think mod was trying to make a funny. OF COURSE THEY'RE GOING TO PUT LASER BEAMS ON IT! It's a super tuna!

    3. Re:Obligatory..... by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The joke has already been made for years on Slashdot. It's unnecessary to continue posting it. In fact, you might even say that it is redundant.

    4. Re:Obligatory..... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      SuperChicken of the Sea.

    5. Re:Obligatory..... by motorhead · · Score: 0

      Bill Parcells?

      --
      Employee Of the Month - Cyberdyne Systems Corporation - September 1997
    6. Re:Obligatory..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The joke has already been made for years on Slashdot. It's unnecessary to continue posting it.

      You must be new here.

    7. Re:Obligatory..... by motorhead · · Score: 3, Funny

      You can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish

      --
      Employee Of the Month - Cyberdyne Systems Corporation - September 1997
    8. Re:Obligatory..... by bungeejumper · · Score: 1

      Notice he has a six digit slashdot id

    9. Re:Obligatory..... by Kashgarinn · · Score: 1

      It's not a joke. It's a demand, and until we see the demand met, we're going to continue asking for it.

      any animal indigenous to the sea would do these days which is a terrible letdown from our first demand of Sharks with frickin' Laserbeams on their heads, but Super-Tuna with frickin' Laserbeams would be acceptable.

    10. Re:Obligatory..... by meyekul · · Score: 1

      You must be new here, old jokes and redundancy are par for the course.

    11. Re:Obligatory..... by andersa · · Score: 1

      are they ill tempered?

    12. Re:Obligatory..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh man., I was hoping to read, "From the Sharks With frickin' laser beams attached to their head dept." or since that's so played out, "From the Ill Tempered Sea Bass Dept." haha

  3. Obligatory by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  4. We 3 Tuna by MasseKid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I for one, welcome our new tuna overlords.

    Lets face it, super food will eat you, besides is obligatory.

    1. Re:We 3 Tuna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I for one, welcome our new tuna overlords."

      If you want my ex, she's all yours.

    2. Re:We 3 Tuna by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Is that anything like We 3 Kings?
      (Hint: &lt; yields <)
      (Super Hint: &amp;lt; yields &lt;)

    3. Re:We 3 Tuna by mcgrew · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Not me. Corporate food either tastes like shit, or has no taste at all. Compare a grocery store tomato (ripened with phosgene gas) to a home grown one. The one from the store tastes like cardboard, the one from the garden is delicious.

    4. Re:We 3 Tuna by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you advocating that people try to grow fish in their gardens?

    5. Re:We 3 Tuna by Virak · · Score: 1

      What the fuck kind of cardboard do they have where you live?

      Or alternatively, what the fuck kind of store-bought tomatoes do they have where you live?

    6. Re:We 3 Tuna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets face it, super food will eat you, besides is obligatory.

      Shouldn't it be more like:

      In genetically engineered japan, tuna eats you!

    7. Re:We 3 Tuna by Lucerne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps you meant ethylene, a relatively harmless compound that is emitted by ripening fruit and stimulates nearby cells to ripen more quickly. This is why it's recommended to ripen certain fruits and vegetables in paper bags (e.g. avocados.)

      Phosgene is a chemical warfare agent from World War I. As sinister as some processed foods may be, I'm not sure they're to the point of using MWDs on our food yet...

    8. Re:We 3 Tuna by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 4, Funny

      Undoubtedly the first message from the Super Tuna Council will be:

      ALL YOUR BAYS ARE BELONG TO US.

    9. Re:We 3 Tuna by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you meant ethylene, a relatively harmless compound. As sinister as some processed foods may be, I'm not sure they're to the point of using MWDs on our food yet...

      From your source:

      Ethylene is a key component in Levinstein sulfur mustard, a chemical weapon agent.

      However, you're right. It is in fact ethylene, not phosgene. It's what makes apples turn brown after you cut them, and you can ripen a green tomato by putting it in a bag with cut up apples.

    10. Re:We 3 Tuna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I buried a Tuna in my garden to see if I could grow more, but it just smells bad...

    11. Re:We 3 Tuna by Dahan · · Score: 1

      Ethylene is a key component in Levinstein sulfur mustard, a chemical weapon agent.

      Well... yes... in the same way that nitrogen is a key component in hydrogen cyanide, a chemical weapon agent. Or how oxygen is a key component in Sarin, a chemical weapon agent.

      Despite that, ethylene, nitrogen, and oxygen remain relatively harmless.

  5. Sashimi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After reading all those articles about how the ocean would be depleted of fish, Tuna being one of my favorite fish I approve, now they need to make a super version of whatever Tuna eat.

    1. Re:Sashimi by guyfawkes-11-5 · · Score: 1

      After reading all those articles about how the ocean would be depleted of fish, Tuna being one of my favorite fish I approve, now they need to make a super version of whatever Tuna eat.

      maybe, but what happens if the super tuna out competes and eats all non-super tuna?

    2. Re:Sashimi by lorenlal · · Score: 4, Funny

      maybe, but what happens if the super tuna out competes and eats all non-super tuna?

      Darwin wins. See, tuna made themselves to tasty that:
      1) They'd be overfished.
      2) We'd see that, and then make them EVEN BETTER and plentiful.

      Well done tuna. You've won the genetic lottery.

    3. Re:Sashimi by Vectronic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...make a super version of whatever Tuna eat.

      Exactly. If the Tuna are bigger, and less prone to diseases, they will be eating more, and not dying as much from (normal non-human) predators. And on that note, what about the other animals that eat tuna? will they be strong enough to still kill the tuna they normally do, will they eat less, or start eating younger ones and sort of usurping this whole plan? Plus if they are bigger and stronger, they will likely linger in climate zones they would normally leave sooner, also (rather drastically, which is the key point) altering the natural sequence of migrations and predator V. prey.

      I hope they have a rather lengthy trial in some giant pool before they release these into the wild.

    4. Re:Sashimi by Nigel+Stepp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly. One of the best possible traits to develop is being tasty to humans — if all you care about is population anyway.

      I don't think cows, corn, or soy will be going extinct any time soon.

      --
      4096R/EF7BAFA6 79E1 DF98 D09D 898F 9A11 F6F0 DDDC 23FA EF7B AFA6
    5. Re:Sashimi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't work out so well for the bananas.

      We've already gone through one variety (more?), the current one isn't likely to survive long either.

    6. Re:Sashimi by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      And on that note, what about the other animals that eat tuna?

      There aren't very many of those. Tuna are damn near an apex predator. Maybe tiger sharks and great whites will eat mature tuna. Other fish may prey on juveniles, but I'd suspect that given the faster reproductive rate of these GM tuna, this would be a boon to those species as well as to the tuna.

      The bigger concern would be the prey species of tuna. Baitfish populations are crashing from overfishing pretty much worldwide. So much so that trash fish like pollack now command a premium price because we've eaten all the herring.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    7. Re:Sashimi by umghhh · · Score: 1

      I think gp meant also humans when s/he said 'other animals' and in this case we need no worry - in emergency we nuke the oceans or pee into them bypassing pee processing plants. I actually think that peeing is even better solution than nuking but that of course depends on individual preference.

    8. Re:Sashimi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong in thinking it willl be whales.

      That is a mistaken western anti-spiritual identity tradition fallacy.

      It should not be encouraged.

      Your words incite inconvenience.

      Your thinking is improper.

      You are inadequate.

      You know what you should do now.

      I courteously bow and leave you to your obligations. :)

    9. Re:Sashimi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wild varieties certainly are extinct.

      They've virtually outsourced defense and reproduction.

      And offer nutrition. A interesting symbiotic twist. Human drones work. Get food. The plant gets cared for, dispersed, and reproduced. And become incomplete genomes. Snakey, i mean, sneaky. ;)

    10. Re:Sashimi by 4181 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Perhaps developing tasty humans would address food and population issues simultaneously.

    11. Re:Sashimi by definate · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "developing"?

      *fffsssshhhh*

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    12. Re:Sashimi by jimicus · · Score: 1

      By itself this isn't a particularly useful trait - in fact, it can be downright damaging.

      Tasty to humans and easy to farm, OTOH...

    13. Re:Sashimi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they're already tasty.

    14. Re:Sashimi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hehehe

    15. Re:Sashimi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a minute... This is bluefin tuna the japanese are breeding? Because that's the apex predator larger than most humans. Other varieties of tuna are smaller, and while not used in sushi, are still nutritionally significant around the world...

      Doesn't it sound safer to farm them instead of releasing them into the wild?

    16. Re:Sashimi by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Just one word: Imbalance!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  6. Cue that eco-maniacs by LingNoi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like a good idea, rather then fish Tuna to extinction they're solving the problem by make better Tuna.

    Now all we have to have to a bigass debate on slashdot about how this is going to make DRM zombie tunas while ignorantly forgetting the fact that "Natural" tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.. Basically like every other time DNA altering comes up in a story..

    1. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by Lunoria · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Natural" tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.

      Tuna comes pre-breaded now? Talk about a time saver!

    2. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Cool. Breading alters genes :)

      I know it was a typo. But it was a funny one.

    3. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by adamchou · · Score: 1

      This might solve an issue with Tuna being over fished but if these super tuna are extremely efficient, how does it adversely affect other fish populations? I sur ehope they don't plan on releasing this inot the wild. There are plenty of examples of human intervention in nature causing havoc.

    4. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      We should hunt them to near-extinction. Then they'll get put on the extinction list and all tuna fishing will be banned. Then my roommate will have to find a different terrible-smelling food to eat. . . in mass quantities . . . EVERY evening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    5. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by sandbenders · · Score: 1

      Uhh, all breading/battering jokes aside, we don't breed tuna. We catch them wild. I assume that there are probably some tuna farms, but the vast majority of tuna are wild-caught and thus have not been shaped by the genetic engineering via selective breeding that has happened to cows, pigs, sheep, etc.

      -SB

      --
      Eagles may fly, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
    6. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by petershank · · Score: 0

      Tuna comes pre-breaded now? Talk about a time saver!

      If memory serves, (no pun intended), Michael Keaton's character in some movie or other already had the idea of feeding the tuna a diet high in mayonnaise in order to save time in the production of tuna salad.

    7. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I dropped a loaf in my jeans laughing at that one.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    8. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by ArsonSmith · · Score: 0

      "ehope" "inot" I don't understand these internet slang terms? (eSlang?)

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    9. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      Now all we have to have to a bigass debate on slashdot about how this is going to make DRM zombie tunas while ignorantly forgetting the fact that "Natural" tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.. Basically like every other time DNA altering comes up in a story..

      If they made a terminator gene for Super Tuna preventing them from breeding, similar to the one in corn, HELL YES I'd argue against it.

      I'm not against gene manipulation in theory, it's just the practice that worries me. I know you were making a joke by calling it DRM, but that's exactly what it could be; living beings with DRM.

    10. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Until of course we find that these genetically-mutated tuna have infiltrated natural stocks and any unforeseen genetic abnormalities are passed on to them as well. I don't know why it's so hard to understand the differences between natural selection and the dangers posed by genetically-introduced traits. I'm not a biologists, but I've seen the insanely haphazard changes you can get in plants and animals by manipulating even one seemingly harmless gene. And, not completely understanding what we're doing means that there are HUGE risks involved.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    11. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Tuna comes pre-breaded now? Talk about a time saver!

      I was reading a story in the paper about battered women, and I thought "damn, all this time I've been eating them plain!"

    12. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by orngjce223 · · Score: 1

      You could always just tell him that tuna has mercury and he may as well eat a lightbulb to poison himself adequately. I guess that'd take care of your smell problem.

      Although I do admit, cheese smells terrible too...

      --
      Note: I was 13 when I wrote most of this. Take with several grains of salt.
    13. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by plopez · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except for, that GMO are altered in ways unnatural to breeding, such as using viruses to inject not only cross species but cross kingdom genes into their genes. This is a radical departure from selective breeding and natural selection.

      see:
      http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=94728813969&h=p0i5C&u=Xnrbb

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    14. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your address? I'll send your roommate some quality alternatives such as durian and nato.

    15. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by plopez · · Score: 1

      And what if this terminator gene infects wild tuna? would this drive them to extinction? If wild tuna stock dropped too low we can impose fishing limits to help them rebound. A terminator gene that infects the wild population could be a catastrophic. All it could take is one typhoon ripping open some pens and the GM tuna escaping.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    16. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      That, or we could wonder how a super-Tuna could destroy Tokyo. Probably with attached laser-beams...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    17. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by andydread · · Score: 1

      Altering genes through breeding is not the same thing as using a gene gun to blast genes from a bacterium into random parts of the soybean and corn genome. This is what Monsanto does. How is that the same as altering through breeding? Can you get a gene from a bacterium into a crop genome initially thru breeding?

    18. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that there is no difference between selective breeding a direct genetic manipulation? Because even though I'm not an eco-maniac, I don't think it's a good idea to underplay the differences here. Maybe it will all work out fine. But using selective breeding as evidence that it will seems evident of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

    19. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      If anyone could be considered tuna breeders, it would be the bottle nosed dolphins. Their ability to herd and select fish is awesome.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    20. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTOH, this could be one of those crazy experiments that never go anywhere that the Japanese use as a pretext to continue their commercial whaling operations. A couple years ago they claimed to have successfully bred a cow and a whale. I'd put money on this giant tuna DNA being part whale DNA and part tuna.

      Is it really better to refrain from fishing tuna to extinction if you're still going to hunt whales to extinction?

    21. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as natural. Evolution has produced glowing bugs, plants that shoot pollen faster than sound, berries with taste bud altering chemicals, fish that spontaniously change sex, ect. There are a lot of natural organisms with seemingly unnatural traits. How did they get them? Given time, any trait could appear in any organism. It isn't as if there is some official rule book or list of what organisms are natural because organisms are constantly adding and subtracting and altering their genes. Evolution hasn't been moving towards any particular point. 'Natural' is just a man made construct. Your 'it isn't natural' argument is completely meaningless.

    22. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by initialE · · Score: 1

      Rather than fish salmon to extinction, they figured out a way to farm salmon. It's not going extinct anytime soon. Why not with tuna? Why rely on some genetic monster thing that could have unpredictable effects on the global environment?

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    23. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, now all they need to breed is whales that like to be near Japan so they can save fuel!

    24. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by Meski · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good idea, rather then fish Tuna to extinction they're solving the problem by make better Tuna.

      Now all we have to have to a bigass debate on slashdot about how this is going to make DRM zombie tunas while ignorantly forgetting the fact that "Natural" tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.. Basically like every other time DNA altering comes up in a story..

      Breaded tuna? That's disgusting! Grill them instead, or better yet, have them rawr!

    25. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should hunt them to near-extinction. Then they'll get put on the extinction list and all tuna fishing will be banned. Then my roommate will have to find a different terrible-smelling food to eat. . . in mass quantities . . . EVERY evening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      thats fuckin hilarious bro

    26. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Natural selection.

      As long as the "unforeseen genetic abnormalities" reduce their chance of survival (versus, say, causing them to come ashore and invade low-lying cities), the damage is substantially damped by natural selection. The only changes we need to be really worried about are ones that don't hurt them, but are bad for some other reason. And I'm not seeing those in actual results; the "insanely haphazard changes" you get are mostly the same sort of changes you get when twiddling random bits in object code: spectacular and not-so-spectacular crashes, but generally harmful. Ergo, easily weeded out.

    27. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your roommate is eating tuna every night then he/she won't be around much longer due to mercury poisoning. Presumably, the new super tuna will be mercury resistant.

    28. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there are tuna farms in Japan, but they don't breed the tuna, they just catch them young and then fatten them inside a big net.

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    29. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      But, you're assuming that these abnormalities are obvious. I'm not talking about an arm growing out of your forehead. I'm talking about disease resistances that might not be evident until some pandemic strikes. And, that's the problem. You firstly don't know the full effects of your changes and you secondly don't know what environmental pressures are going to pop up in the future that will exploit your changes.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    30. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by plopez · · Score: 1

      That makes no sense what so ever. Youre confusing genotypes with phenotypes, do not address breaking down of cellular barriers, engage in speculation and miss the point completely.

      Evolution has produced glowing bugs, plants that shoot pollen faster than sound, berries with taste bud altering chemicals, fish that spontaniously change sex, ect.
      But not by introducing cross species or kingdom genetic material by design. This doesn't address the point and just tries to confuse the matter by trotting out a few examples of specific physical manifestations.

      Given time, any trait could appear in any organism.
      Sheer speculation. Proof please. And Elvis could appear out of a UFO.

      Your 'it isn't natural' argument is completely meaningless.
      Not really. It is intentional manipulation. If you ascribe intent to evolution then you are anthropomorphizing. That is the difference between natural selection and artificial (in the sence of a human artifact) manipulation.

      Evolution hasn't been moving towards any particular point.
      I never said that. But human manipulation is goal seeking: profit maximization.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    31. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      So you really think that we can be better than millions of years of evolution, in just some years of science?

      Come ON!

      The only ones this "product" (I refuse to call it a lifeform) be "better" for, is "owners" that it will be making money for. ...if that is your definition of "better"...
      Because in the long run, they will be just as fucked from the consequences as we are.

      For a small view on the tip of the iceberg of the consequences, I give you just one sentence:
      "Imbalance of food chains and the circles of life."

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    32. Re:Cue that eco-maniacs by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Well, he always can take a bite out of your mom. There's enough for everyone (in the galaxy), and I'm sure he will be impressed by the terrible smell too. :P

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  7. It would be nice if they could add by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    A modify the DNA so that few dozen Sharks Fins appear on the new fish.
    Perhaps they could save the real thing from extinction.
    Then again the 'Green Lobby' would rise up against 'Genetically Modified Fish' Sigh.

    1. Re:It would be nice if they could add by Tau_Xi · · Score: 1

      A modify the DNA so that few dozen Sharks Fins appear on the new fish. Perhaps they could save the real thing from extinction. Then again the 'Green Lobby' would rise up against 'Genetically Modified Sea Kittens' Sigh.

      Fixed that for ya.

  8. Excellent by KingPin27 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Yes -- but will they be equipped with lasers?

    --
    "i lost my dignity on a slippery wiener"
    1. Re:Excellent by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

      Only if they're Hot Tuna.

    2. Re:Excellent by KingPin27 · · Score: 1

      Thanks ---

      --
      "i lost my dignity on a slippery wiener"
  9. Re:Obligatory by davegravy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Davegravy slaps Captain Splendid around a bit with a Super Tuna

  10. TUNAZILLA! by wcrowe · · Score: 4, Funny

    'nuf said...

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:TUNAZILLA! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that replaced by Firetuna and Thundertuna?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  11. Tuna Porn? by basementman · · Score: 3, Funny

    I predict they will genetically enhance the necessary parts to incorporate them into the weird porn industry that thrives in Japan. After the tunas career is up they can still serve his enhanced parts as a rare delicacy in restaurants.

    1. Re:Tuna Porn? by evilkasper · · Score: 1

      So A tuna tentacle monster? ....

    2. Re:Tuna Porn? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I'd want to eat a porn star... especially since they've all been eaten so many times before.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Tuna Porn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you wanna see some pervasive examples of genetically modified porn? Try a florist's catalog. Flowers are, after all, just gonads; big fancy colorful gonads. What's more; they're not even meant to attract their own species, they'll attract birds, bugs, spiders, They'll take it from basically anyone; how kinky is that!

    4. Re:Tuna Porn? by VoltageX · · Score: 1

      +1 Most disturbing comment on Slashdot.

      --
      "Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times
    5. Re:Tuna Porn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love that "Most disturbing comment on Slashdot" gets a +1!

  12. need an artificial ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    As long as the ninja tuna are identified clearly so in the packaging, I whole-heartedly support this idea, but they should leave the wild tuna alone. I would even donate money to the Japanese if they would leave the wild tuna alone and create an artificial ocean with military protection so that the ninja tuna don't accidentally breed with wild tuna.

  13. Monsanto of the Sea? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article talks about targeting aquaculture farmers, but I suppose it is possible the genetically altered tuna could escape into the wild and breed with wild tuna. Assuming the genes will be patented like Monsanto does with seeds, will fishermen be sued for catching such cross bred tuna?

    1. Re:Monsanto of the Sea? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Also, how do you aquaculture tuna and keep the meat tasty? The reason tuna is so tasty is because of migrations thousands of miles long- which any aquaculture operation isn't going to have.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:Monsanto of the Sea? by MoreDruid · · Score: 1

      Only in the USA

      --
      The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness.
    3. Re:Monsanto of the Sea? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      The article talks about targeting aquaculture farmers, but I suppose it is possible the genetically altered tuna could escape into the wild and breed with wild tuna. Assuming the genes will be patented like Monsanto does with seeds, will fishermen be sued for catching such cross bred tuna?

      Unpossible.
      Farmers only get sued because they own & 'control' the fields that Monsanto seeds migrate to.
      There's no way in hell any court will ding you for catching something that escaped into international waters.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:Monsanto of the Sea? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Tuna still travel a long distance, they just do it in circles inside the nets. These fish have that high speed swimming need in their very genes a little location issue is not going to stop them.

    5. Re:Monsanto of the Sea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farmers only get sued because they own & 'control' the fields that Monsanto seeds migrate to.

      It wasn't even that. The farmer in question sprayed his seed crop with herbicide with the intent of selecting for the Monsanto patented gene. The urban legend that's grown up about his story is just silly. (Yes, I hate Monsanto. Yes, I don't like gene patents, but I also hate hearing false stories spread)

    6. Re:Monsanto of the Sea? by tpjunkie · · Score: 4, Informative

      Shouldn't be too much of a problem. Unlike most fish, which are simply capable of ramjet respiration, (where water is forced over and through the fish's gills at high speed through swimming, as opposed to forcing the water over their gills via the mouth and operculum), with tuna this is obligatory, as otherwise the fish cannot obtain enough O2 from the water, and will for lack of a better word, drown. They swim constantly, even while "sleeping"

    7. Re:Monsanto of the Sea? by JustOK · · Score: 2, Funny

      wouldn't it be a rural legend?

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    8. Re:Monsanto of the Sea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true.

      I have heard of farms already being sued because their neighbor paid for genetically modified wheat and spread over to his wheat farm. The farmer lost his case.

      The local fish farm lost it's entire stock one year when the farm had a massive failure and released all the stock into the lake. They fishermen where out and you could catch the fish like crazy... but the business did it best to stop it the fishermen. It was a futile effort.

    9. Re:Monsanto of the Sea? by plopez · · Score: 1

      That's not not what this says:

      http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=94728813969&h=p0i5C&u=Xnrbb

      The seed contaminated *his* fields first. Monsato's product ruined his livilihood. If you create something, the onous should be on you to prevent it from causing harm.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    10. Re:Monsanto of the Sea? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      You are right. But it is not only possible. It is guaranteed to happen.

      And it will fuck up the whole balance of the food chain too.

      But who cares, if you can make bling-bling, and buy that new yacht. (Although nowadays, I guess it is more fashionable to buy yourself a nice government.)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  14. tuna doesn't taste good? by sandmtyh · · Score: 1

    are they implying that the current tuna doesn't taste good? "The new breed will grow faster, taste good,"

    1. Re:tuna doesn't taste good? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, what they mean is: Current tuna tastes excellent. Power tuna will merely taste good.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:tuna doesn't taste good? by davegravy · · Score: 1

      They're probably trying to dispel the fear that super-tuna will taste bad because they are unnatural.

    3. Re:tuna doesn't taste good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't say "taste better." I think they're just pointing out that this will not only be a matter of bigger and faster; taste-tests will also assure quality.

    4. Re:tuna doesn't taste good? by thedonger · · Score: 1

      Max Power tuna will merely taste good.

      Yes, only faster!

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
  15. *SUPER* tuna? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Funny

    Damn, and I thought husbands were already whipped.

  16. Sorry Charlie... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a tunami!

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
    1. Re:Sorry Charlie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Starkist doesn't want Tuna with super taste, they want Tuna that taste super?!?!?!

    2. Re:Sorry Charlie... by Mythrix · · Score: 1

      Where's Aquaman when you need him?

  17. very dangerous practice by drDugan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture.

    However, doing this with modern techniques can present incredible risks, possibly as large as the risks
    we face from environmental damage. There are significant consequences to altering genomes of existing
    creatures, and mostly, people would try to be as careful as possible. Most all of the changes we've made
    have been exceedingly helpful.

    But there are a few unavoidable truths:

    1- Humans cannot contain nature indefinitely - so whatever we create will eventually enter the environment and compete with the existing species.

    2- Genomes, the resulting organism, and the myriad interaction with other species, viruses, and environmental conditions
    are far too complex for humans predict any outcome reliably. We are blindly stabbing at potentially world-changing effects.

    3- "Monocultures" increase risk. Even if this program is wildly successful, and they create a huge supply of "perfect" Tuna - they will be a single species, and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out.

    We want to establish a complete aquaculture system that will produce fish that have good strength, are resistant to disease, grow quickly and taste delicious.

    In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has: make more food for more people with fewer resources. This is completely backwards, and will fail us in a devastating way long term. Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth. The solution we need is not to re-engineer nature to meet the demands of growing populations better, but rather to focus on moderating the needs of people to fit within a natural environment created over 2 billions years which we *cannot* recreate if we destroy it.

    In the end, the environment we live in has much "momentum" and "power" to inflict damage to the human race than we have power to control and shift the natural world to our needs.

    1. Re:very dangerous practice by johnsonav · · Score: 1

      Food availability is the single most important factor that keeps people from starving to death.

      FTFY.

      If that's how you want to control the population, at least be honest about it.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    2. Re:very dangerous practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth. The solution we need is not to re-engineer nature to meet the demands of growing populations better, but rather to focus on moderating the needs of people to fit within a natural environment created over 2 billions years which we *cannot* recreate if we destroy it.

      quite right! We need less food being grown, not more. We need less people, producing less demand on the environment. I volunteer drDugan to be the first to step off the planet for the greater good. Another 5 billion of you plebes need to get in line behind him.

    3. Re:very dangerous practice by MrMista_B · · Score: 1

      Oh no, it might be dangerous!

      We better not do it then!

      Moan panic aaaah fear shock trauma noooo!

    4. Re:very dangerous practice by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Longwinded philosophical post. You've been warned.

      One simple question. Presuming billions of years to 'create' the world and no higher intelligence overseeing at all (not even getting into religion here, just theism vs. atheism): why is human technology (technology coming from presumably evolved intelligence of humans) any different in the evolutionary process? And, if that leads to the destruction of the world, is that not simply evolution taking its due course?

      In other words: if we are simply using the intelligence nature "gave" us and we happen to destroy the world with it, why should we use our "intelligence" to "help" nature/evolution/etc?

      It seems to me that there are two competing worldviews, one that includes responsibility (which implies, somehow, an absolute outside of nature) and one that denies responsibility. On one hand, saying that we are responsible for not destroying the world by abusing it, and on the other hand saying that there is no higher power to answer to and we are just a product of evolution like any other creature for the last X billion years.

      To me, it seems inconsistent. Either I am a product of evolution and there is no higher power to be responsible to, thus it doesn't seem like there is anything wrong with using my evolutionary-process-given intelligence to genetically modify the nature around me (after all, when the cavemen started using tools to start hunting better, were they not simply "being themselves" and acting as any other animal would? Even if it made some species extinct by eating too many... or something...?), or there is a higher power I am responsible to, in which case my worldview will significantly change... and, in fact, there is a right way to use my intelligence and a wrong way to use my intelligence, and it's not based on survival.

      I guess one could argue that how humanity as a whole uses its intelligence/intellect/technology/whatever has direct bearing on survival... however, if evolution is a completely unintelligent process, then if we misuse intelligence and end up wiping ourselves (and whatever else) off the face of the earth, then it seems to me that would simply mean we weren't "fit" for survival. I don't see, from the perspective of that worldview, what loss there would be in losing the world we can't recreate if we destroy it. There's no inherent value in it, is there?

      This is not supposed to be openly offensive or derogatory of your worldview. I really do want to know what your thinking is on it and am not simply trying to say "Your worldview is stupid." :)

    5. Re:very dangerous practice by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has: make more food for more people with fewer resources. This is completely backwards, and will fail us in a devastating way long term. Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.

      Actually, one thing you overlook is that studies have repeatedly shown that as a population surpasses a certain level of wealth, population growth goes down. This mentality is an attempt to increase the net wealth of human population around the world, so while it will increase food production it will likely, also, reduce population growth.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:very dangerous practice by jd · · Score: 3, Informative

      I completely agree.

      Now, having said that, the size of fish (cod definitely, and I would assume tuna as well) has declined due to industrial fishing practices wiping out the larger subspecies entirely and then moving down the chain.

      I can't see any objection to reviving a subspecies that would have existed had sane fishing practices existed - say, by using the same technique as for gene therapy and splicing in genes from extinct varieties - provided it is done with caution.

      It wouldn't matter too much if such a revived subspecies escaped, as the environment has evolved on the basis that it is present. Creatures further up the food chain might start reviving, for example.

      It might also start to deal with "dead zones" (oxygen-free regions in the seas and oceans), which are largely a product of overfishing resulting in excessive algae, the lives, deaths and decaying of which simply eliminates all the oxygen present. Reintroducing a stable, self-sustaining food chain to the oceans would be dangerous but still much safer than the current disaster.

      The problem is, this is NOT what is being done. Instead of recreating a subspecies that should have existed but was obliterated due to the stupidity of the seafood industry, they are creating a whole new subspecies according to market tastes. And when the market shifts (as it routinely does), the old stocks will be worthless and dumped into the wild in an uncontrolled way that has nothing to do with restoring the ecology and everything to do with maximizing profit.

      They are also not going to make any effort to develop anything further up or down the foodchain, which means you'll have something that throws off whatever balance does exist in the current environment.

      Anyone here remember the old ecology computer games, like "foxes and rabbits", where you specify the initial number of each and the available area of grass for the rabbits to feed on? Of those who do, how many of you succeeded in producing stable environments? It turns out that it's damn hard when the number of elements is very small, it's only viable when you've an extremely high level of biodiversity.

      Here we have the three elements of the original game, with the food for the tuna replacing the grass, the tuna being the rabbits and the human consumers being the foxes. If, after all this time, you still can't find good starting numbers, what makes you think the fish markets (who don't give a rat's arse about the environment) are going to do any better?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:very dangerous practice by Xeth · · Score: 1

      Humans cannot contain nature indefinitely - so whatever we create will eventually enter the environment and compete with the existing species.

      We call that evolution.

      Now, that's a glib answer, and it's true that we can't simply excuse away any kind of meddling that way. But you seem to be under the impression that, outside of man's interference, nature is out there standing still. It's not. The world around is is constantly evolving, and genetic patterns are being introduced, flourishing, and failing all the time. While introducing new variations may well be dangerous, it is not (in the general case) more so than what happens without human intervention.

      Genomes, the resulting organism, and the myriad interaction with other species, viruses, and environmental conditions are far too complex for humans predict any outcome reliably. We are blindly stabbing at potentially world-changing effects.

      Welcome to life in a complex system. Anything we do, at any time, could randomly trigger a lethal series of events beyond our comprehension.

      "Monocultures" increase risk. Even if this program is wildly successful, and they create a huge supply of "perfect" Tuna - they will be a single species, and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out.

      While you're right in the general case, you're mistaken about the circumstances about this specific instance. They're talking about replacing hunts for wild fish with aquaculture. If anything, this will save the genetic diversity of wild fish, as they're no longer at risk of being hunted to extinction.

      Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.

      This is flagrantly incorrect. The population of the U.S. is an immediate and obvious counterexample. Humans don't actually (organically) breed like viruses; we only consume like them.

      --
      If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
    8. Re:very dangerous practice by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Before you get too self-righteous, it's not necessarily quite that simple. First off, scarcity of food may possibly cause people (consciously or unconsciously) to have fewer children. I don't know the science on that one, but it's possible.

      Second, it doesn't mean fewer people starving to death so much as it means more people (perhaps temporarily) not-starving to death-- and there's a difference. The whole point of an argument like the one the GP is making is, if you increase the food supply, the population increases to the point where people start starving to death again. If population growth is otherwise unchecked (e.g. by predators), then a population's numbers will grow until the available resources are not sufficient to support further growth. The two possibilities once that happens is (a) there will be some kind of equilibrium reached; or (b) the population will overuse the existing resources to the point where they basically exterminate themselves.

      Which path do we want to take?

    9. Re:very dangerous practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture. However, doing this with modern techniques can present incredible risks, possibly as large as the risks we face from environmental damage.

      Agriculture is responsible for the majority of environmental damage and has been long before anyone knew about genes.

    10. Re:very dangerous practice by WeirdJohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I see potential danger. Tuna are already a highly refined predator. What if the cages break and a group escape? Then you have a disease resistant fast growing population of predators loose in the seas. What could this mean for other species? Could this throw the ecological balance way out of whack?

      I've worked in population modelling in the past, and predator/prey ecology is complicated, chaotic and inherently unpredictable. Forget Lotke-Volterra models, although they are nice equations, they are not realistic in real world situations where there are many species with many interactions. Super-Tuna would be another apex-predator, as nothing else can catch them except humans because they swim so fast. Messing with apex predators ALWAYS does weird stuff to ecology, and it's never good.

    11. Re:very dangerous practice by PieSquared · · Score: 1

      1.) True, and they should certainly consider escape into the wild a certainty.

      2.) Factual, but human-modified genes are no more inherently risky then natural mutations - just we do it faster.

      3.) Ah ha! I've got you here - we'll just overfish this particular kind. No limits, nothing. Just give them some obvious mark for ease of sorting, and we'll have no problem hunting them to extinction if we must.

      Your closing paragraph is the worst. It's wrong to improve our food per acre and food per hour of work? So we should go back to hunter-gatherer where everyone spends every minute of their life getting food? Because everything we've done since then from making farms to mechanical harvesters lets us get more food for more people with fewer resources. I'm afraid your argument just doesn't hold water.

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    12. Re:very dangerous practice by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 1

      We go the (c) soylent green path, and reach our own equilibrium.

    13. Re:very dangerous practice by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's all hide under rocks and hope we don't change the world into the bringer of our doom in the process.


      People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture. ...
      the resulting organism, and the myriad interaction with other species, viruses, and environmental conditions are far too complex for humans predict any outcome reliably. We are blindly stabbing at potentially world-changing effects.

      Genetic research doesn't seem so radically new in that context anymore, now does it?


      The solution we need is not to re-engineer nature to meet the demands of growing populations better, but rather to focus on moderating the needs of people to fit within a natural environment...

      Tell that to the people in the world who are starving. You'll find that the only way to further reduce their 'environmental' foot print is by dying. If that looks like a solution to you at least have the courage to come right out and say it.

      No matter how you cut it the only options our race has ever had has been re-engineer nature or population control. The ages were the later was chosen have never been pretty.

    14. Re:very dangerous practice by __aaxwdb6741 · · Score: 1

      ...why should we...

      We shouldn't. People just do, because their sense of purpose is driven by that goal.

      Saving the environment is just the same as praying to a god, only different.

    15. Re:very dangerous practice by linguizic · · Score: 1

      "Monocultures" increase risk. Even if this program is wildly successful, and they create a huge supply of "perfect" Tuna - they will be a single species, and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out.

      Yes monocultures are a risk, when you're entire food supply depends on them. I have a feeling that you read the Omnivore's Dilemma and took from it what you wanted to hear rather than reading what Michael Pollan actually said. It wouldn't be the first time someone did that. I've run in to it quite a bit actually. The biggest danger that monoculture presents is when you apply it to the particular link that corn plays in the industrial food chain. If a new disease came around that affected corn, it would affect ALL the corn in the system. That would then affect the cattle, the chicken, the sweeteners we use for EVERYTHING, etc... I seriously doubt that frankentuna there would be the keystone of some new industrial agricultural food chain.

      Yes, modifying living creatures can be dangerous. But all of your arguments are just the modern eco-ludite platitudes that don't really have any content. The metaphors that you use to portray the environment really speaks volumes about where you get your information. I suggest you stop reading Mother Jones and pick up a text book on ecology and genetics.

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    16. Re:very dangerous practice by johnsonav · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First off, scarcity of food may possibly cause people (consciously or unconsciously) to have fewer children. I don't know the science on that one, but it's possible.

      It doesn't. Look at the fertility rates in countries where starvation and famine aren't a problem (Western Europe, US, Japan). Then, compare that with the fertility rates in sub-Saharan Africa.

      The whole point of an argument like the one the GP is making is, if you increase the food supply, the population increases to the point where people start starving to death again.

      So, you're saying that no matter how much (or little) food we produce, we'll always have people starving to death?

      If you want mandatory population control, implement a one child policy like China, forced sterilization, or simply shoot the excess people in the head. But seriously, almost anything would be less cruel and cause less suffering than condemning someone to die of starvation.

      Honestly, the argument the GP is making is that we should, by our inaction, allow some poor people in some far away country to starve to death. Those poor people consume far fewer of the earth's resources than the average American. If the GP really wants to make a difference and free up some resources, maybe he should start with himself.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    17. Re:very dangerous practice by linguizic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, what has been shown is that the more power and education women have in a society, the fewer children. It seems that when given the choice, women only really want to have on average about 2 kids. If we are concerned about population growth then we should be working towards making women everywhere free and educated.

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    18. Re:very dangerous practice by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      The problem with applying Malthusian population arguments to human beings is that humans have always distinguished themselves from most other animals by having fewer children than their environment could support at a subsistence level. The resources thus saved are invested in other areas: preparation for the future, peace/civilization, comfort, convenience, etc. Malthusian population dynamics conclude that any population will increase to the maximum possible given the available resources, but that manifestly is not the case for humans.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    19. Re:very dangerous practice by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      3- "Monocultures" increase risk. Even if this program is wildly successful, and they create a huge supply of "perfect" Tuna - they will be a single species, and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out.

      Excellent point. The obvious solution is to create several different species of Super Tuna!

    20. Re:very dangerous practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm yeah, so what you're advocating is basically sterilizing all the poor people on the planet? That's the alternative to making food more efficiently. The first-worlders are already under the replacement rate, they know not to breed. It's the 3rd-worlders that continue to overpopulate the planet and drive demand for more cheap food. Maybe you should think the consequences through before you open your mouth.

    21. Re:very dangerous practice by uberdilligaff · · Score: 1

      Remarkably insightful and well said. I marvel at how few people stop to consider that in fact, we are only a part of nature, and are just as likely to change our environment as any of the species who came before us. Maybe that's as it should be.

      I enjoy the many science shows on cable that track the monumental changes that have been documented in the Earth's environment, over and over again. Recurring ice ages, tropical rain forests, migrating continents, reversing magnetic fields, myriad species evolution and extinction, mountains uplifted, oceans drained or dried up, volcanoes and meteors, oh my! And yet, after all these massive changes, here we are. We are the product of these same changes.

      It is typical of newcomers to think that the neighborhood has to stay exactly as it was when they arrived even though they themselves changed it by moving in. Mankind is a relative newcomer to the 'hood, and we have certainly changed it by moving in. Many seem to think that the neighborhood must now cease changing, and that we have to preserve it exactly as we found it. I like it the way I found it too, but I recognize that it will change, in part due to the actions of man, but much more due to the inexorable forces of nature.

      The biggest single thing we as a sentient species could to to improve the place is to quit reproducing so vigorously. Since that won't happen, we might as well enjoy the ride!

      --
      Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain. --Friederich Schiller
    22. Re:very dangerous practice by nine-times · · Score: 1

      humans have always distinguished themselves from most other animals by having fewer children than their environment could support at a subsistence level

      Then why are there such food shortages that we have to genetically engineer food to make it more plentiful? If we haven't already surpassed our environment's ability to sustain our current population, then why aren't we already good?

      I know, there's some whacky conspiracy where rich people are all trying to starve everyone. Ok, that's at least plausible. But how is genetically engineered tuna going to fix that?

    23. Re:very dangerous practice by shentino · · Score: 1

      There's PLENTY of food for everyone.

      Greedy politicians and corporate bigwigs are the ones screwing everyone else over.

    24. Re:very dangerous practice by nine-times · · Score: 0, Troll

      Look at the fertility rates in countries where starvation and famine aren't a problem (Western Europe, US, Japan). Then, compare that with the fertility rates in sub-Saharan Africa.

      Yeah, because there are no differences between western countries and sub-Saharan Africa other than the amount of food available. No economic differences, cultural differences, environmental differences, etc. Nice controlled scientific experiment there.

      Honestly, the argument the GP is making is that we should, by our inaction, allow some poor people in some far away country to starve to death.

      I don't think that is really his argument. From what I can tell, his argument is that rather than trying to continually increase resources which will eventually reach a natural limit, we should try to moderate consumption. The post isn't too specific about how to do that, but population control is only one likely component of a real plan. Others might be lessened consumerism and increased efficiency.

      But really, your argument seems to come down to this: any behavior/planning which doesn't lead immediately to feeding poor people in far away countries is immoral, and people who engage in such behavior should kill themselves. So what did you eat yesterday, and why didn't you send that food to sub-Saharan Africa? What are you doing posting on Slashdot today when you could be using that time to make more money to feed poor children?

      And another question that always bothers me a little: why should poor people starving in far away countries bother me more than poor people starving in my own country?

    25. Re:very dangerous practice by nine-times · · Score: 1

      That sounds good to me. Believe me, I'm not in favor of people starving to brutal population-control. I think education is generally a terrific force for positive change.

      Really, I'm just saying that the best solutions to poverty and hunger will probably not as simple as increased production. Having more food available won't keep people from going hungry-- at least not all by itself. Continual and poorly considered increases in production will probably lead to increased overall consumption of natural resources, leaving us all in a terrible situation.

    26. Re:very dangerous practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, certainly not the Dodo-do

    27. Re:very dangerous practice by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Scarcity of food does not necessarily lead to lower human fertility. You have lots of glaring examples. Just look at the African countries that were starving in the 70s and 80s.

    28. Re:very dangerous practice by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Always" is completely false. As I mentioned above, some glaring counterexamples are the African countries that had whole populations starving, back in the 70s and 80s. Despite the lack of food (and nutritive food in particular), they were still breeding like flies.

      Education is the ticket.

    29. Re:very dangerous practice by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      I see, selective breeding based on phenotype is perfectly acceptable. As soon as you base it on genotype, suddenly you've destroyed the world utterly. Fascinating. Turkeys were bred into existence based on phenotype, and are a pretty horrifying tumorous monstrosity. They're so obese they can barely even move, and are totally unable to have sex due to their disgusting size. That's fine I guess, but as soon as you start selective breeding based on genotype, it's a billion times worse!

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    30. Re:very dangerous practice by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      First off, scarcity of food may possibly cause people (consciously or unconsciously) to have fewer children.

      That doesn't square with the facts at all. Developed countries have far smaller families that 3rd world countries. Even in developed nations, the poor have more children than the middle and rich classes.

      The reason is simple: the less food, the more poverty, the more popverty, the less chance your children will survive to adulthood. Feeding people won't cause larger families, it will cause smaller ones.

      There is more than enough food to go around today. The only reason people are going hungry is greed and politics - the poorest nations have the worst rulers.

    31. Re:very dangerous practice by johnsonav · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because there are no differences between western countries and sub-Saharan Africa other than the amount of food available. No economic differences, cultural differences, environmental differences, etc. Nice controlled scientific experiment there.

      I never said it was scientific. It's simply an observation which leads me to believe that the hypothesis of "less food != fewer children" may have some validity.

      I would have thought that the prospect of watching some of your children die of starvation because you don't have enough food for them all, would be about the strongest non-mandatory population control measure.

      From what I can tell, his argument is that rather than trying to continually increase resources which will eventually reach a natural limit, we should try to moderate consumption.

      Sure, but in terms of food, "moderate consumption" is a euphemism. There is only a certain amount of moderation you can handle before you starve to death.

      But really, your argument seems to come down to this: any behavior/planning which doesn't lead immediately to feeding poor people in far away countries is immoral, and people who engage in such behavior should kill themselves.

      Nope. It's a little more subtle than that. I'm saying that refusing to take an action, simply because a side effect of that action may result in someone not starving to death, is ghoulish and immoral. I am specifically not saying that we should devote 100% of our resources and energy to feeding the poor, but that we should not restrain ourselves from taking an action because it might result in helping them.

      If I want genetically engineered food (tuna, rice, or whatever). But, I stop myself from developing that food, because it might mean that someone in the world doesn't starve to death. I would be a monster, and should kill myself.

      And another question that always bothers me a little: why should poor people starving in far away countries bother me more than poor people starving in my own country?

      It shouldn't. The fact that people starve anywhere in the world is terrible. I only use sub-Saharan Africa as an example, because hunger is much more endemic and visible there. Hunger and famine don't decimate entire communities in the US (any more); they do in Africa.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    32. Re:very dangerous practice by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      The whole point of an argument like the one the GP is making is, if you increase the food supply, the population increases to the point where people start starving to death again.

      With the problem that it's not true. We already produce enough food for everyone in the world, but fail to distribute it to everyone due to political problems.

    33. Re:very dangerous practice by plopez · · Score: 1

      People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture.
      Ummmm... but they haven't been breaking down cell barriers to inject cross species genes, and cross *kingdom* genes (mixing plant, animal and fungal genetic material) into cells in new combinations. This is neither selective breeding nor natural selection.

      This is new. This is a vast experiment with many unknowns, driven by the profit motive.

      That's why I don't like it.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    34. Re:very dangerous practice by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Developed countries have far smaller families that 3rd world countries.

      That sounds nice, but doesn't really address the question. Those statistics suggest that if you increase development in 3rd world countries, you might see birthrates drop. It doesn't address what happens if you merely increase the food supply.

      And much more importantly, it certainly doesn't address the question of "at what cost?" It's trivially easy to say, "I would like no one to ever starve to death." I can say that right now. I don't want anyone to starve to death.

      The problem raised by the GGGP post was that if you constantly focus on increasing production of food without giving any thought to moderating consumption, and the population continues to grow, there must be some point in time at which the population becomes unsustainable. The most serious potential risk is disturbing our ecological balance to the point where human life on this planet in general becomes unsustainable.

      Incidentally, this isn't the position I would naturally take in this argument, but I believe it's a point worth considering.

    35. Re:very dangerous practice by nine-times · · Score: 1

      The fact of the matter is that things like this are not (easily) provable in the rigorous scientific sense. You can point to statistics in particular situations, and even identify trends. I'm not disregarding the validity of that.

      At the same time, consider this: looking at the fertility rates in African countries in the 70s and 80s, can you tell me what those rates would have been if food was abundant and available but all other factors remained the same?

      These things are complicated and it's difficult to be scientific about them. You can't have controlled experiments. That means you can't really make snap judgements based on particular cases, but instead need a lot of painstaking research to isolate all the factors you can think of, and even then you have to wonder whether there are factors you haven't thought of. What I'm really saying is, I don't have enough research at my fingertips to make a real conclusion.

    36. Re:very dangerous practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you heard of this modern new invention called a "virus" ... same shit. You're a fucking retarded, head in the sand asshat. You're as bad as the retarded creationists, and your riduculous views of science don't even have a religious element. You're fucking stupid, cunt.

    37. Re:very dangerous practice by drDugan · · Score: 1

      Honestly, the argument the GP is making is that we should, by our inaction, allow some poor people in some far away country to starve to death.

      What??? No.

      Please show me how you conclude this. Whomever modded this as insightful is as confused as you are.

      If the GP really wants to make a difference and free up some resources, maybe he should start with himself.

      You know nothing about me. I ride a bike to work, I grow my own food. Do you?

      People on this thread need to go read some research on the issues of food and population. Most every post I read here is grossly off base, including you:

      from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1332674

      According to the empirical research (Hopfenberg 2003), human population growth is a rapidly cycling positive feedback loop in which food availability drives population growth and this growth in human numbers gives rise to the mistaken impression that food production needs to be increased even more.

      see also
      Hopfenberg R. Human carrying capacity is determined by food availability. Popul Environ. 2003;25(2):109117.

      The USA *ALONE* produces more than 6 times the food requirements of the entire human population.

      and a wiki discussion:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Population_as_a_function_of_food_availability

      This is an enormously complex area, but some countries that demonstrate negative population growth fails to discredit the larger pattern of 10,000 years of human history (and many other species) that food availability drives population.

    38. Re:very dangerous practice by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      While I disagree, apparently, with your worldview, at least it's more consistent than most... well, from the little facets that we see of them.

    39. Re:very dangerous practice by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I was sufficiently neutral in my post. I'm actually of apparently more or less the opposite worldview as you, yet you found my post rational. This is good. :)

      Unfortunately for most of these sorts of discussions, inconsistent people on both sides of the worldview spectrum - shall we say, atheists and theists, for lack of better terms - tend to muddy any conversations with inconsistencies. I mentioned one on the more atheistic side in my original post. I would view "evolutionary theism[/creationism]" as an inconsistency on the theistic side.

      [/ramblings]

    40. Re:very dangerous practice by drDugan · · Score: 1

      For me, this question is simply one of survival of the human species. 10,000 years ago humans did not have the capability of destroying the environment. Over the last 300 years we developed the ability, though it would have taken a lot of effort or severe negligence to make the world unlivable for humans. Today, we have the capability to destroy human survivability on Earth by accident, or unintended consequence of otherwise sound choices. In this situation, the philosophical issues take a back seat to the glaring practical issues of future famines, floods, and man made disasters that we can prevent with proper planning.

      As to why survival is important, in my view, there is intrinsic value in maintaining an environment on earth that will sustain human life supported by many lines of reasoning.

    41. Re:very dangerous practice by johnsonav · · Score: 1

      Please show me how you conclude this. Whomever modded this as insightful is as confused as you are.

      Okay. Here's what you wrote in your first post in this thread:

      Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth. The solution we need is not to re-engineer nature to meet the demands of growing populations better, but rather to focus on moderating the needs of people to fit within a natural environment created over 2 billions years which we *cannot* recreate if we destroy it.

      And, from the quote you provided in this current post:

      [...] human population growth is a rapidly cycling positive feedback loop in which food availability drives population growth [...]

      Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're stating that as long as food remains "available", we'll have a growing population, right? And to solve this problem, we should make food less "available", correct?

      Do you know what happens when food is less "available"? People starve to death. You're arguing that it would be a better world if fewer people had enough to eat. (though certainly not better for those hungry people, I suppose)

      You know nothing about me. I ride a bike to work, I grow my own food. Do you?

      No. But I'm not the one implying that there are too many people in the world, and that reducing the "availability" of food to some of them would be a good thing.

      This is an enormously complex area, but some countries that demonstrate negative population growth fails to discredit the larger pattern of 10,000 years of human history (and many other species) that food availability drives population.

      Certainly. But it does suggest that those countries have hit some other limit to growth; one that doesn't involve starving people to death.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    42. Re:very dangerous practice by drDugan · · Score: 1

      This is flagrantly incorrect. The population of the U.S. is an immediate and obvious counterexample. Humans don't actually (organically) breed like viruses; we only consume like them.

      Nope. The US and developing world numbers represent a counter example to larger trends (and which, ironically represents a way of living that is *UNSUSTAINABLE* for the current human population). The US is only about 5% of the world population.

      see:
      http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1247545
      http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1332674
      http://panearth.org/panearth/WVPI/Papers/CarryingCapacity.pdf

      citing above, "the number of other factors that influence human population size is beyond human capacity to list, comprehend, and synthesize."

    43. Re:very dangerous practice by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Before you get too self-righteous, it's not necessarily quite that simple. First off, scarcity of food may possibly cause people (consciously or unconsciously) to have fewer children. I don't know the science on that one, but it's possible.

      All available information points to the opposite being true: affluence results in fewer children (through causation or otherwise). Case in point: endemic Western populations are decreasing in size (and have been for 30+ years), while starvation-plagued countries like India and the majority of the African continent have population surpluses (though I believe the overall African affluence has increased somewhat in the last couple years, and there is a tremendous die-off due to disease right now, which might make their population growth somewhat less than it was in the past).

      I think that it's necessary for population to reach an equilibrium where the population density and social/technological progress are advancing at a closely paired rate (don't ask me what it would be) in order for the birth rate to drop. Population growth would have to not out-pace affluence growth, at any rate.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    44. Re:very dangerous practice by Macrat · · Score: 1

      But seriously, almost anything would be less cruel and cause less suffering than condemning someone to die of starvation.

      I guess you've never been sentenced to tech support.

    45. Re:very dangerous practice by drDugan · · Score: 1

      Yup, you're wrong -- you have misinterpreted my intent and attributed arguments and implication to me that I did not make.

      Changing population and rates of population change will take *generations* to accomplish.

      The important piece is this: " focus on moderating the needs of people to fit within a natural environment ".

      There are hundreds of different specific tactics individuals can and do take that help solve the issues at hand. However, there needs to be a radical shift in human expectations of growth and prosperity and a more humble appreciation of the natural world before we will truly fix the issues.

      If you want to understand better where I'm coming from, please go read the citations I posted in the other posts, and watch this http://www.home-2009.com/ to get a better understanding of where the rest of the developing world lives today.

    46. Re:very dangerous practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod the parent up...

      There is potential for great harm here.

    47. Re:very dangerous practice by johnsonav · · Score: 1

      Yup, you're wrong -- you have misinterpreted my intent and attributed arguments and implication to me that I did not make.

      I don't know what else to conclude from your presented argument.

      You stated that you are against our attempts to produce more food:

      In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has: make more food for more people with fewer resources. This is completely backwards, and will fail us in a devastating way long term.

      You link food availability to population increases:

      Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.

      And, you state that this linkage between food and population is a universal fact:

      This is an enormously complex area, but some countries that demonstrate negative population growth fails to discredit the larger pattern of 10,000 years of human history (and many other species) that food availability drives population.

      The only conclusion I can draw from these statements is that you are against increasing the availability of food for people who need it.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    48. Re:very dangerous practice by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      What makes it intrinsic?

    49. Re:very dangerous practice by Xeth · · Score: 1

      Uh... exactly? It seems to me that those articles argue directly against food supply as being of prime importance to population growth.

      --
      If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
    50. Re:very dangerous practice by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      Honestly, the argument the GP is making is that we should, by our inaction, allow some poor people in some far away country to starve to death. Those poor people consume far fewer of the earth's resources than the average American. If the GP really wants to make a difference and free up some resources, maybe he should start with himself.

      That was almost what I was thinking; [under Cap and Trade] assassins should get Carbon credits for each kill for them to sell to industry. Should the amount be prorated based on individual? Just Joking (I hope.) Tim S

    51. Re:very dangerous practice by Green+Salad · · Score: 1

      Super Tuna - 14.99

      Super Deluxe Tuna - 17.99

      Super Deluxe Ultimate Tuna - 23.99

      Endangered Species - market price - subject to availability

    52. Re:very dangerous practice by nine-times · · Score: 1

      if evolution is a completely unintelligent process, then if we misuse intelligence and end up wiping ourselves (and whatever else) off the face of the earth, then it seems to me that would simply mean we weren't "fit" for survival. I don't see, from the perspective of that worldview, what loss there would be in losing the world we can't recreate if we destroy it. There's no inherent value in it, is there?

      It seems worth noting that this logic only works if you assume that value is something placed on our lives by an intelligent creator, and not something that we place on our own lives. Since you're starting from the assumption of no intelligent creator, there's a potential conflict there.

      I'm not sure if that's clear enough, but let me ask this: if there is no creator and no intelligence to the process, then what basis could there ever be for any value judgement other than our own human value judgements?

      Or do you believe that there isn't such a thing as valid value judgements at all? In that case, why are you asking about "inherent value"? In fact, why are you trying to convince people here of anything, if the opinion you're espousing has no value?

      My best guess from your post is that you have an implied value judgement that "survival of the fittest" is a natural process, and therefore good or at least appropriate. However, at the same time you're arguing a contrary position that there is no such thing as a contradiction between "natural" and "unnatural", and that no value can be placed on natural processes.

    53. Re:very dangerous practice by barath_s · · Score: 1

      "the size of fish ...has declined due to industrial fishing practices wiping out the larger subspecies Hmm. Fish grow slowly over time. Industrial fishing kills off the huge ones, and ensures that smaller ones don't get to grow up enough to grow huge. Solution : Timemod instead of Genemod. Invent a time machine/time accelerator so that said fish spends 50 years (in far past or in 50:1 time ratio) to grow huge. For some reason, there are opponents to this as well ....

    54. Re:very dangerous practice by drDugan · · Score: 1

      ???

      No.

      That food supply data adequately fits the logistic model of human population dynamics provides evidence that, consistent with ecological notions typically applied only to nonhuman species, human population increases are a function of increased food availability.

    55. Re:very dangerous practice by GNious · · Score: 1

      Seems you and I haven't been dating the same women...

  18. Oblig SouthPark gay fish reference by VampireByte · · Score: 1

    Do you like fishsticks?

    Do you like to put fishsticks in your mouth?

    --

    Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.

  19. No you may not Re:Tuna Overlords by davidwr · · Score: 2, Funny

    May I be the first to welcome our new Tuna overloards...

    No you may not.

    May I be the first to say you can tune a filesystem but you can't tuna fish. Oh wait, someone beat me to it.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:No you may not Re:Tuna Overlords by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      May I be the first to say you can tune a filesystem but you can't tuna fish. Oh wait, someone beat me to it.

      REO Speedwagon

  20. super yeast by Twillerror · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can't we start with something simpler and get some super yeast meant for beer!

    1. Re:super yeast by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

      What do you want in a beer that you aren't getting? If you bump up the alcohol percentage, it isn't legally a beer anymore, and it seems like you should be able to find something you like given the variety available.

      As far as productivity, hops are a bigger problem than yeast.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:super yeast by jd · · Score: 1

      The closest to "super-yeast" I know of are wine yeasts which go up to somewhere in the 21-24% region. If you use an ale yeast first, to get the right waste products, errr flavour, then restart with something like this to ramp up the neurotoxins, you should be fine.

      However, if you just want regular ale, I would recommend SkullSplitter.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:super yeast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.hambletonbard.com/English/Homebrew_Products/Turbo_Yeast/Alcotec_Turbo_Yeast.htm

  21. Greater Tuna? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    What's next, A Tuna Christmas?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  22. Sushi by SlashDev · · Score: 1

    Cheap Super tuna Sashimi. Wohoooooo!

    --

    TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
  23. Tuna Schmoona by Zephiris · · Score: 2, Informative

    Even if it lowers the cost, it won't especially matter much, will it? You can't entirely remove tuna from the ecosystem as a consumer, and they get a lot of mercury in their diet, pass it along. Eastern little tuna are lower in mercury according to Wikipedia, but they're specifically mapping and going to be modifying bluefin tuna.

    This doesn't terribly seem like the most sensible idea to invest large amounts of time and money in if it's just going to produce more fish that you can't safely consume greater amounts of. You've got mass lead poisonings coming out of China; in 10 or 20 years, will you get mass mercury poisonings thanks to Japan and this project?

    --

    "A Goddess rarely smiles for she is forced by others to be an island unto herself." - Zephiris
    1. Re:Tuna Schmoona by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      If they really wanted to get fancy, they would figure out a way to modify the tuna so that the mercury would collect in a particular organ. That way, the muscle would have very little, and the mercury enriched organ could be treated as an ocean cleaning apparatus.

  24. Sounds great... by joebok · · Score: 1

    Sounds great, what could possibly go wrong?

  25. Re:Obligatory by maxume · · Score: 1, Funny

    That sounds a little kinkier than necessary for the public internet.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  26. AM/FM Tuna? by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

    Which bands does it receive? Is it a superheterodyne tuna?

    --
    I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
  27. Cross them?! by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Cross them?! Cross them with what? Other tuna species? Piranhas? Cmdr Taco?

    Or, make them angry? Why would they be, err... angry, at anything?

    1. Re:Cross them?! by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 0

      They would be angry because they've been crossed with mutated ill-tempered sea bass! All it would take then to lead to armageddon would be some idiot attaching frickin' laser beams to their heads!

      --
      This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
    2. Re:Cross them?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just maybe give them bigger brains ?

      But, really. Piranha are quite tasty, actually.

      Funny you should mention them. ;>

    3. Re:Cross them?! by Green+Salad · · Score: 1

      Definitely not with Cowboy Neil !

      Could you imaging trying to create a restaurant menu that made it sound attractive?
      ...raw, rolled in rice or seared at high tempurature and served swimming in butter...

  28. oblig. by mewsenews · · Score: 2, Funny

    Stop having a boring tuna. Stop having a boring life.

    -- Vince 'Slap Chop' Offer

  29. Godzilluna by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

    Tampering with the genes of the tuna shall only create a monstrous and awesome tuna, and it will writhe and flip all over Tokyo, reducing it to rubble.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  30. I thought by auric_dude · · Score: 2, Funny

    that Green Peace had canned this line of research some time ago?

  31. You disgust me by MaizeMan · · Score: 1

    In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has: make more food for more people with fewer resources. This is completely backwards, and will fail us in a devastating way long term. Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.

    Seriously, you do. I'm all in favor of trying to limit population growth, as the earth does have limited resources. Most of Europe has birthrates below replacement level, and I haven't heard of any food shortages over there. But you do realize how lack of food limits population growth right? It's not lower birth rates because people in some of the most food insecure nations of the world have the highest birthrates.

    Starvation. Primarily of those too weak to defend themselves. That means small children, and often their mothers. Spend some time reading about what starvation does to the body sometime. It's a terrible way to die, and even if it weren't you're cheering for the death of children to stop the growth of population. How can you live with that?

    1. Re:You disgust me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you

      -John

    2. Re:You disgust me by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Most of Europe has birthrates below replacement level, and I haven't heard of any food shortages over there.

      Still, it's not quite so simple. I remember hearing about a study recently that, all around the world, connected lower birthrates strongly with increased consumption of resources. What they found was basically that, if the amount of resources used per-person was figured to be roughly equivalent to what a 1000-pound animal would consume, than they had roughly the same birthrate as a 1000-pound animal. If they consumed resources at the rate of a 2000-pound animal, then they had the birthrate of a 2000-pound animal. The mechanism hadn't yet been found, but researchers suggested that there must be some kind of natural psychological factor whereby people chose to have fewer children based on a perception of an increased need for resources.

      Interesting stuff, but admittedly not very concrete. Still, it raises lots of questions about both population growth and industrialization. If the slower birthrates come at the cost of increased consumption, then it means the solution to scarcity might not be so simple as reallocating our natural resources.

    3. Re:You disgust me by MaizeMan · · Score: 1

      Well it depends on what the limits are on natural resources, and there is a hope technology can decrease the resources required for a given increase in standard of living.

      Regardless, we're caught between a fixed expenditure situation (increasing the standard of living around the world to the point where population size is static or decreasing), and an ever increasing cost situation where the population continues to increase and resource use also increases regardless of how low the cost per person is.

      I'm not sure what the best solution really is. I just know casually condoning the idea of hundreds of millions starving to death as a solution (what drDugan was doing above) isn't something I or any feeling human being, should be able to live with.

    4. Re:You disgust me by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I'm not particularly condoning anything or saying I know the best solution. I'm just saying it's not simple. If you're feeling particularly ready to come down hard on one side of the argument, without considering the fallout of all the various implications, then you probably aren't appreciating the complexity of the problem you're addressing.

    5. Re:You disgust me by MaizeMan · · Score: 1

      There's definitely complexity, but there are also solutions that can be ruled out immediately. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

      Intentionally refraining from increasing the food supply because one was worried about population growth would be genocide by omission. Beyond that there are plenty of positions and plenty of arguments, from subsidized birth control, tax incentives, economic development, education campaigns. For that matter one could even argue in favor of forced sterilization before accepting mass starvation.

      Beyond the moral implications (especially considering in the US we're still a food exporting nation, so many of the people who'd propose such a thing don't have to worry about anyone they've every met starving just faceless others people), consider the ecological damage a starving population does while it's suffering and dying. People aren't going to sit by and starve quietly with elephants roaming around in the nearby national park. Overpopulation isn't going to leave farmers to starve for lack of land to grow food with rainforests still standing nearby. One of the primary threats to endangered orangutans is poor Indonesia farmers who hunt them with blow guns for food.

      It really is quite easy to rule out some solutions. It's like trying to make a car more fuel efficient. Making car body out of baby seals to lower the mass of the vehicle would be both inhumane, and there are alternatives that'd work better with fewer moral qualms.

  32. Do *what* if you cross them? by nsayer · · Score: 1

    The new breed will grow faster, taste good, have resistance to disease and will totally kick your ass if you cross them.

    Uh, does jabbing them in the mouth with a barbed hook not count as "crossing them?" I don't think that's what the tuna fishermen would want.

  33. Clive Cussler book by eeek77 · · Score: 1

    Clive Cussler gave some reasons NOT to do this in his book "White Death."

    Yes, it's fiction, but still....

    Destroys the marine ecosystem through a fish monopoly, etc.

    Enjoyable book, though.

    1. Re:Clive Cussler book by cbelt3 · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. The concept of a 'frankenfish' which deliberately accelerates evolution for shortsighted purposes is a baaaad idea with a bad end for all of us.

  34. In Japan... by thervey · · Score: 2, Funny

    In Japan, super tuna eat you!

  35. All about the food chain by MaizeMan · · Score: 1

    I suppose there's no logical reason they couldn't eventually figure out a way to modify the Tuna to be herbivores. The whole reason they have such high mercury levels is they're at the top of a relatively long ocean food chain. Mercury accumulated in higher level predators because they accumulate almost mercury what was in the bodies of whatever they eat, which have in turn accumulated all the mercury from that ever their food ate and so on.

    Of course I have no idea if Tuna raise of soybeans and rice would taste nearly as good, and plenty of people prefer good taste to avoiding toxins.

  36. Re:Obligatory by Lord+Fury · · Score: 5, Funny

    Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna

    Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna

    Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna

    Heroes in my sandwich

    Tuna Power!

  37. Tuna less scary than Corn? by MaizeMan · · Score: 1

    So far there's on idiot down thread to turned this into "let's starve the masses to save the planet" but overall the response has been a lot more reasoned than I expected. Seems DNA altered Tuna is less threatening than DNA altered plants.

    I'm drawing a blank, does anyone else have an idea why that would be?

    1. Re:Tuna less scary than Corn? by rhathar · · Score: 1

      Tuna tastes better.

      --
      http://www.chaotickingdoms.com
  38. Because we're not ready yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Humanity is not sufficiently advanced to no longer be faced with the issues you bring up.

    How can we effectively maintain neutrality while attempting to manhandle nature for purposes that directly serve humanity?

    When humans understand their inherent centrality in this World, and become responsible enough to maintain that centrality (while utilizing all this awesome "intellect" people cite when making arguments like this) to 'tweak' settings on the "Big Machine", the argument will dissolve.

    Imagine, for a moment, that you are 4 years old. It occurs to you that cookies are the penultimate foodstuff, and no foods other than cookies matter, for any purpose, public or private, visible or invisible.

    Imagine, also, that you are endowed with *some* of the creative potential and scientific capability to affect this change in yours, and the the lives of all other 4 year olds, forevermore.

    Now, fast-forward to age 16, when you obese, toothless, malnourished (yes, you can be all three), and by effect of your actions, your peers and their children are similarly afflicted. Because of the alteration of what I will call "the continuum of persistent reality", you have altered your own ability to maintain compatibility with any other continuum, and thus have altered the ability of any other organism affected by your choices to regain their own, rightfully entitled arc along a projected path.

    In short, you fuck it up for everybody, whether they like it or not, whether they recognize the problem, or not.

    1. Re:Because we're not ready yet. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Please define "advanced". I will restate his question in simpler terms, if there is no Higher Power that I have to answer to, why should I give a s****?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  39. Re:Obligatory by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    and I, for one, welcome our ichthyous overlords!

  40. Mod me down, or another alternative....t by BlackPignouf · · Score: 0, Troll

    Or you know, we could just stop overfishing them.
    WTF is wrong with you people?
    Instead of questioning ourselves on our energy consumption, we just hope that tomorrow will bring new photovoltaic modules with 12000% efficiency.
    Instead of questioning ourselves on the fact that we eat too much meat and fish, we keep on depleting fish resources around the world, while some Japanese (incidentally, the biggest tuna consumers & fishers) scientists might come with a super-tuna "next decade or so".
    Problem is, it might already be too late.

    It is high time we learned to take some responsibilities and stop relying on dubious techno-science stuff.

  41. Tuna are already pretty super. by McKeegan · · Score: 1

    They're huge, they're incredibly fast, and they have tasty meat. In fact, their meat has some pretty amazing properties, for a fish. It's just that we're probably over-fishing them, which is why the Japanese want to breed a 'better' tuna. I prefer chicken-salad anyway.

  42. Re:Obligatory by MarkRose · · Score: 1

    Heroes in a half can! Tuna Power!

    --
    Be relentless!
  43. Singing fish by SoundGuyNoise · · Score: 1

    Will they demand the return of their fallen brethren who have already been processed into fast food?

    --
    You never expect irony, do you?
    Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
    @iyfwrestling
  44. polarized opinion across Alantic Ocean by peter303 · · Score: 1

    On the American side of the pond few Americans care or think GM is harmful. In Europe almost everyone abhors it. Its gotten bad enough that American grain aid to Dafur and other starving African areas sometimes rots in warehouses because the Euro advisors tell Africans the grainis poisonous.

  45. Awww, it even has a little red cape... by DeusExMach · · Score: 1

    Yawn. Wake me when they have SuperBeef.

    1. Re:Awww, it even has a little red cape... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      "Waiting for Super Beef?" Its here. Whale tastes like beef. The Japanese fish to eat; 'nuff said?

    2. Re:Awww, it even has a little red cape... by DeusExMach · · Score: 1

      mmm... Sea-cow. ...wait, I thought that was manatee?

    3. Re:Awww, it even has a little red cape... by TheDugong · · Score: 1

      Steller's Sea Cow.

      All eaten up. Just like that.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steller's_sea_cow

  46. Nope - by itomato · · Score: 1

    That was StarKist.

    buh-dum-pum

  47. Chicken of the sea no more? by renimar · · Score: 1

    So if regular tuna is 'chicken of the sea', what would this super tuna be? 'Ostriches of the sea?'

    (Or if you go with PETA's metaphor of 'kittens of the sea', I guess these would be... cougars? Leopards?)

    --
    In other news, Microsoft Windows users are now covered under the Americans with Disabilties Act...
  48. What happens when they finish? by curtix7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Scientists: We created a super strain of tuna that is better in every possible way. Can we release it into the ocean?
    Environmentalists: No.
    Scientists: Please?
    Environmentalists: Will it take over existing species?
    Scientists: Yes but it will also make it easier/cheaper to feed the world population.
    Environmentalists: No.


    Conservation sounds like a good idea and all but how sweet would it be if the ocean was full of super salmon and super tuna that had the qualities mentioned here? If we created a super fish that was a source of food for these larger fish and also reproduced extra fast we could theoretically get so much more of our food from the ocean.

    People are always mentioning pollution from livestock farming. I don't know if this is actually a significant factor in global warming type concerns, but it would be interesting to know how much greener we would be if we farmed super tuna instead of cattle.

    Even if more than a few species of fish went extinct, I say it would be worth it.

    1. Re:What happens when they finish? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      What if these bigger, faster-growing, tasty tuna just happen to be slow and stupid compared to normal tuna; causing their numbers in the wild to be decimated by natural predators? Or, maybe they're super-sensitive to certain parasites or diseases that ruin their meat. Genetic engineering ain't dustin' crops, boy.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  49. Conservation? by ZipprHead · · Score: 1

    Instead of spending money on this kind of research, why don't they invest in policing their fishing fleets better so the existing Tuna stock won't be depleted in a few years?

  50. Re:Obligatory by WitheringtonSmythe · · Score: 1
  51. Re:Obligatory by Kugrian · · Score: 1

    Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna

    Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna

    Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna

    Heroes in my sandwich

    Tuna Power!

    So sorry I used my mod points already.

    Even more sorry that I sang your post.

  52. Growing faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IANAGB (Genetic Biologist)

    but wouldn't this make them more susceptible to cancer. Or does the Omega 3 grow faster too inhibiting this near mutation/catastrophe.

  53. Jurassic Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeff Goldblum, is that you?

  54. you can tune a file system by jipn4 · · Score: 1

    but you can't tuna fish.

  55. What could go wrong? by ImYourVirus · · Score: 1

    Hopefully they aren't to productive...

    What could possible go wrong you ask? This could...

    You call be parinoid, just wait and see, lol.

    --
    Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
  56. I Got Better Idea! by tunapez · · Score: 1

    Make them very small and dispense them like candy.

    The kids will eat em up!

    --
    Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
  57. Someone tell Japan... by Sleepy · · Score: 1

    Someone tell the Japanese we already HAVE "super tuna"... it's called a "whale", and the Japanese are harvesting them into extinction.

    The Japanese could do a lot of good for the world's fisheries if they gave up fish for 1 hear, and hunted JELLYFISH.

    Jellyfish are about all that is left of marine life, near the Japanese coast.

  58. Fishtastic Four by Trip6 · · Score: 1

    Super Tuna: overwhelms bad guys with his amazing taste, fast growth and resistance to disease

    Dominant Dolphin: with a snout that can penetrate any armor

    Excellent Eel: zaps bad guys before turning them over to the authorities

    Outrageous Octopus: with super suction cups that can be used to lift and hurl heavy objects

    I hereby retain all rights to the above characters.

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
  59. Really dumb whales are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They aren't fluffy or cuddly, so nobody would care about harvesting dumb whales.

  60. jellyfish by J05H · · Score: 1

    Give the super-tuna a taste for jellyfish and we are all set.

    --
    gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
  61. Wait until 4chan finds out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Super tuna sex pics in 3...2...1

  62. Re:Obligatory by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

    Super Tuna Fish! FUCK YEAH!!!! Coming again to save the motherfucking day, yeah!

  63. Man those crazy Japanese are obsessed with porn by Snufalufagus+Prime · · Score: 1

    Oh wait, tuna *FISH*! Uh..nevermind.

    --
    "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." -Groucho Marx
  64. Re:Obligatory by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

    Sandwich!? I want a Spicy SuperTuna Roll.

    --
    You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  65. vegetarian by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

    I have read that they are also trying to turn this species into vegetarians (tuna are predators). There is a worry that the stock of feed fish they use could be impacted by large scale tuna farming. Supposedly, Scandinavians have been trying to do this (unsuccessfully) with salmon as well.

  66. Didn't you know? by davegravy · · Score: 1

    That sounds a little kinkier than necessary for the public internet.

    In Canada we have no expectation of privacy on the internet, hence there is no "private internet".

    Might as well post it on /.

  67. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heroes in my sandwich

    Dude i herd u like heroes, so I put a hero in your gyro so you can eat while you eat.

  68. Re: terrible-smelling food by macraig · · Score: 1

    It also happens to smell just as bad coming out as it does going in: have you ever been in the bathroom when someone who has eaten a lot of tuna recently is taking a piss?

  69. Re:Obligatory - you better! by refactored · · Score: 1
    Tuna are the "cheetah" grade predators of the sea as it is.

    Releasing a "new improved" predator into an already overfished sea strikes me as absurdly dumb.

  70. I for one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new mutant tuna fish overlords

  71. spicy tuna by despeaux · · Score: 1

    maybe they'll make a supertuna with spiciness built into it. i love me some spicy tuna rolls.

  72. I can't resist... by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    Toro! Toro! Toro!

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  73. Unintended Consequences by tnmc · · Score: 1

    In less than 50 years this "super" tuna will mate inter-species and the resultant "Godzilla" will come out from the sea and destroy Tokyo.

  74. Godzilla vs Super Tuna by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

    This will be a chance for them to bring back Godzilla for another round, but this time in IMAX-3D for the ultimate monster effects film with absolute minimalist plot.

  75. A Word From Dr. Ian Malcolm by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

    Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's swimming and screaming.

    --
    It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
  76. I for one welcome.. by grepya · · Score: 1

    .... you know the rest....

  77. Bless the Japanese!!!! by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    For their crazy antics will either keep us entertained for thousands of years to come or they will be the end of us all.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  78. Emotive arguments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup, Anonymous Coward it is.

    Just a couple of things. Lots of rant about poor starving Africans, but how is this Japanese "Super" Tuna going to benefit them? Are the Japanese going to send them all over there after harvest? I doubt it. Bringing starving Africans into the debate is just an emotional blackmail.
    Also, all the people saying how we've been genetically modifiying stuff for hundreds of years, sure, but how long does it take for selective breeding to actually show an outcome? This isn't selective breeding, it's creating a new creature from scratch! They are taking thousands of years of mutation and cramming it into 1 generation!
    I'm no alarmist by any means, but I think we should stand back and take a look at what might come out of this rather than just saying progress for progress' sake.

  79. We need a new Tuna that can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a) breed well
    b) taste good
    c) 4x the size of a whale
    d) Pay tax

  80. Mercury by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    China is a MASSIVE mercury polluter. India is likely going to join that. Right now, about 1/2 of the mercury in the fish comes from China. Considering that China will accelerate the building of Coal plants, more will be added into to the oceans.

    How about they make the tuna that does not sequester Mercury? That could save a LOT of lives.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  81. Re:i'm glad that you saw jurassic park by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

    How did that get modded troll? Its spot on. The problem with new biotechnology isn't the logical scientific arguments that can be made against it. The problem is the emotional, irrational arguments that can be made repeatedly and loudly and with a few conspiracies thrown in for good measure. That's not to say that all arguments against it are total bullshit that a handful of clueless douchebags pulled out their asses one day, but by and large that is the case, and while it does indeed present potential dangers, the potential benefits are just phenomenal.
     
    The fact is that every living organism is controlled by genes. Just like altering a computer's hardware and software also alters performance accordingly, sufficient genetic alteration to useful organisms could do damn near anything. Those endless possibilities are simply too good to pass up. It's just a shame that we've got to cut through so much popular bullshit about the subject.

  82. I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...welcome our quantum brain wave-emitting tuna.

    They'll be awesome at piloting underwater mobile suits.

  83. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    an unfortunately-placed screen smudge caused me to read that as 'herpes in my sandwich'.

  84. yeah i was surprised by that mod too by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    ive been -1 troll plenty of times for not towing the party line like a good little slashbot

    but i thought this line of thought was something many slashdotters would actually agree too

    its pretty odd to find a partisan crowd of luddites with modpoints on this website. interesting

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  85. Japanese tuna in pastel colors? by Green+Salad · · Score: 1

    Well, if its the Japanese are working on it, maybe we'll have a choice of getting tuna meat pink or baby blue.

  86. SUper Salmon? Super Carp! by Wizarth · · Score: 1

    Dwarf Fortress is way ahead of them: "I think I made fish too hardcore" --Toady One

    http://dwarf.lendemaindeveille.com/index.php/Carp

  87. Related: Tuna in captivity soon by dodonpachi · · Score: 1

    Coincidence. This very same week scientists from SPANISH INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY IEO have succeed in getting millions of Red tuna eggs from same "generation" (I don't know the exact term in english, sorry) Difference between previous attemps being in the low number of eggs til now.

    Aprox. translation from El Pais news

    "A team of scientifics from IEO has gotten several red tuna (Thunnus thynnus) lays of about 5 million eggs each...

    ... Scientists have inducted hormones to the tuna and have gotten those 5 million eggs between monday and wednesday this week. They are starting the next phase of the project wich is about developing those larva...


    Very very good news for sushi lovers (me myself!!) but BETTER news for one of the most overexploitted fish on the sea.

  88. And will it be able to remove mercury ... by chthon · · Score: 1

    ...from its metabolism ?

  89. No more factory (and destructing) ships? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do this means that the japanese factory ships wil not to continue destroying South American oceans only to fish OUR natural resources?
    If yes, GOOD.

  90. Idea Man by wallsg · · Score: 1

    How to save time making tuna salad sandwiches..

    Idea: Feed mayonnaise to tuna fish.
            -- Billy Blaze

  91. ... and of course most importantly... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    ...it will make you get the craziest diseases that nobody ever heard about, but who cares if you can get it cheap, right?

    Watch Food, Inc.!

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.