Why are we never satisfyed? Natural vs Manmade

[Aquanero]

I'm new to keeping arowanas and I absolutely see the attraction to these amazing fish. However I am a puriest when it comes to fish and love the look of wild type fish. I love angelfish but will only keep wild sacalare, Altum etc I wouldn't give .05 for a designer type and don't want them in my tank. Same with aros, I just don't see why every fish needs to be transformed into some garish mutant to be appealing. Why is it that we love these fish so much and at the same time are not happy with the way nature (who by the way is a much better designer of species than we are) intended them to look? I recently saw the video of the veil aro, it looked like a giant betta and not a very good one at that. We have red fish, blue fish, gold fish, white fish and every combination there in and everyone drools over the $5000.00 price tag that goes with it. How can we love a fish so much and yet at the same time have so much distain for its natural form? Why must we turn everything into some mutated frankinfish? We don't improve them we ruin them. This is not judgement, everyone is entitled to keep what they like and defiantly fuels the hobby from a financial perspective, it is just my opinion.

If this can be discussed without name calling, insults, egos and all the other sophomoric nonsense that seems to follow most aros threads, I would like to hear some thoughts on this perspective.

 

[predatorkeeper87]

100% agree. I don't keep any fancy, or "designer" fish at all. I think anything specifically bred to look different from the natural form is taking away from this hobby as a whole.

 

[Yoda1]

Aquanero,

I agree to a point.
There are some nice man made colour forms of fish.
I like wild type Discus. But have seen some really stunning Blue Diamonds for eg.

For me, I don't like it when man starts fiddling with body shape.
Balloon Molly, Balloon Rams, Longfin Plecs, Longfin Oscars. IMO these are hideous.

I guess it all comes down to personal preferance.

 

[vincentwugwg]

I'm new to keeping arowanas and I absolutely see the attraction to these amazing fish. However I am a puriest when it comes to fish and love the look of wild type fish. I love angelfish but will only keep wild sacalare, Altum etc I wouldn't give .05 for a designer type and don't want them in my tank. Same with aros, I just don't see why every fish needs to be transformed into some garish mutant to be appealing. Why is it that we love these fish so much and at the same time are not happy with the way nature (who by the way is a much better designer of species than we are) intended them to look? I recently saw the video of the veil aro, it looked like a giant betta and not a very good one at that. We have red fish, blue fish, gold fish, white fish and every combination there in and everyone drools over the $5000.00 price tag that goes with it. How can we love a fish so much and yet at the same time have so much distain for its natural form? Why must we turn everything into some mutated frankinfish? We don't improve them we ruin them. This is not judgement, everyone is untitled to keep what they like and defiantly fuels the hobby from a financial perspective, it is just my opinion.

If this can be discussed without name calling, insults, egos and all the other sophomoric nonsense that seems to follow most aros threads, I would like to hear some thoughts on this perspective.

That 'betta' looking red aro I assume you are talking about was not bred by design.. it was a freakish mutation. Mutations are necessary and also a natural occurrence. Nature is constantly reinventing itself. We should embrace both the good and the bad. I, for one enjoy freak shows but I don't attack other people who don't see eye to eye with me.

'When you see an uneven road(unfair situation), pull out your sword to help(defend justice)'

 

[predatorkeeper87]

That 'betta' looking red aro I assume you are talking about was not bred by design.. it was a freakish mutation. Mutations are necessary and also a natural occurrence. Nature is constantly reinventing itself. We should embrace both the good and the bad. I, for one enjoy freak shows but I don't attack other people who don't see eye to eye with me (unless they come after me first!)

mutations happen naturally that's true, but negative mutations are weeded out in nature. I think what the basis for this thread is that we as people aren't satisfied with the way a fish looks naturally so we line breed horrific mutations into the fish to get the outlandish effects we've come to see in the hobby today. Defects that normally would not be seen let alone survive in nature are being sought after now. I doubt many platinum aros or polys would survive long in the wild haha.

 

[vincentwugwg]

mutations happen naturally that's true, but negative mutations are weeded out in nature. I think what the basis for this thread is that we as people aren't satisfied with the way a fish looks naturally so we line breed horrific mutations into the fish to get the outlandish effects we've come to see in the hobby today. Defects that normally would not be seen let alone survive in nature are being sought after now. I doubt many platinum aros or polys would survive long in the wild haha.

I believe mutations can't be negative or positive, unless you want to assume the 'god' role and pass final judgement. I like many different types of freakish looking fish because they offer a certain unique attraction I would otherwise not find in the same standard specimen. By keeping fish, we are playing 'god' rather we like it or not. The welfare of our wet pets is completely controlled by what we do as owners/keepers....

 

[vincentwugwg]

The second we take/buy fish away from their natural habitat and put them in a tiny little box for our viewing pleasure, we lose the right to judge 'others' (on the grounds of how moral something is) who breed fish for whatever desired traits. That of course is just one person's opinion. According to me, I think I am more honest with my reason for fish keeping. I enjoy being able to view my pets whenever I please and I enjoy the fact that, without me feeding and caring for them... they would all be dead. That was a visit to my 'dark' side.

 

[predatorkeeper87]

I believe mutations can't be negative or positive, unless you want to assume the 'god' role and pass final judgement. I like many different types of freakish looking fish because they offer a certain unique attraction I would otherwise not find in the same standard specimen. By keeping fish, we are playing 'god' rather we like it or not. The welfare of our wet pets is completely controlled by what we do as owners/keepers....

I agree aside from mutations being neutral. Living things of all types adapt over time to changing environments, call it a mutation or evolution but I feel that's on the same level. But when you get a genetic mistake, be it albinism or a short body mutation, that I would call a negative on the part of genetics. Albino creatures rarely live a normal length life in the wild, and I would also have to guess the same is true of any short body defect as well lol. The welfare of the fish has nothing to do with this discussion, how well you take care of a fish doesn't change the deformities specifically bred into it.

 

[predatorkeeper87]

The second we take/buy fish away from their natural habitat and put them in a tiny little box for our viewing pleasure, we lose the right to judge 'others' (on the grounds of how moral something is) who breed fish for whatever desired traits. That of course is just one person's opinion. According to me, I think I am more honest with my reason for fish keeping. I enjoy being able to view my pets whenever I please and I enjoy the fact that, without me feeding and caring for them... they would all be dead. That was a visit to my 'dark' side.

I'm not judging anyone. Keep whatever fish you like. Just because I don't agree with color and body deformities being popular in the hobby doesn't mean I'm going to go stand on my soap box and tell people they shouldn't own them. Asia is going to churn out creation after horrifying creation, and no amount of distaste is going to stop it haha. I'll stick to my normal, all natural natives and polys, no fancy colors, no spinal or fin deformities.

 

[vincentwugwg]

I agree aside from mutations being neutral. Living things of all types adapt over time to changing environments, call it a mutation or evolution but I feel that's on the same level. But when you get a genetic mistake, be it albinism or a short body mutation, that I would call a negative on the part of genetics. Albino creatures rarely live a normal length life in the wild, and I would also have to guess the same is true of any short body defect as well lol.

By that same logic should we round up all the 'special needs' , dwarfs, albinos, vampires, trolls etc and 'control' them? lol does it only apply to every creature other than human forms? Where is the line drawn? According to your reasoning, aren't all of the above mentioned also 'negative' as those traits would have a much harder time thriving in a natural setting?

I thought about not posting this for a good few mins but since this thread is based purely on opinion.... I hit the enter key.