nmb

Last night I went to see a noisy staging of snow geese. It was a pretty marvelous sight. And you think to yourself—you’re maybe a little impressed at the showing of birdpower and a little amused by the showing of people parked alongside the road to watch the avifauna—but you have to ask yourself, what does 45,000 snow geese even mean? 45,000 is the number, based on previous years’ records, that I’m assuming I saw. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were true. A writhing sea of white and you more or less lose track of numbers. It could have been more geese; I wouldn’t know.

It’s definitely an impressive spectacle. And unlike witnessing noisy flocks of birds you know to be alien—starlings, for instance—you think: this is a good thing. You want it to be a good thing, that all these birds are existing, thriving. You want sheer numbers to be an obvious demonstration of the species’ robust health.

But of course, it’s not as clear-cut as all that.

Witness the spectacle of the greater snow goose’s more populous cousin, the lesser snow goose:

Large numbers of these lesser snow geese grubbing around streams makes the soil unstable, makes the stream-bank widen through erosion, exacerbated (as you might expect) by spring flooding (in their northern habitat). Lesser S.G. sticking their bills around in the soil leads to increased evaporation of water from the soil, which in turn makes the soil more alkaline and increases salinity. Which kills willows (above picture). Etc. etc.

The point not necessarily being that 6 million lesser snow geese is an irrefutably bad thing, a blanket statement like that being essentially ridiculous, but that it pays to heed the specter of ‘carrying capacity’. Geese taxing their (relatively) limited resources—particular habitats in which they thrive, particular foods they need to remain healthy, particular climactic conditions on which they depend—shows a clear example of what’s happening, but in a less obvious way, to humans. “How Many” is a question that gets bandied about till those doing the bandying are blue in the face. A better question being, How Much?

The answer to the question “How much can a snow goose reasonably be expected to consume?” is fairly straightforward, depending on the total population, the density of that population, and ecosystem factors (e.g., richness of the biota).

The answer to the question “How much can a snow goose reasonably expect to consume” is similarly straightforward, but has a markedly different answer. Assuming that a snow goose can have any kind of expectation, we might imagine that each snow goose expected to consume as much as possible, more nourishment correlating (up to a certain point) to a greater chance of survival. Sure, a hideously obese snow goose isn’t going to have very bright prospects for survival, but then again, other factors are probably going to prevent that from happening. Population density (other geese trying to get food in the same area) and physical activity in all likelihood militate against such a goose from existing, would be my guess.

There is no earthly reason for us to pretend that “How much can a human reasonably expected to consume” and “How much can a human reasonably expect to consume” should (or even can) have identical answers.

But in the interests of survival, we’d better hope that the gap between the two expectations narrows, because as a matter of physics and biology the former answer will triumph. You can’t cheat carrying capacity.

Snow Goose References:

Lesser Snow Geese and the Trophic Cascade

Over Abundant [sic] Snow Goose Population - Environment Canada

Snow Geese Taking a Gander at Pennsylvania

Snow Goose and Waterfowl (PA Game Commission)

US Fish & Wildlife Service: Snow Geese

Every year, passports are stolen. No big surprise there. But many of these documents (more than you’d think) are stolen blank, i.e., ripe for planting pictures and fake names and so forth.

Also no big surprise, terrorists/criminals/corrupt officials/etc. can use these passports to cross borders.

Interpol (that nifty international crimefighting organization) keeps a database of these documents’ numbers. What numbers it obtains when countries report documents stolen. What numbers can then be used to track down and arrest criminals.

Interpol has 181 member countries.

Of those, only 34 share their data for this database of stolen passports (and other documents). Among those countries that do not share their information (though they can still access the database) are the U.S., Britain, and Germany.

Curious.

“But surely,” you protest, “it can’t be that easy to come by blank passports, can it?”

Well: “Since many countries still send passport blanks to small embassies and consulates in distant capitals, thieves need only to break in and crack what are often simple safes.”

Curious.

U.S. officials apparently cite potential ’security gaps’ in Interpol’s handling of information as a reason for not cooperating, i.e., not supplying the numbers of stolen passports.

(Because it’s safer to not provide stolen passport numbers to law enforcement agencies to aid in the arrest of criminals?)

An interesting factoid: the first warning about bin Laden came not from the U.S. or its ‘friends,’ but from Libya. Yes, that Libya.

(via BoGlo)

Q: Ever since seeing a Lamborghini in the movie Rising Sun, I’ve had what you might call a preternatural lust to buy one. Well, I thought I’d have to live with this for my entire life—this insatiable, impossible desire. I thought, as you might imagine, that buying one would be way out of my league. Well, recently I came into an extraordinary stroke of luck: I met a Lamborghini owner who was leaving the country and needed to sell his car (an ‘87 Anniversario Countach), which I was able to buy for $20,000. More recently, I’ve had the occasion to wonder whether the car is genuine. First of all, some of my friends (albeit the more distant ones) claim that I should be able to find some kind of bull-insignia on the hood of the car. More troubling is the fact that I’ve noticed, quite recently, that the speedometer only goes up to 140mph. Now, I realize that 140mph is well above the legal speed limit, but I can’t help but wondering whether this doesn’t seem a little slow for a car so fast-looking. Was I taken for a ride?

Michael,
from Magnolia, DE

A: First of all, the car in Rising Sun was a Vector, not a Lamborghini. Which I suppose is not your most egregious mistake (we’ll get to that in a moment), but that’s not the point. The point is, you’re a moron. Although I guess that’s not really the main point, either; I guess the point is that you don’t actually have a Lamborghini in your possession. Fact. I’d bet you $20,000 that you don’t. Let me spell it out for you. Assuming the car actually runs (it does run, doesn’t it?), there’s basically no way you could buy it (in the hypothetical scenario that it was a Lamborghini) for $20,000. Okay? My knowledge here is limited, but I’d be willing to guarantee that. Yes, there should be some kind of insignia or something on the car. The fact that—based on your admittedly questionable observations—the car has no visible insignia/logo/etc. is inherently suspicious. But that’s really a minor quibble. More importantly, you’re right in wondering whether 140mph might be a little too phlegmatic for such a sporty car. It is. Even more suspicious, however, is the fact that no Lamborghini Anniversarios were built in 1987. None were built until September 1988, as a matter-of-fact. What I really have to wonder about, however, is why you’re writing to a horticulture advice columnist for help on your automotive woes. Ignoring for the moment the fact that I was able, I think, to fairly adequately address your question, I only ask: why? Why? Why?

It’s funny that we can impart meaning on something as aberrantly vague as “you are expert at probing the motivation of others.” But I guess all we want is some hidden insight into the future, and if there’s even a shadow of a possibility that we might decipher something from a book and/or newspaper, we’ll grasp for it like hungry rats at a cube of ham.

(And I guess it is interesting, somehow, though mostly interesting simply because it seems like the sort of thing that shouldn’t be interesting. Anyway.)

On This Beautiful Day In History:

Today in 1933 the infamous German Reichstag fire engulfed the eponymous building, burning it to the ground. (You can also read the Manchester Guardian article [which is mis-dated March].)

On this date in 1961, J-L Godard’s Breathless (”À Bout de Souffle”) gets to premiere in U.S. movie theaters.

Gulf War I ends (1991).

Other Stuff You May (Or May Not) Find Interesting:

Mel’s The Passion etc. etc. is put in a context where it belongs. Which I don’t mean in a bad way, necessarily. All I’m saying is, Groundhog Day really does deserve to be looked at as a spiritual film. (via Christian Science Monitor)

Ever hear of Tuvalu? Hint: it’s a country. Recently, this tiny island nation has been pummeled (or is still being pummeled? I’m not entirely sure) by extra active King Tides. The 3 meter tides aren’t going to completely submerge the islands (which are at most 4.5 m above sea level), but they are going to be an uncomfortable reminder of the almost inevitable disappearance of the islands under a rising ocean, thanks to global warming. Here are two very curious facts. Fact 1: the population of the islands (eight of them) is about 12,000. Fact 2: neither Australia nor New Zealand have yet agreed to offer sanctuary in the event of the islands being completely flooded. (BBC)

Amount of water it would take, per day, to support 4.7 billion people at the UN daily minimum:

Amount of water used, per day, to irrigate the world’s golf courses:

Average amount of pesticides used per acre, per year, on golf courses:

Average amount of pesticides used, per acre, per year, in agriculture:

(via WorldWatch Institute’s Matters of Scale (March/April 2004))

Which is good news, at least.

“I knew a girl once,” Simcha was saying, “who absolutely refused to call me by my real name.”

      I never really trusted Simcha behind the wheel of an automobile.
Continue Reading »

(2002) dir. Menno Meyjes - with Leelee Sobieski, Molly Parker, John Cusack. Oh, and Noah Taylor as Hitler.

Synopsis: A fictionalized look into the life of Hitler (yes, that Hitler) as a young man, using an interesting story to try to examine what factors contributed to the Hitler that is now etched irrevocably into history and minds. This movie revolves around young Adolf Hitler’s bizarre, if tenuous, friendship with a Jewish art dealer (that would be John Cusack). In no way excuses what Hitler became, but does try to wonder how.

Noah Taylor - A Portrait of the Failed Artist as a Young Man
Review: I liked this movie. It is serious and at times uncomfortable—as any movie covering this topic should be—but keeps itself afloat with a periodic infusion of mild humor. Just the right amount. ‘Max’ doesn’t make Hitler likeable, but it does help remind us that he was human. Which is an important point if we’re not going to be fated to repeat the past, etc. etc. etc. This movie lets you feel some empathy for the character (at least, I could) without coming anywhere near a rationalization or justification for what Hitler became. Another thing I should point out is, the movie’s title is Max. Max is the art dealer character played by John Cusack. Hitler is not exactly a minor character, but he’s also not the person you see on screen the most; a lot of the movie is spent building context and fleshing out the storyline of Max’s life. All in all, a generally well-done and provocative movie. (The ending’s kind of predictable, but there’s only so much you can do when you have a real person figuring into your story.)

Rating: [••••] out of [•••••]

Etc.: Max Rothman: “Hitler, come on, I’ll buy you a glass of lemonade.” imdb info

“Cell phones aren’t inherently evil.”

Though it seems ironic, apparently cell phones are helping to “bridge the telephonic divide,” bringing rich and poor countries closer together when it comes to communication ability.

In part this narrowing inequality has to do with the fact that cell phone towers are actually much cheaper to build than the infrastructure that’s required for fixed-line phones. This makes sense if you think about it, though it’s certainly not automatically apparent to anyone who uses either kind of phone. Particularly since the people who have lived their whole lives in a consoling array of communication technologies come to expect that all these things will be available for them (telephones, cell phones, computers, TV, radio…) to the extent that temporary lapses in, say, phone service, evinces an almost automatic reaction of complaint.

Cell phones, despite their spotty performance, have probably only enhanced this reaction—to the extent that we now (many of us) expect constant attachment to a means of communication.

As anyone can tell you, there are certain people for whom this attachment is a real necessity, not imagined. Paramedics, for instance. For the most part I’ve assumed that cell phones were generally a cancer-like growth on society, spun wildly out of control and used entirely out of proportion to their necessity.

This, when you think about it, is actually kind of selfish.

To say that cell phones are basically an unnecessary good, one the world would not hurt to see disappear, neglects the fact that this is only true, all other things being equal. All other things are not equal. Not in the least bit.

Annual Growth Rate in Phone Connections
(Cellular and Fixed-Line) by Income Level of Country, 1992–2001 (WorldWatch Institute)

Thanks in part to mobile phones, gaps in phone access are being narrowed at an increasingly frenetic pace. And with cellular phone access, you also open the window of possibility for increased internet access.

Granted, the ‘internet divide’ today is still quite marked: 41 users per 100 people in the industrial world vs. 2.3 per 100 in the developed world. A 17 to 1 ratio doesn’t exactly sound a dazzling trumpet of equality. But it helps to put things into perspective when you look back and realize that the ratio, as of 1995, was 40 to 1. While providing access to Amazon.com, streaming radio, and Oakley.com isn’t exactly going to solve all the world’s problems, the internet can provide pathways to economic development¹, a la linkages between rural farmers and market information, would-be patients and information about treatment facilities and doctors, etc.

Okay, so there’s still a certain breed of cell phone user for which I have nothing but a few choice words. But cell phones have finally managed to escape my mild disgust.

:: :: ::
¹ Caveat: “economic development” is a dangerously ambiguous term that I’m only using here as a prop to keep this post focused on communication and not economics.

Saw a memo on my desk, everyone else gone from the office, memo said: birds attacking. That’s all it said. Well, and To: (my name) and Cc: and the Date and our company’s Name and everything, but other than that. My radio-in my car-was turned off for the time being, what with there being a pledge drive on the public radio station and not much else to listen to, so I didn’t hear how there were tanks lined up around the perimeter of the Parkcrest Hills Shopping Complex; I didn’t hear how there were men (and women) with something that looked like grenade launchers, not that your average citizen would happen to know what a grenade launcher looked like, and some kind of heavy body-armor and the kind of thing you see them wearing in movies about disease, like the full-body suits that are white or blue or orange, with the boxy helmet and clear plastic face-plate. My cell-phone was on the fritz too, I think the battery was dying. All I saw was the memo that said, birds attacking.

I was always the last one to know. No one ever told me anything.

I’m as suspicious of “secret reports” as the next guy, but this one seems to merit some attention.

The report, dug up by those folks at The Observer, predicts catastrophic climactic change (e.g., increasingly violent storms making the Netherlands largely uninhabitable by, say, 2007), worldwide riots, a significant increase in the number of days above 90°F in the US and Europe, wars fought primarily over access to water (and worsened by rampant nuclear proliferation goaded on by countries’ efforts to secure access to food, water, and energy supplies), etc.

Oh, right. And the report was commissioned by the Pentagon (specifically, Andrew Marshall, a P-gon defense advisor).

Surprised?

The Observer article is here, and a bulleted list of some of the study’s major findings/predictions is here.

Q: “In your view, does the entertainment industry need to make a serious effort to significantly reduce the amount of sex and violence in its movies, television shows and music, or don’t you think they need to do this?”

Gallup Poll. Feb. 6-8, 2004. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3.

	Need To	Don’t Need To	No Opinion
2/04	75%	24%	1%
6/95	83%	16%	1%

Q: “On another topic, there has been controversy over Janet Jackson’s exposure of her breast during halftime entertainment at the Super Bowl. Which of these positions comes closer to your view regarding Janet Jackson’s exposure? Television has reached a new low in bad taste. People who are protesting this incident are overreacting.”

Time/CNN Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. Feb. 5-6, 2004. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3.1 (total sample).

	New Low	Overreacting	Unsure
18-34 years	29%	66%	5%
35-49	49%	46%	5%
50-64	58%	40%	2%
65+	67%	28%	5%

Two interesting, if not terribly surpring and/or meaningful polls. The thing that most surprised me about poll #1 was the fact that such a high percentage of people agree (or pretend to agree) that the ent. industry should definitely do something about all the sex&violence that happen to show up in its products (imagine that! how did it get there? I dunno. think we should do something about it? nah, it seems to sell movies. you’re right, how foolish of me— let’s add more…). Less surprising is that fewer people today (assuming the drop is stat. sig., which is very well may not be) think the s&v are something for which Entertainment should take responsibility. This despite the probable increased incidence and prominence of s&v in entertainment today. Following a wildly unproductive vein of speculation: is this due to increased permissiveness, or decreased sensitivity? (And is there a difference?) My guess would be that it’s the sensitivity, not permissiveness. I’m basing this on the assumption that it takes more than nine years for any real, deep chances in what society’s prone to accept with open arms. Or red-eyed indifference, as the case may be. Just a thought. Thought #2 re: poll #2 is that, well, no surprise there. What’s most surprising is probably how unsurprising it is, in fact; how completely, devastatingly predictable the results are. I wonder if there are some highly unexpected and unpredictable factors playing into the ultimate picture of things. I wouldn’t be surprised if I were surprised by whatever an inquiring mind found. (That, for instance, this isn’t an inevitable trend that can be fitted equally well to any decade or period. I have no idea if this is true or not, but I’d expect it to have at least a grain of truth to it.)

p.s. both of these polls are drawn from www.pollingreport.com

We all float away yesterday now. It’s tired and visceral, those branches waving stain-faced at us, but they’re a kind of silly road that no one takes: no one gives a shit what those waving trees have to say, they might as well be underground the whole way entombed in crumbly earth. For all we care. The wavy, callous hard-learned faces don’t mean so much to every of us either, they’re tired too. Sickly and fading and dark-withered and sickly sweet like raisins. And imperfect. Jostling, irregular, sorry beginnings that didn’t ever go anywhere, they just stayed in place like fastened to a rock. And ugly. Like who’d ever want to touch their wrinkly soft-lined dirt-creased skin or breathe the air that might sometime be infected by all their hawking and hacking, like who’d known where those hands had been or what they’d touched maybe something gruesome unsanitary non-human tissue; like who’d ever want to hug them, wrap arms around that old old cloth they’ve sheathed themselves in for utilitarian sightless ends, what care they have is none; like who’d want to begin to consider ever entering into a non-contractual possibly even venereal consanguinity with progeny of their form, raised by their gritty flesh and shallow minds? Not we. There’s empty spaces, could be a non-issue but what if it isn’t.

• Fish from the sky: “As if the denizens of London did not already have enough to worry about trying to safely navigate muggers, backpackers and street performers, they now face a new threat: piranhas falling from the skies.” (yes, this is an actual quote from the article)
• Answers to the age-old question, “Has Text-porn finally made computers ‘human’?” A jaunty pop-culture take on the Turing Test challenge that looks at, among other things, spam (the e-mail kind) and salacious SMS chat. Interesting thought: a porno-bot (aka the Natachata chatbot) that dupes people into believing it really is another person was, in fact, conceived by a rocket scientist.
• Arianna Huffington’s Latest Column talks about, curiously enough, porn. Arianna points out that, amidst cuts to housing, veterans’ programs, and the NIH, the current administration is actually dumping more money into fighting porn. Which, maybe they think it’s a gateway vice to terrorism —who knows.
• Lies, lies, lies. Quick: who’s more likely to lie, someone talking on the telephone or someone writing an e-mail? Answer: person on the telephone. Surprised? Apparently (at least according to the research cited in this article) several factors come into play. One is the immediacy of phone calls vs. e-mails, e-mails giving the would-be liar a chance to come clean. E-mails also giving the would-be liar a potential source of embarassment later on, when the saved e-mail, lies bald-faced (or in some cases bold-faced) and intact, comes back to haunt her. I.e., “People appear to be afraid to lie when they know the communication could later be used to hold them to account.”
• Harper’s Weekly Review (2/3): “A federal judge tried for the third time to impose punitive damages on the Exxon Mobil Corporation for the Exxon Valdez oil spill fifteen years ago; Exxon Mobil said it would appeal the $4.5 billion judgment.” (compare: Exxon’s profit in 2003 was $21.51 billion). More here, here and here.

(via the Guardian - photo-contest winner Steven Langdon with ‘Farewell My Lovely’; click on the link for a better look at the sheep and a short explanation)

A Wild Sheep Chase by Haruki Murakami

I got this book because 1) I remembered someone, sometime, mentioning the name “Murakami” as someone they thought I’d like to read and 2) it was cheaper than The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle (also by Murakami). Two not particularly bad reasons. Also two not particularly wonderful reasons.

Fortunately, I got lucky. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a fine piece of work. A fairly involved, highly inventive story that, as the back of the book would have you believe, is a “marvelous hybrid of mythology and mystery.” Which seems a surprisingly fitting explanation of curious literary porridge that Murakami has cooked up. From the first paragraph, you’re hooked. (I was, anyway.) Murakami concocts a brilliant passage where, for several pages (—ten? twenty? you’d hardly notice—), two of the story’s main characters talk about ears.

Yes, ears.

And it’s one of the best parts of the whole book. It’s subtle without being too ordinary, mysterious without being too cliche or contrived, and philosophical without being in any way condescending, boring, or off-putting. This shows one of the things at which Murakami excels: balancing the normal with the absurd. Some very, very strange things happen in this book. Some unbelievably strange things. Things you’d probably never think of even if you sat in a room for years just thinking of strange things and listing them on paper. But there are also some very ordinary things that happen. Things that just about anyone can relate to. And it’s the way in which these two wholly disparate threads are woven together that make this such a fantastic story (and that make M. such a phenomenal storyteller).

You’ll be cruising along (figuratively), thinking to yourself, ‘well, this isn’t so bad, in fact it’s pretty good.’ Part of the magic is that you don’t even realize how good it is right away. Then it hits you, suddenly.

This story begins very inauspiciously, leading into a series of events that send the narrator on a highly unusual search. To find a sheep. Hence the title. And there’s mystery and adventure (and misadventure) and all kinds of sinuous plot add-ons and complications and thoughtful asides (or whatever you want to call them: distractions, divergences, digressions, etc.), and it’s all great.

After finishing this book and reading some snippets of writing from Murakami (in Vintage Murakami), I’m definitely ready for some more. I guess you could call that a pretty solid recommendation.

Corporate Governance Experts: “Executive pay at U.S. companies is still out of control”

Everyone Else (non-Experts): Tell us something we don’t already know.

This, an ad thanking Citigroup, which has been decried as the Most Destructive Bank in the World by the Rainforest Action Network for its reckless funding of development projects that endangered indigenous peoples, tropical rainforests, etc.? Thanks to a corporation fraught with malicious business practices, issues of questionable political funding, and so forth?

“Thank you Citigroup.” And the ad is by—get this—the Rainforest Action Network, no less! And does a single “policy declaration” by the world’s largest financial institution (formerly known as the world’s most destructive bank) suddenly make the world a happy place?

The appropriate answer here is probably: yes and no.

Mostly no and partly yes, but the important thing to keep in mind is that there’s some yes in the answer.

As much as I love to hate Citi, I reckon this is a start. Hopefully. There’s this statement explaining the “understanding” between Citi and RAN. Most of it’s fairly vague, generic “yeah, we can’t just ignore the fact that people and forests have value,” but again: it’s a start. And something to hold the company to; particularly phrases like this, which, given the corporate context, are actually quite remarkable:

“Citigroup and Rainforest Action Network recognize that every institution has a role to play in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the decrease in dependence on the carbon intensive fuels.”

Something to consider here is that Citigroup is GIANT. Like, humongous. With revenues upwards of $100 billion and assets in the neighborhood of $1+ trillion. So in other words, this small, admittedly fairly timid step by this giant financial services company offers some leverage against other companies, and a way to move forward.

To wit (from official RAN letters found here):

January 22, 2004
Mr. William B. Harrison, Jr.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
JP Morgan Chase
270 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Dear Mr. Harrison,

…

I am writing to invite you to join Rainforest Action Network in the global effort to preserve the world’s last remaining old growth forests and their traditional inhabitants and to confront global warming as one of the most pressing ecological issues of our time. Today, Citigroup, the world’s largest financial institution, raised the bar as the world’s first major bank to commit to a global policy addressing the crisis in the world’s forest and climate. This landmark announcement clearly signals a sea change in how the financial sector commits itself to these challenges.

…

Sincerely,
Michael Brune
Executive Director

If you feel like it, you can send your own letter. Anyway, maybe there’s hope yet.

Reuters, February 17, 2004:

“Italian researchers said on Tuesday they had found a new variation of mad cow disease…

…

“They [infected cow’s brains] look much more like the brains of people with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or CJD — not the kind that people catch from eating infected beef, but the kind that arises mysteriously in about one in a million people worldwide.

“More worrying, although the cattle were old, they had no visible symptoms of BSE and were only diagnosed after routine slaughter. … ‘It’s probably another ‘don’t worry’ observation but it does deserve some study,’ Brown said in a telephone interview. ‘There is no reason to suppose it might show up in human beings in some weird form.’”

GloFish: a genetically engineered zebrafish (Danio rerio) with a fluorescent protein from jellyfish and coral. Initially designed as a kind of pollution detector—the idea being that the fluorescent proteins would “turn on” when in the presence of certain kind of toxins—what the researchers got instead was a fish that glowed all the time.

GloFish	Zebrafish

This permanent-glowing fish fed immediately into a whole host of marketing possibilities; the fish were first sold in Taiwan in 2002, 100,000 of them being sold in less than a month (at $18.60 a pop). Yorktown Technologies introduced the fish to the U.S. at the beginning of 2004.

These fish are not without question, of course. Unlike most inanimate marketed consumer products, for which we only wonder why?, the GlowFish treads into territory that makes some people uncomfortable and other people ecstatic: genetic engineering. While it can be argued whether or not selective breeding is qualitatively different from genetically engineering, the GlowFish is almost certainly the first genetically modified pet to hit the U.S. market. To boot, a very, very brief overview of links (we’re talking exceptionally cursory, here) corresponding to each side:

Pros: GloFish™ Fluorescent Fish Guiding Ethical Principles FDA Statement Regarding Glofish (Dec 9, 2003) First Genetically Modified Pet (*.pdf) (Yorktown Tech. Press Release)

Cons: GloFish draw suit (The Scientist: Jan 7, 2004) Campaign on Genetically Engineered Fish (Center for Food Safety) GloFish Risk (ScienCentral News: Dec 23, 2003)

Yorktown (the company marketing the fish in the U.S.) claims, on a press release (dated Nov 21, 2003):

“The company spent more than two years researching fluorescent zebra fish to reach a broad consensus with leading scientific experts and state regulatory agencies that GloFish™ fluorescent fish are safe for the environment. Their findings unambiguously show that fluorescent zebra fish will have no advantages over non-fluorescent zebra fish, and would not be able to establish populations in the wild.”

So, okay, the fish probably almost definitely, without a doubt, no maybes about it, will not be able to displace wild fish when it escapes, and probably won’t survive. (Under every scenario imaginable? Right. How about under every unimaginable scenario? Er, well…)

Another question, of course, has to do with the precedent being set. Which could be that any GE pet, as long as it’s thoroughly studied, etc. etc., is okay to be introduced and sold and all that jazz. Since there aren’t any laws explicitly governing this, however, there’s lots of wiggle room (as I like to call it). In other words, potential trouble. The GloFish seems like it could provide a nice, innocuous pet with which to work out any glitches in the basically nonexistent approval system for these types of things. What’ll probably happen, though, is that we’ll have to work out these problems with a pet (or animal or something else) that is more obviously a potential threat and/or ethical quandary.

We’ll see.

Of course, there’s also the question plaguing us all: What will happen to me if I eat one of these fish?