Superfish are no superfix for hunger. Jean-Michel Cousteau writes about these genetically modified salmon that grow twice as large six times as fast as a natural Atlantic salmon, while consuming only 3/4 of the food. 100,000 of these, raised by a Canadian firm, await regulatory approval for sale to U.S. markets, the largest in the world for farmed fish. Like the first green revolution, this is supposedly a response to world hunger. But we should know by now world hunger isn’t so much a problem of undersupply as inequity of distribution, and just as the green revolution took care of agribusiness first, this development is mostly good for biotechnology. The problem is that some mathematical models indicate that introducing transgenic fish into a native population — and do you believe that sequestration is possible?? — may so adversely influence the overall fertility of the species that it will lead to extinction. So hurry up and eat your salmon. Environmental News Network.

Now contrast the above concerns with this critique of a related issue — environmentalists’ concerns about the introduction of non-native species into ecosystems. Reason magazine covers the controversy created by philosopher Mark Sagoff’s contention, at this spring’s meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that

arguments over which landscapes are to be preferred…should be recognized for what they are and debated on their proper terms, as

value judgments that are rooted not in science, but in aesthetics. The fact is that tastes vary. Some people love

to look at fields of amber grain and to hear the gentle lowing of cows in a barn. Others prefer prairie grasses

dotted with wildflowers and the rude huffing sounds of bison. Ecology will not and cannot tell us which

landscape is “better” or should be favored. The most beautiful landscape or ecosystem, like beauty itself, is in

the eye of the beholder.