Domestication of animals... Why stop there?
Posted on: May 17, 2010 - 2:12pm
Offline
Domestication of animals... Why stop there?
Why don't we do selective breeding to make an intelligent species of animal? I can understand that we don't want to compete for resources, but we are already feeding and housing animals.
I was watching a video clip on supercow again and it got me thinking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmkj5gq1cQU
I am curious on any thoughts on the subject.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
- Login to post comments
I think we are, at least with things like service dogs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labradoodle
Takes a lot of time though. It will be interesting to see how far they can get with traditional breeding selection. Of course, if we really crack genetic engineering in the next 50 years we're going to live to see all sorts of crazy shit.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Well, we breed animals for all kinds of traits. However, if we start breeding for the presence of a mind, then we have to ask ourselves some hard ethical questions. Once started, how do we define the level of intelligence where legal rights become pressing?
If we really did start to breed a super chimp, at what point do the animals develop the right to participate in their own decision making? Do we have to grant them the right to vote and some point? Hell, we grant broad slates of rights to the mentally retarded, why not to the super chimps?
=
I think domestication and making animals still more intelligent is the way of future. It will preserve some diversity of animal species, because they will be able to survive and thrive among people. I already made a topic about russian tame foxes, that were domestified like dogs and lost their wild traits completely. Lovely pets, really.
Genetic manipulation is a great method. If used with sanity and decency, of course.
Also, intelligent animals might serve for work tasks. Some tasks are too complex for a machine, but too boring and unproductive for a human. But animals are used for them traditionally with success. Typical examples are shepherd and watch dogs. Or reception desk service and administrative paperwork
I think human race has a great potential for cooperation. In the future, competition in all areas of life will be abandoned completely, perhaps with exception of some sports, where competition is practically symbolic. The upcoming age is the age of cooperation, unlimited and often uncharged creativity and new structure of society. The first sign of that may be considered data sharing networks, that sometimes violate copyright laws, yet are immensely popular and practically unstoppable.
Therefore, I am not afraid at all that intelligent animals would compete with people. There is a difference between animals and people, and certain abilities that animals can't have. A typical example is intuitive creativity. But I wouldn't be surprised if animals could fully develop logical, concrete mind. Also, animals are capable of great devotion and love for their keepers, if treated well. It's not like they would create labour unions any time soon
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I say we make super smart chimps that can cook themselves for us.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
suicide for the greater good? would we not run out of chimps if they all started cooking themselves
...
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Did anyone here ever see the original "Planet of the Apes" series? Basicly the Apes got smart, dumped the humans and took over.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Perhaps a caste system, breeders and cookers?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
We already have many intelligent species of animals; the issue is more one of communication.
I wonder what would happen with chimps. I think of the silver tail fox thing, and wonder if chimps might start becoming more human physically if we were to breed them for intelligence lol. But I have a hard time believing they have not already tried such a thing at some point.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Dolphins, they seem to actually have some type of language.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
If you're referring to modern times: The tools and methodology available are grossly inadequate to produce a financially feasible result within an acceptible timeframe (20-30 years)
If you're referring to pre-Christian times: Animals were domesticated strictly on the basis of providing food... in some manner or another (Obvious example:wolves helping us hunt and guarding our ancestor's villages)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Wolf wolf
Man wolf
All social animals do (although often limited in scope). The issue is more communication with us, and with subsequent generations through any system of writing (which would be needed to really expand their language and knowledge bases). Generally, it would seem the lack of thumbs is somewhat of an issue there.
I say we dump animals because they are filthy and smelly.
Let's get on board this train: CPU MAGAZINE
When trying to accomplish the next leap in computing, researchers always seem to come back to the brain. Certainly the model in our head is the primary reference for Dr. Klaus-Peter Zauner and his colleagues at the University of Southampton in the UK as they take on the monumental task of constructing a “wet” computer.
Wet computers, or those made of chemicals that imitate the workings of neurons in our brains, have many possible applications. In the field of synthetic biology, wet computers could help change bacteria that would create biofuels or gather solar energy. Wet computers could be used to develop “intelligent drugs” that can read a cell’s chemical composition and take the appropriate action. Also, “wet computing is particularly suitable for small, [ant-sized] robots, because chemical energy, [which is very energy-efficient], can be used directly,” says Zauner. Obviously, a wet computer is not raring to take over a typical computer’s job, but instead work in environments that would be anathema for conventional computers’ circuitry.
Would anyone care to buy shares in my new start-up 'SkyNet'? I promise to kill you last if you do.
How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais
I think the point where animals would be eligible for the same rights as humans would be when they can start talking and communicating with us in a way in which we can understand them. And then when they start to actually demand those rights. So, if a super-chimp actually told us it wanted to vote and have other rights, then it might be time for such things to occur.
The lack of communication isn't entirely on them, though; to a large part it's human inability to understand (e.g. dolphins, which apparently have a quite sophisticated vocabulary).
A more practical way of creating an atmosphere of eligibility for rights might be a little humility, on the part of humans.
That sounds a bit like David Brin's Uplift series. In those books, it was our genetic meddling with chimps and dolphins that allowed us to become an independent clan, rather than get adopted as a client species into another existing clan.
Excellent series of books. I recommend them highly, for well-written space opera.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Your link goes to a subscriber only page. So I just can't get the whole article.
Even so, that is a relevant area of speculation. What about the same questions that would arise? Would we get the same answers? Better yet might be to see if there are any other questions that arise from the differences at hand.
Consider the robotic probes that we are sending out around the solar system. For something like the current Mars rovers, well they move as far as the camera can see and then they wait while new inages are sent back to earth and new instructions are sent out. Normally, this takes anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes.
However, there are times when they have to wait longer. When Mars in on the far side of the sun, they pretty much have to park for a few weeks. Yet some future probes could be sent out with a variant of AI which would allow them to go autonomous for longer periods. We have some simple such vehicles now and we could probably get them to Mars in like 5 to 8 years.
Would the onboard data base of stupid things not to do carry the philosophical implication of a programmed survival instinct? In which case, just how smart do such machines need to be before we are basically sending them on suicide missions?
Even if we were to only use such hardware for sample and return missions (Let's say that the AI part remains in orbit and directs the dumb hardware on the planet until stuff can be brought back to Earth), then we have the additional issue of how far technology may have advanced during the mission time. If an AI probe returns to Earth after, say 15 years, it will be well surpassed by the technology which it arrives to find.
What are we supposed to do with this stuff? We are bringing it back because we feel a need to do so. However, it is ten iterations of Moore's Law behind current technology. And that is only for a trip to Mars. A trip to the outer planets just leaves us in an even bigger bind.
=
If it's an SI, it's not some arbitrary line. Killing an intelligent being is just that- it's a gradient from insect to trans-human, to the most intelligent creatures in the universe [mice].
Luckily for the SI, we can probably just beam back a complete copy of the self-aware software and run it here so it remembers the whole thing, and doesn't consider it suicide (hopefully), so it will still get the job done for us with no ethical qualms.
Man sheep, top this.
I always knew you were a furry, Rob! XD