Spinoff from Elitist Attitude - Canine Breeding vs. Human Breeding

    • Gold Top Dog

    Krissim Klaw
    Wow what planet do you live on and can you join you? 

     

    Tongue Tied  In my original post that BCMixs answered (granted from the other thread) I specified the US. I should have specified it here as well.

    rwbeagles
    I don't see too many street wino's getting dates...is that elitism? What about men in prison? Child molesters? Men without a job of any kind? they were excluded from my "men to date" list when I was single..elitist?

    Not only that, but I didn't want a "bad boy", a "macho man", a big man, a sport-o, a pet-unfriendly man, a workaholic, a LOUD party guy... even though there's nothing "wrong" with any of those. It's just not to my taste. Does that make me an elitist? (I said a while ago that I don't accept the elitist tag and I still don't. People can think that of me and even call me that, but they are mistaken. Yes, they are wrong! Stick out tongue

    • Gold Top Dog
    most humans seem to have children for very selfish reasons that have nothing to do with the "best interests" of the offspring.
    And then, there are those of us who choose NOT to have children and are considered "very selfish." Whoopsy, that's another thread, lol.
    • Gold Top Dog

    This thread got me thinking...

    My DH and Rosco are actually a lot alike. So I am wondering if I was attracted to the same qualities in both of them Stick out tongue:

    handsome, broad shoulders, large heads, muscular (well DH was when we met), kind, gentle, affectionate, like to lounge about on lazy days, but happy to play whenever, hard working, devoted, etc.


    • Gold Top Dog

    I would never say that other people should take a similar position but ...

    "Breeding" was a major reason I chose the husband I did. I love him and enjoy his company and admire him, but the decision to marry and have kids was based on (a) feeling that our attributes would be a good mix and (b) knowing that he would be an excellent father. If I had fallen in love with a man who I wanted to spend my life with, but wouldn't have been a good mix with me, I wouldn't have had any kids with him.

    I have a mood disorder (recurrent major depression). It is likely due to a combination of genetic and environmental causes. I was once seriously involved with a wonderful man who had bipolar disorder, and we both knew that if we married, we would NOT have children together. Too risky.

    I have one kid. She's awesome. There are many reasons we aren't planning on another, but I have to admit there is a tiny part of me that doesn't want to tempt fate ...

    Most people don't think like me. Even my husband doesn't! I do think people might benefit from being more thoughtful about who they have kids with. I think many diseases and disorders have benefits - for the individual and for the community - but being severely affected by physical or mental illness can't be fun.
     

    • Gold Top Dog

    Well, to be honest, all humans have *breed standards* too, by which they judge others. It's just unwritten. But we all have specific criteria that we have in our own minds of what makes a *suitable mate*.

    I don't really think you can compare human mate selection with dog mate selection, and the *breeding* of people. Sex for people is power, it is love, it is self esteem, it is a job, it is many things, and different for every person. For a dog it is simply reproduction. We can't begin to relate the *breeding* of people with the *breeding* of dogs, since the a high number of *human puppies* are surprises, whether pleasant or unpleasant. Whereas for dogs, it's not that surprising, and it's quite predictable.

    I think that if humans came into estrus twice per year, the world would indeed look a lot different, and the health status of people would likely look a lot different, and people would make different mate choices. But we don't come like that. We come into season once per month, unless we medically alter that with drugs, which work to different degrees.

    I enjoy the debate about human vs. animal breeding, and I find it interesting, but I almost get the feeling that there is this background message of "Well, until humans start breeding themselves like they breed dogs, they shouldn't be worrying so much about the health of dogs". I know not everyone is sayint that, or even feels that way, but it keeps tingling in the back of my mind, where to the contrary, because the breeding of animals is utterly and totally in the hands of their humans (or, it should be....so much breeding goes on outside the hands of humans as well), we need to be extra cautious, IMO, of who we allow our canines to mate with. Because they don't have natural selection on their side to cull out the sick animals, and push on the healthy animals.

    Although, along similar lines, humans don't have natural selection anymore either. Natural selection no longer affects people. We keep our ill alive. What would have died or culled, lives on because of medicine and technology. From a purely ethological perspective, and evolutionary perspective, we keep creating drugs to mask the symptoms, rather than fixing the problems. The invention of glasses masks the overall issue of poor genetic sight. The early medical care supports the life of sick neonates. The drugs extend the life of sick and old individuals, who would have passed on much sooner. Everything the human species does is completely artificial selection, and it has been for a long time. We are not creating a better species, not if you look at it from a perspective of how you would other animals.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not saying get rid of the glasses and to let the infants and seniors pass away. LOL. Not at all, and I'm glad we have the technology we do. But if you separate the emotion and the morals and assess the human species from an outside view, and look at it as from the perspective of evolution, that's how it turns out. We've had some very interesting philosophical discussions in our genomics and genetics classes at university, they were some of my most memorable bio classes.

    But the point is, even with humans, we have our breed standards as to what we expect, what is *the best* for us. To take another ethological approach, one could begin to discuss *breed standards* in human in the way of looking at the comparisons and contrasts between same-race couples, and inter-racial families. The high majority of relationships are same-race relationships. There are many reasons for that - location, religion, personal beliefs, but it's obvious that for most people, when they think of their *perfect mate*, that abstract soulmate, it's usually a person of the same ethnicity as them. And unfortunately, the children of inter-racial couples often do experience a lot of hardships in their lives, and do experience a lot of the same *shame* by outsiders as how some people treat mixed-bred animals, as though they were somehow lesser or unworthy. I had a number of good friends who were children of inter-racial couples and they experienced far from a serene childhood when it came to their ethnicity. In one way I felt bad for their hardships, but on another hand who was I to feel bad for them when they showed such inner strength and pride? It was a moving experience to have lived with those friends when I was younger.

    And just as we want to preserve the look and history of a certain dog breed, cultures want to preserve the look and history of themselves, and promote breeding *like to like* to maintain that culture. It's really not so different once you begin to look at it from a real close view.

    But that *standard* doesn't just apply to race. Religion dictates a standard for a lot of people. Language dictates a standard for a lot of people. Political status even dictates a standard. Our world is full of *breed standards*, as developed by others, we just have to be open to see them.

     

    • Gold Top Dog

    Everything the human species does is completely artificial selection, and it has been for a long time. We are not creating a better species, not if you look at it from a perspective of how you would other animals. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying get rid of the glasses and to let the infants and seniors pass away. LOL. Not at all, and I'm glad we have the technology we do. But if you separate the emotion and the morals and assess the human species from an outside view, and look at it as from the perspective of evolution, that's how it turns out.

    Are you serious?  You may "LOL" but I cannot.  I thought we were long past even entertaining these notions - but here they are.

    And before you say, "Oh, we are modern people and have learned from the past - and the evils that happened were in other countries, anyway," please carefully consider this bit of history:

     http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html

    Google the T4 program and Hadamar Clinic, where 275,000 people died who were deemed unfit to contribute to society.  In a documentary I saw recently, the curator of the memorial on the clinic site, was asked whether the people who did this were insane.  Her answer was swift and passionate:

    "They were not mad.  They knew exactly what they were doing.  They had reasons, ones they thought were perfectly logical.  They were not insane," she repeated firmly. 

    ETA:  I find your comments on inter-racial marriage in this context (mate selection for adaptive characteristics) . . . .troubling.  You may have grown up in an area where children of parents from different ethnicities were set apart.  I did not.  My grandfather was Mexican.  We had three Asian/European kids in our class of 25 (small evangelical Baptist private school[/i]), two Swedish/Filipino, one Hispanic/Samoan, one African continental/Australian,  and numerous Indian/Hispanic compbintions, not to mention the more-or-less undiluted Hispanics, Asians, one Italian, and one first generation Russian.  I had two friends other than the Italian girl and the Russian girl, who were "pure white" - and they married a Filipino (her sister, also a good friend, married a Vietnamese man) and a black man. 

    My friend who married the black man has epilepsy and had three beautiful children, none of which seem affected by her disease.  My friend who married the Filipino had seven lovely children of her own, all boys, and they adopted one beautiful black child, the daughter of a crack-addicted woman.  Victoria should never have been born according to some people, frighteningly not people of a past age, but right now.

    We don’t allow dogs to breed. We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children...

    These are the words of Barbara Harris, founder of the organization CRACK, Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity. Based in California, CRACK’s mission is to permanently or temporarily sterilize women with substance abuse problems using monetary incentives of $200. As of September 1, 1999, 65 women received cash from CRACK in return for their fertility; 46 of them were permanently sterilized. CRACK has opened a chapter in Chicago and is planning to expand to Minnesota, Florida, Seattle and the New England area.

    http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/301.html

     

    • Gold Top Dog

    Easy, Brookcove, we're having a simple discussion here. It's all theoretical.

    I'm not talking Hitler, or white supremacy, or eugenics, or whatever. I'm talking humans as a species, regarding technology and medicine. Not cultural beliefs on who should live and who should die. There is a huge difference. And I'm not saying that I believe we should do any of this, in fact I've said quite to the contrary, but any genetics/genomics class and the discussions of evolution in academia would cover these things. Perhaps it's best that some people don't take those classes, as they are easily offended, but some people can look at the human species as they would any other species, in terms of genetic fitness and selection, whether artificial or natural, and discuss it in a diplomatic manner, discussing the good and the bad, and the history, without jumping on the eugenics bandwagon. I think it's interesting philosophy. It doesn't mean I'm out to end the breeding of individuals with disorders, or to force anything on anybody.

    brookcove

    I find your comments on inter-racial marriage in this context (mate selection for adaptive characteristics) . . . .troubling.  You may have grown up in an area where children of parents from different ethnicities were set apart.  I did not.  My grandfather was Mexican.  We had three Asian/European kids in our class of 25 (small evangelical Baptist private school[/i]), two Swedish/Filipino, one Hispanic/Samoan, one African continental/Australian,  and numerous Indian/Hispanic compbintions, not to mention the more-or-less undiluted Hispanics, Asians, one Italian, and one first generation Russian.  I had two friends other than the Italian girl and the Russian girl, who were "pure white" - and they married a Filipino (her sister, also a good friend, married a Vietnamese man) and a black man. 

    My friend who married the black man has epilepsy and had three beautiful children, none of which seem affected by her disease.  My friend who married the Filipino had seven lovely children of her own, all boys, and they adopted one beautiful black child, the daughter of a crack-addicted woman.  Victoria should never have been born according to some people, frighteningly not people of a past age, but right now.

    Once again, you need to take it easy. I described an experience I had, and how it relates to thoughts on animal breeding. Because that's what the thread is about, comparions.  Never did I claim it to be gospel, or the way of the world, or how things should be, or whatever. And I don't know why you find it so troubling. It's what happened, and it's a part of life. Perhaps not where you are, but it is in other places, and I think it deserves to be discussed as much as your example does. For what it's worth, these were very good friends of mine. I did not judge them, I did not discriminate, so please stop acting as though I was somehow the perpetrator. I'm simply sharing an experience on how where I have lived, has affected inter-racial children. I recognize that your experience was different, but it doesn't make mine any less valid.

    I, and I don't think anybody, is here to judge the actions of activist groups. We're discussing comparisons on the strict protocols of breeding dogs, to how we select human mates. As far as I'm concerned, I have said nothing that is incorrect (remember, experience) or offensive. I explained a perspective of humans, in ethology, in a way that we routinely look at other animals. It is only fitting to look at them all in the same light sometimes, even if only for a moment. The point is, there is no natural selection in humans anymore (some countries may be exempt from that, where cultures are isolated). And it's true, no matter how it makes somebody feel. I didn't say we should change that, I said that's how it was. Just as how there is no natural selection in domestic dogs anymore. That's the only point that was made, not to make you get on the defensive about particulars or as though it is a personal reflection of how I feel about modern society. Because frankly, I left out my thoughts on how I feel, I was sure to keep it quite objective.

    • Gold Top Dog

    Kim_MacMillan
    I enjoy the debate about human vs. animal breeding, and I find it interesting, but I almost get the feeling that there is this background message of "Well, until humans start breeding themselves like they breed dogs, they shouldn't be worrying so much about the health of dogs".

     

    I get that, too. And it's a classic case of misdirection. I just ignore it. LOL

    I get your post, Kim. I really enjoyed it.  

    • Gold Top Dog

    I have to say you are not communicating your thoughts well.  I am reacting to what appear to be random, stream-of-consciousness type statements, for lack of a cohesively presented argument.  I apologize if I have read your intentions incorrectly. 

    Let's try again. 

    I'm talking humans as a species, regarding technology and medicine. Not cultural beliefs on who should live and who should die. There is a huge difference. And I'm not saying that I believe we should do any of this, in fact I've said quite to the contrary, but any genetics/genomics class and the discussions of evolution in academia would cover these things.

    You still aren't communicating clearly here to me.  For instance, I don't know what the last clause of the last sentence (". . . any genetics/genomics class and the discussions of evolution in academia would cover these things.";), has to do with the paragraph in general, but I'll address that in the next point.

    I actually am talking about regarding humans as a species.  Cultural beliefs, morality, ethics, intellectual achievements, social structures, are all traits that are adaptive within the evolutionary framework.  Without them, what are we?  Start sharpening those fingernails, because we're pathetically low on defensive qualities, without what comes from our heads, not to mention offensive traits.  So, to me, these matters are inextricably entwined with our survival.  We cannot discuss humans as animals, without discussing our most important traits.

    Perhaps it's best that some people don't take those classes, as they are easily offended, but some people can look at the human species as they would any other species, in terms of genetic fitness and selection, whether artificial or natural, and discuss it in a diplomatic manner, discussing the good and the bad, and the history, without jumping on the eugenics bandwagon. I think it's interesting philosophy.

    I find it interesting too, just like a train wreck is interesting.  I studied history in college and grad school, and now I'm working on a degree in microbiology.  I have to conclude that you feel you are arguing from a position of authority after your discussion in class, and that's a nice feeling to have.  But intellectual ramblings of even the most benign sort have consequences.   Intellectual discussion does not stay in the Ivory Tower forever.  Removing the "ethics factor" from discussions of "genetic fitness" of humans leads to the perfectly logical conclusions of the proponents of eugenics.  This is not an emotional or some other subjective reaction.  It's fact. 

    It was a cousin of Charles Darwin who wrote a perfectly innocent work on the inheritance of behavior.  State and local governments, and then the military, seized upon his work and started program after program to identify the weak-minded, criminally bent, women who were too "sex-crazed," and those with mood and mental disorders.

    I explained a perspective of humans, in ethology, in a way that we routinely look at other animals. It is only fitting to look at them all in the same light sometimes, even if only for a moment.

    The people above, and the people at Hadamar, and the people today who wish to reinstate such programs, are not "activists" - they are merely taking such viewpoints to their logical conclusion.  I wish people to consider this logical conclusion when the topic of genetic fitness is raised. 

    • Gold Top Dog

    brookcove
    I find it interesting too, just like a train wreck is interesting.  I studied history in college and grad school, and now I'm working on a degree in microbiology.  I have to conclude that you feel you are arguing from a position of authority after your discussion in class, and that's a nice feeling to have.  But intellectual ramblings of even the most benign sort have consequences.   Intellectual discussion does not stay in the Ivory Tower forever.  Removing the "ethics factor" from discussions of "genetic fitness" of humans leads to the perfectly logical conclusions of the proponents of eugenics.

    There is no air of authority. Contrary, I am always learning, and never feel like I have all the answers. However, the point was that there is a difference between taking the perspective and discussing it, and then acting on it. Two very different things. It's no different than having a friendly discussion on Coppinger and his take on service dogs as a form of parasitism on behalf of humans, which also caused a bit of a ruckus in the *service dog* community. Interesting talk. It doesn't mean we're out to ban service dogs. Unfortunately sometimes talking science doesn't work well, because some folks can't distinguish between *discussion* and *belief*. This example is another classic case. Because there is such a vase difference between discussing scientific principles and then assuming that all humans who discuss it actually believe that it (eugenics) is the answer. It's more for insight and interesting thought.

    You know, if we removed the *ethics*  factor in dog breeding, we would euthanize deaf puppies, puppies with blood disorders, puppies with missing limbs, puppies with eye disorders - just because. But we don't, although we do control their breeding status in the future. Yet, we can still discuss the ideas of it all without getting defensive (well, actually, we can't....lol...we do get defensive over it......maybe that's a sign for this thread) Why can we not discuss it in humans in the same manner?

    brookcove

    The people above, and the people at Hadamar, and the people today who wish to reinstate such programs, are not "activists" - they are merely taking such viewpoints to their logical conclusion.  I wish people to consider this logical conclusion when the topic of genetic fitness is raised. 

    I hope they do too, as it's important to think of the consequences. I wholeheartedly agree. But it should be part and parcel of the overall discussion, along with the theoretical side. And it should not prevent people from investigating the human species from a slightly different angle. I would hope that people here can have mature discussions without worrying they will go out the next night and start forcing those around them to become sterilized or shoot them dead because of some sort of imperfection.

    Perhaps we could make it a little less personal by relating those events to the current attempted genocide of certain breeds of dogs, aka BSL, as clearly discussing humans in this manner is upsetting to some?

    • Gold Top Dog

    Kim_MacMillan

    Although, along similar lines, humans don't have natural selection anymore either. Natural selection no longer affects people. We keep our ill alive. What would have died or culled, lives on because of medicine and technology. From a purely ethological perspective, and evolutionary perspective, we keep creating drugs to mask the symptoms, rather than fixing the problems. The invention of glasses masks the overall issue of poor genetic sight. The early medical care supports the life of sick neonates. The drugs extend the life of sick and old individuals, who would have passed on much sooner. Everything the human species does is completely artificial selection, and it has been for a long time. We are not creating a better species, not if you look at it from a perspective of how you would other animals.

    Natural selection pretty much stops in dogs the moment a specific breed is bred for.   Now one can say that we make choices in what we want in a partner the same we do when breedig dogs, but the bottom line is that pretty much *all* humans that choose to breed do so, regardless of their traits that make them reproductively fit, and because of this, not only are we no longer evolving but there is a huge overpopulation problem with humans, much much more so than with dogs.  Go to India or parts of Africa or any third world country that cannot support the population and you will see pain and suffering much worse than with homeless animals, especially because there is an emotional and awareness aspect that does not exist in dogs. 

    Even with the choices that we make, we are certainly not going to the lengths of having ourselves and our partner go through genetic testing before we decide to have a child.  There are many genetic diseases that occur in the human population and how many people would actually forgo having children just for the possibility of passing down a genetic illness?  Even couples who are infertile spend thousands of dollars on infertiility treatments when according to the laws of nature they just would not be able to breed.  Not to mention the millions of homeless oprhaned children in the world, which they say there will be 50 million in sub saharan africa alone by 2010.  Amazing how as a species we can look at what we've done to our own species in addition to the homeless animal population we've created, and the homeless wildlife we've created just by destroying our environment.

    • Gold Top Dog

    Wait. Whoa.

    How are humans not natural? *That* makes me LOL, for realz. We're animals. Sure, we use tools, and we think about ourselves a lot, but we aren't any different than the beaver building a dam or the chimp fishing for termites. We change our environment on a large scale, that is true, but it is a quantitative difference and not a qualitative one.

    Natural selection still applies. A drive towards food was once an advantage. In times of scarcity, hunger + the ability to store fat meant survival. We now live in an environment of abundance, and that trait that used to be advantageous is now causing health problems, and deaths.  

    Who knows? Our natural tendency to manipulate the environment may result in our extinction. That is very natural, and very selective. Once upon a time, dinosaurs were all that. While it may be comforting to think that we're masters of our world, we aren't. We're bound by instincts. Like all animals.
     

     

    • Gold Top Dog

    There are a lot of things going on in human mate choice that we're not even aware of ourselves. Here are some examples:

    • Women find the smell of men's sweaty shirts attractive or repulsive depending on that man's imunohistocompatibility complex (if I remember vaguely correctly) and how compatible it is with her own.
    • I suspect that the human breeding system is something like that of a fairy-wren (although not quite that bad). That is, there are social mates that you want to hang around and help you raise the kids, and then there are the stud muffins you secretly want to father your kids. Stud muffins are sexy and clearly made of good genetic material. They are strong and fit and just great at surviving. Unfortunately, stud muffins are desirable, which means they tend to spend their time sowing the wild oats hither and thither and don't help much at home raising the kiddies. With humans, I think this pull between social mates and flings for genes still exists.
    • There's also a theory that your parents' genes can influence what you find attractive in a potential mate. If your mother favoured, say, a square jaw and a straight brow, there's a good chance you will favour the same sort of thing if you're a girl. That could also be the influence of your father's genes as well, though.

    That's just for starters. There's heaps going on and you just can't compare humans and dogs. Humans also invest a lot more into their relationships and a lot more into their children. There's an awful lot of risk assessment going on there.

    When it comes down to it, I'm of the school of thought that humans are very complex and can hold a lot of conflicting thoughts and double standards in their head at once. I think to be at peace with yourself, you just have to accept that.  

    • Gold Top Dog

    When I was born (dinosaurs still roamed the Earth) my parents only had to take a blood test to prove having no communicable diseases such as syphillis, Herpes II, etc. But there was no genetic testing. But I have had my list of ailments and conditions that make me less than a perfect physical specimen, on ailment strong enough for long enough to prevent me from being able to enlist in the military, something I wanted to do as I grew up around people in the military. Granted, the limitations did not hamper my mind or ability to learn. But it's hard for humans to examine each other as only a genetic profile. Since humans do take so long to mature, it seems more important that they get along for a really long time, since that is what it will require, regardless of the quality of their offspring. And a physical imperfection does not limit our success. Iggy Pop has a deformity but it has never hampered him in his career.

    • Gold Top Dog

    Dog_ma
    How are humans not natural?

    I didn't say humans aren't natural. LOL. I will laugh along with you! I said that human don't undergo natural selection anymore, due to medical advances and technology. And I mean that in the most scientific sense, of the strong surviving and the less strong, well, not. They don't undergo natural selection any more than our domestic dogs do, or our domestic cats, or zoo animals. As soo as we have chemical means to maintain life, or oxygen tanks, or cancer drugs, it's no longer natural selection, but artificial. Just like AI, spay/neuter, routine c-sections, are not conducive to natural selection of animals.

    Dog_ma
    We now live in an environment of abundance,

    It depends on how you define abundance. Our *abundance* is quickly running out in a lot of things. Millions of people don't share that abundance (ironically, those are also the areas where the most natural selection likely still occurs). Financial status determines in a lot of ways your fate and selection in today's society. So perhaps there is a natural selection of sorts, although that selection is based not upon the genetic fitness of the human, but of other things like location, money, and indeed abundance, what you would likely call secondary selection. If you cannot afford medicine, if you cannot afford dental care, if you cannot afford hospital time, if you do not have insurance, you will not get it, depending on where you live. Some places totally go without.

    Dog_ma
    Our natural tendency to manipulate the environment may result in our extinction.

    If we don't change some things in our world, I think that very well will be the result someday.

    Dog_ma
    While it may be comforting to think that we're masters of our world, we aren't. We're bound by instincts. Like all animals.

    *G* You don't have to tell me that. I think we are far from masters of the world, and I sometimes do wonder what happened to us along the way. Stick out tongue