Spinoff from Elitist Attitude - Canine Breeding vs. Human Breeding

Dog_ma

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.  

 

Natural selection has to do with the number of viable offspring you produce, even if a person dies at age 50 due to diabetes related to obesity, they still had time to give birth to children and get their genes into the gene pool.  Our environment of abundance is not killing off people before their breeding years.  However, the areas of the world that have less are the ones that seem to be multiplying the fastest, whereas the wealthy and educated ten to have far fewer children, or none in many cases. That aspect of natural selection is occuring by choice rather than whether one is fit to reproduce or not.

 

All right, let's try again - this time in a general response so I can't be smugly accused (and dismissed) as "getting personal." 

We are not the "masters of our environment."  Nor were the dinosaurs, by any means.  Most paleontologists today are convinced that the Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction event was facilitated by an extraterrestrial body.  There was possibly a similar event 175 million years before that one - whether a radiological or stray body event, they don't know yet. 

Extraterrestrial dangers do not occur with enough frequency to allow pretechnological life to adapt in any way (ie, it wasn't the dino's "fault" they couldn't survive). 

But because we have developed technologically, we can examine the space around us and the paleological record, and plan for these events.  We also know there are events which affect the habitability of the earth on a lesser scale, and can predict these with some accuracy.  Finally we know that there are events of even greater power, which we will never see, but which affect other galaxies, and may our own someday, such as active galactic nucleus outbursts.  The black hole which lies at the nucleus of our own galaxy is dormant, but we know from examining other similar galaxies, that some have active black holes, which spew out (well, the event horizon spews out) galactic wide, deadly levels of gamma radiation.

We know something else from examining the cosmos around us.  We are now becoming aware of how special our planet is, in this particular part of the solar system, galaxy, our galaxy within this family of galaxies, and our galaxy within this period of the development of the universe.  This knowledge gives us the confidence to value life as the precious gift that it is.  This should make us more humble, not more arrogant.

This is just a small sample of how the human imagination cannot be dismissed as an adaptive tool.  This is why I object to "ethos" being removed from a discussion of human genetic fitness.  It belongs there, as it would when discussing any animal with such adaptive abilities.  I'd think it would be just as useless to contemplate breeding better sheep, but leaving their rumens out of the equation.

jenns

Dog_ma

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.  

 

Natural selection has to do with the number of viable offspring you produce, even if a person dies at age 50 due to diabetes related to obesity, they still had time to give birth to children and get their genes into the gene pool.  Our environment of abundance is not killing off people before their breeding years.  However, the areas of the world that have less are the ones that seem to be multiplying the fastest, whereas the wealthy and educated ten to have far fewer children, or none in many cases. That aspect of natural selection is occuring by choice rather than whether one is fit to reproduce or not.

 

Obesity in children is becoming very common. Obesity effects the immune system, and also the reproductive system. Obese women have more problems with infertility. They have more children with birth defects. They experience a higher rate of maternal and fetal death. (By the way, I am not coming down on those who struggle with weight problems. I'm looking at the health implications and not passing social judgment).

Our medical system is pretty bangin' but we have NOT eliminated natural selection.

Another example of natural selection is women who put off having babies until they are in their 40's, assuming that modern technology will help. It doesn't always. I have quite a few friends who took getting pregnant at 35+ for granted, and are realizing they were mistaken. How is this possibly natural selection? Perhaps maternal drive is an element.

Looking at humans as animals, I don't think "choice" matters very much. The environment influences us so that in industrialized areas, we want less children. In general - and yet there are still those who want large families. That drive is fostering the future of their genes. In terms of reproduction, they have an advantage over the rest of us who are happy with one.

actually, I think some studies have found that parents that have one or two kids and invest heavily in their care/upbringing/education are more likely to end up with more descendants than parents who have a lot of kids. It's biologically abnormal for humans to raise large families- pre-technology most of the kids died. You gave birth to many kids in order to raise one or two to adulthood.

Benedict

In my original post I didn't actually make any references to health testing, specifically because of this issue.  I was looking at it more from the emotional side.

But...my opinion is this:  To the best of our knowledge, dogs do not fall in love, or at least not the way people do.  For better or worse, we let that emotional attachment override the "scientific" ideals of breeding when it comes to ourselves, but those reputable people who breed dogs can make a distanced, unemotional assessment about which 2 dogs would be the best match, breeding wise.  I say "for better or worse" because I can see, from an objective point of view, that maybe we should consider health conditions more thoroughly than we do when having kids, but that is a HUGE can of worms to open.  History, and a human's capacity for evil, would suggest that it is too easy to go too far in deciding who should breed...or even live. 

 

     While I haven't read through this thread in it's entirety, I am praying that I'm not the only one who finds the mere thought of this topic to be purely disgusting. However,  I'll answer it to the best of my abilities just in case I may actually enlighten someone who is honestly confused on this issue.

     I have a moderate heart murmur (prolapsed mitrial valve) and weak muscles holding my knees in place. Therefore, too much pressure on the area and the kneecap dislocates. Let's see, what else is not perfect about me ... I'm all of 4' 10", have some anxiety problems. That being said, I wouldn't think twice about having kids for those reasons. Because when we pair up dogs we are thinking ahead as to what the litter can offer us. No one is going to breed a dog with a murmur or bad knees because the dog essentially becomes useless for it's purpose in most cases. We also don't want to deal with health issues and have families who buy our pups have to go through the vet bills, and emotional turmoil they cause.

     I think it's safe to say that a human being with a SOUL has more to offer this world and our fellow human beings,  even when we're a mess of health problems. There is often faith, love, compassion and wisdom in children or adults with health problems than ordinary healthy people. We are worth more than dogs and should not be even thinking of comparing careful breeding of dogs to "human breeding". One one recurring issue I continue to hear on these boards is placing a human as if they had equal value to dogs. I don't give a crap about dogs being euthanized in shelters when in comparison to babies, children, teenagers in foster care. THAT is the issue I am more concerned with, the dogs come far, far down on the priority list when we have human babies who are not the result fo some "breeding problem" but of irresponsible parents that would not take accountability for their actions. Yup, many of them have health issues, but that doesn't make them any less human. They're still a soul with a body, just a body that doesn't work the same. I can't even believe the comparison of unwanted children in foster care was made with dogs being euth'd in shelters. Does no one else think one is infinitely more important than the other and have NOTHING to do with each other becuase we don't compare beautiful human children with animals?

brookcove

I believe what makes a "good" or "productive" human goes far beyond physical attributes.  Cases to consider:

 

     Thank you so much for bringing this up! Someone else gets it ...

brookcove

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.

 

     When I was growing up, I had an older foster sister, who I still consider to be my sister. She was born to a crack addicted white mother, and a puerto rican father. Her mother passed away while she was in foster care, and because of the residual health issues she had, there were people who said her birth was a tragedy. The real tragedy was if beautiful Chrisitna had never been born. I can still remember her vividly, it literally took me years to get over it when she was forced to go back to her jerk of a father. We also knew a neighbor who was somewhat of the same situation - mother was crack addicted while pregnant. the girl only lived to be 13, and I remember there were times she'd coem outside and her lips were bright blue. She suffered for her mother's sins. But a more compassionate girl you will never meet, and she left an impact on the lives of everyone around her. When I am able to, I will be adopting a child as soon as I am financially stable enough - becuase of those two girls.

HoundMusic

I am praying that I'm not the only one who finds the mere thought of this topic to be purely disgusting.

Once again, we are having a discussion. No one is advocating euthanizing babies or anything. We're just talking.  

HoundMusic

I think it's safe to say that a human being with a SOUL has more to offer this world and our fellow human beings,  even when we're a mess of health problems.

Firstly, no one has said anything to the contrary. Secondly, I'm not so sure. I'm not sure that dogs DON'T have a soul and I'm not sure that every human being has more to offer this world than every dog. I've seen some pretty low-life humans (been molested by a few) and some pretty outstanding dogs (war dogs, for example). AGAIN, I'm not advocating anything, just discussing.  

HoundMusic

We are worth more than dogs

To whom? I think that's a pretty subjective statement. 

HoundMusic

and should not be even thinking of comparing careful breeding of dogs to "human breeding". 

I don't see the harm in thinking about it and talking about it.  

HoundMusic

One one recurring issue I continue to hear on these boards is placing a human as if they had equal value to dogs.

I understand that, to you, they don't have equal value, but the truth is that to some, they do. So, this is a matter of opinion. (Note I'm not sharing my opinion on it.)

HoundMusic

I can't even believe the comparison of unwanted children in foster care was made with dogs being euth'd in shelters.

A value comparison was not made. We were simply talking about ideas. I'm not at all sure what you're objecting to. Because no one has said that humans and dogs are of equal value.

It's like comparing the number of countries on the earth to the number of bones in the body. It's a simple numeric comparison. Not saying one is more important or valuable than the other.

HoundMusic

I am praying that I'm not the only one who finds the mere thought of this topic to be purely disgusting.

Seriously, it can't be discussed or thought about because some think it's "disgusting"? I'm kind of...speechless at the insinuation that some things shouldn't be thought about or talked about. Political correctness to a ridiculous point.

If you don't like the topic, don't participate.

brookcove

We know something else from examining the cosmos around us.  We are now becoming aware of how special our planet is, in this particular part of the solar system, galaxy, our galaxy within this family of galaxies, and our galaxy within this period of the development of the universe. 

I disagree. We can't be sure that there are no other planets around with life. In fact, I think it's kind of silly to assume there aren't. What would make us THAT special that we're the only planet in the galaxy (let alone universe!) with life? We've only discovered, what, 100 other planets? And because we're unable to prove that any of them have life, that makes us special? No, that makes our astronomers not quite as high-tech and omniscient as most people think they are, IMO.

Chelsea, one of the astronomers was key in expanding the number of planets we knew, from a mere handful, to over a hundred, has rejected out of hand the Copernican Principle (the misnamed term for the idea that we could not possibly be alone or even in any way special).  Check out The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD. 

After discovering a set of parameters that determine the exact placement of a planet for life of any kind, around a star, and another which determines where such a star may dwell within a galaxy, and again where such a galaxy may develop within the timescale of the universe as a whole, and then taking into account the timescale and level of odds required for biological development (no time for fits and starts and mass extinctions) - the candidates for such a planet are rapidly pointing to . . .

one.

Some assumptions are made, granted, such as that any long term complex life would require technology to survive the mass extinction events that punctuate our slice of time in the universe's development (example:  heating sources more efficient than found fuels are required to sustain technology during ice ages). 

Also, that such life would require stars of a certain type - star systems that are born in "second generation" events to provide metals for planet formation and to provide the building blocks of life.  Such stars were only produced, well, nowish, on universal time scales.  To give an example of this concept, if the "life" of the universe were laid out on a football field, you'd walk to about the 45 yard line, lay down your slimline cellphone (sideways), and that little chunk of time is the only possible time that is friendly to the development of organics. 

As we cast our telescopes and measuring devices here and there and all around us, we can essentially see that entire slice of time.  In fact, we can see back almost to the beginning of time.  It's really complicated, but trust me when I say our technology has caught up, and is capable of making these assements, and fairly easily.

The point I'm making is that to the human equation, one must not reject the intangibles from the equation.  Not that they make us in some way more valuable, but that without them we are less "valuable" than any other life form here.  What other contribution do we have?  Do we recirculate oxygen?  Do we provide food for larger animals?  Do we aerate the soil on massive scales, or add organic matter to it other than by dying and putting our miserable, fragile, shortlived bodies in the ground?  Do we refresh grasslands with grazing, or spread fruit seeds in rain forests?

However, we can observe all of this, and by being aware of it, we can do what we can to preserve it where possible and when needed.  The very fact that we, of all animals, can have a discussion about relative values, is our contribution - for better or worse, the future will tell. 

*shaking my head* ... you all watch too much TV or ... maybe have more spare time than I do?

It's funny -- I wanted to contribute to this when I saw the title ... why?  Because my first marriage (when I was over 30 but had no experience to know what a creep he was) was to a man who was SOOOO completely the picture of an ACOA (adult child of an alcoholic) it was scarey. 

It didn't stop there -- I married him because I was tired of being alone.  I'm not one of those people that would qualify on anyone's good genetic selection criteria (asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, among others).  He seemed the jolly sort ... (ohh, I was SO wrong).

We went back in his family history and for SEVEN generations the  eldest male child was a substance abuser (mostly alcohol) and it continues in his son from a prior marriage. 

By the time we'd been married a couple of years I knew having children with him was NOT a good thing.  So altho I wanted children badly, I didn't try hard to have them, and I didn't pursue adoption (because he was NOT good father material at all).

So much depends on environment rather than pure genetics.  And no one has even touched the idea that certain environmental factors (like food, stimulation, love, etc. -- not to mention potential positives/negatives like vaccines, good/bad medical care, etc.) can hurt or help genetics anyway.

to go back to the original post within a post that Kate/Denise started I'd like to answer it simply from MY perspective.

" I would ask how many of us or our SO, have hereditary diseases and conditions yet despite the risks we choose to have children? It seems to me that as humans we only consider the worst of the worst when it comes to passing on our genetics. How much pause do we give to family history of cancer, diabetes, disabling arthritis, asthma, heart disease etc.? "

All the things you mentioned, Denise, were health oriented.  No temperament issues at all! 

Both of my parents were asthmatic and I would have had children myself when I was young not realizing that *either* of my parents would manifest the disease until they were much older, nor myself either.  I didn't know I had RA until I was older - it just wasn't diagnosed much when I was young. 

But since bad health problems have never ever been a problem for me to consider adopting (and I would have gladly adopted a human child with any of the above, or far far more diabling problems like cerebral palsy, spina bifida, etc. in a heartbeat **had I had the proper spousal support** or sole income to support it). 

BUT ... the show stopper for ME genetically in a mate was temperament. I've tried my entire life to over-come the temperament problems inherent in both sides of my family (and many of those are not physical but environmentally based but they are impacted a great deal by genetics and genetic pre-disposition). 

So when i found myself shackled to a man so profoundly lacking in temperament (and the environmental backwash was so massive it was largely unable to be overcome) I simply chose NOT to have children, NOR would I adopt a child into such a situation.

So ... health issues wouldn't have been a problem for me... neither with dogs NOR a human mate.  However, temperament??  It's a big huge mega deal to me in a dog ... and in a mate! 

That's all *I* wanted to contribute.

But what I wanted to ask was ... for those of you who like to "discuss" this stuff into the ground ... to what end?  does it make your life better?  wiser? 

I'm not being ratty -- I'm seriously asking.  Because from the outside looking in - it looks simply like a recipe to argue to me.

FourIsCompany

I'm probably going to get some flak for talking about dating a dog, now... LOL 

 

Wait.  What?  There's something wrong with that?  Hrrmmm.....   

for those of you who like to "discuss" this stuff into the ground ... to what end?  does it make your life better?  wiser? 

I'm not being ratty -- I'm seriously asking.  Because from the outside looking in - it looks simply like a recipe to argue to me.

It's okay.  Some people look at life in more concrete ways and others prefer to explore the abstract.  I had to discpline my concrete mind to desire, and to be able to explore these questions, because I felt they were important.  Why?

You told your story and I'll tell mine - or some - just a fragment, really.  My father had what he considered an "open" marriage with my mother, who had other opinions but tolerated his abuse.  I was a toy to him - a brilliant child, knowledgeable and perceptive far beyond my years - until I realized what "Aunt" Josie and "Aunt" Susan really were, to my mom, and to me.  He then left for good, leaving my mom without work, without support, and without a home.  Fortunately some good people in our church helped us out.

My mom chose, her whole life, to be a victim.  She modeled complete helplessness and dependency to me as she married and bore children to a man who abused us, violently.  I grew up reminding myself that pain was good, because as long as I could feel pain my body was functioning correctly and more importantly I was alive.

This is the life I needed to reconcile.  I had every reason to believe that death was far better.  I had every opportunity - my mom was sick a lot and left me in charge.  I was depressed and had the precursors of the bipolar disorder I'd inherited from both sides of the family.

I have an extremely logical, concrete mind.  I tend to follow every thought to every logical end.  And the thought I had, again and again - if this is it, if we are just animals who use tools, then certainly I've no place here.  We are worse than animals. 

So you see?  This is where pursuing questions like this makes a difference when the rubber meets the road.  I came to my conclusions - I remember clearly the path that led me there - one night in college staring in despair at the beautiful, cold, distant moon and realizing it was only distant because of my perspective - another quiet evening reading and seeing all the pieces of my faith fall into place - the death of a dear friend from cancer and the peace and joy he and his friends shared at the end - most recently studying the microstructures of life itself. 

Maybe this should have been a private note, Callie, but I wanted to respond where your question lay, in public.

To tie this in to the topic, again, it is this ability to reconcile what is terrible and painful and rise above it (as I see in others), that is part of our legacy, and can't be quantified in a discussion of "Genetic worth". 

Just now, I threw Maggie a piece of popcorn.  She's a wiz at catching popcorn kernels in midair.  I noted that I was throwing the kernels at the side where she's losing her sight (she's 14 1/2).  Poor Maggie was missing them, and clearly disturbed about it.  So I adjusted my aim to drop them on her good side.  Maggie started catching them again as usual, and she's sitting and grinning now. 

How did I do that?  Using both perceptive and cognitive skills to identify to problem and come up with a solution.  Why did I do that?  That's where the part lies, that people who want to make this all a physical question, have missed.  But if I had thought about it and not done it, what kind of human would I be?

And, Callie, I'll be posting in another section what I did today with my baby dog Ted, so don't despair that my dogs lie neglected while I pontificate - I don't know what my WPM is but I touch type and this note, for instance, only took me, let's see, one minute to compose - and part of that was taken in shoving popcorn in my mouth and throwing it to Maggie.   

 

calliecritturs

But what I wanted to ask was ... for those of you who like to "discuss" this stuff into the ground ... to what end?  does it make your life better?  wiser? 

 

Into the ground? We've discussed it for a few pages, and half of those are off topic.   

Let me just tell you some of the discussions I have on another board that I belong to. We talk about bird flu, the government depopulation strategy, who killed JFK, NAMBLA, race relations, atheism, terrorism, UFOs, religion, politics, the list goes on and on and on... Why? Because we like to. We find it interesting to discuss, debate and openmindedly explore other opinions on the subject. Better or wiser? Certainly not.

Now, here's my question. Where's the harm in these discussions?  Why is this subject  any different than any other subject we discuss on this board?

My interest in this thread was NOT about human breeding. It was about...

Benedict

the act of choosing a human companion and that of choosing a dog, in a nutshell saying that in my considered opinion, wanting the best dog-fit for your life according to your own standards is not elitism, any more than it is when choosing a spouse. 

All the emotional stuff about genetics and stuff is not that interesting to me. Because I don't think anyone has a right to tell anyone else whether or not to breed for whatever reason. But I do find it interesting that I chose German Shepherds for many of the same qualities that my husband has...

(To tell you the truth, I don't even know what people are arguing about! LOL I don't see the problem)