The Dog Of Small Things

I've mentioned that I'm not a dog person. But I have learned some interesting things about dogs. I've always found it interesting that we created all the breeds, and wonder what that says about us. It's also interesting that in some cases the breeds have become so extreme that they're causing medical problems. Some kennel clubs have gone as far as changing what they look for as the ideal in breeds to try to discourage the creation of unhealthy animals, and avoiding a future where shar peis are just a big pile of folded skin.

But it's worse than that. The selective breeding that creates and maintains breeds is essentially inbreeding on a huge scale, and they cause all kinds of invisible health problems. Well now one dog owner has a controversial solution: genetic engineering. That may seem extreme, but preventing a dog's suceptability to disease could be a simple as flipping a few genes, and the new CRISPR process makes it much easier.

This stood out to me for a couple of reasons. One is that this could be the onset of a gene-hacking culture. I'd heard lots of predicitons that genetics would be the next area that would see a fast, semi-chaotic string of innovations the way computing has for the last couple of generations. I'd always been skeptical of that simply because computer and software innovation has been fuelled by the low cost of entry; you can start a company in your garage, while genetics can only move at the speed of Big Pharma. But if a guy is hacking his Dalmatian in his garage, then it's next stop mutantville.

The other aspect that caught my attention is the quote that I saw passed around social media. It's the dog-hacker's main arguement in favour of allowing genetic manipulation of dogs: “I think it will be easier to teach dog breeders CRISPR than it will be to teach dog breeders why pure breeding is a bad thing.” It may be extreme, but I'm sure he's correct. But more importantly, that seems to sum up our entire age: astounding technology is easy; convincing people to use it responsibly is not. So we just hope we can invent our way out of problems faster than they arise.

Of course, the statement isn't entirely true. Teaching dog breeders about the dangers of pure breeding isn't difficult. After all, I learned it, and I don't know anything about dogs. But really, in this case my lack of connection to dogs is, paradoxically, an advantage to understanding this. Not being a dog person, I don't have any vested interest either way. But if you have preconcieved ideas about dogs, you'll be reluctant to change your mind. Really, it's convincing owners that's the problem. Or, just convincing them that the health of the animals they claim to love is more important than their pursuit of arbitrary and often quite silly ideals. And again, that's a symbol of our times. Spreading information around is very easy, but conveying the importance of things is next to impossible.

Judged By Dog

I'm getting kind of sick of dog owners on the Internet and their bragging about how much their dogs mean to them.  Well, it's not that their dogs mean so much - I'm glad they get enjoyment from their pets.  It's that they can't seem to testify to their dog love without putting people down.  That seems like an odd thing to do on social media, since it's built around your friendships with people.

An example is this graphic.  I have no idea if I have the rights to publish this here, but it's been around Facebook a few times so I figure no one will mind.

Et tu, Bill?  Well, as is so often the case with quote images, it turns out this actually comes from a parody account, not Murray himself.

But real or not, I've seen that same sentiment from a lot of people, and I find it kind of threatening, since I'm definitely not a dog person.  Of course, lots of people aren't dog people, since there are plenty of cat people out there.  Sure, some people may claim to be in each camp, but how many actually have both animals?  Dogs and cats, living together - mass hysteria.

I'm not a dog person, but that doesn't mean that I don't like dogs.  I like dogs in the same way that I like tigers.  I admire them, but I don't want to be confined to a closed space with them.  Of course by that definition, almost everyone likes dogs, which is why I suspect that the non-Bill Murray person who said this meant you have to love being around dogs and living with dogs to qualify.

As for dogs being such reliable arbiters of trust, have you noticed how random dog behaviour is?  They don't even have consistent opinions of their owners, never mind a reliable judgement of strangers. One of the reasons I'm so uneasy around dogs is that their reactions to me have always been unpredictable.  I don't know if they're going to bark their head off (which must mean I'm not trustworthy) slobber all over me (meaning I've passed the test) or take no notice (I guess means I'm okay but boring.)  And the fact that the enthusiastic welcome is about as sudden and violent as the complete rejection, further makes me wonder how reliable judges they are.

So please, dog owners, open yourself to the idea that your dogs are not psychic, and that non-dog people may have some merit. And celebrity quotes are nearly always fake, stop spreading them around.

The Truth About Cats And Dogs

I've never been a cat person or a dog person.  It seems like most people are one or the other, but I'm neither.  It comes down to their personalities.  Dogs are in-your-face, cats are cold and remote.  So most people find something in one or the other.  Me, I don't like people with those personalities, so I'm definitely not going to buy animals like that.

What's annoying about this is that we created dogs and cats.  Yes, we the humans domesticated dogs and cats out of wolves and wildcats.  So why couldn't we make them a little more pleasant to be around.  Or more importantly, with all the dog breeds and their huge variation, why have they concentrated so much on appearance, while the behaviour is limited to vague claims of "loyalty."  Couldn't they have bred at least one for politeness, or respect for personal space.  You would think that they would have thought of that before they thought of dachshunds.

Two different pet personalities is clearly not enough for all of humanity.  So let's domesticate a new animal.  Do what we did before: take a carnivorous mammal and breed it into a cuddly companion.  I'm sure Jared Diamond will have some explanation why this can't be done, but hey: this is humanity dealing with nature.  Why start limiting ourselves to what's "possible?"

I think we should start with bears.  They always seemed relatively laid-back for giant meat-eaters, and everyone loves teddy bears.  So let's start the selective breading now, and in a few millennia, our descendants will be able to have a cuddly little pet that's friendly but not too pushy.