Who’s A Good Ancestral Wolf?

There’s this new movie called Alpha, about the first ever pet dog. It looks like another of those movies that is going straight for heartwarming, without any big stars or promises of explosions or special effects. I don’t know how it got a summer release instead of going straight to download. Or straight to the Walmart $5 DVD bin that somehow just keeps going no matter how many people abandon DVD’s.

And, of course, it has dogs, which can carry a movie all on its own.

I was wondering if it even had religious overtones. I know that seems like a stretch, but in today’s movie industry, if a movie doesn’t have stars, action, comedy, or art house chic, it’s a mystery how it even exists. I start to wonder if it’s an extension of some brand that’s really popular in the American-Christian subculture.

But then it hit me: this movie is set — according to the ads — 20,000 years ago. Apparently, that’s based on some guesswork, since dogs might have been domesticated before or after that date. But still, 20,000 years. That’s an American family movie taking place 20,000-screw-you-Young-Earth-Creationists-years-ago. So it’s not just non-religious, it’s going to be offending the super-Christian. That’s kind of surprising. I’m sure that for entertainment aimed at the entirety of American culture, they would probably choose to take science’s side and assume that the Christian Fundamentalist boycott wouldn’t amount to much. But for family-friendly entertainment I would think that they would rather have hard-core religious families on side, and just let Neil DeGrasse Tyson rant about the inaccuracies. That’s especially given that this movie is going to have appeal to people who aren’t really in love with the usual Hollywood fare.

So this is kind of a weird concept: heartwarming family science. And I just read a review that pointed out that the stars in the sky are accurate even taking into account the drift of stars over those twenty millennia. So now I’m picturing Neil DeGrasse Tyson in the theatre weeping along with everyone else, having never seen such scientific accuracy in a movie.

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.

Must Love Dogs

There's been a big controversy over the movie A Dog's Purpose, after footage leaked of a dog being abused on the set. That's frustrating, since it happened with a movie that's all about the love of dogs, and there are supposed to be checks on animal abuse in movies. And you'd think that a hugely pro-dog movie would be particularly conscious of the need to treat their dogs well.

As an animal lover who isn't a dog person, I guess I have an outsider's view of the issue, and I'm amazed at how this film has gone from one extreme of dog lovers' passion to the other. If the ads were any indication, it was relying on dog-loving schmaltz and little else. It seems to be that kind of uplifting movie that I hate: rather than help you to see the world in a better light, it creates a mythology that tells you what you want to hear, like a second-rate new age religion.

Now, that dog spirituality has all been reversed, and you've got to think this whole movie is going to be a financial albatross to the studio; the one constituency that you were relying on now hates you.

My apologies to albatross lovers who may have been offended there.

So I have to wonder if dog lovers feel used. I'm not saying their hurt feelings compare to the injustice done to the dog, but this was a blatant manipulation of their emotions. When it turned out that some on the set were not so committed to the animals after all, that only underlined how people's feelings were just being used for profit.

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.