Smarter dogs and apes: a good idea?

[Sage_Rat]

If we were, say, to boost the level of intelligence of a dog to say human level what would we have?
A human brain in a dog. True their might still be instinctual oddnesses that make no logical sense–but humans have those too.

So I mean, in a sense it might be cruel–in that the person wouldn’t have a proper ability to speak or a proper hand to allow for doing things–but there are people born with debilitating diseases that could cause a human at the same level of physical capability. That’s essentially all you would have created.
Certainly it would be nice to have Lassie be as intelligent as a human, but without the physical abilities of a human that isn’t very kind to create as a whole race–and trying to keep them as pets would be immoral.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sage Rat

If we were, say, to boost the level of intelligence of a dog to say human level what would we have?
A human brain in a dog. True their might still be instinctual oddnesses that make no logical sense–but humans have those too.

So I mean, in a sense it might be cruel–in that the person wouldn’t have a proper ability to speak or a proper hand to allow for doing things–but there are people born with debilitating diseases that could cause a human at the same level of physical capability. That’s essentially all you would have created.
Certainly it would be nice to have Lassie be as intelligent as a human, but without the physical abilities of a human that isn’t very kind to create as a whole race–and trying to keep them as pets would be immoral.

OTOH, a sentient dog would have the perspective to really appreciate his ability to lick his own testicles!

Anyway, I’d be more worried about the dangers of smarter computers. “Skynet becomes self-aware . . .”

[picker]

Yeah, this is all we need. Next thing you know Paris Hilton will be toting around a talking dog. It will get it’s own TV show, and start screwing around with that no-good taco bell dog.

I mean, c’mon people - there are limits to what we should have to endure in the name of consumerism.
Right?
On the other hand, Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp was some of the best television ever. Imagine what they could do with super-monkey actors! Probably something pretty cool, that’s what.

[Grrr]

@Sage Rat

If we were, say, to boost the level of intelligence of a dog to say human level what would we have?
A human brain in a dog. True their might still be instinctual oddnesses that make no logical sense–but humans have those too.

So I mean, in a sense it might be cruel–in that the person wouldn’t have a proper ability to speak or a proper hand to allow for doing things–but there are people born with debilitating diseases that could cause a human at the same level of physical capability. That’s essentially all you would have created.
Certainly it would be nice to have Lassie be as intelligent as a human, but without the physical abilities of a human that isn’t very kind to create as a whole race–and trying to keep them as pets would be immoral.

Which raises the question: If dogs were as smart as humans. Would it be ok to have inter-species marriages? or would we have to keep them as civil unions? Or outlaw them all together because society saw them as immoral?

[marshmallow]

Perhaps a slight detour, but if we can genetically craft a more intelligent chimp then couldn’t we as well do the same to ourselves? Good practice and all that.

[Sage_Rat]

@SHAKES

Which raises the question: If dogs were as smart as humans. Would it be ok to have inter-species marriages? or would we have to keep them as civil unions? Or outlaw them all together because society saw them as immoral?

Well, so far as I would be concerned, so long as all parties are adult, sentient, and consenting–there should be no issue. But given that same-sex marriage is still viewed as an issue, I think that human-dog marriage would probably not have a good chance for getting passed any time soon.

@mstay

Perhaps a slight detour, but if we can genetically craft a more intelligent chimp then couldn’t we as well do the same to ourselves? Good practice and all that.

Well, we know we are smarter than a chimp–but saying what is smarter than average among ourselves and increasing just that would be difficult. Certainly Einstein wasn’t a fool, but would applying the differences that he had in his brain to the average person’s make us all smarter, or just accutely better at complex math while perhaps detrimenting artistic skill and such?

To some extent I think that human intellect will need to continue on with standard evolutionary progress for some time to come, simply because “better” is largely subjective.

[Jackmannii]

"Nevertheless, their (apes’) cognitive skills are impressive. They can recognize themselves in a mirror. Their social and cultural activities are more complex than those of other animals. Some can use rudimentary tools."

Based on this, Mensa should reconsider Britney Spears’ application.

[dropzone]

@Bryan Ekers

They didn’t clone Hitler. They only saved his brain.

Hah! That shows whay YOU know!

[Foible]

@mstay

Perhaps a slight detour, but if we can genetically craft a more intelligent chimp then couldn’t we as well do the same to ourselves? Good practice and all that.

The article talks about selecting human embryos with the most favorable combination of genes for intelligence. They claim this option will be available soon. All the stuff about fiddling directly with the genes is a “possibility… that is still far off.”

They also touch on the whether the result of a genetically modified animal would be like a human in an animal’s body or not. I don’t think intelligence is just one trait, it is a collection of mental functions we group together under one label. Making a smarter dog would boost those mental functions a dog can do creating a new kind of intelligence. Try and imagine what our world would be like is smell were our dominant sense, that would be a bit like an intellgent dog’s world.

[David_Simmons]

@Apos

I believe we’ve already gone ahead prototyping mice with human-like brains.

Personally, though I don’t know how I feel about the ethical issues that arise in the treatment and well being of these animals, I hope that if this sort of research and application develops, people might have a greater appreciation for the fact that there are no hard dividing lines between animals and us.

I agree wholeheartedly. Look into the eyes of a gorilla. There is quite definitely something there.

[vetbridge]

@Apos

it’s not entirely implausible that we would have the capability to bring a creature into being genetically similar to, say, Lucy.

I thought dogs and apes were already on equal footing with Lucille Ball.

Eve, you brought back memories of Ed Wood!

[dropzone]

Exactly, Foible.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Little Nemo

I keep telling people - it’s the dolphins we should be worrying about. Who knows what they’re doing in their secret underwater lairs?

That reminds me of the Onion article (premium membership required): Dolphins Evolve Opposible Thumbs; “Oh, shit,” Says Humanity

One can imagine a multitude of uses for smarter canines, as more easily trained companions for disabled people, security/police applications, military applications ( :dubious: ) like mine detecting or forward scouting, locating injured or buried people in disasters, et cetera. And seeing the love and compassion childless people have for their pets, it wouldn’t surprise me if there were a commercial market for this as well; a dog with greater empathy and intellect, and presumably greater longevity, too.

As for increasing the intelligence of apes, I’m a little more dubious. No doubt it could be done, but unlike dogs, apes are not domesticated animals, and it would take more than just upping their conceptual abilities to make them capable of safely working along side humans as dogs have evolved to do. (Witness the recent chimp attack in California as an example of how dangerous and aggressive these critters can be.) There doesn’t seem to be a real demand for it, either; we certainly have enough human apes to do the labor required. Of course, a chimp or a gorrilla is going to be much stronger and more able in some ways, but I doubt it is worth the negatives, even setting aside the ethical question of virtually enslaving fellow primates. That question is much reduced with dogs, as they have “deliberately” evolved as symbiotes to humans, though I daresay that doesn’t justify deliberate and unnecessary cruelty.

I’m frankly, a little lost on some of the ethical discussions regarding genetic engineering; it seems that the basis for many arguments is that we don’t have the “right to play Og” and so forth. I guess, if you come from an assumption of divine creation that could be a valid point of view, but from my way of thinking biological machines are just like any other technology, albeit one that is more sophisticated than fire and flint, and more “natural” than digital computers or diesel engines. the debate over whether we should do a thing should be based on the possible benefits versus cost, with an understanding that we may not really understand the true valuation of either in the near-term, rather than what is nebulously defined as being “right” and “wrong”.

And because no one has yet said it:

“You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! Goddamn you all to hell!”
Stranger

[Bryan_Ekers]

@dropzone

Hah! That shows whay YOU know!

Hey, don’t make me sic my dobermans on you!

[sub]Only I know the secret “stand down” command.[/sub]

[jeffh3000]

@Sage Rat

If we were, say, to boost the level of intelligence of a dog to say human level what would we have?
A human brain in a dog. True their might still be instinctual oddnesses that make no logical sense–but humans have those too.

So I mean, in a sense it might be cruel–in that the person wouldn’t have a proper ability to speak or a proper hand to allow for doing things–but there are people born with debilitating diseases that could cause a human at the same level of physical capability. That’s essentially all you would have created.
Certainly it would be nice to have Lassie be as intelligent as a human, but without the physical abilities of a human that isn’t very kind to create as a whole race–and trying to keep them as pets would be immoral.

First I will say that I am also against doing what you refer to, however…

You are more confusing “a human trapped in a dog body” with “a dog of human level intelligence”

A dog would still be a dog even if it was intelligent, meaning that it would not think in a human manner. First, a dog would be perfectly used to being a dog, and would not percieve it as a “disability” as you do. This would be like saying that today, all dogs are retarded and should be pitied for not having human level intelligence, and to make matters worse, the poor bastards still don’t have the same physical abilities as humans. Second, a dog thought process would be very “dog-like” which may will be completely different from human thought processes and behaviors, even at similar intelligence levels.

If this were to happen there would be not necessarily be a reason to feel sorry for our dog overlords.

[jeffh3000]

@Sage Rat

If we were, say, to boost the level of intelligence of a dog to say human level what would we have?
A human brain in a dog. True their might still be instinctual oddnesses that make no logical sense–but humans have those too.

So I mean, in a sense it might be cruel–in that the person wouldn’t have a proper ability to speak or a proper hand to allow for doing things–but there are people born with debilitating diseases that could cause a human at the same level of physical capability. That’s essentially all you would have created.
Certainly it would be nice to have Lassie be as intelligent as a human, but without the physical abilities of a human that isn’t very kind to create as a whole race–and trying to keep them as pets would be immoral.

First I will say that I am also against THIS sort of genetic engineering, however…

You are more confusing “a human trapped in a dog body” with “a dog of human level intelligence”

A dog would still be a dog even if it was intelligent, meaning that it would not think in a human manner. First, a dog would be perfectly used to being a dog, and would not percieve it as a “disability” as you do. This would be like saying that today, all dogs are retarded and should be pitied for not having human level intelligence, and to make matters worse, the poor bastards still don’t have the same physical abilities as humans. Second, a dog thought process would be very “dog-like” which may will be completely different from human thought processes and behaviors, even at similar intelligence levels.

If this were to happen there would be not necessarily be a reason to feel sorry for our dog overlords.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

I forgot to throw this in before, but there’s a Robert Heinlein story (“Jerry Was A Man”) which dealt with this very topic (a genetically-engineered intelligence-enhanced chimpanzee).

There’s already a small movement to have the common chimp, Pan troglodytes reclassified as being part of the family of primates, e.g. Homo troglodytes. While I think this classification is more political than scientifically valid (although some biologists have suggested that hybridization between humans and chimpanzees might be possible) there’s no doubt that chimps (and gorillas, and orangutans) demonstrate advanced social and mechanical skills, the ability to conceptualize, and some degree of self-awareness and mortality.

But then, the same could be said of black bears, dolphins/orcas, and potentially of other animals who are clearly non-primates. Once we start recognizing that we aren’t the “top” of the evolutionary chain or in any way divine, the claim that we are the only creatures to which ethical standards apply becomes a lot less well defined. That’s a problem for ethicists who are trying to cast all decisions into well-bounded areas of right and wrong, but it is more reflective of the continuum of intellect and congitive ability in the animal kingdom.

Stranger

[BrainGlutton]

@Foible

Try and imagine what our world would be like is smell were our dominant sense, that would be a bit like an intellgent dog’s world.

In Flight of the Horse, Larry Niven’s 1973 collection of linked short stories, the main character Sfetz (IIRC), lives on an Earth devastated by air pollution – all surviving humans (there are practically no other surviving species) live in domed cities subsisting on vat-grown yeast. One of his adventures with a wonky time machine takes him to a parallel Earth where a humanoid sentient species evolved from wolves. They have no air-pollution problems – the first automobile was destroyed by a mob because of the offensive smell it produced, and a second was never made.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Stranger On A Train

…to have the common chimp, Pan troglodytes reclassified as being part of the family of primates, e.g. Homo troglodytes.

That should be hominids. They are, of course, already primates.

Sheesh. Don’t you know anything, Stranger? :o

Stranger

[John_Mace]

@Stranger On A Train

There’s already a small movement to have the common chimp, Pan troglodytes reclassified as being part of the family of primates, e.g. Homo troglodytes. While I think this classification is more political than scientifically valid (although some biologists have suggested that hybridization between humans and chimpanzees might be possible) there’s no doubt that chimps (and gorillas, and orangutans) demonstrate advanced social and mechanical skills, the ability to conceptualize, and some degree of self-awareness and mortality.

“Small” is an overstatement. I’m not aware of any evidence that chimps (or other great apes) can conceptualize mortality. Do you have a cite?

That should be hominids. They are, of course, already primates.

Actually, the great apes have already been reclassified as belonging to the family Hominidae (Hominids) along with humans. Humans and our extinct ancestors are in the subfamily Homininae, while the great apes are in the subfamily Ponginae (the “family” formerly known as Pongidae).

It gets somewhat confusing, what with there only being a “d” and an “n” difference between Family and subfamily.