Timeline for if people are bred like dogs, what can be achieved?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 25 at 14:23 | comment | added | kjetil b halvorsen | Humans are already domesticated (self-domesticated) | |
| Jun 25 at 12:55 | comment | added | Fattie | Also, I'm afraid, as @Pelinore points out, it's not just that the statement "humans don't breed true" is wrong, (humans "breed true" exactly, precisely as dogs, horses, cows etc do) but the term is being misunderstood, used incorrectly. Note that the otaku who write on wikipedia are not scientists :) The usual scientific use of "breed true" refers to a specific trait, it's meaningless to apply it to a breed or species. Note that absolutely obviously unless you're an alien you should be aware that many traits in humans very evidently breed very true! Hence all our lovely colors, shapes &c | |
| Jun 25 at 12:34 | comment | added | Fattie | I'm afraid this answer is just plain wrong. The statement "humans don't breed true" is just wrong, we breed exactly the same as any other mammal. Simply look at the incredible diversity of humans in terms of size, shape, skin tones, facial features - all of that was achieved in only ~15,000 yrs. The comment about cats for eg. is just wrong, the different cat breeds are incredibly diverse (yes, not as much as dogs, but that's simply because nobody is as interested in cats). identically to humans, dogs and cats, cows/chooks etc have been spectacularly bred in only a couple thousand yrs. | |
| Jun 25 at 10:30 | comment | added | Chronocidal | @Michael No, because the traits were not what were being selected for. It's proof that inbreeding can cause certain traits to exaggerate/magnify in prominence, but it's no proof that you can choose which traits you get. From a selective-breeding perspective, the Habsburgs are the equivalent of "throw stuff at the wall for ages, and then eventually try to see what sticks" | |
| Jun 25 at 7:39 | comment | added | Michael | Are the Habsburgs not a perfect example how you can breed for certain traits? In their case we would consider it genetic disorders but you can also call it a feature. | |
| Jun 25 at 6:31 | comment | added | Jemox | When you compare pugs to wolves, you realize that the Habsburg were still pretty fine, compared to what can be achieved if you really go for it. | |
| Jun 25 at 3:13 | comment | added | mckenzm | Dune, Methuselah's Children, Foundation, although the Mule was an aberration, plenty of speculation. There's a reason God's chosen seem to be brighter. Years of selective matchmaking..... | |
| Jun 24 at 22:01 | comment | added | Nosajimiki | Humans certainly breed true. Kids are typically both mentally and physical similar to thier parents. Things that don't breed true must be cloned to recreate positive traits. For example, if you take the seed from a Gala Apple and cross pollinate it with another Gala apple (or any apple really), 999 times out of 1000, what you get will be a far less appetizing crabapple tree. Every Gala apple in every store in the world is cloned from other Gala Apple trees as is every other variety of grocery store apple. | |
| Jun 24 at 17:57 | comment | added | Bubbles | I don't see how this proves the idea doesn't work. The Habsburgs(and other similar examples) were the results of inbreeding, not controlled breeding. That can be avoided with actual controlled breeding. As for why so few species were domesticated, it wasn't because of the way their genes work(we share mostly the same DNA as dogs), but practicality. Some are easier to domesticate than others and require fewer resources, but neither seems to be a concern here. I don't see any reason why this is impossible, it would just be more time-consuming, but that doesn't seem to be a concern here. | |
| Jun 24 at 17:01 | comment | added | Starfish Prime | @Pelinore you do realise that “doesn’t breed true” doesn’t mean “randomizes all genes”, right? | |
| Jun 24 at 16:38 | comment | added | Pelinore | "Humans don't breed true" Really? from the link you provided > "In the world of selective animal breeding, to "breed true" means that specimens of an animal breed will breed true-to-type when mated like-to-like" so why is it when you "breed" a Caucasian to a Caucasian you don't ever get what looks like a Chinese baby then? or vice versa, I think you are letting your moral distaste for the idea (and yes it is a distasteful one, for the real world) colour your words, you either don't understand the words or are not telling the truth, either way it's a bad answer as a result > [-] | |
| Jun 24 at 15:53 | history | answered | Starfish Prime | CC BY-SA 4.0 |