Hacker News Reader

Comment by adamnemecek | Hacker News Reader

Vast majority of purebreds have some serious generic issues. I'm hoping that we as a society will solve this whole situation soon.

There is a BBC documentary on this https://vimeo.com/17558275

View on HN

Suppose there was a breed of, say, monkey, that was popular as a household pet. They were considered to be quite clever and could be trained, over some years, to use a toilet, fetch things from the fridge, even manage primitive forms of communication. The only problem is that they're a genetic trainwreck. They've got a pronounced, gourd-like head with a snout so compact that it's common to have to surgically remove some of their teeth. They've got limited ability in their front legs that forces them to spend their entire life in an abnormal posture, resulting in a cornucopia of spinal and joint problems that cause many of them lifelong pain. On top of all this, all of their natural defenses (claws, canines, protective fur) have been bred out and disease traits bred in (myopia, hemophilia, diabetes, and so on). Now, knowing all of this, suppose your sister, who already has three of these things running around her house, calls up and gleefully announces that they're getting another one. What do you tell her?

Well, when the monkey gets older it can use tools to defend itself, as well as keep itself alive. However, I would perhaps suggest teaching it abstinence, sterlilisation if it has one of the particularly debilitating genetic diseases

Humans are apes not monkeys.

What if you sister called and said there was a safe, cheap and effective way to remove, say, the myopia from her spawn (in the case of dogs, stop inbreeding, in the case of humans, currently imaginary)? Would you tell her not to do it?

I had some in-laws at one point who had a kid with cystic fibrosis, and they decided to roll the dice and have a second one. (Murphy's Law won that round.) I can't imagine convincing those people to get their $1200 purebred pug[1] neutered for the good of the species.

[1] https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/much-pugs-87fd8b209ca...

I imagine the thing to do would be to sell healthy dogs for $1500 (make sure lots of people say they are worth $1500).

so their second kid had CF too?

We aren't apes or monkeys.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phylogeny/taxonomy/humans...

That is a very long-winded and opinionated article just to make the point that "ape" is not a taxonomic term, and it's not used completely consistently.

In any case, please don't promote anti-science articles (this one begins by complaining about "those who accept and promote evolution").

The writer is a Professor of Anthropology. Don't jump to conclusions.

sorry, i came across way too bluntly. i really should have noted how suprised i was the an expert thinks its a misconception to think of ourselves as apes.

in any case, i think the author is very much in favour of science.

Hmm. We're "Great Apes" (hominids), but not "Apes"? That seems to violate common sense, in my opinion.

I've had good success with telling people about how the industry works. These people probably like dogs (which is why they are getting them) and showing them that dogs suffer quite a bit due to their choices can be convincing.

https://xkcd.com/1650/

But comparing humans to dogs in that matter is kind of ridiculous. This is more like if your sister called and said "I just read about chinese foot binding, and I think it's a great idea so I'm going to do it to my children!" That's basically what people who only accept dogs who have debilitatingly short snouts, etc. are doing.

People aren't binding pug's snouts. They just grow into hideously deformed beasts all on their own like people do.

The successive generations of pure breeding are pretty artificially imposed.

I think your confusing breeding with tail docking.

I'm really not. Foot binding is similarly debilitating to the squished snout. It wasn't possible to choose an example that was literally the same because human's don't breed themselves for deformities.

If anything, now that we can test, many people take steps to make sure their children don't end up with debilitating traits. Having back issues when you are 60 isn't even remotely in the same league as the back issues these dogs end up with.

> humans don't breed themselves for deformities.

Except maybe intelligence, I fail to see how the traits we breed for could be considered anything but deformities if a baboon had them.

Right now the only thing people are selecting for is wanting to breed and ability to provide for one's family. Sometimes. A study of who fucks who would be really interesting, but kind of useless because what would you do with the information?

That second part "ability to provide for one's family" means something though, doesn't it? Our societies aren't perfect, but "ability to provide for oneself/family" does generally mean that they have certain desirable traits.

My response would be "Is it possible to get a version of this monkey without these problems? No? Then go ahead."

I mean, incest is illegal in many places. One of the major justifications (although perhaps not the main driver) is birth defects. So.

I mean, I know you're being ironic, but that's really an inaccurate view of people. Sure, we have certain diseases, but we're hardly unique in that regard. We live decades longer than our closest relatives, even without medical intervention. In terms of natural defenses, we are an apex predator, and have been even in the hunter-gatherer days. Even ignoring the fact that we are the most intelligent species on the planet, we're also one of the greatest distance runners in the animal kingdom.

Probably nothing. Monkeys are a telling example: almost nobody cares for a monkey, so in the absence of some genetically compromised monkey bred for suitability as pets, there not only would be no pet monkeys, but also fewer monkeys overall, as humans edge monkeys out of their habitats more and more every year.

This is why mutts are the best. Genetic diversity is good. Anecdotal, but growing up my two mutts lived to the ages of 16 and 18...well past the life expectancies you see in the purebred world.

It's really a case-by-case basis thing.

I grew up with a mutt that I loved dearly. My parents got her because my Dad had read something or other in (I think) Popular Science about how the "dog of the future" would be a mutt, and the mutting of genes would suppress bad recessive traits. Then she got sick as a puppy, had an allergic reaction to her medication, and suffered permanent brain damage. That having been said, she was a perfect house pet; lived to be a very ripe old age and was good natured, just a little slow to respond to things.

If you're a breeder and there's something wrong in the genetics of the dog you're breeding, stop breeding that dog. But resolving genetic issues isn't as simple as just throwing mutts together; you really just roll the dice on a new set of strengths and weaknesses when you do that.

A mutt could still be the offspring of two pure bred dogs and have inherited genetic problems from both.

Exactly. Mutts may often be better than their purebred parents (by various objective and subjective criteria), but in the end it'll take a few generations of mutts and, well, survival of the fittest before you can see a general trend towards improvements in health and longevity.

Genetics are a lottery, starting with unhealthy parents the odds are against the offspring. It'll take generations for the population as a whole to move towards being healthier on average.

Well, the only problem with mutts (for me) is that you have no good idea on what size they will have as adults.

Living in an apartment I can't really have a big dog and by getting a breed dog (even if it's not really pure bread) I know it will not get too big for the space I have available.

I would rephrase this. The concern as an apartment dweller is less one of size, and more one of energy. I have a Bernese Mountain Dog (currently 110lbs/50kg) he's a great apartment dog, because he's low energy. Other residents in the building have much smaller dogs that pose a real challenge because the energy level doesn't match the space available

You are right, that's also an issue in my mind. A small, energetic and noisy dog wouldn't be a proper pet for an apartment as well.

Then again, it's exactly why I feel safer getting a breed dog that fits the basic requisites. In my parents home - that is quite big and with a lot of open space - we've got a mutt and we were very happy with him, but we didn't really have any constrains about how he would turn out to be as an adult.

For apartment dwellers I always recommend getting an older dog. Puppies are cute, but they're honestly a lot of work and generally high-energy. After just one or two years most dogs will settle down and you'll have a very good idea of what you're going to get. The adult dogs are perfectly trainable. Most people who get puppies also have no actual skill in how to train dogs, so they're basically rolling the dice on what their dog's personality is going to be like.

Rescue organizations (in the US at least) are a great place to find dogs. The dogs have often been in a domestic setting with a foster owner. The history of the dog is usually known. You'll be adopting dogs in the 2-8yr range and you'll have a great idea of what you're getting.

It can take a while to find the right dog, but it should. It's a decade-long commitment.

That's one of the reasons I like Australian Cattle dogs. They are still mutty enough that there aren't a whole lot of genetic issues in the breed.

Of course, they are also very smart, tough, low-maintenance, and tend to live for a very long time. Some are a little over-active, but mine will happily lay in her bed all day and sleep, as long as she gets a good walk in the morning.

Totally agree! The only counter argument I've heard ist that purebreds also have predictably the same character traits, which is important if the dog has to fulfill a job. But to private owners health and longevity should matter more.

Whats the solution here?

Not breed to optimize for certain traits. But that's what dogs (and the current 'breeds') are all about anyway, both pugs and what most people consider 'anatomically correct' dogs.

Or at least don't optimize for traits that are disconnected from the health and wellbeing of the dog, like pure looks? Optimizing on more practical or athletic aspects probably makes it more difficult to end up with a sick dog.

Dogsled racing is a working area that has seen trend away from pure huskies. There are still plenty of huskies in the sport, but mixed teams are very common in the Iditarod now. In 2000 there were only three all-husky teams in the whole race. The racers are crossing with other breeds and bringing in new dogs that are more optimized for the race. There's a danger that in the long run they could end up with something extreme, like what greyhounds are for racing, but right now it's full of healthy, diverse dogs.

Mutts mostly, maybe a few different kinds of pure breeds. Might offend someone's aesthetic sensibilities (though I can't see why), but that seems like a worthwhile trade.

Ban breeding. There are plenty of dogs available for adoption. Once we run out of those we can reconsider the ban. Pretty simple stuff.

>Ban X

the username checks out

Realise that the incarceration (physically and/or psychologically) of animals for a purely comforting or entertainment purpose is an affront to proper morals.

Don't buy a pure bred, especially not at a premium.

Maybe: we stop using terms like 'purebreed' and 'mongrel'. Or reclaim 'mongrel'

I like the term 'natural dog'. "I'd like a medium sized natural dog with a long coat because it's cold here."

"Natural dog" is a silly term. Dogs are a domesticated animal and breeds have been around for almost as long as writing. [1]

I call mine a "mutt" - it's inoffensive and gets the point across.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breed#History

Mutt is intended to be an insult. While I'm fairly confident I've never heard it used as such first hand, it's still the 2nd definition on whatever Google uses for defining things:

    a person regarded as stupid or incompetent.
    "“Do not give me orders, mutt.”"

'Dog' is also an insult, and for that matter so is 'bitch' (n.b. for non-English-speakers: 'bitch' is the English word for a female dog).

I don't think that there's anything wrong with calling things by their proper names.

If you wish to be pedantic, "mix" and "mixed breed" are fairly neutral terms.

A natural dog's parents picked each other because their butts smelled good.

An unnatural dog's parents were chosen by someone looking to make an animal with a squashed snout.

Start calling purebreds "GMO dogs" instead.

Did you know purebreds contain chemicals?!

how about the term 'landrace'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dog_landraces

Have them mate with other breeds

Eliminate purebreds. Can you imagine we did the same with humans? Selecting for only one characteristic is a recipe for genetic disaster.

I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater in that approach.

Purebreds carry common genetic weaknesses. They also carry common genetic strengths. How confident are we that we can preserve the strengths as we mitigate the weaknesses?

Again, imagine we bred humans that need to have their back shaped in a certain form, nose of a certain length and so on. It won't work in the long run. Even worse, they breed for genetic defects like the hips on German shepherds. You can select maybe for certain personalities or physical attributes but you need to allow for other variations. The guidelines for purebreds are just stupid.

> Can you imagine we did the same with humans?

I can! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia_in_European_royalt...

Oh, there's a pretty good chance people will try doing the same for humans when genetic engineering becomes a tad more common/extensive. There's a reason talk of 'designer babies' and the likes is a hot topic, especially in regards of selecting for certain characteristics here too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com