Now here's an idea I haven't yet found a single supporter for, and in fact have been asked to stop talking about it, its that offensive and upsetting an idea to some. But I personally don't really think it's all that immoral, if at all, especially when compared to everything else we put up with as a society.
So, the idea is to genetically engineer a species or three of cats and dogs to have much shorter lifespans, say 2-5 years, depending how long you'd like a pet for. You breed them at a lab somewhere, and when someone buys one the cat/dog would be compulsorarily neutured to ensure their genes don't somehow get out into the wild.
The advantages? Old people who maybe don't have much longer to live but would like a companion can get a puppy, safe in the knowledge that if they, the old person, kicks the bucket first, the dog at least won't be much of a burden on whoever ends up with it, given that it'll only live another year or so.
People who'll be working abroad or out in the country somewhere, say on a 3 year contract, can get a 2-year cat, knowing that the pet will die before they have to move back to their hovel in the city, or deal with all quarantine and that.
Houses of students could get house pets! Lots of people, who otherwise couldn't get pets, could get pets. Lots of fun, happiness, love, strokey-times and//or fetch-playing that otherwise wouldn't have happened, would happen.
So what's the problem?
Well, there's a few.
First off, there's how you achieve the goal of breeding a species with a much shorter lifespan: I fear cross-breeding would take too long and involve too many false-starts, seeing as you don't know which animal is going to have the shortest lifespan till after they die. But if you *could* do it expediantly that way, then why the hell not? We already selectively breed dogs, cats, cows, horses, all livestock... either to improve their speed, their looks or how much meat they produce. Sometimes this can be considered immoral; though the only case I can think of that's universally frowned-upon is cross-breeding sausage dogs for extra length, as it can give them all sorts of back and leg problems and leave them in chronic pain.
So breeding them for a shorter lifespan could be viewed as immoral, seeing as us humans value long lifespan and view a short one as a negative. Though everyone who has voiced that argument to me has not only NOT been a vegetarian, they're not even all that bothered about animal testing (i.e. to the point of avoiding products that do it or protesting or anything). So; they don't have a problem with the concept of ending an animals life prematurely by sudden human intervention, even if that intervention had been planned since the animals birth, but they DO have a problem with man ensuring an animals life ends prematurely by organic* means. Even though it would mean there'd be a greater number of living things overall, what with all the new people who could now afford to have pets.
If genetic engineering ever gets off it's fanny and starts properly messing around with things like this, then I'd be happy to artificially create a new species that would die after a few years. BUT with the provisos that
- the animal must not suffer any other adverse health problems as a result of this, and
- the animal must not simply 'reach old age' sooner, with all the bone, joint and bum problems that entails, even if it's only for a matter of weeks. I want a neater, less painful, less smelly solution, maybe tinkering specifically with the heart cells to ensure that that organ is the first to go.
Now. Some people might, and have said, that you should just get a normal dog/cat and when it comes time to move
somewhere it can't go with you, then man up and kill it yourself. Or persuade a vet to do it.**
Yes, you could do that. And maybe people already do this; in fact - they probably do. But I figure there's a gap in the market here:- people don't like killing mammals much, especially if they've been introduced to them socially. If they could ensure that their pets death is inevitable (to within a certain margin of error) from the outset, without them ever having to raise a hand to bring that death about, then they will be able to trust themselves to get a temp pet, where they couldn't with a normal pet. Someone might start out with the best of intentions to kill their dog as soon as they have to move back to England, but somehow *fall in love* with the mutt in the interim, and end up shelling out all sorts of cash to bring the bugger back with them. And then there's vets bills after that... so they avoid getting a pet altogether because they don't want the hassle of getting rid of it or the guilt of killing it.
Weaklings. Tsh.
Another method to achieve the aim of creating temporary pets, could be to avoid the genetic issue completely and just impregnate one of the pet's arteries with some cyanide, coated in wax that'd take a year or two to wear off and release
the quick-acting poison. Something like that. But again... that sort of feels like murder, doesn't it? Peticide, at least. It's a man-made instrument causing the death of a natural animal, rather than a man-made animal designed to die. In the latter of those two things, the pet owner neither causes the death, nor allows the death to happen through inaction (e.g.
cutting the cianide out) . It's completely out of their hands. Kinda. Mostly.
One friend commented that he wouldn't find it *quite* so abhorrent, so long as we only did it to species that were on the verge of extinction anyway. So they'd have less of a problem with creating a species of temporary pandas, for example, than a species of temporary labradors. I think I can see that.
Right. I haven't thought how to end this piece, other than coming to the conclusion that I'm probably missing some vital emotional capacity that everyone else has got. And I'm also curious if anyone out there agrees that that temp pets are a pretty cool idea they don't really have a problem with, and they might even get a temp pet themselves one day?
Answers on a comment. Or a message, if you'd rather not be seen discussing this type of filth.
TTFN
*I didn't say 'natural', before you misquote me.
**this all assuming you can't give it away for some reason. We didn't just leap to 'death' as the first option of disposing of a pet.
So, the idea is to genetically engineer a species or three of cats and dogs to have much shorter lifespans, say 2-5 years, depending how long you'd like a pet for. You breed them at a lab somewhere, and when someone buys one the cat/dog would be compulsorarily neutured to ensure their genes don't somehow get out into the wild.
The advantages? Old people who maybe don't have much longer to live but would like a companion can get a puppy, safe in the knowledge that if they, the old person, kicks the bucket first, the dog at least won't be much of a burden on whoever ends up with it, given that it'll only live another year or so.
People who'll be working abroad or out in the country somewhere, say on a 3 year contract, can get a 2-year cat, knowing that the pet will die before they have to move back to their hovel in the city, or deal with all quarantine and that.
Houses of students could get house pets! Lots of people, who otherwise couldn't get pets, could get pets. Lots of fun, happiness, love, strokey-times and//or fetch-playing that otherwise wouldn't have happened, would happen.
So what's the problem?
Well, there's a few.
First off, there's how you achieve the goal of breeding a species with a much shorter lifespan: I fear cross-breeding would take too long and involve too many false-starts, seeing as you don't know which animal is going to have the shortest lifespan till after they die. But if you *could* do it expediantly that way, then why the hell not? We already selectively breed dogs, cats, cows, horses, all livestock... either to improve their speed, their looks or how much meat they produce. Sometimes this can be considered immoral; though the only case I can think of that's universally frowned-upon is cross-breeding sausage dogs for extra length, as it can give them all sorts of back and leg problems and leave them in chronic pain.
So breeding them for a shorter lifespan could be viewed as immoral, seeing as us humans value long lifespan and view a short one as a negative. Though everyone who has voiced that argument to me has not only NOT been a vegetarian, they're not even all that bothered about animal testing (i.e. to the point of avoiding products that do it or protesting or anything). So; they don't have a problem with the concept of ending an animals life prematurely by sudden human intervention, even if that intervention had been planned since the animals birth, but they DO have a problem with man ensuring an animals life ends prematurely by organic* means. Even though it would mean there'd be a greater number of living things overall, what with all the new people who could now afford to have pets.
If genetic engineering ever gets off it's fanny and starts properly messing around with things like this, then I'd be happy to artificially create a new species that would die after a few years. BUT with the provisos that
- the animal must not suffer any other adverse health problems as a result of this, and
- the animal must not simply 'reach old age' sooner, with all the bone, joint and bum problems that entails, even if it's only for a matter of weeks. I want a neater, less painful, less smelly solution, maybe tinkering specifically with the heart cells to ensure that that organ is the first to go.
Now. Some people might, and have said, that you should just get a normal dog/cat and when it comes time to move
somewhere it can't go with you, then man up and kill it yourself. Or persuade a vet to do it.**
Yes, you could do that. And maybe people already do this; in fact - they probably do. But I figure there's a gap in the market here:- people don't like killing mammals much, especially if they've been introduced to them socially. If they could ensure that their pets death is inevitable (to within a certain margin of error) from the outset, without them ever having to raise a hand to bring that death about, then they will be able to trust themselves to get a temp pet, where they couldn't with a normal pet. Someone might start out with the best of intentions to kill their dog as soon as they have to move back to England, but somehow *fall in love* with the mutt in the interim, and end up shelling out all sorts of cash to bring the bugger back with them. And then there's vets bills after that... so they avoid getting a pet altogether because they don't want the hassle of getting rid of it or the guilt of killing it.
Weaklings. Tsh.
Another method to achieve the aim of creating temporary pets, could be to avoid the genetic issue completely and just impregnate one of the pet's arteries with some cyanide, coated in wax that'd take a year or two to wear off and release
the quick-acting poison. Something like that. But again... that sort of feels like murder, doesn't it? Peticide, at least. It's a man-made instrument causing the death of a natural animal, rather than a man-made animal designed to die. In the latter of those two things, the pet owner neither causes the death, nor allows the death to happen through inaction (e.g.
cutting the cianide out) . It's completely out of their hands. Kinda. Mostly.
One friend commented that he wouldn't find it *quite* so abhorrent, so long as we only did it to species that were on the verge of extinction anyway. So they'd have less of a problem with creating a species of temporary pandas, for example, than a species of temporary labradors. I think I can see that.
Right. I haven't thought how to end this piece, other than coming to the conclusion that I'm probably missing some vital emotional capacity that everyone else has got. And I'm also curious if anyone out there agrees that that temp pets are a pretty cool idea they don't really have a problem with, and they might even get a temp pet themselves one day?
Answers on a comment. Or a message, if you'd rather not be seen discussing this type of filth.
TTFN
*I didn't say 'natural', before you misquote me.
**this all assuming you can't give it away for some reason. We didn't just leap to 'death' as the first option of disposing of a pet.
1 comments:
Although I know this post was meant to be taken lightly, I can't help but play devil's advocate and respond to it on a serious note. I think you've thought up of a unique, quirky concept that if could be achieved, would definitely benefit many in acquiring a pet. However, there are aspects that would be quite controversial. For example, altering genes in species is not a recent trend, stem cell research and genetically modified foods have both been debated and conducted for quite some time now. While stem cell research has gotten a lot of negative press and has a poor reputation to many due to the effects of the media, genetically modified foods are essentially doing the same thing, but in plants. Despite what many would say that yes, altering plants genes for our usage is beneficial, wouldn't altering human genes to prevent certain illnesses be beneficial to us as well?
Post a Comment