# Legit Talking Animals



## Genumix (Jul 25, 2011)

How would the world change if household pets and other animals could talk?

I'm not talking about an ideal fictional world, I'm talking our world. In the next few decades.  Studies with African Grey parrots (re: Irene Pepperberg and Alex), chimpanzees, whales, and dolphins have shown that other animals have certain cognitive components of speech.  Other animals do have methods of communicating in basic ways, as rudiments of language are present all around the animal kingdom.  For instance, while most animals out there won't realize what you mean by looking in a certain direction, a dog will immediately follow your gaze to watch whatever you're looking at.  Nonverbal communication is taking place.

Separately, genetic engineering is taking place on an ever-expanding scale, so that gene therapy for already-developed organisms is becoming a possibility for the future.  It's in its infant stages, but finding the biological mechanisms for changing the genome of an organism is completely plausible given the versatility of genetic tools (e.g. retroviruses).  There are pretty much no limits to what living things can do.

So, what happens when the capacities of genetic modification come into contact with the field of animal cognition?  What are the ethics of enabling animals to talk?  How would this play into issues of civil rights? Do pets deserve the right to speak if we can give it to them, or should they all be kept silent?

How would you, as furries, react to the dawn of sapient, talking, non-human animals?

I ask these questions because I am going into this field of research.  I plan to study genetics to make these adaptations possible by determining what genes are responsible for the development of language-related structures in an organism, such as vocal chords and the right neural pathways.  From that point, it's a simple matter of swapping the "language genes" into the genome of an individual from another species.  Do any of you scientists have advice for me as I tread these waters?  Does the idea rub you the wrong way, or do you want to see it happen?


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 25, 2011)

Can the animals understand language? Like can they say "I want to eat some celery" and understand what that means? Can they hold conversations?

I think it would probably be the end of pets and eating meat :\


----------



## Genumix (Jul 25, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Can the animals understand language? Like can they say "I want to eat some celery" and understand what that means? Can they hold conversations?
> 
> I think it would probably be the end of pets and eating meat :\


Hey, if we have the genetic structures that allow for that, then it's completely possible that other animals could use the same genes to do the same things, right?  Alex the parrot did understand those kinds of statements, because he understood labels and certain social cues.  He was great at understanding emotions, as are most animals.  So if we augment, in other parrots, the genes that allowed him to do that, we could enable those animals to sustain a full-fledged convo like you or me.

(edit) As far as having pets, do you think that language would really end owning pets, or would social animals like dogs choose to remain with human families, given their genetic conditioning to be so close to people?


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 25, 2011)

Ehh I don't think you understand what I mean.
A parrot can't sit there and say "hey, yeah I gotta file my taxes today. Oh and I kinda wanna go out to McDonalds and get myself something to eat - you want anything?"
That's what I mean by "talking"

Yeah, because if an animal has the understanding of a human and can talk like the above ^ what makes you think he'd wanna be a slave to a human? ahah


----------



## Xenke (Jul 25, 2011)

Sapient animals = their enslavement.

This is fact.


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 25, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Sapient animals = their enslavement.
> 
> This is fact.


*cant tell if sarcastic*
It would be like owning another human, but in the form of a cat/dog.
so yeah, it would be like enslavement


----------



## Xenke (Jul 25, 2011)

Clayton said:


> *cant tell if sarcastic*
> It would be like owning another human, but in the form of a cat/dog.
> so yeah, it would be like enslavement



Pretty much, depending on how incrementally their intelligence increased, there's a good chance that there'll be a stage where they have to approximate comprehension of a child. A mind like that is easy to control and manipulate, leading to slaves 2.0.

Slaves for all kinds of tasks.

I'll let you think up the rest.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Jul 25, 2011)

I would have to kill my dog because it would tell my family secrets that should not be let out.


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 25, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Pretty much, depending on how incrementally their intelligence increased, there's a good chance that there'll be a stage where they have to approximate comprehension of a child. A mind like that is easy to control and manipulate, leading to slaves 2.0.
> 
> Slaves for all kinds of tasks.
> 
> I'll let you think up the rest.


 
Oooh that opens a whole nother can of worms
What would the age of intelligence be? Dogs have the intelligence equivalence of a 2 year old...
but would they still be like that if they could talk? Would they just talk nonsense? Or would they have the intelligence of an adult



Commiecomrade said:


> I would have to kill my dog because it would tell my family secrets that should not be let out.


That says a whole lot about you


----------



## Heliophobic (Jul 25, 2011)

What's that word for human-level intelligence? Well, when animals become that, bestiality technically wouldn't be immoral.

It's morning where I am, and I'm probably gonna regret saying that.




Xenke said:


> Sapient



THAT's the word.


----------



## Genumix (Jul 25, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Oooh that opens a whole nother can of worms
> What would the age of intelligence be? Dogs have the intelligence equivalence of a 2 year old...
> but would they still be like that if they could talk? Would they just talk nonsense? Or would they have the intelligence of an adult



I did understand what you were saying.  Seriously, look up what Alex could do.  He was at a basic level of communication, and some people ardently say he wasn't using "real" language, but he did understand the meanings of certain words and he was very logical in the way he manipulated people around him.  And he did some really funny, creative things to get what he wanted.

I suppose that, if scientists could find the proper genes to change, the organism's (dog's, cat's, whatever's) intelligence age could hypothetically be that of an adult human.  At that point, there's a lot of diversity between individuals, so the age equivalent would be harder to pin down.

Dogs would probably need to be more intelligent to use language; I don't think that you can really judge whether they'd be more intelligent if they could talk, because the genetic modifications would probably need to happen in the other order.  2 separate modifications would need to be made:  physical adjustment that enabled voice and articulation, and adjustments to neural pathways.




Commiecomrade said:


> I would have to kill my dog because it would tell my family secrets that should not be let out.



lol.  But, really, I wonder if a dog that underwent gene therapy would remember the things you said before he/she learned language?  Probably not, but I don't know how their memory works...




Sollux said:


> What's that word for human-level intelligence? Well, when animals become that, bestiality technically wouldn't be immoral.


I completely agree.  This is probably the one thing that can definitively make sex between species ethical.  I don't know if it would still be called bestiality, though.  Probably just interspecies sex, because bestiality isn't used when people talk about having sex with aliens or other sapient beings in fiction.


----------



## Arlo (Jul 25, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I think it would probably be the end of pets and eating meat :\



I'd still eat beef, I'd just apologize to the cow first.... :\


----------



## BouncyOtter (Jul 25, 2011)

You pose some interesting questions if this situation somehow existed.  It would create an amazing uproar and endless debates would occur.  i think it'd be interesting to see (as long as it didn't turn out like "planet of the apes" :V).

As for simply making animals talk, the actual process of accomplishing this would make for an interesting discussion on a genetic and biochemical level.  You make it sound so simple.  We can relatively easily determine what genes are "responsible for the development of language-related structures...and the right neural pathways".  That's all fine and dandy, but as for swamping in the so called "language genes" that would be an insane task.

Hypothetically, let's say it was all possible.  You would never get the approval to do such research (with today's rules and regulations).  The creation of chimeras, which you would undoubtedly be creating is highly frowned upon.  Yes, I know about experiments that do this, but they usually involve model organisms such as Drosophila and C. elegans.  I guess I could discuss this topic more after I get out of lab if so desired.

However, discussing the pathways involved in this process would be interesting to talk about (probably because I am a nerd about stuff like that), even if all hypothetical.  I don't know where you are in your studies, but you'll learn how complicated everything is.  I am not doing genetic research, but I study stem cells (and as a nerdy side note, injections using retroviruses have draw backs so now techniques are being developed).  I suggest just trying to learn as much as you can.  The fields of biochemisty, cell biology, genetics, etc. are all so intertwined and fascinating.  

And I've rambled about nothing in detail...sorry...


----------



## Streetcircus (Jul 25, 2011)

Certainly wouldn't happen in my lifetime. Not with any kind of intelligent thing to say. If Animals were genetically altered to be capable of speech they would almost constantly say, "I'm hungry, feed me!" That would get really old, really quick.

If centuries from now animals develop the capabilities of complex speech, they would still be inferior to us intellectually, because if man can alter the potential understanding of an animal, they can do it to themselves.


----------



## Genumix (Jul 25, 2011)

BouncyOtter said:


> You pose some interesting questions if this situation somehow existed. It would create an amazing uproar and endless debates would occur. i think it'd be interesting to see (as long as it didn't turn out like "planet of the apes" :V).
> 
> As for simply making animals talk, the actual process of accomplishing this would make for an interesting discussion on a genetic and biochemical level. You make it sound so simple. We can relatively easily determine what genes are "responsible for the development of language-related structures...and the right neural pathways". That's all fine and dandy, but as for swamping in the so called "language genes" that would be an insane task.
> 
> ...


Yay, fellow scientist!  I'm actually nowhere in my studies, because I'm starting freshman year of college this fall.  However, I'm extremely determined to pursue this line of research and plan to load up on all the relevant courses - neuroscience, psychology, genetics, linguistics.  My hope is to isolate whatever genes are necessary for language, then piggyback off of whatever gene therapists will have accomplished in the future.

While I haven't learned about the specifics yet, I have heard a thing or two about gene therapy.  Right now it's in its infant stages (retroviruses are extremely clumsy and don't proofread their insertions), but I know that people fighting genetic diseases are looking for effective ways of swapping in genes.  IMO, the real footwork needs to be done in engineering a more efficient reverse transcriptase, perhaps through analyzing the proofreading capacities of transcriptase.  Is that plausible, from your more educated perspective?


As for how I can get the research done... I'm not aware of the regulations and the motives of whoever the appropriate financiers may be, but I would think that a study of what genes are vital for language development would be of great use to humans, independently of whatever _my_ intentions may be for doing the reserach.  If I sell it like that, figuring out what genetic disorder it related to, then trying to combat whatever _that_ may be, do you think that would work in getting early research?




Streetcircus said:


> Certainly wouldn't happen in my lifetime. Not with any kind of intelligent thing to say. If Animals were genetically altered to be capable of speech they would almost constantly say, "I'm hungry, feed me!" That would get really old, really quick.
> 
> If centuries from now animals develop the capabilities of complex speech, they would still be inferior to us intellectually, because if man can alter the potential understanding of an animal, they can do it to themselves.


Well, the way I see it happening, we would be copying our language genes (more or less) to other animals.  It's not like a generic +5 language boost, it would be more like animals getting on the same page as humans.  To give ourselves the same intellectual boost, we would have to come up with novel genes for ourselves, which could probably also be shared with other species.


----------



## Onnes (Jul 25, 2011)

By mucking around to that extent with the genetics of an animal, you would essentially be creating a separate species. There is no particular reason why special treatment of the new species would extend to the old species. As an example, just look at how we treat non-human primates.


----------



## Xenke (Jul 25, 2011)

Onnes said:


> By mucking around to that extent with the genetics of an animal, you would essentially be creating a separate species. There is no particular reason why special treatment of the new species would extend to the old species. As an example, just look at how we treat non-human primates.



If the two manage to successfully reproduce and create viable offspring,

Same species.

But now I'm getting into even more hypothetical.


----------



## Genumix (Jul 25, 2011)

Xenke said:


> If the two manage to successfully reproduce and create viable offspring,
> 
> Same species.
> 
> But now I'm getting into even more hypothetical.


I doubt that they would be so different that they were unable to reproduce.  There's enough diversity within any given species, I'd imagine it's possible.  Then again, I don't know how much DNA would have to be replaced, because too much and the chromosomes would be incompatible.  Depends on what the genes for language are.  (correct me if I'm wrong, anybody sciencey out there)

Again, this is all completely possible.  It's just really difficult and hasn't yet accomplished.


----------



## Xenke (Jul 25, 2011)

Also it depends on if the new "species" is even able to reproduce in the first place.

You'd think "well yea duh, they're the same thing", but you could easily screw up their fertility.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jul 25, 2011)

If cows n shit learned to talk I dunno if my feelings would change, I would still eat them- and still enjoy it. 

As far as my dogs n stuff- well I can understand their needs now so them verbally talking wouldn't change much accept the fact my simple dog would probably be a loud mouth and talk incessantly and my other dog would be so depressed and mope I would have to call him an emo kid.


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 25, 2011)

If my cats could talk

ohhh lord id blow my brains out. theyre SO ANNOYING AS IS
mrraoooowwwoohh
rraooooowwuhhhh
*scratch scratch* on my door every day


----------



## johnny (Jul 25, 2011)

That would be cool to see play out, because we would all, as humans, maybe have to reconsider eating meat at all. I really like meat, so hopefully there would be some way for me to still eat meat. :3


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jul 25, 2011)

Clayton said:


> If my cats could talk
> 
> ohhh lord id blow my brains out. theyre SO ANNOYING AS IS
> mrraoooowwwoohh
> ...



BIRDS TOO- chirp chirp squawk chirp LOUD SQUAWK


----------



## Genumix (Jul 25, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Also it depends on if the new "species" is even able to reproduce in the first place.
> 
> You'd think "well yea duh, they're the same thing", but you could easily screw up their fertility.


With the way that genes are compartmentalized, I don't imagine that vocal chords and neurons develop by the same genes as... fertility.  You never know.  But that particular hiccup would be quite a surprise.


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 25, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> BIRDS TOO- chirp chirp squawk chirp LOUD SQUAWK


RAHH RAHH RAHH RAHH RAHH RAHH


----------



## Genumix (Jul 25, 2011)

As far as animals in the meat industry, I highly doubt that anybody would go through the immense process of genetically modifying all of them with a higher degree of intelligence and the appropriate physiology... It's not likely your meat-cows will ever talk.  However, I can only imagine the militancy of new-talking herbivores who don't appreciate their veggie-eating brethren being eaten. O.O


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jul 25, 2011)

I'd be afraid of the things my iguana would say.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 25, 2011)

I don't expect much from the prospect of animals learning how to talk.


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 25, 2011)

My cats would say
DAD
DAD
TAKE ME OUTSIDE  PICK ME UP
DAD, I WANT SOFT FOOD
PICK ME UP AND HOLD ME
DAD, SCRATCH MY BOOBS
and id be all UGGGHH CANT A MAN JUST SIT DOWN AFTER WORK WITHOUT BEING HARASSED


----------



## Xenke (Jul 25, 2011)

Clayton said:


> My cats would say
> DAD
> DAD
> TAKE ME OUTSIDE  PICK ME UP
> ...



My cats would say:

Boy. Hey boy. Boy. Boy. Boy.
Where are your parents, boy?
We miss them, boy.
We only tolerate you, boy.
Where your parents at, boy?
Screw you, boy, ima go eat plastic.


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 25, 2011)

Xenke said:


> My cats would say:
> 
> Boy. Hey boy. Boy. Boy. Boy.
> Where are your parents, boy?
> ...


My cats would say at your cats:
Hi
what are you doing
hey let me smell your ass. do you want to chase each other around?
Can I slap your legs when you run??
Do you want to go chase a centipede across the carpet and bite its legs???


----------



## Xenke (Jul 25, 2011)

Clayton said:


> My cats would say at your cats:
> Hi
> what are you doing
> hey let me smell your ass. do you want to chase each other around?
> ...



The black cat:
Meow go away.
You'll just be mean to me for no reason, just like all the other cats.
EXCUSE ME WHILE I HIT YOU IN THE FACE WITH MY BUTT.
Ow, you bit me. :C
I didn't do anything, meanie. :C
MOMMYYYYY, MOMMY HELPPPPPP, MEOW.

White cat:
Would you like me to lick your face first?
LOLJK, I'm going to bite bits of your stomach off now.


----------



## Genumix (Jul 25, 2011)

I enjoy this dialogue, I do, but these scenarios are based on a situation in which animals could talk but didn't have the intellectual capacity for language.  I'm proposing that, if one genetic modification is possible, the other is too.  Say they don't just talk, they have a sapient, human-level control of language.


----------



## Riyeko (Jul 25, 2011)

This picture, sums it all up.

http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/2011/01/04/dog-cat-diary.jpg

Think the dogs at the shelter would be most annoying.
Dog #1": Hey you! What you doing over there!? (constantly barking at other dogs)
Dog #2: Hey! What are YOU doing!? (constantly barking at other dogs)
Dog #3: NOISE! Lets notify her of the NOISE! (constantly barking at literally nothing)
Dog #4: Theres the cat get it! Get it! Get it! Get it! (freaking out cause the shelter cats going into the back room)
Dog #5: CAAAAT! Get it! Get it! Get it! (also freaking out about the shelter cat)
Dog #6: Im so Aloooooooooooooooooooooooooooone! (incessant howling)
Dog #7: This sucks. Im sleeping. (lazy dog in the back)


----------



## Flippy (Jul 25, 2011)

Arlo said:


> I'd still eat beef, I'd just apologize to the cow first.... :\


I'd have a different take on eating meat then. I'm gonna refer back to one of my favorite Futurama quotes to explain.
*Bender*: Who wants dolphin?
*Leela*: Dolphin? But dolphins are intelligent.
*Bender*: Not this one. He blew all his money on instant lottery  tickets.
*Fry*: OK.
*Leela*: Oh, OK.
*Amy*: That's different.
*Farnsworth*: Good, good.
*Leela*: Pass the blowhole.
*Amy*: Can I have a fluke?
*Hermes*: Hey, quit hogging the bottle-nose.
*Farnsworth*: Toss me the speech center of the brain!

I'd love to eat chicken that would have a stamp on the packaging that says certified bad egg & came from a chicken on death row, heh.


----------



## BouncyOtter (Jul 25, 2011)

Genumix said:


> Yay, fellow scientist!  I'm actually nowhere in my studies, because I'm starting freshman year of college this fall.  However, I'm extremely determined to pursue this line of research and plan to load up on all the relevant courses - neuroscience, psychology, genetics, linguistics.  My hope is to isolate whatever genes are necessary for language, then piggyback off of whatever gene therapists will have accomplished in the future.
> 
> While I haven't learned about the specifics yet, I have heard a thing or two about gene therapy.  Right now it's in its infant stages (retroviruses are extremely clumsy and don't proofread their insertions), but I know that people fighting genetic diseases are looking for effective ways of swapping in genes.  IMO, the real footwork needs to be done in engineering a more efficient reverse transcriptase, perhaps through analyzing the proofreading capacities of transcriptase.  Is that plausible, from your more educated perspective?
> 
> ...



There are a couple of other ways to insert genes into an organism besides using retroviruses (adenoviruses come to mind).  The techniques all have their own strengths and weaknesses as you might imagine (or else everyone would be using a single technique).  As for proofreading, in eukaryotes, other DNA polymerases are able to proofread the inserted genes, although some techniques do no actually incorporate the injected plasmid into the host cell/organism's genome.  Also, the methods that do integrate the transfected genes into the host genome do so at random which often leads to cancer (one of the major concerns with using gene therapy on people at the moment) as cell cycle/division processes are disrupted (though I do know methods are now being used to try and get around this, though I don't know the details)  As for engineering a better reverse transcriptase, it may be possible, though I haven't heard of people doing it.  This is mostly because when you transfect genes you create a plasmid that contain not only your gene of interest, but several other necessary things (i.e. a promoter region), so in theory, you could also have a proofreading DNA polymerase encoded in your plasmid.  In short, lots of things can and need to be take into consideration.

As for doing the research, I think it'd be pretty easy to find a lab that focuses on speech and language development (especially in cognitive science labs).  They are definitely out there.  I personally have no idea what genes are responsible for language.  Though I can guarantee it is not one gene (life is complex).  There will be several genes, so you will need to uncover which are the most necessary.  Those genes will also probably play roles in other cellular pathways as well.  Someone had mentioned the possibility of infertility.  It is possible by altering your genes of interest (or even just increasing their expression in cells) that this could happen.  I'm not saying it's likely, just a possibility (I can think of a couple of neuron types that if affected would lead to infertility).

No matter what, if you are interested in language development, then go for it!  Good luck with your future studies!

Yay for more rambling!


----------



## Tewin Follow (Jul 25, 2011)

Genumix said:


> As far as animals in the meat industry, I highly  doubt that anybody would go through the immense process of genetically  modifying all of them with a higher degree of intelligence and the  appropriate physiology... It's not likely your meat-cows will ever talk.   However, I can only imagine the militancy of new-talking herbivores  who don't appreciate their veggie-eating brethren being eaten.  O.O



In The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy, at the Resturant at The End of the Universe, there's a sapient... animal that tells Arthur (human) how delicious it is, how it wants to be a great meal and that it'll be humane when it kills itself out back for them.
Arthur is horrified, but the other characters argue that it's better, because it wants to die. Rather than killing a cow who doesn't want to die.
Uh.



johnny said:


> That would be cool to see play out, because we  would all, as humans, *maybe have to reconsider eating meat at all*. I  really like meat, so hopefully there would be some way for me to still  eat meat. :3



There's no "maybe" about it. If someone is telling you "don't eat me, Christ, please I don't want to die" then you don't eat it. That's murder.


----------



## Genumix (Jul 25, 2011)

BouncyOtter said:


> There are a couple of other ways to insert genes into an organism besides using retroviruses (adenoviruses come to mind).  The techniques all have their own strengths and weaknesses as you might imagine (or else everyone would be using a single technique).  As for proofreading, in eukaryotes, other DNA polymerases are able to proofread the inserted genes, although some techniques do no actually incorporate the injected plasmid into the host cell/organism's genome.  Also, the methods that do integrate the transfected genes into the host genome do so at random which often leads to cancer (one of the major concerns with using gene therapy on people at the moment) as cell cycle/division processes are disrupted (though I do know methods are now being used to try and get around this, though I don't know the details)  As for engineering a better reverse transcriptase, it may be possible, though I haven't heard of people doing it.  This is mostly because when you transfect genes you create a plasmid that contain not only your gene of interest, but several other necessary things (i.e. a promoter region), so in theory, you could also have a proofreading DNA polymerase encoded in your plasmid.  In short, lots of things can and need to be take into consideration.
> 
> As for doing the research, I think it'd be pretty easy to find a lab that focuses on speech and language development (especially in cognitive science labs).  They are definitely out there.  I personally have no idea what genes are responsible for language.  Though I can guarantee it is not one gene (life is complex).  There will be several genes, so you will need to uncover which are the most necessary.  Those genes will also probably play roles in other cellular pathways as well.  Someone had mentioned the possibility of infertility.  It is possible by altering your genes of interest (or even just increasing their expression in cells) that this could happen.  I'm not saying it's likely, just a possibility (I can think of a couple of neuron types that if affected would lead to infertility).
> 
> ...


Yay, indeed!  That's extremely, genuinely helpful.  Thanks!

Personally, I'd say that genomic changes would be the most appropriate method of gene therapy not meant to just cure a disease.  Like, it's... more elegant?  Streamlined? XD

My high school bio teacher (knows everything and) told me that there was once a clinical trial in which scientists implemented a method of gene therapy that did what it was supposed to, but it gave the person leukemia.  Then funding was halted for most research into gene therapy at the time, if I remember correctly.  It might have been in England or another European country.  Have you heard about this or other studies that have been done relatively successfully?

Also, in the hypothetical situation that the necessary research was actually done, what kind of regulations would there be for actually implementing a trial that inserted the necessary set of genes into a host?  Like, rules about chimeras and whatnot.




Harebelle said:


> In The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy, at the Resturant at The End of the Universe, there's a sapient... animal that tells Arthur (human) how delicious it is, how it wants to be a great meal and that it'll be humane when it kills itself out back for them.
> Arthur is horrified, but the other characters argue that it's better, because it wants to die. Rather than killing a cow who doesn't want to die.


agh, no way!  That's hilarious.  When in the series was that?



Harebelle said:


> There's no "maybe" about it. If someone is telling you "don't eat me, Christ, please I don't want to die" then you don't eat it. That's murder.


Yus.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Jul 25, 2011)

It's the second book (I'm pretty sure, anyway) and maybe halfway through the old TV series.
It's kinda disturbing, though. .__.


----------



## Conker (Jul 25, 2011)

And the first words talking animals will be taught by humans: shit, fuck, bitch, asshole, nigger, boobs, vagina,...

Because let's face it, as a highly intelligent species, we are still immature most of the time :V


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jul 25, 2011)

World wouldn't change.
Animals are still animals to us. We want to stay as we were, we must ignore their "words" and stay still.
Animals are still physically and mentally downgraded compared to us. Genetic engeneering is as far as you can think of, I guess... You want them to understand the meaning of words? You want them to produce sounds they naturally can't? The answer lies in robotics.

No matter what, most animals' brain is too small to understand what hegemony is - you can make them speak, but they are limited. 
You may be able to make them repeat that word, but the idea will not get inside their head.

Otherwise, what would be the use of that? Nuisance, I'd say. It will be an obstacle in humanity.
Once again, if you want to make them speak, wait until about 2050, then plant a computer inside thier heads.


----------



## Genumix (Jul 25, 2011)

Satellite One said:


> World wouldn't change.
> Animals are still animals to us. We want to stay as we were, we must ignore their "words" and stay still.
> Animals are still physically and mentally downgraded compared to us. Genetic engeneering is as far as you can think of, I guess... You want them to understand the meaning of words? You want them to produce sounds they naturally can't? The answer lies in robotics.
> 
> ...


But brain power isn't all about size.  It's about efficiency and structure.  Elephants have bigger brains than we do, but they're not more cunning.  They just have better memories.  You compared brains to a computer - a computer has short term memory, long term memory, processing power, and integration of those different parts.  Likewise, a brain has separate parts devoted to different things.  With genetic modification, we might be able to change the balance of how much of the brain is devoted to each task.  Or find out what makes a brain efficient at processing, compress certain regions to take up less space but function the same, and augment the language region.  Making them able to comprehend complex ideas just like us.  Completely possible.

Brains are so much more advanced than computers at this point, it makes no sense for us to use computers to make animals comprehend speech given computers can't do that.  Humans, dolphins, and whales can, so any other animal should theoretically be able to also.

How would animals with language be an obstacle to humanity?  Diversity is a huge advantage to any community.  Being able to coexist with different kinds of people is beneficial to society, which is the most powerful force in the world.  Diversity also provides richness of experience to the individuals in a community.  I would say that there's enough steam behind civil rights initiatives at this point in time that talking animals would be able to have a place in and contribute to society.  Plus, a talking animal is the closest thing to a furry that could actually exist.


----------



## BouncyOtter (Jul 26, 2011)

Genumix said:


> Yay, indeed!  That's extremely, genuinely helpful.  Thanks!
> 
> Personally, I'd say that genomic changes would be the most appropriate method of gene therapy not meant to just cure a disease.  Like, it's... more elegant?  Streamlined? XD
> 
> ...



I actually remember reading about that clinical trial, or at least a very similar one, that occurred a multiple European countries (at least England and France).  In the one I know about they were trying to restore the immune systems of individuals which had been impaired by a genetic disorder.  Although mildly successful a few people did develop leukemia, no doubt caused by how the genes inserted into the host genome (they used a retrovirus).  This caused the study to be halted in the US.  However, as I mentioned before they are developing techniques that allow some "control" over how the genes would insert themselves into the genome.  It is possible to make the genes of interest insert at certain motifs that are common in the DNA (exactly how they target these motifs, I do not know).  This has allowed the therapy to be done with some some level of success.  Success is always hard to really measure because of how small most clinical trials are.  Some trials have 50 people (or less) so you can't truly gain too much insight (though it's better than nothing).

As for creating chimeras, that's becoming a more and more touchy subject.  Most chimeras today would involve a model organism like drosophila or mice expressing a simple human gene (i.e. the animal secretes a human version of their own hormone).  That kind of experiment alone has some people up in arms about ethical issues.  Hypothetically, if it was possible to make an animal talk, existing laws would stop you from proceeding and there would undoubtedly be a lot of outraged people.  This can be seen with stem cell research.  Amongst the many rules of things you can and can not do with human stem cells is you can not place human stem cells in the brain of another animals (especially in an ape or monkey).  People get worried about the creation of "monsters" when someone wants to mess with a creature's brain.  Most existing rules seem to leave everything in a gray region.  It's usually not a yes you can or no you can't.  That's why there is a growing field of bioethics.  When certain experiments are proposed (and seek funding) that may involve ethical issues, there are boards of people that are responsible for determining if the lab gets the green light and if they do, what restrictions will be placed on them.  

Kind of lost my train of thought since it's late.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jul 26, 2011)

Genumix said:


> But brain power isn't all about size.  It's about efficiency and structure.  Elephants have bigger brains than we do, but they're not more cunning.  They just have better memories.  You compared brains to a computer - a computer has short term memory, long term memory, processing power, and integration of those different parts.  Likewise, a brain has separate parts devoted to different things.  With genetic modification, we might be able to change the balance of how much of the brain is devoted to each task.  Or find out what makes a brain efficient at processing, compress certain regions to take up less space but function the same, and augment the language region.  Making them able to comprehend complex ideas just like us.  Completely possible.
> 
> Brains are so much more advanced than computers at this point, it makes no sense for us to use computers to make animals comprehend speech given computers can't do that.  Humans, dolphins, and whales can, so any other animal should theoretically be able to also.
> 
> How would animals with language be an obstacle to humanity?  Diversity is a huge advantage to any community.  Being able to coexist with different kinds of people is beneficial to society, which is the most powerful force in the world.  Diversity also provides richness of experience to the individuals in a community.  I would say that there's enough steam behind civil rights initiatives at this point in time that talking animals would be able to have a place in and contribute to society.  Plus, a talking animal is the closest thing to a furry that could actually exist.



It is assumed that by 2042~, we will be able to create a computer with the processing power of a brain, not sure if the complexity. Artifical intelligence can be a possible option. Genetic modification that alters how devoted the brain is to some tasks, might harm the daily routine of a certain species, in such a way that will harm one. It's not only about language - same for the vocal chords, and possibly many other parts in the brain. 

By the time we'll be able to even think about that, computers won't be an impossible option.
How can animals be an obstacle to humanity? First, you'll have to gather all species and modify them, and each one requires different modification because of the difference between species' brains. Takes a lot of time, and will possibly slow that sector of science. It might be a good option to test out basic genetic modification on animals in cases that also apply to humans - think about ourselves first. A talking animal would need a rational brain to think and enough logic to understand what a human world is. Wouldn't an animal want a change? Once we are not the only speakers on the planet, landscape will change in order to fit for animals, and it's impossible to perform currently, as it would take too much time and manpower, nontheless harm our society while we're at it.

"Furries" is no reason to do that. We do not have any need for talking animals. That's only entertainment that exist in our brain.
Aren't you a bit concerned about yourself? Go and study genetics of humans, that will be put in much better use in the near future.
You're way ahead of me in knowledge about the subject, but still prefer to go for unrequired dreams, and not try out what hasn't been seriously done before.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Jul 26, 2011)

Yes, I could see it now- cows being led to slaughter and before they're to be killed, they cry out "Why don't you eat chicken instead?"


----------



## DJ-Fragon (Jul 26, 2011)

As someone who is studying genetics, I would say that a genetic link to language is far more complex than you seem to think it is. First, there is more involved in the regulation of the biological system than the genome itself, which makes the process very difficult to study (you will likely be, or possibly have been, introduced to the field of epigenetics). Second, not only does the animal have to understand the language that it is receiving, but it also has to be capable of expressing itself in a language that is understandable to humans, much of which involves different parts of the brain. That includes both verbal and nonverbal language. Third, a life expectancy too short (~<20 years) would not allow the animal enough time to learn much of what we would want to teach it, especially if the animal undergoes effects of dementia as a result of aging. Finally, the animal would likely not have the capacity to process so much information with limited memory unless it has an augmented brain-to-body mass ratio. That could be improved by increasing the surface area of its brain and/or change its skull (eg. increased cranial capacity) that allows it to hold so much brain mass. There are likely others I haven't listed as well. Overall, a very complex and difficult project to undertake, but if you are interested then you can (almost) do whatever you want as long as you put effort into it and are fully aware of the ethical boundaries (and have the money and support to undertake such experiments). 

As for the questions themselves, they are quite interesting. Though, I highly doubt animal chimera research would go very far due to ethical reasons unless they are very simple (eg. insertion of one or two genes of one animal into another). Ultimately, if such discoveries were possible and we could create sapient 'non-human' animals, then I think it would take a very slow and laboring process before society would accept these animals, that is if such projects aren't terminated beforehand. 

(Sorry if some of that wasn't written in the best of ways or if I may have misinterpreted what you stated. I'm posting this very late at night.)


----------



## Rhasp (Jul 26, 2011)

Its  one thing to be able to use words, parrots can do it at some degree, but its a totaly different thing to actually use the launguage to express thaughts, wishes and ideas much as we do now. I imagine that if youd give youre every day cat and dog the ability to talk youll end up with the nonsence speaking youll get from a well trained parrot, or worse.


----------



## Genumix (Jul 26, 2011)

Satellite One said:


> It is assumed that by 2042~, we will be able to create a computer with the processing power of a brain, not sure if the complexity. Artifical intelligence can be a possible option. Genetic modification that alters how devoted the brain is to some tasks, might harm the daily routine of a certain species, in such a way that will harm one. It's not only about language - same for the vocal chords, and possibly many other parts in the brain.


Biology isn't perfect.  If we could figure out how to make certain parts of the brain more efficient, we could reassign certain parts of the brain to more tasks than are available.



Satellite One said:


> By the time we'll be able to even think about that, computers won't be an impossible option.
> How can animals be an obstacle to humanity? First, you'll have to gather all species and modify them, and each one requires different modification because of the difference between species' brains. Takes a lot of time, and will possibly slow that sector of science. It might be a good option to test out basic genetic modification on animals in cases that also apply to humans - think about ourselves first. A talking animal would need a rational brain to think and enough logic to understand what a human world is. Wouldn't an animal want a change? Once we are not the only speakers on the planet, landscape will change in order to fit for animals, and it's impossible to perform currently, as it would take too much time and manpower, nontheless harm our society while we're at it.


We would be under no obligation to make every animal on the planet talk.  I'm talking individuals from certain species that we interact with, or maybe, like, penguins, who are already very social and would be interesting neighbors on this planet.



Satellite One said:


> "Furries" is no reason to do that. We do not have any need for talking animals. That's only entertainment that exist in our brain.
> Aren't you a bit concerned about yourself? Go and study genetics of humans, that will be put in much better use in the near future.
> You're way ahead of me in knowledge about the subject, but still prefer to go for unrequired dreams, and not try out what hasn't been seriously done before.


The amount of studies that we've done on humans vastly, enormously outweighs the studies we've done on animals.  IMO, to truly understand the world around us, we would do best to expand our research endeavors and ultimately get a fresh perspective on the world from another species.



DJ-Fragon said:


> As someone who is studying genetics, I would say that a genetic link to language is far more complex than you seem to think it is. First, there is more involved in the regulation of the biological system than the genome itself, which makes the process very difficult to study (you will likely be, or possibly have been, introduced to the field of epigenetics). Second, not only does the animal have to understand the language that it is receiving, but it also has to be capable of expressing itself in a language that is understandable to humans, much of which involves different parts of the brain. That includes both verbal and nonverbal language. Third, a life expectancy too short (~<20 years) would not allow the animal enough time to learn much of what we would want to teach it, especially if the animal undergoes effects of dementia as a result of aging. Finally, the animal would likely not have the capacity to process so much information with limited memory unless it has an augmented brain-to-body mass ratio. That could be improved by increasing the surface area of its brain and/or change its skull (eg. increased cranial capacity) that allows it to hold so much brain mass. There are likely others I haven't listed as well. Overall, a very complex and difficult project to undertake, but if you are interested then you can (almost) do whatever you want as long as you put effort into it and are fully aware of the ethical boundaries (and have the money and support to undertake such experiments).


Oh, no, I completely understand that it would be complicated as hell, but it's easier to talk about the possibility in a generic sense to show that it is at least possible.  I didn't know specifically what they are, so this is helpful!



DJ-Fragon said:


> As for the questions themselves, they are quite interesting. Though, I highly doubt animal chimera research would go very far due to ethical reasons unless they are very simple (eg. insertion of one or two genes of one animal into another). Ultimately, if such discoveries were possible and we could create sapient 'non-human' animals, then I think it would take a very slow and laboring process before society would accept these animals, that is if such projects aren't terminated beforehand.


I don't understand why it would be unethical.  Is this ethical opposition, like, religious ardor against changing the natural world?  The act of giving somebody a voice is insurmountably the ethical decision in any circumstance where there's a situation of complete dominion.



DJ-Fragon said:


> (Sorry if some of that wasn't written in the best of ways or if I may have misinterpreted what you stated. I'm posting this very late at night.)


XD You got it!  I'd love to talk about the complexities of this in more detail.  Especially epigenetics.


----------



## DJ-Fragon (Jul 26, 2011)

Genumix said:


> I don't understand why it would be unethical.  Is this ethical opposition, like, religious ardor against changing the natural world?  The act of giving somebody a voice is insurmountably the ethical decision in any circumstance where there's a situation of complete dominion.


 
Religion would likely play a major role in the ethical opposition (eg. 'playing God'), as well as how our society accepts a sentient human-animal chimera or 'non-human' animal. Will they be treated as persons or animals, or both? Personally, if such discoveries were made, I would say that society should just accept them and give them their basic rights and freedoms. I think it would be a slow and tedious process, though.


----------



## Azure (Jul 26, 2011)

I'm a talking animal and I'm also very legit. Total Credit.


----------



## Xenke (Jul 26, 2011)

It's probably been noted already, but many animals lack the apparatus to talk in the first place.

Are you going to genetically alter them some better lips/mouths/throats?


----------



## Genumix (Jul 26, 2011)

Xenke said:


> It's probably been noted already, but many animals lack the apparatus to talk in the first place.
> 
> Are you going to genetically alter them some better lips/mouths/throats?


That's the plan.  Yet, when you consider that parrots don't have lips and they can repeat most human vocalizations so closely to the way humans can, it's possible that having lips isn't one of the changes needed.  Probably finer muscular control over vocal chords, I would imagine.


----------



## Fenno (Jul 26, 2011)

I'll just leave this here.


----------



## Genumix (Jul 26, 2011)

Thanks, Fenno!  I love Dr. Pepperberg's work.  Just read her book "Alex and Me" a couple of weeks ago, actually.  Before, I thought parrots just "parroted", but they definitely can understand words.  Like the article says, it's grammar and better memories that makes for a "higher" grasp of language.

What I think would be useful is running a comparative study of the animals that have the greatest sophistication alongside us, genetically (and epigenetically) and physiologically.  Then we could determine what really enables these talents to develop.  And augment the factors that make it possible.


----------



## Fenno (Jul 27, 2011)

I have read quite a bit from Jean Craighead George about the intelligence of crows and ravens. They tend to be overlooked because they are so common. In fact, they are common because their intelligence has served them so well, and they are able to adapt to nearly any environment. From my understanding, they have a distinct language, and the language itself has many polymorphisms. For example, in Tokyo, they mimic the honking of a horn to alert each other to oncoming traffic if they are in the street. In New York, they have learned to recognize the end of a Yankee game by the announcement of the final score, and they swarm the stadium for dropped food. They are smart little buggers, they are. They also have the capacity to mimic human sounds as well as learn a vocabulary that they employ to the same effectiveness as a 5 y.o. child. They also make tools from objects that are just lying around, and they can solve all sorts of complicated puzzles. They recognize each other on an individual basis, and they can recognize humans on an individual basis as well. I'd say they are the most street-smart animals on the planet. They simply have the most practical intelligence besides us.


----------



## Genumix (Jul 27, 2011)

Fenno said:


> I have read quite a bit from Jean Craighead George about the intelligence of crows and ravens. They tend to be overlooked because they are so common. In fact, they are common because their intelligence has served them so well, and they are able to adapt to nearly any environment. From my understanding, they have a distinct language, and the language itself has many polymorphisms. For example, *in Tokyo, they mimic the honking of a horn to alert each other to oncoming traffic* if they are in the street. In *New York, they have learned to recognize the end of a Yankee game by the announcement of the final score*, and they swarm the stadium for dropped food. They are smart little buggers, they are. They also have the capacity to mimic human sounds as well as learn a vocabulary that they employ to the same effectiveness as a 5 y.o. child. They also make tools from objects that are just lying around, and they can solve all sorts of complicated puzzles. They recognize each other on an individual basis, and they can recognize humans on an individual basis as well. I'd say they are the most street-smart animals on the planet. They simply have the most practical intelligence besides us.


NO WAY.  That's so funny!  In Pepperberg's book, she said she was amazed by a particular study done with a raven.  Some researchers tied some food to a string, hung it from a branch, and watched the raven's response.  He immediately hauled up the string instead of doing something inefficient, like trying to aim himself at the dangling piece of food.  Well, Pepperberg did the same thing for Alex using a nut to prove that he was at least as smart:  he didn't bother with pulling up the string or anything silly like that; he just told her to pick it up for him.  Language is so convenient.


----------



## Fenno (Jul 27, 2011)

Indeed. They also look so much more badass than parrots (which are beautiful, not BA), and very inexpensive to obtain. Furthermore, wince they are used to a flock (or murder XD) mentality, they are very sociable and affectionate. Ravens >>>>>> Other pets


----------



## Tycho (Jul 27, 2011)

Fenno said:


> Indeed. They also look so much more badass than parrots (which are beautiful, not BA), and very inexpensive to obtain. Furthermore, wince they are used to a flock (or murder XD) mentality, they are very sociable and affectionate. Ravens >>>>>> Other pets



I like corvids, dunno if I'd have one as a pet though... I mean, how would you keep it? A pigeon coop? A cage? I think not.  A corvid is there because it wants to be there, and if it doesn't want to be there it shouldn't be restrained by any boundary.

(one of THE BEST familiars to have as a wizard, though.  Bar none.)


----------



## Fenno (Jul 27, 2011)

Of course not. All the ravens I have ever heard of have free roam, but they always return to their humans. They are cunning little guys, too.


----------



## Sinbane (Jul 27, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3Teo9IswO8&feature=channel_video_title


If dogs could talk, they will probably say/do something like this.^


----------



## Cinder Raccoon (Jul 27, 2011)

Goodness, I couldn't stand it if my cats could talk. It's already annoying enough having them meowing at my door begging for attention, but if they were actually saying things to me? A nightmare, for sure.

The way I see it, there would be little to no point in enabling animals to speak. It'd be a waste of time and resources, and it'd bring up a shit ton of pointless ethical issues that never really needed to come up in the first place.


----------



## Genumix (Jul 27, 2011)

Well that sounds damn awesome.  Man, I thought choosing an intelligent, somewhat-able-to-communicate pet would be as straightforward as getting a parrot.  Now I'm lost and confused between the numerous options.


----------



## BouncyOtter (Jul 27, 2011)

Fenno said:


> I have read quite a bit from Jean Craighead George about the intelligence of crows and ravens. They tend to be overlooked because they are so common. In fact, they are common because their intelligence has served them so well, and they are able to adapt to nearly any environment. From my understanding, they have a distinct language, and the language itself has many polymorphisms. For example, in Tokyo, they mimic the honking of a horn to alert each other to oncoming traffic if they are in the street.



Corvids are VERY smart!  They've gone beyond what you have mentioned in Japan.  There is a particular nut (I don't remember the name) they like that is hard to crack.  First, they learned to drop the nuts in the streets so cars would crack the nuts.  Then they figured that makes getting the nuts hard with all the traffic.  So, they drop the nuts in the crosswalks and then wait for the walk signal and then they come down from the street lights and eat.

Some of the things that animals learn to do is really awesome!


----------



## Genumix (Jul 27, 2011)

Cinder Raccoon said:


> Goodness, I couldn't stand it if my cats could talk. It's already annoying enough having them meowing at my door begging for attention, but if they were actually saying things to me? A nightmare, for sure.
> 
> The way I see it, there would be little to no point in enabling animals to speak. It'd be a waste of time and resources, and it'd bring up a shit ton of pointless ethical issues that never really needed to come up in the first place.


Aren't there ethical issues already there, anyway?  Having pets could arguably be considered unethical because we keep them confined, on a diet of strictly health-food, and put them to sleep all without any type of consent.  Sure, we know better and whatnot, but we can't know if that's what pets actually want.  If they could talk, only then would we be able to obtain consent and figure out if what we were doing is ethical.


----------



## Heimdal (Jul 27, 2011)

Genumix said:


> Aren't there ethical issues already there, anyway?  Having pets could arguably be considered unethical because we keep them confined, on a diet of strictly health-food, and put them to sleep all without any type of consent.  Sure, we know better and whatnot, but we can't know if that's what pets actually want.  If they could talk, only then would we be able to obtain consent and figure out if what we were doing is ethical.


No, and that's frankly a ridiculous perspective. Ethics is a human-central social construct, not scientific fact. Our ethical regard to single-cell organisms is not 'limited until we can make them as smart as us', and I don't see why that wouldn't be the same to everything else. If dogs are made as smart as us, then the biggest change will be that they will be made responsible for displaying the same ethical standards. As is, my dog is happy, and 'what if she was human?' ethical reasoning would only result in enough freedom to get hit by a car.As well, the whole concept of "if animals were smarter, it'd be totally ethical to fuck them" sent a horrible shiver down my spine. Ethics really isn't this simple at all.


----------



## Genumix (Jul 27, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> No, and that's frankly a ridiculous perspective. Ethics is a human-central social construct, not scientific fact. Our ethical regard to single-cell organisms is not 'limited until we can make them as smart as us', and I don't see why that wouldn't be the same to everything else. If dogs are made as smart as us, then the biggest change will be that they will be made responsible for displaying the same ethical standards. As is, my dog is happy, and 'what if she was human?' ethical reasoning would only result in enough freedom to get hit by a car.As well, the whole concept of "if animals were smarter, it'd be totally ethical to fuck them" sent a horrible shiver down my spine. Ethics really isn't this simple at all.


Hm?  I'm a little confused as to what you're saying, but I think I get the gist of it.

What I suggested is not a ridiculous perspective at all if you live by a system of ethics in which liberty is prioritized over other ideals.  There are lots of different ethical systems, like utilitarianism, relativism, virtue ethics, etc., so while a given ethical system might very well be simple, it's not possible to say a given action is universally ethical.  Personally, I believe that something is the right thing to do if it supports the most liberty for the most people, and something is the wrong thing to do if it violates somebody else's rights.  In the system of ethics I live by, hurting yourself isn't "unethical" per se.  Hurting somebody else would.  Letting a dog live freely would be a grey area, or, as I said earlier, arguable.  You would be risking that dog's safety, but the dog would be free to enjoy her life however she wanted.  That's just something to think about.  But if you gave dogs the capacity of language, we could allow them to live freely _and_ teach them how to live safely.  In that situation, they would have both their liberty and their safety, rather than safety at the expense of all liberty whatsoever.

Thought experiment:  would a boy or girl live a better, richer, more fulfilling life if they psychologically/physically remained an innocent toddler forever, under their parent's care, or if they lived a normal life at a normal developmental pace?


----------



## Heimdal (Jul 27, 2011)

Probably a more relevant thought experiment: Dogs are improved to be as smart as us. Is it ethical to give them all the liberties we have (and by extension, all the responsibilities of it) knowing full well that they lack the size and tool-using dexterity to compete in the job market? (note that fixing this so they are just as able raises the question of "Why?" as you would have just made a human, or a freak that may as well be human.)


----------



## Fenno (Jul 27, 2011)

I think that we are looking at the whole ethics issue wrong. If we gave a dog the ability to speak, it would say very little. I know mine would say: Food! Water! Hump! Play! Bathroom! I Love You! (and) Itch!That sounds a lot like a toddler. Given the ability to speak, even if they speak eloquently, they would only have cursory thought patterns. Their thoughts are quite simple; they just barely rise out of instinct.


----------



## Genumix (Jul 27, 2011)

Fenno said:


> I think that we are looking at the whole ethics issue wrong. If we gave a dog the ability to speak, it would say very little. I know mine would say: Food! Water! Hump! Play! Bathroom! I Love You! (and) Itch!That sounds a lot like a toddler. Given the ability to speak, even if they speak eloquently, they would only have cursory thought patterns. Their thoughts are quite simple; they just barely rise out of instinct.


I'm talking under the assumption that the neural capacities for extensively sophisticated thought patterns.  With that in mind, consider the thought experiment I gave.  Imagine a toddler with cursory thought patterns, that may arguably considered akin to those of a pet dog.  Wouldn't you say that, with language (and sophisticated thoughts made possible by language and a more powerful brain), comes a richer and deeper existence?  We wouldn't even be changing their lifestyle, we would be giving them the option to choose their lifestyle and experience it differently.


----------



## Fenno (Jul 28, 2011)

With heightened intellectual capacity, their existence would be similar. I'm assuming that we haven't made any other modifications (I.e. Thumbs, etc). It's notthe intellectual capacity that makes the difference. It's the conditioning. A dog with the capacity to learn like a human, but is still treated like a dog, will still act very much like a dog. If it is treated like a human, then it will behave like a human.Of course, though, you have to take into account that animals' body chemistry differs so radically from our own that even if we did enhance their intellectual/neural capacity, they would still fall victim to their biological processes. Their instincts are much much stronger than that of apes. Apes have some of the weakest instincts inthe animal kingdom. A canine would, even if intelligent, fall into a more advanced form of the canine social pattern.


----------



## Genumix (Jul 28, 2011)

Fenno said:


> With heightened intellectual capacity, their existence would be similar. I'm assuming that we haven't made any other modifications (I.e. Thumbs, etc). It's notthe intellectual capacity that makes the difference. It's the conditioning. A dog with the capacity to learn like a human, but is still treated like a dog, will still act very much like a dog. If it is treated like a human, then it will behave like a human.Of course, though, you have to take into account that animals' body chemistry differs so radically from our own that even if we did enhance their intellectual/neural capacity, they would still fall victim to their biological processes. Their instincts are much much stronger than that of apes. Apes have some of the weakest instincts inthe animal kingdom. A canine would, even if intelligent, fall into a more advanced form of the canine social pattern.


Well, two people of vastly different intellectual capacity may have lives consisting of the same situations and events, but experience those equal lives very differently.  Perception and perspective are innately enriching.  That's why literature and poetry are so fantastic, because they help you develop a richer perspective on things that aren't inherently any more special.


----------



## Fenno (Jul 28, 2011)

Precisely what I am getting at. Education is required to allow the recipient of enhanced intellect to fully enjoy it.I know it is a truly juvenile example, but it's a furry forum, so maybe some of you might know it.In the Animorphs series, the Hork-Bajir were very simple beings, but occasionally had incredible outbursts of intellect focused in one individual, known as a seer. Among his or her simple compatriots, seers never had the ability to differentiate themselves or to demonstrate their intellect. When the superintelligent andalites came and discovered the hork-bajir, they met with seers and educated them to their full potential. It made the difference between bark farmers and poets. Even exposure to the humans gave the seers more stimulation than among their own species.Childish example, but still, the concept is still good; proper education is required to flesh out the flutings of intellect, thereby enjoying life in a more comprehensively satisfying way.


----------



## Genumix (Jul 28, 2011)

Alright, so three things are necessary for this plausible utopia:  physiological speaking adaptations, neurological augmentation, and education.  I doubt that education would be so hard to give an animal once you deal with the other two.


----------



## Fenno (Jul 28, 2011)

Most certainly not. The only ethics question that comes to mind immediately would be introducing culture to the intellectually-augmented animals. Their base instincts differ very greatly from our own, and this would result in radically different cultural tendencies. Could they abolish polygamy, etc? Why should they? The most pressing question is whether or not we try to introduce them to human culture, or let them develop their own. There is also the conundrum that since denying these intelligent animals technology would be tantamount to torture, they will have skipped cultural stages of development. They haven't had thousands of years to work their cultures out.


----------



## Heimdal (Jul 28, 2011)

We know what's going to happen. We'll blame them for the crime rates, after throwing them into whatever country's 'melting pot' and expecting them to keep up while they struggle along the poverty line (because they are literally a physically different race.) Or we give them special 'poverty-line' benefits that makes us feel like we're evening the field, and self-justifying the fact that we totally aren't, but giving us a system to resent them over and them a system they need to hold onto for dear life.

This would probably happen to some degree, because it always tends to, and the only things we've ever learned from the past has been to "not kill/enslave them all."


----------



## Fenno (Jul 28, 2011)

Rephrase that please. I didn't understand anything you meant.


----------



## Genumix (Jul 28, 2011)

@Fenno, I think Heimdal is saying that talking animals would have to face the same problems that have historically faced other minorities trying to adapt to US culture. 



Heimdal said:


> We know what's going to happen. We'll blame them for the crime rates, after throwing them into whatever country's 'melting pot' and expecting them to keep up while they struggle along the poverty line (because they are literally a physically different race.) Or we give them special 'poverty-line' benefits that makes us feel like we're evening the field, and self-justifying the fact that we totally aren't, but giving us a system to resent them over and them a system they need to hold onto for dear life.
> 
> This would probably happen to some degree, because it always tends to, and the only things we've ever learned from the past has been to "not kill/enslave them all."


My response to this is that new cultural experiences shouldn't be avoided just because they might lead to problems.  Every time a community becomes more diverse in some new way, that community will be better able to deal with diversity in the future.  You're right in saying there will be problems.  Absolutely.  But don't people face those problems every day?

(just finished Bioshock 2 minutes ago, which has sort of spurred my interest in the concept of "growing up" even more)


----------



## Sar (Jul 29, 2011)

If the animals can speak like people AND grow thumbs...

We are truly fucked. Hold on to your butts! :V


----------



## Genumix (Jul 30, 2011)

Sarukai said:


> If the animals can speak like people AND grow thumbs...
> 
> We are truly fucked. Hold on to your butts! :V


Doubtful!  Unless they also had an instant scientific revolution in which they stole all of society's weapons technology and vastly improved it, then mass produced it.  in which case... wuuuut?


----------



## Sar (Jul 30, 2011)

Genumix said:


> Doubtful!  Unless they also had an instant scientific revolution in which they stole all of society's weapons technology and vastly improved it, then mass produced it.  in which case... wuuuut?


Good point. My advice would be everyone now watches 'rise of the planet of the apes' and picks up what they can.


----------



## Genumix (Jul 30, 2011)

Sarukai said:


> Good point. My advice would be everyone now watches 'rise of the planet of the apes' and picks up what they can.


I love how that movie makes a complicated procedure of gene therapy into... something that looks like tear gas.

You know, regarding that movie, if we could have been civilized and talked straight to those apes, think of how the story would have been different.


----------



## Sar (Jul 30, 2011)

Genumix said:


> I love how that movie makes a complicated procedure of gene therapy into... something that looks like tear gas.
> 
> You know, regarding that movie, if we could have been civilized and talked straight to those apes, think of how the story would have been different.


You sir, have a potential plot idea for a story. *Shakes hand*


----------



## Genumix (Jul 31, 2011)

Sarukai said:


> You sir, have a potential plot idea for a story. *Shakes hand*


Not a story, dear sir, but a science fiction/double feature REALITY.


----------



## Sar (Jul 31, 2011)

Genumix said:


> Not a story, dear sir, but a science fiction/double feature REALITY.


If it has the same impact as 1984...


----------



## Fling (Jul 31, 2011)

As a furry this doesn't really affect me in any special way. However, as to my thoughts on the subject, I dont think much would change o O; 
Sure, animals might be able to understand people better or comminicate their wants more clearly (hungry, tired, bored, etc.) However, the animals, in other aspects, would not be on the same level as humans and would still be mostly reliant on our hand. I think it would be neat, albeit, not terribly life changing.


----------



## Sar (Aug 1, 2011)

Pinecones said:


> I think it would be neat, albeit, not terribly life changing.


Noone would need to invent a animail translator. Just a thought.


----------



## Genumix (Aug 1, 2011)

Sarukai said:


> Noone would need to invent a animail translator. Just a thought.


Dog Whisperer, YOU ARE OBSOLETE


----------



## Sar (Aug 1, 2011)

Genumix said:


> Dog Whisperer, YOU ARE OBSOLETE


Doctor Dolittle, GTFO!


----------

