Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

I did point that out when I wrote that she "invoked feminism".

Of course I knew she was saying it's misogynistic to target female mice. That was why I selected that specific quote. It didn't really need further elaboration from me, so I thought.

[wierd]

That will teach me to skim instead of read.

Sadly, such people tend to be "untouchable" because *gasp, women's rights!"--- even when we are discussing the science of removing an invasive species from a locality they are not indigenous to, and where they cause massive ecological damage, and need to be completely exterminated from.

The latter part of the subject is often completely sidelined, because of the former.  It's one of those "argument winners" that invoke emotion rather than reason.  I despise it on principle.

I take some small consolation that she is an attorney and not a scientist-- If she was a research peer, I would be livid at the state of science education.

[Reelya]

To be honest "the birds and the bees" is all the science education you need to understand why population control plans requires you to treat animal genders differently.  "females have the babies" isn't exactly cutting-edge microbiology. To not get why to stop a species breeding you have to target the breeders is just wilful ignorance.

But here's her benefit of the doubt: she's actually anti-GMO, invoking feminism was in fact a gambit of hers to try and create more anti-GMO sentiment rather than a proper scientific criticism. So unless she's a complete moron she was aware her mouse patriarchy argument was ridiculous from the start.

[wierd]

That is not the underlying problem.  The science could be on the level of "Hey Yo, Water is wet! Dont breathe it!"

If it somehow interfered with a cherished ideological position, (Historical precedent-- Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism in dark age Europe) the invocation of "Emotion" will be used to win argument, and prevent proper discourse, which is toxic.  THAT is what I find offensive most of all.

[Reelya]

That is not the underlying problem.  The science could be on the level of "Hey Yo, Water is wet! Dont breathe it!"

If it somehow interfered with a cherished ideological position, (Historical precedent-- Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism in dark age Europe) the invocation of "Emotion" will be used to win argument, and prevent proper discourse, which is toxic.  THAT is what I find offensive most of all.

Like I edited in, i think the feminism thing is just a ploy to drumbeat anti-GMO sentiment among the right crowd. So it's the sideshow, not her real argument.

[wierd]

I wouldn't bet on that. "True Believers" exist in more than just religious circles, and all suffer the same absurdities in critical thinking.

[Starver]

With ears on.

To be honest, I'd like to see the no-daughters gene hack used on feral cats (not to mention rabbits, foxes etc). That would seriously minimize the cat problem here, too. It would also incidentally reduce the number of people's pet cats having girl baby cats and thus kittens. The remainder could then be adopted out and there could be limited breeding to keep up the pet cat population.

Once the no-daughter thing gets into the pet population (as it will, although mostly by human incompetence in keeping a proper eye on a 'pedigree' queen), there could end up being a pressure upon illegal kitten-farms hording 'clean' queens and possibly (or possibly not, if they're looking for return customers over ethical business) 'clean' toms, in whatever dank conditions they can get away with.

It happens at the moment, with pet-breeding, but if there's no easy home-test released so that regular householders (not dedicated pet breeders, just incidental ones - the ones that are probably considered the problem at the moment) can't classify and monitor their accidental kittens, then Kittens Of Cats scenario might require human intervention to mitigate. And a re-daughtering CRISPR sounds like a rather perverse answer, akin to reintroducing smallpox-resistance to the world by reinfecting people with smallpox. (If the worry is that someone else is going to do it. And that's why they need the resistance!)


That's a thought-experiment, though, with its own issues of wrongness


(Would this thing be good or bad for the British Wildcat, I wonder. Currentlty, the danger is that hybridisation with house-/farm-cats is removing the true Wildcat line.  If all half-wildcats were male, then...  Yeah, they'd still be creating ¾-Wildcat 'infected' males, creating ⅞-Wildcat infected males...  even as other non-wildcat infected males were still fathering from the remaining pure-blood females. Same increased (undesired) male competition for the (wanted, themselves classic wildcat) females.  You might end up with 1023/1024th-wildcat (better than nothing!), but it would only be male and male-producing whatever compatible female it lucked upon finding.   No, this wouldn't be the answer to that problem.  Even if it wasn't worryingly human-weaponisable by any mad person with an extremely long-term goal in mind.  Or just persuade enough people that the anti-malaria/polio/typhoid/rubella/measles/tetanus injections are stealth infertility attacks upon <insert national/ethnic/social/religious group here>...  Like they already have spread such rumours in the likes of Pakistan.)

[Descan]

Honestly, I think the safest bet is to only use it on pest species. Rats, cockroaches, mosquitoes. Using this to try to eradicate a stray population that resides in the same areas as the beloved pet population (complete with gene flow!) is probably... The worst idea I could think of, short of infecting them all with some sort of virulent-to-humans-and-cats bug.

[Reelya]

Gender-flipping is in fact the nice way to do that. If all non-registered breeders only have boy kittens then most of the unwanted cats problem goes away by itself.

[Bumber]

Male cats tend to be problematic when it comes to marking territory. Sometimes even neutered ones.

[Sheb]

Male cats tend to be problematic when it comes to marking territory. Sometimes even neutered ones.

Your point would be more valid if standard cats only had female cats.

[Reelya]

Any "male cat gene drive" for feral cats is only going to affect owners of un-neutered female cats who also let them outside to get impregnated by other cats at random, so it would only affect those who are the most irresponsible cat owners now. e.g. a litter of 4 kittens, 2 male 2 female, changes to 4 males because of the gene drive, but one generation down the track that's 2 less breeding females.

So, un-neutered female cats could still breed true, but they'd have to be bred with a male cat from a certified breeder. However, within a couple of generations of gene-drive for cats, the chance of a random pregnancy for your cat would start to drop off quite a bit, so those all-male litters wouldn't be that common.

[Bumber]

Wouldn't limiting breeding cats to "reputable breeders" hurt biodiversity? Certain breeds come with afflictions, and limiting the gene pool could increase the incidence of such issues.

I suppose they could cross-pollinate their cats with those of different breeders, but would they before serious genetic issues surfaced across all the cats in the region, causing lasting harm?

[Reelya]

Other types of pet animals seem to be ok without letting them out for random breeding experiments.

I think it stands to reason that breeders would trade cats or sell cats to each other. Inbreeding a single line of cats is already understood to be an issue for commercial operations. They already deal with this now. It's not going to make serious genetic afflictions affect all the cats, because bred cats are a known issue already. When you say "certain breeds" that's about pedigree cats that are bred to show off a specific type, and they won't become better or worse by merely adding a gene drive to feral cats. They don't deal with those issues by breeding them with "street cats" even now.

[martinuzz]

Other types of pet animals seem to be ok without letting them out for random breeding experiments.

Not really. Most thoroughbred dogs come with a whole package of genetic disposition towards a gazillion health issues.
Same for throroughbred cats. A lot of them have respiratory afflictions, or genetic disposition to kidney failure at relative young age.

Or take milk cows. At least the Dutch breed we have here would go extinct in the wild because, having been bred to have extremely large and productive udders, something had to make room for that, so now their birth canals have become too narrow. Such a large percentage of cows would die giving birth in the wild, without human assistance, that it is assumed it will make the breed go extinct.

If you want healthy cats / dogs, get a bastard, preferably parented by more bastards. Introducing male gene drive to stray cat populations is really a terrible, terrible idea. Limiting it to reputable breeders will most certainly lead to genetic problems.

If you are having problems with stray cats, don't go full overkill with something as invasive as a gene drive. Neighborhood-wide neutering and re-releasing programs can halt population growth, combined with a personal approach to educate the local crazy cat ladies to neuter their cat hives.