Slashdot Mirror
Human Animal Hybrid Created in Lab
guanno writes "National Geographic has an article stating that... "Scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras--a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I thought there were laws against that kind of thing.
Research is one thing... actually creating hybrids (which will inevitably has a short and painful life) is really sick.
from tfa:
And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains.
Usually i'm all for scientists doing what they want and all, but I hope this isn't true. What the hell? Why would there ever be a use for mice with human brains? Even if there were one. Jeez, that's gotta be the sickest thing in biology I've ever heard of.
to watch The Island of Dr. Moreau again?
Honestly though, I don't care what your moral or ethical beliefs are... this is something that needs watching and a good combination of government and private control. Playing God in a petri dish is one thing, but creating a new species and bringing an unknown consiousnous with who knows what kind of mental trama to bear is just plain wrong. I'm no scientific antagonist, but this is one line that should not be crossed.
"One doesn't have to be religious or into animal rights to think this doesn't make sense," he continued. "It's the scientists who want to do this. They've now gone over the edge into the pathological domain."
Indeed.
(And obviously if we did muck around in this too much, homo sapiens would eventually be overthrown as the dominant species of this planet. That would kinda suck.)
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
I don't think you have to be Bush, the "religeous right", or the Catholic Church to have a problem with this.
There are ALOT of ethical issues here outside of religeon - so can we PLEASE try to keep this from turning into the usual religeon flamewar?
Hell, everyone should go nuts on this... you are using genetics to create a sub-human hybrid, for what purpose? Has no one read The Time Machine and the lessons of the Morlocks? Or A Brave New World, where a genetic sub-race of humans is created to be pure workers? No no, we're "just" going to do it to study disease.. but you know that every discovery is constantly yearning for applications.
Everyone reads The Uplift War and says "oh boy, we can use the good parts of being human to improve our friends the animals", but you know that it is human nature to domesticate animals, and make them workers... what better to create an animal with human dexterity without the burden of intelligence, without the moral dillema of the "handicapped"... such a worker would toil in a sweatshop with singlemindedness, as oxen would plow a field. Well, scientific culture and its wild abandon of any moral forethought has led to this, so I guess its time to reap what we sowed...
Cripes.
There are two problems with your post.
1. Don't associate the Catholic Church with the religious right or *shudders* W. Tell me again: what religion was Kerry? Also, what religion is dominant in cities like St. Louis, Chicago, L.A., and Boston, all Democratic strongholds? I'll give you a hint: not Methodist.
2. Anyone who says that they can't see any ethical issues with this is lying. Can you honestly say that you have no problem with this?
Humans are animals. We're just a little bit smarter and better at making and using tools than most other animals.
"all i wanted was a pepsi..."
Scientists don't need to replace all that with a chemical formula because..... tada, it already is a chemical forumula, albiet a very long one.
Applying the traits of pain, suffering, hard work, learning, loving, and the will to live to a few DNA chains is what we call anthropomorphization. This activity is notorious for leading people down the path of misunderstanding.
Evidently speaking lucidly is unpopular with the moderators ;]
Once a year, or so, I have a 'flu vaccination. Last I checked, I was told this vaccine is made in chicken eggs. I'm not exactly in the high risk of death from 'flu category, but if killing a chicken fetus protects me from a week of misery, it's the chicken every time.
I understand that rabies vaccine is made in rabbits (I'm remembering this from over 30 years ago, so this may not be current). If I was bitten by a mammal in a country with rabies, I wouldn't worry about rabbit bits & pieces, or even about the life of that rabbit. If it's a choice between the bunny & me, the bunny gets it every time.
Now I hear that spare parts for my body could be grown in an animal.
If the safety issues can be resolved, I see very little ethical difference between making an animal live just so it can be killed for my food, making an animal live to make medicine for me and making an animal live so it can be killed to extend my life.
For a deep question: Will we loose our own humanity if we continue to destroy our morals for the sake of progress?
Well, I don't know about that. What I do know is that I'd like to pass a law mandating that anyone caught using the word "moral" in public be kicked squarely in the groin.
Hopefully, this would have the effect of helping them to focus on their own reproductive system, rather than everyone else's, and also, if we're all real lucky, it'll inhibit their ability to reproduce as well.
Yes, but the Earth was designed to find the question, not the answer. You fail it.
.. you get people jumping up and down when you graft some stem cells into a pig so that its blood is structured like a human's, but there's no such outcry over the fact that great apes effectively have no rights?
Chimps and gorillas have far more in common with humans than half of the potential chimeras mentioned in the article will ever do.
Come on people, this is not:
- A crime against nature
- A crime against God
- A crime against humanity
- Proof of our lack of morals
- Prelude to apocolypse
This is scientists, making our world better.
Remember, their job?
For those of you who have responded with "Whoa, nay, immoral!" and are also pro-life/anti-abortion, ok, you can go (I'll argue with *you* later, but at least you are consistent). Animal rights types are also excused. For the rest of you, really now, grow up. Even if this was what everyone seems to think it is, a creature magically endowed with half human and half animal DNA, how are you going to justify *NOT* doing it? Superstition? Movies? Old literature? "Just feels wrong?" (like heart transplants, mechanical hearts, vaccines...)
In order to make a case against something like this, you need to show *who is hurt*.
A nonsentient lump of cells? Like the ones grown and killed daily in the service of science? Like aborted fetuses? Like the lab animals that can actually feel pain, but we experiment anyway? These are things I'm in favor of, and many of you as well. If you want to get up in a row about something, there's a lot more dubious things than this concept. Getting upset at new things because they are new is for stupid people.
I expected better from Slashdot, honestly.
If this experiment succeeds in producing human cognitive thought in a mouse, we most certainly have an issue.
What you're envisioning is not possible, and not what the scientist is interested in.
We're not going to end up with a super-intelligent mouse who could speak if it only had the proper vocal chords. Think about the space a mouse has in its skull, and how much room we have, and this will start to make more sense.
He's curious if the mouse's brain is built from human cells instead of mouse, how that will affect its development -- will the cells work more like human brain cells (given the source), or mouse brain cells (given the environment)? The shape of the brain, and the activity patterns, would be interesting to observe and he could gain insights into factors in normal human brain development (and defects in that process).
Unfortunately, the article tends towards a generally thoughtless, alarmist tone (including mentioning these experiments without any explanation...). Personally, I'm not worried.
That's the whole reason to grow human brain tissue in animals; or would you prefer to experiment on living humans? If it was being done for more frivolous reasons there would be no support at all.
Anyone who says that they can't see any ethical issues with this is lying.
I cannot understand why you have to paint everyone with your ethical and moral brush.
Can you honestly say that you have no problem with this?
Yes? What's wrong in this - if anything, it will help us create human organs that may prolong our lifespans.
If you are that concerned, remember that nature in and of itself has done these things in the course of evolution. And you're probably killing life everyday by consuming plants and animals.
This is no different. You're playing nature and the moral issues associated with it are no different.
If by any chance the chimeras do end up being sentient, we'll find a way of getting rid of that sentience and using them.
*shrug*
A mouse or rat with a human brain would be a gold pot for research. Today, Neuroscientists are studying brain stroke by causing them in mice and watching how the brain responds. Studying plasticity and treatment techniques. Unfortunately, we don't want to cause a stroke in a test subject that is human just to study stroke.
Testing in animals is just an approximation to the human brain. Although a very good one. An animal such as this with human cells would optimal to study the effects of drugs, addiction, stroke, brain trauma, virtually any ailment that affects the human brain.
Are we killing people? no! These are mice and rats that we've been euthanising for a long time. They will not be intelligent, they will likely not function as well as normal mice (instincts and such would likely be absent). I think they would most likely be empty shells that have to be fed and watered to keep alive so that a few months down the road, we can use them to find a cure to stroke.
P.S. Note, this is my normal sig. I did not change it for this post. I think it fits well!
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. --Isaac Asimov
If I had to make all the choices for everyone in the biotechnology field... I'd make it my first order of business to find someone else to do the job instead. There's a lot of tough decisions and strange new ethical questions on the horizon and I do not have any good answers.
That said, looking back on it a hundred years from now, we'll probably be wondering what all the fuss was about. Maybe our great great grandchildren will experience life-spans well into the three-digit range and enhanced senses and abilities. Perhaps in the future they would not bat an eye at producing animals full of human organs for use in transplants. Heck, perhaps our great great grandchildren will be given pets with enhancements such as a life-span matching that of it's owner or the ability to help with homework (rather than eat it).
The mouse with a "human" brain? I doubt you'll have to worry about Pinky and The Brain becoming a reality show. Though it might have human brain tissues, and it might even produce a similar brain structure to that found in humans... such a creature could not think the same way us humans do. To make the point I'll totally disregard the fact that our brains just wont fit into that creature. Even if you could build a mouse with an exact replica of a human brain, it's body is different and therefore it's perception of the world changes.
Where do we draw the line? I personally feel that, for most things, lines should be drawn in hind-sight. A lot of the things we are afraid of could be possible... but they might not be all bad either. So some fool doctor on an island creates a bunch of chimeric monstrosities with qualities similar to both humans and the animals they came from... are they happy? No? Well, maybe there's one line. But remember, that was a movie, and not real life. The story could play out differently with just a few tweaks. When we actually do that in reality, then we should decide.
Not that it hurts to be cautious, but I personally wouldn't care if my bacon contained human genes because the pig was designed in a lab to provide both food and viable organs for human patients. It's the sum of all our genes that makes us human. I'd be concerned if the pig was also given an intelect, hands, and whipped into slavery... but that's all far from what we see here now.
Caution, but don't judge what's wrong or right until it has actually been done. We need to understand genetics. If not for any reason other than to understand ourselves.
A Catholic is supposed to defer to the authority of the Pope when he declares an infallible decision. Such decisions are generally made on questions of theology. Indeed, in two thousand years there has been only one infallible declaration by the Pope (Mary was assumed into heaven). Yes, most Catholics tend to give the Pope's opinion weight, but it is not a requirement. There are tons of priests, bishops and indeed a whole half of the Church (Eastern Orthodox) who have disagreements with the Pope, but are still Catholic.
A Catholic believes in the sancitity of life. They are not directly supposed to be anti-abortion. For example, if not having an abortion will kill the mother, the mother is not required to sacrifice her life for that of her child.
The essence of Catholicism is contained in the Creed/Profession of Faith read each week at Mass. It doesn't mention Pope or abortion.
It is not your place to declare whether someone is Catholic. By doing so you are passing judgement. As the name Catholic (meaning 'universal') implies, the Catholic Church encompasses a huge range of people and opinions, including conflicting ones.
If you really want to understand what makes a Catholic, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's easier to read in book form. It's a pretty mind blowing document (apart from the length!) when you consider the number and quality of minds which have worked on it. It's interesting that the aforementioned 'creed' is used at the table of contents for first part of the Catechism, so that prayer really is a neat summary of what makes a Catholic.
In case you haven't twigged I am Catholic. It makes me seethe with anger to see what US (and other) religious wackos are doing in the name of Christ. I feel justified in my anger in that I equate the wackos with the moneychangers who hijacked the temple in Jerusalem for their own ends, and got driven out by an angry Jesus.
What is the moral and ethical difference between creating something "less than human" and taking a human and just "pithing" them.
I'm not a religous zealot, but it just seems wrong to me that we are "re-defining" what our humanity means.
This is a VERY slippery slope. I don't think that we should even set foot on it.
We are not God.
I don't have any problem with this, either, but I'd like to take this thread on a slightly different tack. Maybe you have problems with it, and maybe you don't.
And most likely, you're consuming genetically engineered plants and animals with added Vitamin C, and lest we forget the Caffeine and other drugs you take to make your head hurt a little less! Science is impacting your life. It's altering your brain, and changing how long you live.
Well, moral issues such as killing human embryos are different. The question that many people get stuck on is: At what point does the human embryo get a soul? Does it happen before it shows up on the ultrasound machine? How about after it's born? At what point does our society recognize life as human. If Chimeras are an abomination to our society, and some are released into the wild and brought to light, then do they have legal rights as humans do? Can they keep the fact that they are different hidden, or does it matter? Dogs and Cats have certain rights as protected by the ASPCA, but humans have lots more rights.
Furthermore, I challenge that "all men are created equal". I think that I'm smarter than most men, and I am not as athletic. I think that I'm quite creative compared to the average human, but I'm not as well read. My point is that we aren't equal, and we most certainly weren't created equal. I'm more prone to several kinds of diseases genetically than other people are. I happen to have blood which makes me a universal donor.
I'd much rather hope that we introduce them into society. Just think about how much better off we would be as a "species" if we could engineer our way around the hurdles we are faced with? What if we could engineer a breed of humans with brains 10% larger and redundant organs? What about having organs that could grow back if removed? It would be nice to be able to get a heart transplant from a human with an extra working heart that would grow back after you removed one. What if brain size wasn't the most important factor to intelligence. What if we could build computers interfaces into humans. Imagine being born with computer implants in your brain that as you grew enhanced your ability to grow and understand the world around you. Imagine how your brain might form differently, and how you would be able to communicate and function if your brain patterns could wirelessly connect with other people and computers on the internet.
Now, the definition of species has much to do with being able to successfully reproduce, but I don't think that it would be so bad if we created species which we were genetically incompatible with that were superior in some ways (maybe even all ways). Unless they bred faster than we did, or a plague impacting only our species happened, there would be a mixed population of sentient species of humans and others. Who says that our 100% pure human children are the best evolved? Why not let our science help create more evolved humans. Over time, humanity will be better equipped to survive in the situations we will live in.
How about we make humans with two heads! Two heads are better than one. I'd love to get my head transplanted onto a body which would outlast my own... Just think about all the poorer people looking for
First of all, I have to remind all of you (and especially to the obviously mentally deficient authors of the article) that chimeras are not hybrids because they do not have a combined DNA, and therefore can not produce offsprings that inherit their traits.
Second, I really don't see what the problem is. Anyone wants to write an angry email to the Pope about the possibility of keeping human organs in glass jars? No? What about metal jars? Plastic? Quartz?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
"Might as well start arguing that a blastocyst is fully human. OK, if THAT is fully human, then why is an adult-derived stem cell not?"
Because an adult-derived stemcell on itself can't grow into a baby? Ah yes, but maybe you don't consider it as 'fully'? After all, one could also argument that an 22 weeks old embryo isn't 'fully human', or a 9 months old one, or even a baby for that matter.
The fact is, the line you draw between 'fully human' or 'partly human' or 'not human' (especially now with the chimeras) is completely arbitrary. So yes, it could be argumented that a blastocyst is human. As for the 'fully'...well, why should it be fully? And what is to considered fully? Physically, only adults are fully developed humans, and mentaly, one could argue that mentally handicapt people aren't 'fully' humans; a concept the Nazi's had agreed on, for instance.
The problem with 'fully human' is that it is decided by another human, and one can wonder if that one is fully human in the first place.
For me, it's enough that it is human, to raise ethical questions. It doesn't have to be 'fully', because then I ask myself the question who's going to decide whether it is or not, and why their view on things would be more right then that of mine. Since it's completely arbitrary, I don't think this can be done.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Never worry about anthropomorphising a little...
yes
When I see a scientist who says animals dont have emotions I get upset.
We are animals, we have emotions that evolved over time
I remember seeing a studdy to see if mice felt pain... thats just dumb.
I've seen people claim that pet animals dont have emotions, that they are just displaying emotion like states, as it increases the chance of putting food in their dishes, argh Idiots.
These mice, with human type brains
will they feel pain when you cut open their heads to see if they have wrinkly human like brains, yes, unless you give them painkillers...
Lets pretend that we make some super mice.
They have human type wrinkled brains, they are smarter than normal mice
We know that normal mice have emotions, so these mice do too.
at what point would you say these mice are smart enough to be given human rights?
ok because of there size they'll never be as smart as us.
but a larger animal might
If I have rights because I'm selfaware and human, but my otter friend does not because although he's as smart a small child he's not human what happens when we encounter / create
some thing that is as smart as us?
Take a look at the second artical on this page
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021
what a crazy waffly post
Kiffer.
Who the heck cares?
Every time you pick a mate, you're messing with DNA.
Well, actually. . , the problem is that the control belongs to soulless corps. How long until they start breeding dumber humans with a gene which makes people reflexively want to Buy Useless Crap. Or react poorly to non-GM foods. Or work smarter with fewer complaints. Oh, the list is endless in a lame sci-fi kind of way.
The comforting thing is that they never paid much attention to anything but the most trivial 'augmented soldier' nonsense on Star Trek, which leads me to think that it's probably not much of a problem we'll be needing to make any choices about in our current reality. There's not really enough time left to worry about this kind of thing. --The damage was done back when humans were first written. (Clever adjustments were made, such as linking sexual pleasure to violence, and activating the capacity for a strong sense of jealousy. Among other things.)
-FL
but aren't humans already animals ?
"There are other ways to advance medicine and human health besides going out into the strange, brave new world of chimeric animals," Rifkin said, adding that sophisticated computer models can substitute for experimentation on live animals."
Unless there have been huge leaps in our understanding of biology and chemistry, as well as huge advances in mathematics and computer science and increases in computer manufacturing technology-that I am not aware of, this last statement is most certainly not true. If a computer model could replace animal testing, it would be done. Do people just think that scientists enjoy torturing innocent animals"
Honestly, the absurdity of this argument is appalling. There are two alternatives to animal testing, human testing and no testing.
"That's because there are a number of people on slashdot that don't really understand science or its underpinnings."
;-).
;-)
Or, maybe, they do understand, but they do not agree?
As I have said before, I dislike this kind of 'if you're not for science, you're against it' mentality. It sounds Bushy to me. I have made several posts in this thread why I still think there are ethical issues, and that some of this (chimera) research should be forbidden. It has *nothing* to do with being anti-science or being non-rational. In fact, you would be hardpressed to find a regular reply/poster to me that would claim I'm not a staunch fan of using rational and logic reasoning. Ask Halo1 if you have any doubts
Yet, I do not agree with a laissez-faire viewpoint, just because it advances science, for the reasons I mentionned in my other posts. I find it hugely disturbing that anyone that opposes some form(s) of scientific research would be deemed irrational, just because he does so. Since when did scientific progress became the new dogmatic principle? *That* is quite unscientific, actually.
" Sure, they can plug a CPU into a motherboard, install a service pack, perhaps even a linux distro. But they're incapable of critical thought (especially reflective critical thought, but that's another story), and have difficulty applying reason or logic."
What I said above: your conclusion (or at least insinuatuion) that because someone is not for it, he is incapable of critical thought and has difficulty applying reason or logic, is premature at best, and flawed at worst. It is just because I think in a critical and rational way (and consistent), that I DO see (ethical) problems, and that I DO think some forms of research should be forbidden.
"Engineers with rigorous formal training are usually the first to admit that they are not scientists. Engineers with sloppy minds and little formal training think they know it all, or think that what they know in one area is easily transfered to another completely different area."
I must confess I usually think I know it all.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
This article is very interesting from an animal animal liberation/animal rights point of view. Some of the arguments made on both sides are pretty weak:
The assumption seems to be that if we are able to decide when a chimera becomes human, we have solved part of the issue. Why would knowing that an organism is human make a moral difference? If something is genetically human or not does not make a morally relevany difference unless you take a speciecist position claiming that species membership is morally relevant in itself. No defense of that position has to my knowledge been presented.
Also, it is difficult to see how there can be any new questions of rights since the genetic make-up of an individual is not what grants (or should grant) moral rights in the first place.
The problem with any theory of rights is that it does not take into the consideration the consequences of an action beyond which rights are violated, in this case Rifkin claims that it doesn't matter what medical breakthroughs will result, it is still wrong to cross species boundaries. How does this make sense?
It is also interesting that he believes that animals have the rights not to be crossed with other species -- but who's rights are being violated when that is done? Unless the stem cells being tampered with have rights (how could this possibly be?) it must be the rights of the fully developed chimera which is constantly violated, since it is a cross of different species. But unless the chimera is in some way hurt by being the crossing of two species, what reasonable ground can there be for claiming that its rights are violated anymore than the rights of the mule -- the mixing of a horse and a donkey? Does the fact that humans have deliberately created a new genetic make-up make a moral difference? Why?
The Act bans chimeras only when one party is genetically human. How can this be justified? This is a law, and does not carry any ethical/moral weight, but what possible arguments could lay behind the law? Cynthia Cohen gives us an answer:
"Human dignity", a fancy phrase that sound nice, but is devoid of any meaning. It is the last resort when arguments from a factual basis fail, or maybe a reflection of religious beliefs. She puts it pretty clearly when implying that it would be wrong to "deny that there is something distinctive and valuable about human beings that ought to be honored and protected". This should be denied, vigorously, as it is the basis of much unjustified oppression of non-human animals. Until it is shown what characteristic of humans are "distinctive and valuable" that exists in all humans and does not exist in any non-human animals, there is no merit to the idea of a special human dignity. It is nothing more than poorly masked discrimination on the sole basis of species membership, something which holds
I don't think the chemical/mathematical view is uncomfortable at all. But I do think it is an invalid reduction of a reality which we understand a lot less exhaustively than you seem to think
look for traces of human cognitive behavior.
It wouldn't surprise if sometime in the future that more sophisticated means are developed to communicate with the brain more directly, kind of like an EEG on steriods.
When that happens, probably we'll discover a couple of things that will make people uncomfortable and have to rethink their ethical positions. We may discover human fetuses (simmering pro-choice, pro-life abortion debate) capable of more cognitive ability and we may discover animals (you know, the kind we eat for food) are also capable of thoughts, feelings, communication.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Or instead of a TV series that no one has heard of, how about an example from literature? =)
Metamorphosis
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Yeah, but you guys never want to go the final step.
If you truly believe in the formulae you just referred to, then why not go farther and admit that the universe is just one big math equation based on the six fundamental constants?
There are only two possible positions. Either something can act on the system (life, the universe and everything) from "outside" (God, or whatever you want to call it), or the system has starting conditions, rules, and is working itself out mathematically.
If you choose option two, you are throwing away the illusion of choice and free will. You may believe you are making decisions in your life, but they are mathematically preordained. Your choice of college, career, spouse, or breakfast cereal are just the result of particles interacting according to preset rules.
I know which I believe, but it frustrates me that the science bullies here can't or won't follow their logic to its cold, heartless end.
All science is a slave to math.
I think an article on Furries might have been more useful than the pile of alarmist crap written in the article. Really where do these people think their medical research comes from? What amuses me is that they even quote someone saying you don't need to do these kind of experiments as you could simulate them in a computer.. Hands up how many /. readers believe this is true. In fact hands up how many of you believe we really understand biology... The truth is we are only just starting to comprehend what is happening, especially at the cellular level.
The big question in this article is "should we toy with nature" First I would question well what is natural about the way you live your life.. everything around you comes from completly screwing with nature or dominating/ exploting some other species.
There are risks in creating new strains of life yes.. but probably more risk from the chemicals in your household cleaners which have scarsely been tested.
Should we ethically toy with genetics. Personally I don't have a problem with it. Furries have a right to live too you know
1. The Cat (Caesar)
Generally cat-like, and hence was pretty much above the rest of the world. Beat the crap out of the dog on a regular basis.
2. My brother.
Generally pretty smart except when he trained one of the sheep to charge everything and then wondered why he had to do all the barnyard chores until that psychotic ram went to slaughter.
3. The dog.
Our sheltie pretty much did what it wanted to all day, pushed all the other animals around at will and generally had a good time doing whatever came into it's brain that minute. The dog was enraged by squirrels and snakes and would lose all sense though.
4. Goats
They figure our doors, fences and pretty much do what they want. Not a lot scares them and they mostly ignore the dog.
5. The Horse
Actually rather smart. I trained it to come when called, work without harness or saddle and almost got it to sit on command (really! althouth this one pissed it off) The only problem is that horses are basically very, very blond. Anything and nothing can scare them into a high-speed witless panic. Horses get bored easily and can get cranky and neurotic.
6. Ducks
Bird brains, but they get along by themselves. They are not an active health hazard to themselves.
7. Sheep & Chickens
Both are high proof stupid. The chickens have an excuse. They, after all, can run around with most of their brains amputated, which is pretty much what they do with all their brains. We raised a few ducks with our chickens and they chics would follow the duck hatchlings into the watering trough and immediately sink to the bottom. A gu on Whidbey Island, in Washignton State, assembled a glock of chickens and kept htem with a dog and a certain type of hawk. The dog and the hawk would keep most of the other predators away and he let chickens breed and fend for themselves. Eventually he came up witha flock that would hide in tall weeds, watch out for the hawk, and generally survive without a lot of replacements and help. It took 20 years.
Sheep should do better with their larger brains, but they don't. Sheep will pretty much kill themselves unless a human intervenes. One lamb tried to taste the flame of a blowtorch I was holding. Twice. When motivated, a herd of sheep can trample most things without a lot of trouble, but they never seem to learn to use this offensively. Really, if they had middle fingers, they could give it to the dog and go back to getting their heads stuck in the fence while trying to reach the grass on the other side. I hate sheep. If humans start getting sheep parts, the end of the world is about two hours away.
8. Other
We didn't raise cows, thank god. I think that some people think cows are stupid because they are big enough to sit there and look at you without giving a crap what you think. That and the regurgitating and re-chewing lunch makes people wonder. Pigs are supposd to be as smart as dogs, but I don't know. Geese are somewhat smarter than chickens and they're frickin' mean.
I know this isn't prime geek material, but certainly the people doing this work realize these things and won't try to foist animal braisn on people. That would be unkind.
Why do I have this? I don't smoke.