So, through selective breeding and over thousands of years we've molded dogs to be what we want them to be.
I wonder, could we do the same with chimps? Could we, over the course of decades or centuries breed more intelligent chimps with more humanized hands and feet and bodies? Could we through breeding create an intelligent race that could comprehend and even engage in speech with us?
>>2069509
Anybody? I thought it was interesting.
>>2069509
We've already tried that though. Detroit is evidence of this failed experiment.
>>2069545
Okay, obligatory "blacks are apes" comment is out of the way. I was hoping it would be sooner than later. Super unique, upvoted etc.
Alright back on track to the real discussion. Thoughts?
Wasn't that what Stalin basically wanted to do?
What the selective pressures are for intelligence and better cognitive abilities? Are we even able to recognize the pathway that it goes? Maybe there something more than just the genetic lottery at conception, like epigenetics, that we don't have a clear picture of yet?
In any case it would be a much longer project than a century.
>>2069509
But why? That would essentially just turn all other apes into humans. can't we just as well neuter all the apes and wait for them to die out, and then pretend that we turned them into humans?
Also, domestication doesn't make animals more intelligent, just more dependant on humans. In case where dogs appear more intelligent than their wild cousins, they do so mainly because they've become better at understanding and responding to humans.
Chimps are fucking coked up psychopaths. Maybe we could do it with orangutans or gorillas?
Here is good list
1. Domestic animals cannot be picky eaters; they must be able to find enough food in and around human settlements to survive.
2. Only animals that reach maturity quickly relative to the human life span are worth considering. We can't afford to waste too much time feeding and caring for an animal before it grows large enough to be put to work or slaughtered.
3. Domesticated species must be willing to breed in captivity.
4. Domesticated animals must be docile by nature.
5. Domestic animals cannot have a strong tendency to panic and flee when startled.Sheep, though they're panicky, also have a flocking instinct, which causes them to stay close together when nervous. This means they can be herded.
6. Domesticated animals conform to a social hierarchy dominated by strong leadership. This has allowed us to easily modify them so that they'll recognize their human caretaker as the pack leader.
When domestication occurs, there has to be an inherent capability in the species. For example, horses and cows were domesticated while zebras and buffalo were not. This is because of genetic differences that lead to demeanors that arent compatible with domestication.
>>2069966
We've been trying to breed more intelligent dogs for thousands of years now.
they're actually dumber than the wolves we started with.
so no. Breeding for intelligence would probably take millions of years, just like it did with humans.
>>2070022
>dogs have brain area that responds specifically to human speech
>duhh they're dumber than wolves
you're a fuckin imbecile.
>>2070041
>you're a fuckin imbecile.
said the insecure child without a leg to stand on.
>it's ok, you don't have to hate other people just because they're smarter than you,
I said.
>If you do you'll have to hate everyone, because you're a fucking moron.
I continued.
>but to get back on topic, here's a link to some science showing that wolves are smarter than dogs,
I offered.
>http://www.livescience.com/5672-wolves-beat-dogs-logic-test.html
>>2070022
>Give wolves and dogs are offered an impossible challenge.
>Wolves will try until they're tired or taken away.
>Dogs try for a while and look for human help.
That makes the dogs smarter to me tbqh senpai.
>>2070048
yes, it depends very much on how you define intelligence.
Somehow I don't think OP was defining intelligence as "better at following human direction."
>>2070049
Humans are just apes good at following human directions, though.
>>2070054
an interesting insight.
that's not how we objectively define intelligence when testing people or animals though.
dogs and horses are the only animals I can think of atm where we pretend trainability is related to intelligence.
>>2069691
>Maybe we could do it with orangutans or gorillas?
Gorillas are stronger than the average human. Silverbacks surpass the strongest humans. We have two advantages over them: Technology (Intelligence) and population.
Making them intelligent and breeding them kinda doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
>>2069509
We already have niggers and look how that turned out.
>>2069509
in a manner of speaking we didn't mold them. they became that way because it was advantageous for their survival to appeal to our nature by being useful/cute. sure if you look at agriculture you'll see we have selected the biggest cabbages, the sweetest corn, the most milk-abundant cows...but intelligence and human traits in chimps, that's a bit more complex. it would take about 100,000 years for that to have any noticeable progress and by then we will likely have bred ourselves to be at about the chimp range of intelligence. after all, it took a lot of mind to identify poisonous plants and keep track of where good stuff grew and make traps and make fur coats and rawhide/stone/bone spears. it took a lot of mind to conceive of agriculture and industry. it doesn't take a lot of mind to work in HR and share shit on facebook. i think we should be far more focused on diminishing ourselves rather than enhancing Bubbles
>>2069509
This is how the planet of the apes starts.
We don't need them to take over.
>>2070596
You talk as if in the past, all people somehow took part in moving things forward. No, it was the few intelligent cases who got a change. Masses have always been dumb.
Anyone can learn to work a hoe on the advice of someone experienced. Today we have more opportunities for intelligence and new ideas to shine than ever. It's just that in many ways, all the low hanging fruit have already been picked.
>>2072629
*got a chance
I wish I didn't have a dog mounting girl fetish.
>>2072629
i disagree. while i agree that there has always been a small percentage of exceptional people who push society forward, in the past if you weren't a jack of all trades and adequate at taking care of yourself and your family, you didn't reproduce and your line died. In antiquity its estimated only 30 percent of men who lived to reach adulthood, which is a lot less than do now, passed on their genes. There was huge evolutionary pressure to be clever to some degree. prehistoric man had to memorize a fuckton. I'm not talking about the smart motherfucker who invented the wheel, just the average Joe who knew how to build a shelter and catch and clean meat and forage for the right food and still manage to look good enough to impress that q.t. across the river and provide food for the children that survived infancy.
I'm not screaming that the end is nigh and that modern man is dumb and idiocracy is a documentary. I'm just saying that if you pitted the average joe 100 years ago, 500 years ago, 2000 years ago and 10,000 years ago against a modern average joe there'd be a notable direct relationship between the intelligence of the individual and the time elapsed since civilization, agriculture, and industrial revolution put less pressure on us.
The real question is how people would test it. can't have Trebek quiz a cave man he would fuck up sports and potpourri.
>>2070047
>showing that wolves are smarter than dogs,
>http://www.livescience.com/5672-wolves-beat-dogs-logic-test.html
>"I wouldn't say one species is smarter," said Adam Miklosi of Eötvös University in Hungary, co-author of a paper describing the results in the Sept. 4 issue of the journal Science.
almost every time someone on 4chan provides some sort of source i find out that anon didn't even read the source or suspects nobody else is going to read the source.
>>2069509
>decades
>centuries
No anon you see a chimp genetic relation to us goes back 6 million years ago meaning it will take 3 million years of selective breeding to turn one into a hominid.
>>2069509
Already been tried. Why do you think prison rates are so high?
>>2073249
>a chimp
>turn one into a hominid
But anon, chimps are hominids. The word you're looking for is "hominin".
>>2073172
But you're talking about different skill sets, no?
I don't think I would survive week if thrown into a survival situation in the wild. It would be interesting to learn how to do that, but I guess I don't have the time.
Many of today's people are distanced from nature, and there is a simple reason for that: we don't really live in the nature anymore. Of course there is rising interest in urban farming, and stuff like that.
We could talk about eugenics and things like birthrate among "types" of people, but it'll probably be a long time before we'll be wise enough to know how to not to fuck up the science, nevermind the ethics: to have it end up like a society that nobody wants to stand for.
Anyway I'm just playing the devil's advocate, I am also often appalled at how disinterested (just another way to say dumb) people are about the things I consider important. But maybe I'm wrong? There is no such thing as "masses", after all. Or maybe it's always like this, every generation finds the next to be a bunch of no-goods?
>>2073305
I think you are right about each generation seeing the worst in the current generation to some degree or another.
As for skill sets im talking generalism vs specificism. It takes a lot more effort and understanding and arguably more gray matter to be a hunter gatherer than a farmer and even less to be a car salesman, regardless of whether that car salesman has a smartphone and took calculus in high school. That forager has memorized hundreds of plant species, where and when they grow what parts to eat how to process those parts etc. Took a lot of death via trial and error to get to that point and sure he learned it the same as we learned the stuff we know now, but he had to carry it all in all in his hippocampus. I think the generalists had to be smarter. Its a bit of a rift in the biological community...its been observed brains of modern humans are smaller than prehistoric humans. Some say our minds are more efficient like a smaller laptop with more memory. Some, and im in this camp, say its because ease of civilization has made it less necessary to be a nonlinear thinker. And personally i think that is a bad trend.
Maybe eugenics is the answer. Trouble with that is
..who gets to set the bar?
