Genetic Engineering Leads to New Domesticated Animals

[Chirios]

Putting this in Sci-Fi because it's a "what if" instead of a question about modern day science.

What if, in the future, genetic engineering created a new wave of domesticatable animals, would you have a pet rhino? A pet tiger, a pet cheetah?

[Simon_Jester]

I don't keep pets now, I doubt I would if more exotic animals (with more complicated dietary needs, for one) showed up.

[Starglider]

Both the acquisition and care/feeding/vet costs would be enormous, although a little less so for dwarf versions. Completely and reliably changing the behavior of a species would be a massively expensive and difficult genetic engineering project which would have all the animal rights people trying to burn down your labs.

Robotic pets seem like a better bet and are slowly but steadily getting more realistic.

[Panzersharkcat]

I'd bet on robotics, too. It'd also reduce the chances of my Deinonychus gardener trying to eat me.

[KlavoHunter]

A pot-bellied rhinoceros! Brilliant!

[Broomstick]

Cheetahs have been tamed and trained - the Ancient Egyptians used them as hunting cats, launching them off the hindquarters of a galloping horse (obviously, one trained to tolerate huge cats). The problem with domesticating them is the difficulty of getting them to reproduce in captivity. If you can "solve" that "problem" then I can see a potential for a niche.

Some of the others, though - rhinos, hippoes, elephants, etc. - likely not just from a logistical standpoint. They eat huge amounts, require lots of room, secure pens, hippoes require substantial water environments...

If the aggression/other temperament problems of adult zebras could be changed you might have the same niche for zebras as for fancy-colored horses.

Skunks odorless from birth might work.

I think there's a potential, but any such animals will, at least initially, be quite expensive and the market limited. Dogs and cats are still the most common pets and I expect they will continue to be so.

[avatarxprime]

Some of the others, though - rhinos, hippoes, elephants, etc. - likely not just from a logistical standpoint. They eat huge amounts, require lots of room, secure pens, hippoes require substantial water environments...

Well as to the elephants, there are records of dwarf elephants. Why not create cloned versions of the dwarf and then apply the domestication gene therapy. Now you can have an elephant that doesn't require nearly the same amount of space or food as their regular sized cousins.

[Broomstick]

Dwarf elephants were still around 500 pounds, "dwarf" being a somewhat relative term. That's still a damn big pet. Sure. people have pet horses and cattle that size (and larger) but the space and feed requirements are significant. That severely limits the potential market.

[avatarxprime]

True, but compared to the requirements for an actual Asian or Africian elephant, it's far more in line with what someone could actually afford to do.

[Broomstick]

The other downside for elephants is the lifespan - equivalent to human. Captive elephants live 50-70 years, with the record being 82. Adopting one would be like adopting a human child.

It's not an insurmountable obstacle - the larger parrots (macaws, African greys, cockatoos, etc.) have a similar life span, although they are much smaller animals than elephants. It's a problem, though, with parrots outliving owners. Not everyone will make provisions for their long-lived pet in the event they pre-decease it.

[Johonebesus]

Cheetahs have been tamed and trained - the Ancient Egyptians used them as hunting cats, launching them off the hindquarters of a galloping horse (obviously, one trained to tolerate huge cats). The problem with domesticating them is the difficulty of getting them to reproduce in captivity. If you can "solve" that "problem" then I can see a potential for a niche....

There's a difference between tamed and domesticated. Lots of people have tamed red foxes as pets, but they are much less sociable and easy than Russian domesticated silver foxes.

[Darth Fanboy]

True, but compared to the requirements for an actual Asian or Africian elephant, it's far more in line with what someone could actually afford to do.

I'm just going to run with the elephant example for the time being.

1 - What is the reasoning behind the need for extensive selective breeding and genetic engineering required to reduce the size of an elephant?

2 - If the resources exist for such a project, what reasons are there to do this rather than put those resources towards the species as it currently exists?

Elephants are the way they are for very good reasons, and you have a lot of ethical hurdles to overcome. Let's not forget that Elephants are also social animals, so more than one animal is still required and even 500 pound animals require a lot more space and resources than the average person, even in a first world country, is going to be able to devote for a domestic animal. Let alone medical care and specialized veterinary treatment.

[Darmalus]

I'm not really interested in pets, although I'm sure someone would be. I am, however, interested in new and interesting things to eat. How does domesticated rhino taste?

[Darth Fanboy]

With regards to the OP...EXOTIC ANIMALS ARE NOT GOOD PETS!

Assuming someone wasted obscene amounts of money developing gene therapies (selective breeding is likely to be more effective but apparently takes too long for some folks?) You've just listed in the OP three very threatened species with subspecies that are even more highly threatened, so not only do ethical hurdles need to be passed, they need to be cleared by a wide margin.

We have domesticated Dogs that weigh hundreds of pounds (Mastiffs are a great example). These dogs already cost a lot of feed and properly care for, the costs for larger animals and top-level predators is going to be even higher. Not to mention that these animal candidates proposed are not part of a species that has been bred and conditioned to be social and coexist with humans for hundreds, even thousands of years. It would take some incredibly radical and probably unethical gene therapy to replicate that.

And let's not forget the potential legal issues that exotic animal ownership entails depending on where you live, along with the fact that any unique animal is going to require a veterinarian who can provide proper treatment.

Even with all of these problems, there is still the reality that even domesticated animals sometimes go bad. If my dachshund were to (perish the thought) break free from the leash and try to bite someone it would be bad and he's a 13 pound adorable snausage on four teeny legs. Your pet 500 lb elephant or your reduced size Tiger? Not going to go well.

[Shroom Man 777]

Better get Replicant pets from the Tyrell Corporation.

[Zixinus]

The obvious application is that all animals in the zoo can be petted. The kids will LOVE it! Hell, I would love it. How often can you pet a wolf? Or pose with say, a gazelle!

Tiny animals would be more use to tame than bigger ones. Foxes (perhaps otherwise more exotic breeds), might be cute. Red pandas perhaps (and of course, I'm assuming that this domesticated breed won't be made at the expense of the wild population)?

I am also sure that farmers might benefit from normally-wild animals that hunt mice or other vermin. Owls perhaps, that usually require expertise to train to not fly away?
Even having them tame enough to be able safely handled, be either bred or neutered could help.

A note on elephants: did you guys know that they are not raised by humans from birth? Instead, they are raised by semi-wild herds from which they take elephants and try to train them.

Obvious to say that it doesn't always quite work and a rampant/enraged elephant is not for the faint of heart.

[Mr Bean]

Everyone's focused on the Elephant because it's an extreme example, it would be more sensible to focus on related animals like the various big cats, the various smaller mammals or medium sized animals such as everything from Bobcats to Wallabys. Yes a full size tiger would be an issue but with SCIENCE nothing says we can't breed one the size of a typical Siberian Husky. We already have documented cases of animals like bears who live their entire life with humans without attacking once, we also have cases of chimps flipping out and ripping people's faces off. Genetics lets us skip the thousand years of manual breeding that takes to get from a timber wolf to a golden retriever.

[Darth Fanboy]

Zixinus I apologize in advance if I am missing any sarcasm or anything else.

The obvious application is that all animals in the zoo can be petted. The kids will LOVE it! Hell, I would love it. How often can you pet a wolf? Or pose with say, a gazelle!

There are USDA requirements on human interaction with wild animals for the health and safety of animals. Assuming those minimum requirements are met you have the problem that it's not good form to encourage exotic animals as pets, and that its not good form to teach that wild animals should be pets. I

Tiny animals would be more use to tame than bigger ones. Foxes (perhaps otherwise more exotic breeds), might be cute. Red pandas perhaps (and of course, I'm assuming that this domesticated breed won't be made at the expense of the wild population)?

1 - For professional reasons I cannot disclose all of the details of this situation, but I know of someone who raised a Binturong (from the civet family, also known as a bearcat) by hand while the animal was an infant and the grown Binturong was still aggressive enough that she is rarely handled today. You can't just remove the instincts of some animals, especially carnivores.

What would be the point of taming these wild animals not suited for domestication when we have domestic dogs and cats that we have lived along with naturally for thousands of years?

I am also sure that farmers might benefit from normally-wild animals that hunt mice or other vermin. Owls perhaps, that usually require expertise to train to not fly away?
Even having them tame enough to be able safely handled, be either bred or neutered could help.

Owls and Snakes already do that naturally, preserve their habitat and they will do just that and no training is required.

A note on elephants: did you guys know that they are not raised by humans from birth? Instead, they are raised by semi-wild herds from which they take elephants and try to train them.

Obvious to say that it doesn't always quite work and a rampant/enraged elephant is not for the faint of heart.

Elephants raised in captivity with trainers (or mahouts) are raised around humans as well, which can be important. The youngest one at Oregon Zoo (just turned three years old) is the first ever 3rd generation elephant in the US.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Yes a full size tiger would be an issue but with SCIENCE nothing says we can't breed one the size of a typical Siberian Husky

That's still a far larger cat than I would ever consider owning. Think about it, that's about the same size as a mountain lion, which is effectively what you're going to get here, a "mountain tiger," if you will. Still a dangerous predator, just not quite so much as the full sized version.

[Darth Fanboy]

Yes a full size tiger would be an issue but with SCIENCE nothing says we can't breed one the size of a typical Siberian Husky

That's still a far larger cat than I would ever consider owning. Think about it, that's about the same size as a mountain lion, which is effectively what you're going to get here, a "mountain tiger," if you will. Still a dangerous predator, just not quite so much as the full sized version.

There are hybridizded Servals that can be found that are even smaller than that and get surrendered to shelters for being large and destructive cats.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Yes a full size tiger would be an issue but with SCIENCE nothing says we can't breed one the size of a typical Siberian Husky

That's still a far larger cat than I would ever consider owning. Think about it, that's about the same size as a mountain lion, which is effectively what you're going to get here, a "mountain tiger," if you will. Still a dangerous predator, just not quite so much as the full sized version.

There are hybridizded Servals that can be found that are even smaller than that and get surrendered to shelters for being large and destructive cats.

Exactly. A cat the size of, say, a german shepard, is big enough that it just might decide to try to eat you. If its big enough to eat you, its too big to keep as a pet. Housecats only make good pets because the biggest they get is only around 25 pounds. I've seen cats that were less than ten pounds fuck up big dogs and even put people in the hospital when they're angry or in a panic. An 80-100 pound housecat? No fucking way.

[Korto]

What if, in the future, genetic engineering created a new wave of domesticatable animals, would you have a pet rhino? A pet tiger, a pet cheetah?

Oh, good God, why?
For what possible reason would you want to? If you want a grassmuncher that'll attack without provocation, get some geese. If you want a carnivore that could kill you at any moment, get a rottweiler. There's also fish, insects, pigs, birds, rats, turtles, snakes, sheep, and on and on. There's no world shortage of possible pet species.

I have chooks. You've got to love a pet that shows a profit.

What possible reason could there be to have a pet rhino or tiger other than "I'm a complete wanker" ?

[weemadando]

I'd have pet miniature dinosaurs just so I could justify having the Jurassic Park theme as my doorbell.

But for the most part I agree with Korto - I've had cats as my primary pets, but damned if the duck which we had wasn't very well appreciated.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Assuming someone wasted obscene amounts of money developing gene therapies (selective breeding is likely to be more effective but apparently takes too long for some folks?)

Quite often it simply can't work for the desired purpose, or even at all. First; some animals like cheetahs are impractical or impossible to breed in captivity; if you can't control their mating habits then you can't selectively breed them. And second, selective breeding only allows you to select among traits; not add ones that don't exist. Genetic engineering lets you add things to a species that simply aren't there for selective breeding to work on. And third, intense selective breeding tends to introduce all sorts of other genetic problems, since unlike genetic engineering you can't just extract the desired trait; you end up concentrating the bad along with the good. Look at all the genetic problems purebred dogs have.

[Starglider]

And second, selective breeding only allows you to select among traits; not add ones that don't exist. Genetic engineering lets you add things to a species that simply aren't there for selective breeding to work on.

Genetic engineering works at the cell chemistry level. Altering cells to produce a specific chemical is relatively straightforward. Gross morphological changes are very difficult; you are trying to modify an incredibly complex cascade of cell division, differentiation, gene expression/repression and intercellular signalling. Behavioural changes are even harder, because at least we have a relatively good understanding of physiology and fairly it's obvious whether you've suceeded or failed, wheras brain development and how genes code for behavior are still not well understood. Both natural evolution and selective breeding work by iterative modification and testing of the whole organism. To achieve the same results by genetic engineering you would need an accurate virtual model of the organism with sufficient accuracy to replace this with simulation; we are a long way from having this for any organism.

Robotic pets are cheaper (to design and to keep), easier (ditto), much safer and free of moral issues.