Don't worry, he's a purebred with a pedigree full of champions!
I wonder when, if ever, dog culture will catch up to science and embrace our new understanding of how harmful bogus notions of purity are.
The philosophical foundations of the kennel club system started much more in line with then modern movements, namely Eugenics, which billed itself as an “applied science.” The kennel club hasn’t changed that now-repudiated philosophy, choosing instead to stagnate by abandoning any dialogue with the scientific community preventing any evolution in practice and attitude.
If we truly believed that our methods were “improving” dog breeds, we would expect that science and academia would be looking to purebred dogs as exemplars of genetic theory. Instead, they are highlighted as disasters.
The following passage comes from the textbook Human Heredity: Principles & Issues, by Michael R. Cummings:
Spotlight on Selective Breeding Gone Bad
Purebred dogs are the result of selective breeding over many generations, and worldwide, there are now more than 300 recognized breeds and varities of dogs.
Selective breeding to produce dogs with desired traits, such as long noses and closely set eyes in collies and the low, sloping hind legs of German Shepherds, can have unintended side effects. About 70% of all collies have hereditary eye problems, and more than 60% of German Shepherds are at risk for hip dysplasia. It is estimated that 25% of all purebred dogs have a serious genetic disorder.
The high level of genetic disorders in purebred dogs is a direct result of selective breeding. Over time, selecive breeding has decreased genetic variability and increased the number of animals homozygous for recessive genetic disorders.
Outbreeding is a simple genetic solution to this problem. In the world of dogs, this means mixed-breed dogs, or mutts. For example, crosses between collies and German Shepherds or between Labrador Retrievers and German Shepherds combine the looks and temperaments of both breeds but reduce the risk of offspring that have genetic disorders.
We know what needs to be done, science knows what the easiest answer is, the only question is who will have the vision and the will to do it?
* * *
Comments and disagreements are welcome, but be sure to read the Comment Policy. If this post made you think and you'd like to read more like it, consider a donation to my 4 Border Collies' Treat and Toy Fund. They'll be glad you did. You can subscribe to the feed or enter your e-mail in the field on the right to receive notice of new content. You can also like BorderWars on Facebook for more frequent musings and curiosities.
* * *
Nora
Jess
Pam
Kali
retrieverman
Lori Ziemba
I think part of the problem isn’t how people use the sciences. It’s how they are wired in the logic centre of the brain. Yes, pairing with alike mates produce alike offspring, but there seems to be no cut off point in understanding how far is too far or how close is too lose.
Dave recently posted..How Dogs Influene a Person
Very good post, but I’ve seen in the GRCA literature, total misuse of the sciences, like the MHC article on the island foxes, to justify purity.
It’s like Kent Hovind-style.
And that’s even worse.
retrieverman recently posted..Curly likes birds
Brett was watching some thing on tv last night while I was making the dog food about King Tut. They have two little pre-term infant mummies and tested them (actually one) to see if they were his children. The one they tested was (a daughter.) Evidently the Egyptians believed that keeping it all in the family ‘strengthened’ the royal line (Tut was married to his sister.) The Egyptian religion had a good deal of brother/sister marriage among the gods, and since Pharaoh was considered a god, he could only marry another god (one of the family.) I found it interesting because the Egyptians had livestock, pet and hunting dogs, and cats, and were obviously well-versed in selective breeding. Anyone (unless they have dogs) who breeds animals will tell you that you cannot breed too closely for too long or you run into problems. There had to be some serious cognitive dissonance going on there to not accept that what was good for the cows is going to be good for the humans, and vice versa. The affect of the Pharaoh being not only part of the religion but an object of worship was the denial of their own senses. I thought the parallels with the closed registry system were interesting (and I am including ‘object of worship’ in that.)
That is why I always use ‘superstition’ in conjunction with ‘closed registry.’
Jess recently posted..I Need One of These
I don’t suspect cognitive dissonance. Rules that apply to the gods would not apply to the animals. Would expect Zeus to die from AIDS? Or Poseidon to die from excessive water pressure? Of coarse not. Naturally the Pharaohs would not be harmed by inbreeding.
Lochinbrae BCs recently posted..A litter announcement
There is a good deal of evidence that the priesthood in Egypt was extremely corrupt. The continuance of practices which produced defective (and malleable, and short-lived) kids would have been to their advantage. Cognitive dissonance would have had to occur on the part of the royal family (or maybe not, people will do strange things to stay in power), and the general populace.
At some point, you must start compartmentalizing, in order to keep denying the evidence of your own eyes and continue on a destructive path. I think this is at work when you see Christian Science parents watch their kid die of fixable stuff like diabetic ketoacidosis.
Jess recently posted..I Need One of These
I think we have a case of what Scottie calls “believing your own hype” about the Royals being special. We’ve seen this in other hereditary leaders, i.e. calling Epilepsy a “sacred” disease.
And it’s not just royals, inbreeding has manifested itself in many cultures where inheritance is family based. I’ll do a post on it the examples are so numerous, and CURRENT. It wasn’t until the world wars that many Japanese stopped first cousin marriages and the rate of first cousin marriage in the Arab world today is alarming.
There has to be some point where the two values of health vs. power come into conflict and someone questions whether the disease load is worth it. They might be herp derp from the inbreeding, but I can’t imagine that the question never got asked.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-12-29/news/forbidden-fruit/full/-1/
Jess recently posted..I Need One of These
I do think that Jess’s idea of cognitive dissonance is about as compelling as the royals buying into their own hype. I just like to play devil’s advocate. It would be interesting to know the real answer though.
Lochinbrae BCs recently posted..A litter announcement
I’d suggest that inbreeding is perhaps one of the most significant forces in regime change in ancient Egypt. Infertility and herp-derp Pharaohs often ended bloodlines requiring appointing of outsiders to carry on the dynasty.
The Thutmose line is known for disgusting skin pustules all over their face and necks, so much so that they used the diagnosis to suggest that a newly found mummy was actually Hatshepsut, a female of the line. Other evidence confirmed the ID.
King Tut was likely the last in an inbred line, as his father, Akhenaten is famous for being distorted physically (in depictions), perhaps from Marfan/the inability to break down aromatase/craniosynostosis/etc.
Tut himself, although he he changed his name from Tutankhaten to Tutankhamun to avoid associations with his father and his monotheism, couldn’t escape the inbred disease. His skeleton looks to have had one or more diseases.
Royals throughout history have made the same mistake. The Hapsburg were rather notorious inbreeders and suffered the consequences.
Inca dynasties succumb to the same issues as well.
Dave recently posted..You’ll Never Be Cool As This
“herp-derp Pharaohs”
That made me laugh for like a minute straight.
Selective breeding gone very bad:
http://retrieverman.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/omg-neo.jpg
retrieverman recently posted..Gray fox on the fence
This picture gave me the creeps. Poor thing.