submitted 2015-12-04 17:32:03 by furvert_tailEquine, large canid
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 1 point on 2015-12-04 21:01:04
I think that extending the lives of pets would be good for zoophiles as long as the quality of life is not affected.
zetacolaMarooned 1 point on 2015-12-04 21:16:44
I doubt it would be good for the animals themselves.
Edit: Yes, if the quality of life is unchanged I definitively agree.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 1 point on 2015-12-04 21:31:05
Are you suggesting that the quality of life would be affected?
zetacolaMarooned 1 point on 2015-12-04 22:14:04
I'm almost certain that would be the case.
zetacolaMarooned 1 point on 2015-12-04 21:04:06
As much as it pains me that our animals have such short lifespans, trying to extend it beyond what nature has intended distresses me greatly. I think scientists should rather be tackling the much more concerning issue of inhumane overbreeding that plague dogs with a variety of health problems. What good is a 300 years lifespan if 290 of them are just pain and sickness?
Big dogs do tend to have more health problems than small ones
Um, what. Since when?
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 3 points on 2015-12-04 21:57:34
What good is a 300 years lifespan if 290 of them are just pain and sickness?
This seems to be a very common reaction even to the idea of massively extending human life. Thing is, if we do ever figure out how to modify them (or us) to live 20 times longer, it's likely by slowing down all (or nearly all) ageing processes. It's a fountain of eternal youth, not eternal life.
zetacolaMarooned 2 points on 2015-12-04 22:35:13
I am atheist to the bone, but I find myself getting behind this idea that humans "shouldn't play god." Humans are simply too obtuse to see the larger picture, and history has proven this to us time and again. We simply have no idea of the implications that extending life to unnatural proportions entail.
Even a thousand years of our "intelligent" design wont bypass what natural selection has spent millions of years to build. Science is still baffled with the question "do dogs have emotions?" and now we want to make them 3 centuries old. Blows my mind.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2015-12-05 20:36:04
Humans are simply too obtuse to see the larger picture, and history has proven this to us time and again.
While true, we can often only find out by trying things. Even counting just the obvious and predictable, a mere 50% increase in life expectancy would have world-changing implications for humans. A genuine fountain of youth would break many things related to retirement, but I don't know how much or what else.
Even a thousand years of our "intelligent" design wont bypass what natural selection has spent millions of years to build.
Counter-examples:
Flight — We can fly super-sonic, into space, to the Moon and safely back to Earth.
Information processing — If anyone has a good enough map of it, you could simulate the entire nervous system of a lobster in real time on a $5 computer. In a sense, that's silicon immortality.
Power — Photovolatics are more efficient than photosynthesis, and we have nuclear power.
Understanding the qualia of other minds, even other human minds, has only come into the scientific domain with developments in conscious brain scanning methods. Before that, it was just philosophy — fun, but unprovable.
The incautious either change the world or bankrupt themselves trying. My fear of the latter can hold me back from even trying to be the former.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 2 points on 2015-12-05 16:19:14
Giant breeds tend to have extremely short lifespans and a number of health and joint problems. They grow too fast, too big, and for too long, especially when neutered, and it seems to just wear their bodies out faster. Larger dogs are also more likely to get bloat, which probably does nothing to help their life expectancy. They're also really prone to cancer for some reason.
So yeah, looking at lifespan alone, large breeds look very unhealthy. Small dogs aren't necessarily much healthier, but because they're less likely to get bloat and they won't collapse under their own weight, their lifespans are longer. The more extreme small breeds are more likely to have skulls too small for their brains, fragile bones, brachycephalia, and eye problems.
/r/zoophilia archive
I think that extending the lives of pets would be good for zoophiles as long as the quality of life is not affected.
I doubt it would be good for the animals themselves.
Edit: Yes, if the quality of life is unchanged I definitively agree.
Are you suggesting that the quality of life would be affected?
I'm almost certain that would be the case.
As much as it pains me that our animals have such short lifespans, trying to extend it beyond what nature has intended distresses me greatly. I think scientists should rather be tackling the much more concerning issue of inhumane overbreeding that plague dogs with a variety of health problems. What good is a 300 years lifespan if 290 of them are just pain and sickness?
Um, what. Since when?
This seems to be a very common reaction even to the idea of massively extending human life. Thing is, if we do ever figure out how to modify them (or us) to live 20 times longer, it's likely by slowing down all (or nearly all) ageing processes. It's a fountain of eternal youth, not eternal life.
I am atheist to the bone, but I find myself getting behind this idea that humans "shouldn't play god." Humans are simply too obtuse to see the larger picture, and history has proven this to us time and again. We simply have no idea of the implications that extending life to unnatural proportions entail.
Even a thousand years of our "intelligent" design wont bypass what natural selection has spent millions of years to build. Science is still baffled with the question "do dogs have emotions?" and now we want to make them 3 centuries old. Blows my mind.
While true, we can often only find out by trying things. Even counting just the obvious and predictable, a mere 50% increase in life expectancy would have world-changing implications for humans. A genuine fountain of youth would break many things related to retirement, but I don't know how much or what else.
Counter-examples:
Understanding the qualia of other minds, even other human minds, has only come into the scientific domain with developments in conscious brain scanning methods. Before that, it was just philosophy — fun, but unprovable.
The incautious either change the world or bankrupt themselves trying. My fear of the latter can hold me back from even trying to be the former.
Giant breeds tend to have extremely short lifespans and a number of health and joint problems. They grow too fast, too big, and for too long, especially when neutered, and it seems to just wear their bodies out faster. Larger dogs are also more likely to get bloat, which probably does nothing to help their life expectancy. They're also really prone to cancer for some reason.
So yeah, looking at lifespan alone, large breeds look very unhealthy. Small dogs aren't necessarily much healthier, but because they're less likely to get bloat and they won't collapse under their own weight, their lifespans are longer. The more extreme small breeds are more likely to have skulls too small for their brains, fragile bones, brachycephalia, and eye problems.