23 ms·
Sure, you could run a captive breeding program for parrots to select for intelligence (as measured by problem solving or trainability or whatever). But there's
by nradov 2y ago
Sure, you could run a captive breeding program for parrots to select for intelligence (as measured by problem solving or trainability or whatever). But there's no "free lunch" in genetics. You'll find that strain ends up worse in some other attribute. Like maybe they're more aggressive or less fertile or have higher rates of cancer or something. There are always trade-offs.
- ferguess_k 2y agoI guess we have to wait until we totally understand genes before diving into the dark?
- nradov 2y agoNo, but when it comes to running experiments on animal subjects we do have to wait for ethics approval from an institutional review board.
- marcosdumay 2y agoWe have been doing that to animals and plants for thousands of years.
- walleeee 2y agoEngineering a direct/deterministic map from genotype to phenotype may not be possible. Networks of gene regulation are often complex and interwoven, there are translational steps acting upon the genetic code, and development is driven not only by genes but physical/mechanical/chemical/electrical goings-on.
- BurningFrog 2y agoParrots in captivity have tons of unneeded survival traits to give up.
- lukas099 2y agoAnd potential access to unlimited free calories.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago>There are always trade-offs. This is pseudo-science and a common misconception. There is no genetic reason or support for mandatory detrimental tradeoffs. Historic breeding programs often allow side effects as a practical matter, but that doesn't mean they are detrimental or required. Sometimes genetic difference is all upside just like a mutation can be all downside.
- nradov 2y agoCitation needed. What examples of captive breeding programs do we have where the results were all upside? If parrots could be smarter without some corresponding disadvantage then why haven't the wild strain ones already naturally evolved to that state? We might be willing to accept the side effects but that doesn't mean they won't inevitably occur.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoThere are tons of dog breeding programs that have no downside, it's just the ones that do have a downside that are notable. With respect to wild parrots, it's not obvious that improvement is possible, let alone has disadvantage. Assuming it is possible, there are numerous reasons why it might not already exist. No advantage, low negative advantage, negative incremental advantage, and low probability are all possible reasons. Not every viable state has a viable incremental path to it.
- anon84873628 2y agoThe problem is that you're portraying this as some sort of law of finite biological resources or something, rather than a probabilistic effect of breeding small populations. Most genotypes or "random mutations" are totally neutral for an organism, but let's say that of the notable ones, it's 50/50 whether they will be "good" or "bad". If we find the "good" smart parrot, it's likely they have some other "bad" stuff we can't see or just don't care about. When you keep inbreeding, that other bad stuff will be fixed along with the intelligence. This is purely a limitation of our knowledge of the genome and lack of other inputs. You can out-cross to reduce the bad traits, but you risk losing some of the intelligence too. Theoretically there is another bird out there that solves the "bad" trait without affecting intelligence, we just don't know which it is. Nothing stops you from having a win-win-win. You could randomly find a bird that is super smart with rainbow feathers and the voice of an angel... It's just incredibly unlikely to roll all those attributes in one individual and keep them through multiple generations. As to why wild populations haven't naturally evolved to be smarter, that is an entirely separate discussion about countless competing selection pressures and how genes spread through larger populations.