Best Thing the USSR Ever Did

[The Jay]

They domesticated foxes. They shit in litter boxes. End of story.

To be serious though, they did experiments on domestication and made two lineages of fox. In one they made them aggressive as f**k. In the other they made them love humans. In short: they are fucking awesome and sciency. What other domestication experiments in domestication do you think would have awesome results?

Wikipedia Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox)

Here is a video of the buggers.


d1G2yZMUNUQ

[xxxxxx666666]

Awwww! SO CUTE!!! (the affectionate ones I mean)

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I believe the group responsible for this had to do it in secret because of the disposition the party had towards biological research, so I don't know if the ussr should actually get credit for this. Radiolab has an episode about this and some other semi-related stuff http://www.radiolab.org/story/91693-new-normal/

[The Jay]

I believe the group responsible for this had to do it in secret because of the disposition the party had towards biological research, so I don't know if the ussr should actually get credit for this. Radiolab has an episode about this and some other semi-related stuff http://www.radiolab.org/story/91693-new-normal/


Good catch. I learned something today. I think that domesticating certain wild species could cut down on people being killed by their "pets". I'm not saying that one should keep tigers or the like but it is going to happen. It would be better for communities if those animals weren't as aggressive. This is one of the few things that I think should be regulated: large, dangerous animals.

Actually, if they could miniaturize those types of animals that would be better. This could mean that wild ones will be left alone more than they are.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Dingo domestication is a touchy issue in Australia. They can and have cooperated with humans (many believe they were actually brought down through South-East Asia by the first humans who migrated into the region), but are very feral (wild?). However, they (apparently) can be tamed if rigorously trained prior to 6 months of age.

Although they are feral compared to domestic dogs, the very fact that they were brought through East-Asia by humans suggests that they were tamed to some extent, and it is true that some indigenous groups historically tamed dingoes to various extent, from infancy alone to full adulthood. The very root word of Dingo, 'tingo' is actually the word used in the Port Jackson indigenous languages for 'tame', indicating that domestication was not considered too large of a problem.


Other amazing unlikely best friends include the domestication of Hyenas in West Africa and Somalia, and of - I'm not even kidding here - crocodile domestication by a particular tribe in Mali.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Good catch. I learned something today. I think that domesticating certain wild species could cut down on people being killed by their "pets". I'm not saying that one should keep tigers or the like but it is going to happen. It would be better for communities if those animals weren't as aggressive. This is one of the few things that I think should be regulated: large, dangerous animals.

Actually, if they could miniaturize those types of animals that would be better. This could mean that wild ones will be left alone more than they are.

Unfortunately I think the appeal of owning tigers and the like is the danger factor so I don't think miniaturizing and domesticating them would put an end to idiots buying stolen wild animals and putting the animal and their neighbors at risk. There was one here in Ohio that practically had his own zoo, which he decided to let out into his neighborhood right before he put a gun in his mouth. This led to the police overracting a little and killing a bunch of rare and I think some endangered species that were running lose. I'm not sure what a long term solution for that problem would be.

[The Jay]

Exactly, I was just saying that in terms of mitigation of risk as opposed to the elimination of it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, this was quite a famous feat from the USSR IIRC.

[DasFapital]

I read somewhere that they found evidence of people attempting to tame ground sloths in South America (Patagonia I think) circa 12000 years ago. Apparently they tried to corral them in caves and raise them like cattle. I'm guessing it probably didn't work out too well.

[Marshal of the People]

That was so cool!

[Remus Bleys]

Isn't this project dying away because of lack of funding?

[Crabbensmasher]

I always thought that taming was different than domesticating.

Wasn't it that taming is when an animal can be tamed, but it's offspring are not. Domestication when said animal's offspring are born tame as well. I'm not so sure anymore

[La Guaneña]

oh jesus that is so cute

[Sasha]

Yeah, the experiment has raised some really intresting results, the domesticated line their noses are retracting, their ears are dropping, exactly the kind of things in which many dog breeds differ from wolves even though the researchers where not selecting on this.
The foxes are even starting to make "barking" noises (another thing dogs do and wolves dont) so the researchers are starting to think that dog barking is actually an imitation of human speech.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah, the experiment has raised some really intresting results, the domesticated line their noses are retracting, their ears are dropping, exactly the kind of things in which many dog breeds differ from wolves even though the researchers where not selecting on this.

Tails shortening and becoming more "dog like", as well.

[Sasha]

Tails shortening and becoming more "dog like", as well.

you ever heard how fast escaped domesticated pigs become wild hog like again? its really cool.
it doesnt even take generations, if you take a pig from a stable and drop it in a forrest it will in a matter of weeks start to regrow fur, get longer teeth etc etc.
i believe it was only two generations and the only discernible difference between a wild hog and feral pigs is in the shape of the skull.
there is a lot more to domestication than just gene-selection.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I don't really buy into this whole "domestic vs. wild," paradigm. I think you can socialize animals, sure, you can even have varying degrees of socialization within whatever species, but domestication? What's that even mean, really?

I thought this was going to be about a theremin or rocket boots. :(

[Coatimundi]

The USSR also tried to domesticate Moose for use as military pack animals in the 30s.

[Sinister Intents]

This is so cool and interesting, It reminds me of people saying dogs were domesticated from wolves, perhaps it was the other way around and we domesticated entirely from foxes, and this is why we have mini dachsunds today.

[Sasha]

Foxes arent canines, they are closer related to bears I believe...
Edit; nevermind I'm wrong, they are caneide but a different line called vulpini instead of canines.

[Sinister Intents]

Foxes arent canines, they are closer related to bears I believe...
Edit; nevermind I'm wrong, they are caneide but a different line called vulpini instead of canines.

Yeah, I looked it up as well and found this: Dog Evolution. (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/Prehistoric-Dogs-The-Story-Of-Dog-Evolution.htm) Bit drunk, but I thought it might tie in. :)

[Os Cangaceiros]

I thought this was going to be about a theremin or rocket boots. :(

The former USSR also developed a couple interesting examples of anxiolytic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenazepam) drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picamilon)


you ever heard how fast escaped domesticated pigs become wild hog like again?

No, that's interesting though. I know that domesticated dogs can actually survive surprisingly well in the wild, though. Even smaller breeds you wouldn't expect.

[Lily Briscoe]

you ever heard how fast escaped domesticated pigs become wild hog like again? its really cool.
it doesnt even take generations, if you take a pig from a stable and drop it in a forrest it will in a matter of weeks start to regrow fur, get longer teeth etc etc.
Are you sure about this...

[Lily Briscoe]

Wolves actually do bark, btw. So do coyotes...

[Sasha]

Are you sure about this...

It was on QI...

[Sinister Intents]

Wolves actually do bark, btw. So do coyotes...

I've noticed this of coyotes in my area, they're cute :) they certainly do bark but we predominantly hear them making yipping sounds.

[Lily Briscoe]

It was on QI...what is QI?


I always thought that taming was different than domesticating.

Wasn't it that taming is when an animal can be tamed, but it's offspring are not. Domestication when said animal's offspring are born tame as well.
I think this is pretty much right.


there is a lot more to domestication than just gene-selection.


I don't really buy into this whole "domestic vs. wild," paradigm. I think you can socialize animals, sure, you can even have varying degrees of socialization within whatever species, but domestication? What's that even mean, really?(

These seem like strange posts to make considering the results that these experiments have yielded.


I've noticed this of coyotes in my area, they're cute :) they certainly do bark but we predominantly hear them making yipping sounds.

Yeah the ones around here don't bark too often either, but every 4th of July, they go insane over the fireworks.

[Zukunftsmusik]

what is QI?

A British infotainment (?) show with Stpehen Fry. Fry asks questions related to science, a panel answers and/or makes jokes.

[Sasha]

and they are super anal about getting their facts right, they have been taking points away from returning guests 3 seasons later because since then an answer they gave 3 years ago turned out to be incorrect.
its a really cool show.

[Sasha]

These seem like strange posts to make considering the results that these experiments have yielded.

why? i think its very clear that nurture, the way we treat animals, how far we welcome them into our households, their role, etc etc are as important as just selecting on tame characteristics.
ofcourse gene's are important too, its possible to create vicious dog breeds that no amount of social interaction can make safe for example but the example i gave already of the pigs for who their lack of fur and tusks seem to be a response to how we house, feed and treat them instead of an genetic trait (and therefor is reversible if they become feral) says a lot about the intricate and complex things that are involved with domestication.
this recent study about cats for example i though was interesting and related to the topic at hand: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cats-recognise-their-owners-voices-but-never-evolved-to-care-says-study-8966580.html

[Sasha]

Also, just look at humans, no one would say that the reason well off people are more healthy and on average have higher IQs is genetic, the circumstances in which we grow up are at least as important in shaping us as our genes, why should that be different for other animals?

[Brotto Rühle]

Best thing the USSR did? No, not foxes...collapsing.

[Lily Briscoe]

@psycho

I'm not someone who thinks everything ever is genetically programmed, and obviously there is always an interplay between genetic and environmental factors. But as far as domestication goes, it seems pretty obvious that gene-selection is the defining thing, and I'm not really finding your one example about pigs regrowing fur--which, from a google search, seems to be very poorly documented and I'm not turning up any evidence that it's actually been tested--to be a convincing counter-argument at all. I mean, just from the example in the OP:

As Lyudmilla Trut says in her 1999 American Scientist article [1], The least domesticated foxes, those that flee from experimenters or bite when stroked or handled, are assigned to Class III. Foxes in Class II let themselves be petted and handled but show no emotionally friendly response to experimenters. Foxes in Class I are friendly toward experimenters, wagging their tails and whining. In the sixth generation bred for tameness we had to add an even higher-scoring category. Members of Class IE, the "domesticated elite," are eager to establish human contact, whimpering to attract attention and sniffing and licking experimenters like dogs. They start displaying this kind of behavior before they are one month old. By the tenth generation, 18 percent of fox pups were elite; by the 20th, the figure had reached 35 percent. Today elite foxes make up 70 to 80 percent of our experimentally selected population.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't really buy into this whole "domestic vs. wild," paradigm.

Then what's your explanation for what happened in the USSR with the foxes?


I think you can socialize animals, sure, you can even have varying degrees of socialization within whatever species, but domestication? What's that even mean, really?

Domestication is what happens when humans take a species of wild animal and alter its phenotype over generations through artificial selection, breeding for traits that humans find useful. This doesn't require technology; all one has to do is make sure that offspring with desirable traits get to reproduce while those without them are kept out of the local gene pool. Within generations one will end up with a genetically distinct population of animals that will display the desired traits more often than not.

Seriously, have you never wondered what makes the difference between all the various breeds of dog and the wolf stock from which they are descended?

It's not a "paradigm". This is science, not some post-modernist wankfest. Even if it's not all down to genes, the growth of organisms is still a concrete process fully within the bounds of developmental biology.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Then what's your explanation for what happened in the USSR with the foxes?

From what I understand, it seems to buttressed by the idea that behavior is inextricably linked to biology, therefore, we just keep letting the nice ones fuck each other and there you have it, which seems to minimalize the psychological impact of socialization and "nurture."

Animal psychology in particular dog psychology is pretty interesting and aside from specifically, the breeding aspect of the experiment, I would want to know the exact conditions, diet, medicines, etc. each class of fox was given/exposed too. How did the handlers interact with them and so on. I mean, you've seen Dog Whisperer, no? He definitely pokes a lot of holes into the idea, that some dogs are "just born killers," such as pitbulls, dobermans, chows, etc.


This doesn't require technology; all one has to do is make sure that offspring with desirable traits get to reproduce while those without them are kept out of the local gene pool. Within generations one will end up with a genetically distinct population of animals that will display the desired traits more often than not.Yeah but isn't this like saying, if you continue to let criminals breed with other criminals their just going to inherently produce more criminals because the "evil," is in the "blood," as it were? So, if we want to get reduce crime, we simply begin sterilizing criminals, vagabonds, etc. and those with undesirable traits?


Seriously, have you never wondered what makes the difference between all the various breeds of dog and the wolf stock from which they are descended?I have but what's this have to do with what we're talking about? I mean, I'm not saying genetics have no impact on anything or "fuck nature," or anything, I want to be clear on that. To me the studies kind of speak more on genetic predisposition to various behaviors (both pathological or otherwise) in relation to overall psychology; if anything. Which goes back to my comments on socialization and so on.

Oh, and what of the pigs, psycho keeps mentioning? What about them, then?

[Prometeo liberado]

Didn't the Soviets also invent the idiom and the infield fly rule? Pretty sure they did, pretty sure.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

From what I understand, it seems to buttressed by the idea that behavior is inextricably linked to biology, therefore, we just keep letting the nice ones fuck each other and there you have it, which seems to minimalize the psychological impact of socialization and "nurture."

Animal psychology in particular dog psychology is pretty interesting and aside from specifically, the breeding aspect of the experiment, I would want to know the exact conditions, diet, medicines, etc. each class of fox was given/exposed too. How did the handlers interact with them and so on. I mean, you've seen Dog Whisperer, no? He definitely pokes a lot of holes into the idea, that some dogs are "just born killers," such as pitbulls, dobermans, chows, etc.

My understanding is that so-called "killer breeds" of dog are being mischaracterised by the mainstream media, which make money off of spreading sensationalism rather than disseminating the unvarnished facts. Such breeds of dog can be protective and territorial, but exactly how that protective territoriality manifests would depend on the experiences of the animal in question.

Any animal can be brutalised, even domesticated ones bred specifically for docility. Even cows (http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/events/department-news/1195/forget-sharks-cows-are-more-likely-to-kill-you/).


Yeah but isn't this like saying, if you continue to let criminals breed with other criminals their just going to inherently produce more criminals because the "evil," is in the "blood," as it were? So, if we want to get reduce crime, we simply begin sterilizing criminals, vagabonds, etc. and those with undesirable traits?

Well, no. Because crime is more complicated than that. For a start, not all criminal acts are "evil" (is smoking weed "evil"?), and not all criminal acts are inherently aggressive (smoking weed again, but also stealing from someone's house while they're absent does not require personal aggression on the part of the perp).

Further, I think it's manifestly obvious that people can be driven to crime by environmental circumstances outside their personal control.

Another thing to consider is that the gene pool of humanity is both global and hard to control. Humans have this darndest tendency to reproduce with whoever they damn well please, and any attempt to shape the gene pool in a particular direction without a widespread consensus lasting generations is doomed to fail. Notice that despite the presence of eugenic practices in the past, we're no closer to eliminating genetic diseases than before?

Even if a eugenics policy is a genuine attempt to better the gene pool rather than just ethnic/social cleansing masquerading as one, there are still complications such as recessive conditions wherein healthy individuals can act as "carriers".

To be honest, if eliminating genetic infirmity is the goal, then why not use something like embryo selection or gene therapy to correct any problems in vivo? That benefits both society as well as the individual, who gets to go on without having their reproductive rights trampled on.


I have but what's this have to do with what we're talking about? I mean, I'm not saying genetics have no impact on anything or "fuck nature," or anything, I want to be clear on that. To me the studies kind of speak more on genetic predisposition to various behaviors (both pathological or otherwise) in relation to overall psychology; if anything. Which goes back to my comments on socialization and so on.

Except that the differences between the foxes in the experiment go beyond behavioural.


Oh, and what of the pigs, psycho keeps mentioning? What about them, then?

You mean the pigs for which nobody has found primary evidence?

[Sasha]

Actually a cursory google search finds quite a lot of articles;

However, Ed explains, "It really wouldn't be much different if these were escaped domestic or 'pet' pigs, as even these will revert back to their wild state in a relatively short time. And that doesn't mean the next generation-the actual escapee will begin to grow hair and tusks in the wild." I'm astounded at this news, and yet the biologist in me is fascinated.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/85018.html


[ It is interesting to note that these few studies have been done only on domestic pigs. The difference between domestic pigs, clever as they may be, and their wild counterparts is striking. When the wild boar became the domestic pig, its brain became 20% smaller, its head shrank, its legs grew shorter, and its body lengthened – all new adaptations to a life no longer spent on the run from potential predators. Their ears often became floppy, resulting in less acute hearing (in fact, floppy ears were deliberately selected by farmers, as floppy-eared pigs tend to be more docile). Their coarse, long body hair, including bristles and manes, became finer and softer, and there was now a lot less of it. Their tails curled. Piglets of domestic sows were no longer striped. The skull lost its adornments like tusks, the snout became shortened, teeth crowded the lower jaw, and the forehead steepened, giving domestic pigs a dished face.

Amazingly, when barnyard hogs become feral, all these domestic adaptations are quickly reversed; changes in the size and shape of the skull occur within a single generation as the pig brain starts to grow again. The head becomes longer, the snout straighter and narrower. The coat becomes denser; the hair grows more bristly, as does the pig’s attitude. It seems that after all those millennia, the wild boar material still lurks in the genes of domestic pigs.

Porky, Piglet, Wilbur, Freddy and Napoleon are one unlocked gate away from becoming all that they can be.

Heaven


http://www.9sites.org/newsletters/docent.htm

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There's enough room in the complexity of biology for multiple explanations to be true. For example, human sexuality is determined by multiple factors, including biological genetic and hormonal, particularly during the fetal developmental period) and environmental (sociological, psychological, or early uterine environment).

I find it interesting that floppy-earedness is correlated strongly enough with docility in pigs to make selecting for such a trait a sensible option in breeding them. That suggests a complicated genetic relationship between traits that might seem otherwise unrelated.

So eugenically-bred humans could end up looking different even if the favoured traits had nothing to do with appearance.