Talking pets?

[Tvtyrant]

Smart dogs can understand over 200 commands, and while I don't know how smart cats are I imagine they know a fair number.

With recent upgrades to genetic splicing how long do people reckon before we add voice boxes to dogs and cats? Will you be buying a talking dog when they do?

[halfeye]

Smart dogs can understand over 200 commands, and while I don't know how smart cats are I imagine they know a fair number.

With recent upgrades to genetic splicing how long do people reckon before we add voice boxes to dogs and cats? Will you be buying a talking dog when they do?

Language is (in) a separate part of the brain, it's not that related to vision or sound, though obviously there are connections. I don't think we understand the DNA of the brain very well, and identifying the language bit amongst all of that is something that will take a long time, because it's obviouly complicated, even when we do understand most of it.

[Knaight]

CRISPR isn't magic, and the state of genetic testing is nowhere near what would be needed to deliberately introduce new anatomical features to multicellular organisms. This isn't a case of making a protein by inserting the DNA sequence that makes that protein, and even doing that is unreliable - which is fine, when you need some of your e. coli that you can breed in a day to get it and can kill the rest off with an antibiotic (generally the DNA sequence you want also gives resistance to that same antibiotic), then keep breeding the ones you want. That's less fine when you're looking at a cat, and while it is still used (e.g. medical research where GFP is used as an indicator for changes, hence glowing cats) it's less than ideal here.

In short we don't know what steps to take, but we do know that whatever those steps are the process to do it isn't there.

[Peelee]

Imean, let's just assume that CRISPR is magic and can do this. Dogs and cats are still nowhere near us in terms of cognition. If we could make them communicate been to us in human speech, it would probably be things like "FOOD" or "POOP" or "ALARM." Not much different than how cats can use different sounds to mean these different things to begin with.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Not much different than how cats can use different sounds to mean these different things to begin with.

Heck, you can't beat how well a cat communicates "Why is this door closed? I want freedom of movement through this archway"

Grey Wolf

[georgie_leech]

Heck, you can't beat how well a cat communicates "Why is this door closed? I want freedom of movement through this archway"

Grey Wolf

"What? I didn't say I wanted to go through it. Just that the door was an unconscionable obstacle in the event that I did. Hmph."

[Knaight]

"What? I didn't say I wanted to go through it. Just that the door was an unconscionable obstacle in the event that I did. Hmph."

Clearly we've met different cats. I've seen more along the lines of "Good, now I can position half my body outside, and spend the next several minutes thinking about whether I want to actually move the rest of the way out. What? Why are you hurrying me, human?"

[Berserk Mecha]

What's the point of trying to figure out what dogs are saying? It's pretty easy to assume:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_-yQCb89nNs/Ws4ps_iR1fI/AAAAAAAAm5s/_SPk7OMBJKsvt4UODWzc_oLcZ2X9_RmvgCLcBGAs/s1600/Farside_-_Canine_Decoder.gif

[Tvtyrant]

Imean, let's just assume that CRISPR is magic and can do this. Dogs and cats are still nowhere near us in terms of cognition. If we could make them communicate been to us in human speech, it would probably be things like "FOOD" or "POOP" or "ALARM." Not much different than how cats can use different sounds to mean these different things to begin with.

Right, exactly. It's not like you need speech at that point, but I'm certain people will buy them when they get made. I am still amazed glow in the dark plants haven't become commercially viable.

[Telok]

Right, exactly. It's not like you need speech at that point, but I'm certain people will buy them when they get made. I am still amazed glow in the dark plants haven't become commercially viable.

What I'm waiting for is the viral/CRISPER version of tattoos. You know there are people who (probably while drunk) will get the glow-in-the-dark <insert bodily fluid/ejecta here> shot.

I mean, you thought the whole "wake up from a bender, find a new tat, wonder who Cindy is" thing was hilarious bad...

[Knaight]

What I'm waiting for is the viral/CRISPER version of tattoos. You know there are people who (probably while drunk) will get the glow-in-the-dark <insert bodily fluid/ejecta here> shot.

I mean, you thought the whole "wake up from a bender, find a new tat, wonder who Cindy is" thing was hilarious bad...

Going back to how CRISPR isn't magic (and neither are ERVs in general, which would be the major case for "viral") altering expressed DNA in a meaningful way in an adult organism is another one of those things we can't really do. If you were doing this to humans (and good luck getting that past review boards) you'd basically have to use egg/sperm cells, and even then there's all sorts of potential issues.

Just look at the attempts of biohackers, and how they've accomplished approximately nothing.

[Dodom]

Going back to how CRISPR isn't magic (and neither are ERVs in general, which would be the major case for "viral") altering expressed DNA in a meaningful way in an adult organism is another one of those things we can't really do. If you were doing this to humans (and good luck getting that past review boards) you'd basically have to use egg/sperm cells, and even then there's all sorts of potential issues.

Just look at the attempts of biohackers, and how they've accomplished approximately nothing.

For the previous example, glowing body secretion, it would be hypothetically possible to add that trait to a grown organism. We're not talking about a new structure, only a new chemical, a bit more complex than the dystrophin gene therapy currently in use(won't bother to look it up, but I assume that luciferin's synthesis requires multiple enzymes), but not by an impossible amount. It would have to be done via a viral vector, a modified retrovirus that would target the desired secretion cells (goblet cells? renal tubular cells?) and insert the selected genes.
And in a world where people had the ability to manufacture dubious cosmetic viral vectors, I imagine there would be rubbish, dangerous ones made. Right now, with only medical - and extensively tested - viral vectors, they still insert their payload in random locations on DNA. The risk of messing up the cell is acceptable given that those are made to cure terrible diseases, and the viruses are designed to be unable to replicate on their own. An imagined version made in someone's basement could keep its viral behaviour and cause disease and/or be contagious, new proteins added after the immune system is mature could cause the body to attack the modified cells, new synthesis products could cause a storage disorder if the body can't break them down, or the sloppy genetic alterations could cause cancer.
That could make a cool story though.


_____________________
Back to the original topic: Wouldn't it be more practical to develop modes of communication animals are already able to use with their current body and brain? Would a dog be able to associate concepts with pictures and tap them on a chart? Some service dogs are trained to speed-dial 9-1-1 if their human won't get up, so they can at least master the motions. Was it tried with more casual situations? Tap the solid triangle picture to say "follow me", that sort of things?

[LordEntrails]

With recent upgrades to genetic splicing how long do people reckon before we add voice boxes to dogs and cats? Will you be buying a talking dog when they do?
A thousand years. No, I'm pretty sure I will be dead by then.

[wumpus]

Going back to how CRISPR isn't magic (and neither are ERVs in general, which would be the major case for "viral") altering expressed DNA in a meaningful way in an adult organism is another one of those things we can't really do. If you were doing this to humans (and good luck getting that past review boards) you'd basically have to use egg/sperm cells, and even then there's all sorts of potential issues.

Just look at the attempts of biohackers, and how they've accomplished approximately nothing.

I wonder how long till you can buy a brand name dog/cat. Breeds tell you a great deal about what traits you can expect from a dog, but there are always exceptions. Clones could get rid of most of those variations (and appeal to those who just demand everything they own be "top brand").

The other thing I'd expect in the way of new pets are improved rabbits (more willingness to be picked and cuddled, less lethal constipation, less likely to use the house as a litterbox) and koalas (similar cuddliness, less stinkiness). Most of this is basic neoteny (young bunnies and joeys allow cuddling, but often grow out of it). Sadly, rabbit most rabbits are sold on Easter and don't live more than a month, so I don't expect much in the way of rabbit breeding for people not already determined to raise a "traditional" rabbit.

[Anymage]

I wonder how long till you can buy a brand name dog/cat. Breeds tell you a great deal about what traits you can expect from a dog, but there are always exceptions. Clones could get rid of most of those variations (and appeal to those who just demand everything they own be "top brand").

Genetically engineered to spec, or cloned?

The former is still the stuff of science fiction. The path from protein synthesis to final form is way too complex for us to practically understand. If you want a gross feature like the ability to form english words, I I'd bet that direct surgery or more likely cybernetics will be possible way before genetic engineering is.

Cloned pets are possible, but remember that few labs are going to go ahead without the express permission of the owner. Trying to get around that would require getting some viable genetic material without the owner knowing, which is tricky to say the least. Lab fees are going to be pricey to begin with, and owners will ask a lot to license prime genetic material if they're willing to at all. So I don't see mass-cloned pets being a thing.

There's also the matter of ethics boards behind anybody who has the resources to do these sorts of thing. I could possibly remove a dog's voice box and replace it with a speaker with a handful of english words/phrases. Probably even teach the dog how to use most of them appropriately. Good luck getting an operating suite in order to start the work.


The other thing I'd expect in the way of new pets are improved rabbits (more willingness to be picked and cuddled, less lethal constipation, less likely to use the house as a litterbox) and koalas (similar cuddliness, less stinkiness). Most of this is basic neoteny (young bunnies and joeys allow cuddling, but often grow out of it). Sadly, rabbit most rabbits are sold on Easter and don't live more than a month, so I don't expect much in the way of rabbit breeding for people not already determined to raise a "traditional" rabbit.

In theory, this could be done with a few decades of controlled breeding. It's been done with foxes. (Relevant link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_fox).) If you want to sink the time into it and think that the end product would wind up being commercially viable, give it a shot.

[wumpus]

Cloned pets are possible, but remember that few labs are going to go ahead without the express permission of the owner. Trying to get around that would require getting some viable genetic material without the owner knowing, which is tricky to say the least. Lab fees are going to be pricey to begin with, and owners will ask a lot to license prime genetic material if they're willing to at all. So I don't see mass-cloned pets being a thing.

First hit on duckduckgo was that the US spends $60 billion a year on pets, and with falling population growth I'd expect a similar number in the EU and any other wealthy country with relatively few children. Of course expecting a person to fork over the big bucks on a "designer pet" assumes that either they've had pets before (and understand just how much they cost) and/or they are sufficiently fashionable to justify forking over big bucks to keep up with the Joneses.

[Knaight]

First hit on duckduckgo was that the US spends $60 billion a year on pets, and with falling population growth I'd expect a similar number in the EU and any other wealthy country with relatively few children. Of course expecting a person to fork over the big bucks on a "designer pet" assumes that either they've had pets before (and understand just how much they cost) and/or they are sufficiently fashionable to justify forking over big bucks to keep up with the Joneses.

These expenses tend to fit certain categories though - a talking cat is a novelty, a vet trip for your cat you've had and loved for a decade when they get sick is very much not, and one of these things will pull out the big bucks much more easily than the other. Then there's pet food, which probably works out to the single biggest expense.