I
<<Yes, but you can see some of their reasoning on the latter, no? I mean, if
you breed for certain traits you might produce a dog that has trouble
breathing (as in pugs), hip problems (in the larger breeds), and other
quality of life issues.>>
Actually, I would tend to agree that these are bad things, though usually unintended consequences of the desired trait. I would argue that breeding should focus on rectifying these maladaptations that cause dogs so much trouble. You could use genetic engineering to speed up the process. Of course, your fixes to the problems may also have unintended side effects<g>.
<<Uplifting would, hopefully, differ in that the goal is not to breed for
some
superficial trait. Nor once we get an uplifted organism would we continue
to uplift it -- unless it agrees.>>
I suppose intelligence can't be considered that superficial<g>, though I see no reason not to breed for superficial traits as long as they are beneficial or neutral in their effects on the species well-being. And of course, once an uplifted organism is raised to maturity, it becomes master of its own destiny.
<< That's why I typed my last sentence in the above quoted paragraph as I
did.
Notably, the domestication process itself was a form of niche exploitation.
However, one the domestication was over, humans were able to, as they became
more aware of what selective breeding (and now genetic engineering) can do,
take more control over the process. Still, humans are not outside
evolution.:)>>
I would agree with this.
<< There's an Erik Frank Russell short story the name of which escapes me that has dogs using humans to take over an alien race. For some strange reason, I'm more suspicious of cats.:)
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/ >>
Perhaps because the dogs have us all fooled<bg>.
Glen Finney