« Interview with Glenn Reynolds, Part I | Main | Quote of the Day »
22 June 2009 9:58 AM
The Coming Pet Revolution
Admit it, you want a baby polar bear. Or perhaps a baby snow seal. A lion cub? A miniature elephant? An infant grizzly? Though I cannot know your particular fancy -- this blog prides itself on its diverse audience -- my guess is that my average reader wouldn't hesitate to take on a wild animal pet, if only it would stay a baby.
Do you doubt that? Go here, here and here.
Of course, the fact is that all those animals will grow up into wild beasts, unfit for the urban apartment or suburban backyard. Once mature, they aren't even much fun for cuddling (though I admit there are exceptions).
But here's a prediction. Within our lifetimes, genetic engineering will bring us wild animals that stay babies, in body if not in mind. In fact, I expect that sometime before I die, I'll click onto YouTube or its equivalent, search "pet polar bear," and see the inevitable baby polar bear given a Coca Cola bottle by its Cola Wars generation owner.
Is there a consumer desire for this sort of thing? Informal market research suggests this phenomenon tests quite well in the influential "intelligent, attractive, charismatic woman who likes to roll around the floor with pets" demographic. So the perfect spokesperson stands ready. All that remains is the science (and the objections from PETA, the Vatican, and sundry others). Would you take a perma-baby animal as pet? If so, what animal?
Skeptics are also welcome to comment. Would perma-baby animals be a bad/unnatural/catastrophic development? Why?
Comments (5)
Comments on this entry have been closed.
If they stayed babies, they wouldn't be able to reproduce, right? Wouldn't it be weird to create a bunch of baby animals belonging to endangered species, and keep them in a state that forecloses the opportunity for them to breed? Moreover, while I might concede that you could create miniature versions of these animals, I doubt you could freeze them in an infant state for the duration of their lives. You'd have to stop their cells from dividing and organs from fully developing. Finally, I wouldn't be a respectably shrill commenter if I didn't ask what's to stop people from doing this to human babies if the technology exists for animals? Perhaps few parents would want to keep a child in diapers forever, but there may very well be a desire to prolong certain stages of their lives.
"Wouldn't it be weird to create a bunch of baby animals belonging to endangered species, and keep them in a state that forecloses the opportunity for them to breed?"
If you're a biotech company that invents the method, this seems like a feature, not a bug.
Yes, this has terrifying implications for humans. There should be a law! (One day, anyway...)
Techniques based on the idea your talking about haven't been very well developed yet, but there already has been - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Treatment
And here I thought I'd invented Perma-Puppies... le sigh.