Why White Tigers Should Go Extinct(slate.com)
slate.com
Why White Tigers Should Go Extinct
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/white_tiger_controversy_zoos_shouldn_t_raise_these_inbred_ecologically_irrelevant.html
80 comments
Applying this to humans would mean if we were currently inbreeding slaves with Down syndrome to produce children with the same condition for entertainment purposes, that we should stop doing that. I'd agree.
Edit: Shenglong, just saw your response under this post's sibling. The point is not that the author argues for the human-led removal of unnecessary traits. It's that we should not spread misinformation and continue to go out of our way to create those traits. In the specific case of the white tiger, such behavior results in really harmful genetic defects that could result in the extinction of tigers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_tiger#Genetic_defects).
Edit: Shenglong, just saw your response under this post's sibling. The point is not that the author argues for the human-led removal of unnecessary traits. It's that we should not spread misinformation and continue to go out of our way to create those traits. In the specific case of the white tiger, such behavior results in really harmful genetic defects that could result in the extinction of tigers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_tiger#Genetic_defects).
Did you even read the article? The tigers were intentionally inbred to spread this mutation. There is no analog of this in humans; inbreeding is unnecessary and does no tiger a favor by continuing it.
They really could have picked a better title. White tigers, being a mutation, will continue to happen naturally even if not selected for. (Much less frequently of course)
According to the Nature of Things, one in every 100,000. Considering how few tigers there are on the planet (less than 50,000) the chances of one naturally occurring are extremely small.
Come now, if it is one in every 100,000 and we've got 50,000 of them the odds are we get a white tiger every other generation.
Exactly. One has to realize what is being argued for, not going around the globe murdering white tigers, but to stop contiguously inbreeding them to maintain the strange white fur.
I'm not talking about the methodology; I'm talking about the results. The result of inbreeding is genetic insufficiency for survival - and there are a lot of human traits that have been preserved that are not fit for survival either. Yet, we don't forbid breeding for specific traits.
Generally humans and animals have different rights in terms of what they are allowed to decide wrt their breeding habits.
Additionally, humans FREQUENTLY choose to adopt rather than risk passing on a genetic abnormality to a biological child.
The only difference here is that we would be making the decision for the tigers since, as everyone would agree, they don't have the ability to understand the consequences and make the decision themselves.
Additionally, humans FREQUENTLY choose to adopt rather than risk passing on a genetic abnormality to a biological child.
The only difference here is that we would be making the decision for the tigers since, as everyone would agree, they don't have the ability to understand the consequences and make the decision themselves.
As long as frequently is considerably less than 1% of all births in the US (and significantly less in other parts of the world).
1.5-2% of children are adopted in the US. About 50% of those children's parents adopted due to infertility, of which an even smaller fraction is voluntary infertility.
I wouldn't say that is something that humans due frequently, and is probably limited to a small set of cultures, and an even smaller subset of parents with both the knowledge and fortitude to make that decision.
I'm an adoptive parent and know several dozen other adoptive families. I have never personally met someone who chose to adopt to avoid the risk of passing on genetic abnormalities.
1.5-2% of children are adopted in the US. About 50% of those children's parents adopted due to infertility, of which an even smaller fraction is voluntary infertility.
I wouldn't say that is something that humans due frequently, and is probably limited to a small set of cultures, and an even smaller subset of parents with both the knowledge and fortitude to make that decision.
I'm an adoptive parent and know several dozen other adoptive families. I have never personally met someone who chose to adopt to avoid the risk of passing on genetic abnormalities.
As an adoptive parent myself, I know several couples who chose to not pursue biological children because of genetic conditions.
Unfortunately, I also know some who chose to ignore the advice of their genetic counselor and now have 3 lovely, but severely mentally disabled children (Fragile X run amuck) who will never be able to live independently.
Unfortunately, I also know some who chose to ignore the advice of their genetic counselor and now have 3 lovely, but severely mentally disabled children (Fragile X run amuck) who will never be able to live independently.
I wasn't trying to imply it doesn't happen, only that it doesn't happen _frequently_.
Oh, you mean the way we did so with wolves to create the thousands of dog species that exist today. By this absurd logic, all dogs should go extinct.
Hmm, some purebred dogs yes. They can have quite awful lives because of genetic diseases. But domestication, besides the fact it was done by our pre-human ancestors, is not the same. Modern thinking sees the domestication of dogs more as a co-evolution of humans and dogs.
Dogs can function quite well in their natural environment (in close proximity to humans); white Bengal tigers will die very, very quickly in the wild. The mutation is non-adaptive.
Dogs are bred to live with humans. Tigers are not.
Maybe tigers "should" be? I know quite a few people who would gladly pay for the ability to have a domesticated tiger as a pet...
You mean like cats? (That's not a rhetorical question, by the way. When you domesticate tigers, would they be very different from what we now consider a cat?)
That's sort of the process we had to get the bengal (hybrid asian leopard cat and housecat), which is considered a domestic cat after 4 generations.
Same thing has been done with servals ("savannah cat"); I can only imagine how awesome/terrifying it would be with other lesser wild cats, although I think there are enough differences between the great cats and domestic cats to make it difficult/impossible to do naturally (tiger/cat or leopard/cat cross).
Same thing has been done with servals ("savannah cat"); I can only imagine how awesome/terrifying it would be with other lesser wild cats, although I think there are enough differences between the great cats and domestic cats to make it difficult/impossible to do naturally (tiger/cat or leopard/cat cross).
Thing is they're about 100x more dangerous than dogs.
But are they 100x more dangerous than the wolves from which domesticated dogs are descended?
A tiger on its own, and a wolf on its own? Yeah, probably. Wolves and tigers are both apex predators but wolves are pack animals.
And you can only domesticate a dog by hacking its pack instinct to make it follow you instead of another dog anyway. No such hook with a cat.
Didn't Siegfried and Roy hack the maternal instinct of female cats to achieve some semblance of domestication? I mean, it didn't work out very well of course, because a cat mauled Roy and nearly killed him by grabbing him by the neck (to drag him to safety, according to them) like she would a cub.
So, I think there is a hook. It's just a really shitty one. Note that the hook for dogs can backfire as well, if they try to assert pack dominance vs. their owner. So we breed really submissive dogs.
So, I think there is a hook. It's just a really shitty one. Note that the hook for dogs can backfire as well, if they try to assert pack dominance vs. their owner. So we breed really submissive dogs.
Tigers and especially lions are somewhat easy, not to domesticate per se but to befriend. I wouldn't really call this a hack the way domesticating dogs was a hack--they just seem willing to occasionally befriend humans the same way ordinary cats do.
Tigers and lions are very confident apex predators, so they don't really have the vicious instinct or the intense fear response that some animals have. So they don't deliberately attack humans. By contrast, leopards and jaguars will kill you out of sheer viciousness, bears will attack you if they feel threatened, and polar bears will attack you because they are hungry and you are made of meat.
The main danger with tigers and lions is that they don't really understand how fragile humans are, so they might accidentally kill or maim you, which happened to Roy.
Tigers and lions are very confident apex predators, so they don't really have the vicious instinct or the intense fear response that some animals have. So they don't deliberately attack humans. By contrast, leopards and jaguars will kill you out of sheer viciousness, bears will attack you if they feel threatened, and polar bears will attack you because they are hungry and you are made of meat.
The main danger with tigers and lions is that they don't really understand how fragile humans are, so they might accidentally kill or maim you, which happened to Roy.
[deleted]
"Go extinct" doesn't mean "be all killed" or "be violently sterilized". It means that we should stop breeding these unnatural and disadvantaged animals. The white tigers that exist would live comfortable lives in captivity (because they can't survive in the wild) and die naturally of age. Everything about their lives is already artificial, but animals don't seem to need or enjoy sex in the general sense in a way that humans do (they have no interest when not in heat) and therefore it's not inhumane to prevent them from breeding.
For a more severe and human example, people who have a high likelihood of carrying the recessive Taysach's gene are often tested. If they both are carriers, they adopt, rather than taking a 1-in-4 chance of having a child who will die horribly. If one is a carrier and the other is not, then it's no problem. No one is being sterilized; it's positive, voluntary eugenics and it's a good thing.
For a more severe and human example, people who have a high likelihood of carrying the recessive Taysach's gene are often tested. If they both are carriers, they adopt, rather than taking a 1-in-4 chance of having a child who will die horribly. If one is a carrier and the other is not, then it's no problem. No one is being sterilized; it's positive, voluntary eugenics and it's a good thing.
According to the Cincinnati zoo example, white tigers are apparently being bred for profit, and kept in captivity. So I'm unsure how they are disadvantaged anymore so than say pure-bred dogs with physical problems that mongrels don't tend to have.
Tu quoque.
Perhaps Dalmatians should be allowed to go extinct.
Perhaps Dalmatians should be allowed to go extinct.
Breeds with really severe genetic problems that make them miserable and completely unviable outside human care should be allowed to go extinct. It's not ethical.
It's an impossible battle. Too many people enjoy, for example, like that pugs have a fundamentally non-functional nose.
I don't think it's impossible, this seems like the kind of cultural change that is just an extension of the changes that have happened and are happening.
I've often wondered about examples like this.
To what extent can making yourself attractive or "cute" enough to have your existence furthered by another species be considered a successful form of adaptation?
To what extent can making yourself attractive or "cute" enough to have your existence furthered by another species be considered a successful form of adaptation?
Cats, I recall reading, "domesticated themselves" a long time ago. As a direct result, they are absurdly successful. Surely that's a valid adaptation.
Well ... if anyone was purposefully inbreeding humans so they had disfigurements that people would pay to look at then I would hope we would do the same thing suggested for the tigers. Stop doing that immediately.
I asked my wife what she knows about white tigers and she said, "Isn't it some sort of gene that makes them white, and aren't they kinda sick?" Better than I would have said before reading this.
As somebody who works for a 501c3... why is there such poor accountability that funding for species preservation is being used on white tigers? If I'm not mistaken, a lot of zoo money is nonprofit money. If we can prove to grant-writers and donors that the money is being used outside of what it was intended for normally the money dries up. Seems like that would solve the problem pretty quickly...
If you'd like more in depth look at the "American Tiger", check out the Nature of Things documentary of that title.
http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episode/american-tiger.html
It covers everything that's in this Slate article, but actually goes to the trouble of getting opinions from experts in the field of conservation, genetics, etc..
http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episode/american-tiger.html
It covers everything that's in this Slate article, but actually goes to the trouble of getting opinions from experts in the field of conservation, genetics, etc..
It doesn't work from the US. We just get a creepy voice that says, "This content is currently unavailable."
Have you seen pictures?
Here's one:
http://i.imgur.com/LEj1n.jpg
There's a lot more out there like this.
Here's one:
http://i.imgur.com/LEj1n.jpg
There's a lot more out there like this.
Just a thought: I wonder if we could help the awareness of white tigers by making a meme with a picture of a defect white tiger that look "fun". Similar to all of these [0]. By spreading the awareness of the white tiger more more people seek information on them and hopefully more would be enlighted of their bad shape.
[0] https://www.google.dk/search?q=animal+meme&hl=en&tbm...
[0] https://www.google.dk/search?q=animal+meme&hl=en&tbm...
What do you do then when people decide they are "cute", and we should breed even more?
It is fascinating how much of preservation effort is related to cuteness. If the animal is not cute, who cares. If you manage to snap a cute photo of it - get ready to get millions of financing.
I took in a cat from a shelter that looked worse than that. No shit. Its face had a tumor from birth to the point it couldn't meow - just make farting noises, much to everyone's amusement.
I'd like to schutzhund train one. Or maybe it's schutzkatze?
There are less than four thousand tigers in total in the wild. Not white tigers, any tigers. That's shocking.
In a few decades there probably won't be any.
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/tigers/ab...
In a few decades there probably won't be any.
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/tigers/ab...
Its true, and maybe irrelevant. There is no place for tigers on a settled planet. We have many uses for land, and letting fabulously dangerous carnivores randomly wander huge tracts is one of the less important ones.
I know there are ecological arguments. Maybe those are meaningful some places, but for an Iowa farm boy they are ludicrous. This continent (North American great plains anyway) has been 'reformatted' several times in the last 500 years. There has been no permanent catastrophic ecological collapse; no runaway doomsday scenario has occurred.
Sure there was a dust storm in Oklahoma (ok, hundreds of them) in the '30s, which drove the science to understand and tame them, which has been done.
We are perfectly capable of 'terraforming' our own planet, and are doing so at an accelerating, perhaps unstoppable rate.
I can only conclude, tigers are doomed. Zoos are amusing; you may argue they're cruel or whatnot but its the only place your grandchildren will be viewing tigers at all so factor that into your outrage.
Anyway, with genetic programming we'll be able to have dwarf pink polka-dotted tigers that fetch your slippers if you want, so really what does it matter? The accidental population of our planet when we 'discovered' it are really of no consequence, compared to what we will be doing with it in the future.
I know there are ecological arguments. Maybe those are meaningful some places, but for an Iowa farm boy they are ludicrous. This continent (North American great plains anyway) has been 'reformatted' several times in the last 500 years. There has been no permanent catastrophic ecological collapse; no runaway doomsday scenario has occurred.
Sure there was a dust storm in Oklahoma (ok, hundreds of them) in the '30s, which drove the science to understand and tame them, which has been done.
We are perfectly capable of 'terraforming' our own planet, and are doing so at an accelerating, perhaps unstoppable rate.
I can only conclude, tigers are doomed. Zoos are amusing; you may argue they're cruel or whatnot but its the only place your grandchildren will be viewing tigers at all so factor that into your outrage.
Anyway, with genetic programming we'll be able to have dwarf pink polka-dotted tigers that fetch your slippers if you want, so really what does it matter? The accidental population of our planet when we 'discovered' it are really of no consequence, compared to what we will be doing with it in the future.
There has been a number of mass extinction events in world history, the most well known being the extinction of the dinosaurs. That much impact on an ecosystem all at once had massive, unpredictable effects.
At current rates, we are currently experiencing a mass extinction event worse than the one that killed the dinosaurs. I am not fond of making large, random changes to complex systems that affect us.
At current rates, we are currently experiencing a mass extinction event worse than the one that killed the dinosaurs. I am not fond of making large, random changes to complex systems that affect us.
> At current rates, we are currently experiencing a mass extinction event worse than the one that killed the dinosaurs.
Interesting assertion. Got a citation for that?
Interesting assertion. Got a citation for that?
We get into value questions really quickly. It is hard to spell them out explicitly.
For example if 90% of land is used for farming and cities, why not save the rest 10% for wild animals? The gain from changing that into farmland as well seems minimal, but the loss very large - it can be complete for those species that are destroyed.
I've never understood the very hard line against forest conservation in my country either. If the environmental folks are proposing 5 to 10 percent of forests being put under conservation, is that such a big loss to the economy? For many species that live in old forests there might be only a few habitats left in the country.
What is the ultimate objective, or the meaning of life? Maximizing human biomass? Does that goal justify us to destroy everything else in process? Do tigers really have no value for you whatsoever?
I've seen big cats in the zoo and it seems they have gone mentally insane, repeating same movements etc.
We have brown bears over here. You're lucky to see one as they are really good at avoiding people. I don't think people have problems with them unless they (the people) do something stupid. Mites, wasps, dogs and horses kill much more people every year.
For example if 90% of land is used for farming and cities, why not save the rest 10% for wild animals? The gain from changing that into farmland as well seems minimal, but the loss very large - it can be complete for those species that are destroyed.
I've never understood the very hard line against forest conservation in my country either. If the environmental folks are proposing 5 to 10 percent of forests being put under conservation, is that such a big loss to the economy? For many species that live in old forests there might be only a few habitats left in the country.
What is the ultimate objective, or the meaning of life? Maximizing human biomass? Does that goal justify us to destroy everything else in process? Do tigers really have no value for you whatsoever?
I've seen big cats in the zoo and it seems they have gone mentally insane, repeating same movements etc.
We have brown bears over here. You're lucky to see one as they are really good at avoiding people. I don't think people have problems with them unless they (the people) do something stupid. Mites, wasps, dogs and horses kill much more people every year.
It's funny that this is panda.org, since panda's are another species likely to go extinct without human intervention (they are dysfunctional in their ability to mate once captured), and intervention appears to be mainly based on cuteness
I thought the white tigers were Siberian tigers. Thanks for the information.
Many of the venues that display white tigers have a long
history of shading the truth about their mutants.
The real crime is misinformation. If everyone read this article the problem would go away.
You're assuming that with correct information comes correct/moral behavior, and that it's clear what that behavior is.
I don't accept the premise that whatever man touches is somehow automatically tainted or corrupted. Nor do I accept the premise that man is somehow unnatural. All things, including men, obey the laws of thermodynamics.
There is no problem with man changing the course of nature. Why not release some white tigers and actually see how they evolve, instead of simply assuming that they won't thrive?
There is no problem with man changing the course of nature. Why not release some white tigers and actually see how they evolve, instead of simply assuming that they won't thrive?
>I don't accept the premise that whatever man touches is somehow automatically tainted or corrupted. Nor do I accept the premise that man is somehow unnatural.
I accept both, and especially the second, but I'm not anti-human or anything. It's just that we have really, really, rocketed past the rest of life on Earth, evolutionarily speaking. We destroy species, entire ecosystems, accidentally with little effort and often without even noticing until after the fact, if we notice at all. We are probably within the next 100-500 years going to reach a point where the existence of other life on Earth is not necessary for our survival. We have already passed the point where we can kill off most of it, perhaps all.
So, I don't know if you could say we have a "responsibility" to other life on Earth (although I tend to think we do), but, if we want to keep it around in anything resembling its current form, we do have to consider ourselves as apart from it in some sense. If we engage the rest of life on Earth as equals, we will likely kill most or all of it off, because there really is no contest.
I accept both, and especially the second, but I'm not anti-human or anything. It's just that we have really, really, rocketed past the rest of life on Earth, evolutionarily speaking. We destroy species, entire ecosystems, accidentally with little effort and often without even noticing until after the fact, if we notice at all. We are probably within the next 100-500 years going to reach a point where the existence of other life on Earth is not necessary for our survival. We have already passed the point where we can kill off most of it, perhaps all.
So, I don't know if you could say we have a "responsibility" to other life on Earth (although I tend to think we do), but, if we want to keep it around in anything resembling its current form, we do have to consider ourselves as apart from it in some sense. If we engage the rest of life on Earth as equals, we will likely kill most or all of it off, because there really is no contest.
Where is the assumption? How will a tiger that can be easily spotted, is cross eyed and has problems including kidney failure supposed to survive in the wild?
From an evolutionary standpoint, all that matters is that the tiger is able to reproduce. If it isn't, an attempt to introduce the breed somewhere will fail. No big deal.
...unless you hold the tiger in your mind in the same way you would your own house cat. But that's warped, because a house cat can't and won't eat you.
I still think the claims of all these problems with captive tigers are overblown. Animals in the wild have plenty of health problems. The difference is that there aren't nearly as many people scrutinizing and treating them.
...unless you hold the tiger in your mind in the same way you would your own house cat. But that's warped, because a house cat can't and won't eat you.
I still think the claims of all these problems with captive tigers are overblown. Animals in the wild have plenty of health problems. The difference is that there aren't nearly as many people scrutinizing and treating them.
Except there are plenty of healthy wild animals and zero healthy white tigers. So, in the wild ALL white tigers are unable to survive long enough to reproduce.
Suitable habitat is a limited resource. It might be a big deal wasting it on white tigers (or it might be a big deal wasting the political energy required to do the reintroduction on doomed animals).
…a house cat can't and won't eat you…
Never say never:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1922/will-cats-eat-...
Never say never:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1922/will-cats-eat-...
[deleted]
Did you read the article? It clearly states that the "species" is unstable, prone to health problems and has major reproductive issues. What do you expect is going to happen if they are in the wild?
Well, that's true of a lot of dog breeds, especially ones with very long or very short noses. Massive reproductive issues and would not survive in the wild.
French bulldogs have to be almost exclusively birthed by C-section, because their heads are so big, and the females typically need to be inseminated by artificial insemination, because the males have a very hard time mounting females.
But they're very popular and widespread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Bulldog#Health
French bulldogs have to be almost exclusively birthed by C-section, because their heads are so big, and the females typically need to be inseminated by artificial insemination, because the males have a very hard time mounting females.
But they're very popular and widespread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Bulldog#Health
Yes, but dogs are domesticated animals we enjoy keeping as pets, not untamed wild animals we're discussing releasing into natural environments.
Also, while some dog breeds are indeed endangered (or newly extinct) on the verge of extinction[1], many are dramatically overpopulated beyond sustainable proportions.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahltan_Bear_Dog [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extinct_dog_breeds
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahltan_Bear_Dog [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extinct_dog_breeds
But nobody is saying "We are breeding these wolves that have been led down a genetic path that makes them unable to survive without man's help to save the wolves in the wild". It is also highly unlikely that any dog breeding programs are taking any resources away from wolf conservation, but that is exactly what is happening in the white tiger case.
Release them where? And to "thrive" like the general tiger population?
Nothing in this article posits the premises you argue against.
Nothing in this article posits the premises you argue against.
> I don't accept the premise that whatever man touches is somehow automatically tainted or corrupted.
That is not what the author is pointing to at all! Nothing even remotely close to it.
> There is no problem with man changing the course of nature.
Of course not, look at all the dogs we have. Not many have issues with it. But some of the breeds are just bred for humans to go "awww", that we do not consider how many of these breeds have high risk of disease and death.
> Why not release some white tigers and actually see how they evolve, instead of simply assuming that they won't thrive?
There are already 4000 tigers in the wild. The author is not asking for planned execution, but to put an end to the inbreeding programs disguised as "conservation efforts". Also the gene in the wild for thousands of years before humans started breeding them selectively. And that gene did not win out the evolutionary race.
That is not what the author is pointing to at all! Nothing even remotely close to it.
> There is no problem with man changing the course of nature.
Of course not, look at all the dogs we have. Not many have issues with it. But some of the breeds are just bred for humans to go "awww", that we do not consider how many of these breeds have high risk of disease and death.
> Why not release some white tigers and actually see how they evolve, instead of simply assuming that they won't thrive?
There are already 4000 tigers in the wild. The author is not asking for planned execution, but to put an end to the inbreeding programs disguised as "conservation efforts". Also the gene in the wild for thousands of years before humans started breeding them selectively. And that gene did not win out the evolutionary race.
Why in the would we introduce an artificial species to compete with existing endangered species in a shrinking ecosystem?
After reading this, I googled to confirm that white elephants, which I thought to be natural too, are indeed natural. They are.
Wow. All these days I was thinking that white tiger is a natural habitant of siberia.
The question here, as I understand, is not whether breeding programmes are ethical, but whether misleading the general population with false information is ethical.
Is it ethical to ask for donations or ticket prices to zoos by giving people the impression that their money will (partially) go to conservation efforts, while the money is spent to breed animals that cannot survive in the wild but only for "marketing" purposes?
Is it ethical to ask for donations or ticket prices to zoos by giving people the impression that their money will (partially) go to conservation efforts, while the money is spent to breed animals that cannot survive in the wild but only for "marketing" purposes?
This article clarified in my mind what it was that had been bothering me about slate.com. It is tabloid for "sophisticates".
Slate keeps impressing me with thought-provoking articles.
Or they could do what cattlemen do: systematic outbreeding, and culling of defectives. Excessive inbreeding is not the only choice.
I'm trying to understand the moral implications here. The author paints a very heart-touching and grim picture, and it's tempting to agree. But what happens when you apply this to humans?