The Genetic Paradox

Recent animal welfare movements claim equal rights and treatments for animals, just like humans have. But can we really treat animals exactly the same as human beings?

The discovery of DNA was probably one of the most significant scientific achievements in the history of humanity, and for many reasons.
I remember that the process of detecting of the gene map was full of high expectations; we thought that it was just a matter of time before we became capable of locating the genes responsible for various health disorders, and we could even explain some of the many negative behaviours within human nature, such as addiction, aggression, or maniac depression. The dark side of human existence doctors have tried to treat for thousands of years. And most cases, we have tried so hard to get rid of these burdens.

But DNA, the basic element of any living organ, has proved to be much more complex and tricky than we could have ever thought. The more we have discovered, the more questions we still have.
Besides the scientific challenge, very serious moral and ethical questions need to be taken into consideration, regardless of whether we are talking about humans or animals.

The majority of current animal rights movements, and also common thinking claim the same privileges and treatments for dogs as are afforded to humans. But if you take a closer look at debates attached to genetic matters, you can see that we think absolutely the opposite way around when the subject of the argument is a dog.

We insist on the selective breeding of dogs. Actually, this is how breeds have been developed and the specific traits of each breeds have been preserved over time.
Selecting and maintaining bloodlines is the fundamental principle of classic breeding discipline, to achieve the best trait-set of the dog for the future generation. (Considering this aspect, please forget about ‘random’ matings which happen for whatever reasons.)
Breeders plan and try to predict which traits will be inherited based on the gene pool. And nowadays there are a good number of different DNA tests to detect and reduce the probability of health issues and also to exclude genetically-inherited disorders.

Breeders who want to act responsibly try to plan and define the future litters by interfering with nature, and they, not the dogs, decide which dogs can have offspring. Such a process is ethically absolutely impossible regarding our own species. But it does not mean selective breeding of human has never happened.
At the beginning of the 20th Century—really not so very long ago—when scientists started to seek answers to why people differ from each other in their nature, behaviour, and temperament, the conclusion was that many of these traits were genetically inherited. And if they were, then you could solve social problems like crimes, or mental illnesses with a really easy solution: controlling the ‘matings’ of people and thus having an effect on what ‘type’ of people are going to be born.

That was the Eugenic movement.
Birth control and even issuing human ‘pedigrees’ started, and it was a common element of the new approach that this was going to make a better future for the planet, consequently the ‘inappropriate’ people were legally obliged to be sterilised.
It was really popular in the UK and in the USA, but this philosophy ended almost overnight, when the supporters of the selective breeding of the human species realised that the movement was the base idea of another ideology: Nazism.

Since then it has been absolutely impossible to have any control over the reproduction of human beings. In Western societies, everyone has free will and the right to live and reproduce, regardless of their physical and mental health or criminal records.

Currently the major aspect of selective breeding of the canine is to have a better influence on the health of the succeeding generations. Contrarily, the very idea of this is impossible when we are talking about humans.

Selective breeding of people is absolutely against the moral code in our current era. It is utterly impossible to forbid people to have descendants because, for instance, there is a high risk that they would suffer schizophrenia.
And would you test yourself genetically? Would you like to know whether your children would have a high risk of depression or being obese, or having a high tendency to develop cancer? These are very strong moral issues. And would you ever decide not to have a child just to avoid the risk to pass on already-detected genetic vulnerabilities you are bearing in your genes?

What would you choose if you were offered the opportunity to be tested for a really serious, purely genetic disorder which irreversibly starts to destroy the body or mind due to a certain, detectable genetic sequence?
Most people would say yes. But as surveys show, in actual fact, only a really small proportion of people would take such a test and face the truth written by their genes. Most people have a sense of, ‘What I don’t know about, doesn’t exist’.
And we pass on all our vulnerabilities to the forthcoming generations.

But what about dogs?
We want them extra healthy for some reason, even though that is absolutely impossible. A living organism will never be able to be 100% disease and illness-free. It is a much more complex ‘system’ which cannot be modelled with a simple blueprint where you can check everything, and consequently fix everything.
However, we consider the DNA of a dog like a simple circuit-diagram with which we can create a completely healthy canine using DNA tests and selective breeding. We tend to think that if the genome of a certain dog is checked, it will be completely healthy, without any sort of complications health-wise.

All of these above are just some examples of how we really see ourselves and our own human issues in a totally different way when it comes to the matter of reproduction. In spite of the liberalisation of animal rights, there are topics we are never going to be able to handle in the same way as we do in a human context.
No matter how much we care about dogs, there are certain matters and moral questions which make it impossible to assure dogs the same rights and treatments. They will always be treated different to humans.