www.theotherpress.ca

Opinions.

 

Cultivating cuteness

Do humanitys
attempts at breeding
adorability go too far?

By Natalie Serafini,
Opinions Editor

t seems modern society is all

but completely addicted to
adorability. We all know that a
large portion of the population
has declared their hopeless
devotion to cats, and that trends
in preciousness overtake the
Internet in waves (sloths, teacup
pigs, Ryan Gosling, etc.). We
cultivate cuteness through
memes, videos, pictures, and—
although this is not in the least
bit new—engineering lovability.
I say that this isn’t new because
breeding for specific traits is
something that’s been done to
death. This is most evident in
the existence of various dog
breeds: bloodhounds were
developed for hunting, bulldogs
were born for bull baiting, and

pugs were bred to be the pups of
royalty. Much as I feel prepared
to support any and all examples
of sweetness, the fact that
humanity’s attempts at genetic
engineering have faltered so
frequently gives me some cause
for concern—even when this
“engineering” is simply pushing
for specific characteristics. Is

the breeding of animals for our
“Oohs” and “Ahs” another
example of human selfishness
and arrogance?

Generally speaking,
animals that are made to be
cute aren’t spliced together
with other genes, nor is their
DNA altered... perhaps with
the exception of South Korean
scientists’ attempts in 2007 to
create glow in the dark cats
(although that was for “science”
—not feisty, fluorescent felines).
Instead, animals are bred to
encourage a specific trait,
whether that characteristic is
strength, speed, or the ability to
make a heart melt. In selective
breeding, the individual
animals that show a supposedly
favourable genetic mutation are

paired with other individual
animals showing a similar
mutation. In this way, the
mutation pervades, with hopes
that a helpful new breed will
result. This is how the world
was graced with the scrunched-
up faces of pugs: as mentioned
above, they were bred to
recline in the laps of royalty,
who apparently had a keen
appreciation for wrinkly faces.

There’s nothing inherently
wrong with that push for
cuteness, except when
our tampering starts to go
haywire. Pugs are prone to
hemivertebrae, or deformities in
the spine, because of their curly
tail. Teacup pigs have replaced
pot-bellied pigs as the favoured
swine because of their miniature
size, but they’re reported to
suffer from such issues as
heart deformities and digestive
system abnormalities.

Basically, we aren't as
smart as we think we are. Not
that humans aren’t intelligent,
but once we start trying to
manipulate the physical
characteristics of animals, we

get in over our heads. We don’t
completely understand DNA,
and the little that we do doesn’t
really qualify us to tamper with
it. Even where breeding for
specific traits is concerned, we're
pretty terrible at knowing what
characteristics to encourage,

or when enough is enough.
Perhaps manipulating DNA will
help us to understand it better,
but is that even the best way to
go about learning?

Sure, humans might be
gaining understanding about
how to encourage specific traits
in animals and plants, and
maybe someday this knowledge
will result in a league of super-
humans with super strength,
speed, and intelligence. Yet
based on how terrible humanity
seems to be at manipulating
nature and the environment—
like the fact that our
involvement in nature has put
us on asteep hill called climate
change, or that our use of
chemicals, pesticides, hormones,
and antibiotics tends to
aggravate rather than ameliorate
situations—I’d say we should

National pride with international respect

Why nationalism
is necessary for
internationalism

By Idrian Burgos, Contributor

[tamationalism exists as

a response to nationalism.
More specifically, it exists as

a response to nationalism’s
perceived evils. With regards

to ethnic and cultural
exclusiveness and a low opinion
of other ethnicities and cultures,
internationalism advocates
cosmopolitan attitudes and
openness. With regards to

the desire for ethnic-national
supremacy over others, there’s
the view of equality of all
cultures and ethnicities, with
no single culture dominating
the rest. The world in its
entirety is more important to
the internationalist than just

a single country, culture, or
race. They dream of a world of
peoples and cultures in equality
and solidarity with each other;
people interested in further

understanding each other, and
fostering respect, tolerance, and
admiration of other cultures. For
the internationalist, the world
in all its variety, diversity, and
complexity is to be commended
and celebrated, while any
type of thinking that promotes
the exclusive greatness of a
single culture or nation is to be
rejected.

In this regard, the
internationalist is right. That

ever going to be effective

and relevant. This type of
nationalism grew out of
historical experiences of
domination by other countries
or empires. This nationalism
sees the preservation of its
identity from conquerors as
important, yet it doesn’t wish
itself to be a conqueror. What
it desires, coming from past
experiences, is the maintaining
of distinct cultural identities

complexity and equality of all
cultures, and the celebration
of these differing cultures
as an essential pillar to an
internationalist world. This
nationalist would even remind
the internationalist that
“internationalism” translates
to “between nationalisms,” for
mutual respect.

The problem with
internationalism is its potential
to lapse into universalization.

The problem with internationalism is its potential to lapse
into universalization. Seeing all cultures as equal holds the
danger of forgetting the unique particularities of each culture,
melding them into a culture of a bland and imprecise nature.

is, half-right. An exclusivist
ideology that endorses one
nation or culture as the best in
the world to the detriment of
the rest is justifiably worthy
of rejection; however, this

is seeing only one type of
nationalism. There is another
type of nationalism that
internationalism needs if it’s

against threats of extinction,
either from subjugating
identities or anti-nationalist
ideas. It is not a nationalism of
domination, but a nationalism
of liberation; one that sees the
free and uninhibited expression
of ethnic distinctiveness as
indispensable in a diverse
world. It acknowledges the

Seeing all cultures as equal
holds the danger of forgetting
the unique particularities of
each culture, melding them

into a culture of a bland and
imprecise nature. The tendency
to generalize and conflate
cultures without looking at their
specific aspects can be found

in internationalism. Moreover,

be cautious in our cockiness.
True, we haven't produced any
monsters through selective
breeding, but I don’t think any
being can really understand
what genetic mutations are good
or bad—especially in extremes.
It’s difficult for me to argue
that we shouldn't breed for
specific traits, because I like cute
things and I cannot lie. Although
I don’t think we're all that clear
on what we're doing when
we pursue selective breeding,
we have made some strides in
understanding through trial and
error. The concern shouldn’t
be to definitively say yay or
nay to selective breeding, or
even to genetic alterations. The
concern should be to know
what we don’t know and be
aware of that as we meddle.
There’s no way to exist divorced
from nature, and we're already
irreparably entwined. Instead,
we can be more purposeful,
less arrogant, and maybe find a
way to produce adorable things
without bringing sick teacup
pigs into the world.

it should be remembered

that there are types of
internationalism that are hostile
to all forms of nationalism, and
see the world as finally united
based on a single characteristic,
whether it be individualism

or the working class. This

latent inclination towards
homogenizing and simplifying
what is diverse and complex is
seen in internationalism, and an
inclusive nationalism is needed
to prevent such homogenization
from occurring.

In fact, nationalism and
internationalism are necessary
to one another’s existence as
positive and helpful mind sets.
To be diverse is necessary to
prevent becoming narrow-
minded, and to be particular
is important to block one’s
self from becoming too
universalistic. A society that
accepts and celebrates variety
effectively needs the best of both
-isms.

15