naitche

The idea that organisations are living systems, depending on their wider environment to meet their needs. That they affect and should respond as such to thrive or maintain viability. To integrate. An idea expanded and elaborated on by Hendrik Gommer in A Biological Theory of Law, Natural Law Revisited. https://www.utrechtlawreview.org/articles/abstract/10.18352/ulr.166/ Embodied in the ideas for the writing of a successful successful constitution. The mission statement sets out what is the purpose / intent of the organisation. Rules and regulations set out how that is to be accomplished. Positive rules, (ie: We will) give direction. Negative statements and rules ( ie: we will not) should be avoided. They can only block direction, most often in unforseen ways . Statements, rules and regulations should concern only what occurs within the space of the organisation, and negatives avoided if mention must be made because that sets up what is called a double negative. What lies beyond the scope of the organisation is Its environment. So a negative statement, rule or regulation blocks intent in unpredictable ways, and affects integration with the environment, setting up an opositional force. This idea when applied to the K.Cs works. It forms links between social science, biology, law, language, evolutionary science, molecular science physics and more. Hendrik Gommer applies his theory to Law, and constitutions. Its applied to organisations. It seems from my observation they can be applied to any cultural identity. Governing interactions, integration and viability.

45 years now since Dalmations had the pointer outcross to solve the uric acid problem, and their country of origin breed club has just banned from its registry those dogs resulting. Not pure. Not recognised. Disease is more acceptable because with out it, its not a Dalmation. Bulgaria may follow. Can any one tell me if the organisation as organism hypothesis has been generally accepted or rejected by science? The rules for a successful constitution I mentioned in an earlier post? Or how to name it so I know where to look? My observations certainly back it up. It appears to me physics do as well. If so the effects are insidious and would be very relevant to world politics and culture today.

Yes, I do think thats a good idea. We have the same mandatory chipping here too, to be done before 8 weeks of age or before sale. I.C.B does extensive genetic testing, including diversity. Maybe that could be tied in too, with cheaper council registration for those taking part to reward responsibility instead of punishing every one equally. I've been trying to convince the K.Cs they need to recognise cross breeds. That with out doing that, we are all locked in to a process of endless elimination and the only other solution is a value and purpose based registry specifically to bring those back to Dog breeding, Since those are lost with out environmental recognition. They can't understand that recognition is not the same thing as acceptance into the pedigrees, or why they should recognise cross breeds. My answer was; You wouldn't even need to ask that question if the K.Cs hadn't stated how they should be treated in the 1st place. The rules and regulations for registration and inclusion in the registry were already clearly set out, and still would be. That statement was unneeded and added nothing. It took away a lot. But it seems very few get it no matter how often its explained, we go in circles.

What would you have in mind? We have had some pretty good legislation here in the past aimed at welfare, cruelty prevention etc. it didn't, of course, stop cruelty or welfare breeches from happening. Many of those were very high profile cases and generated a lot of outrage. So we have ever more being introduced. Its gone beyond asking people to meet the needs of dogs, to specifying exactly how that must be done. Its often not in the best interests of the dogs. Unless you agree that one standard fits all. Its driving Dog breeding into a purely commercial enterprise because the sheer amount of red tape for approval, inspections, licencing and infrastructure. I've thought the Institute of Canine Biology and my idea of a purpose and value based registry good mutual support. A finance source for the Institute, science for the registry

I don't think its just pedigrees that many see as a status symbol, or that all pedigree owners do. It just seems to be getting more common these days. And there are Pedigree breeders who put everything they can into breeding the best all 'round dogs they can, health test for every genetic disorder there is a test for, doing all within their abilities to do it 'right'. But there are new disorders coming in all the time. A new one causing paralysis in Rottweilers just discovered in Australia. The institute of canine biology says if it keeps up at its current rate, 100% of dobermans will have a heart condition in 20 years. Testing is often not mandatory and isn't enough even if it were. Because all that can do is reduce the potential gene pool further. For those who see cross breeds as a solution, they are at risk too more than ever because these genetic defects are now so common that two very different breeds will often carry the same recessive genes for a disorder. Bad hips and elbows are almost universal to larger breeds and locking patellas in the smaller ones. In Australia at least, there are very few mutts that haven't a pure breed as recent as a grand parent. Entire Dogs are discouraged through higher registration costs - unless you are a registered breeder.

This is not meant to be Pedigree bashing thread. There are undeniable benefits to Pedigrees. Better understanding the genetic history, able to match traits with expectations and personal environment are just two reasons the system has has been supported as long as it has. They are good reasons. Welfare of domestic dogs could benefit enormously if Back yard breeders were more aware of those considerations. That should have been a side effect of the K.Cs establishment. A positive influence on their environment. The opposite has been true. I am convinced after years now of examining the problems and culture that the reason for that is the K.Cs do not recognise the environment beyond their own identity. Instead of promoting practices that deliver maximum value in dog breeding, those practices are suppressed . A Dog Breeder, to the K.C identity ( not member, they are individual ) is a K.C member. Biologicaly speaking, the perspective of the K.C Identity is fixed to that idea. Because a dog with out a pedigree is not recognised. In defining the space of a Pedigree breeder against what lies beyond that space, its no longer an environment created to better support dog breeders goals and purpose. Its an Identity in its own right, with a fixed perspective. Possibilities are limited. Its self evolution is finished. Breeders themselves have described the dedication to the pedigree and its standards as a religion. Their faith in the Pedigree . Persons on the Pedigree forums requesting help with a pedigree breeding related problem are advised or directed to help. Those with unregistered dogs are invariably derided for their irresponsibility, being in a situation where they need help. For not understanding the consequences and pit falls of breeding. For breeding dogs whos history is unknown. Their ability to respond to the species is denied and discredited. Demonstrations of successful breeding practice beyond the pedigree system are not permitted to stand. They will be discredited. Demonstrations of poor practice on the other hand, are used to justify Legislation targeting the environments where those practices have been shown to occur. And exemptions sought at the same time for the K.Cs. Its a single species. The practices used to bring best value to humanity from that species are not confined to a pedigree environment. The Pedigrees are closed. There are protocols in place to to allow out crosses, and this has been done for example in Boxers, to introduce the bob tail gene, and in Dalmations to overcome a uric acid problem. Only using other pedigree dogs, but it has happened. When it does, many breeders will avoid those new lines as not 'true' to their breed, or even reject that breed completely. Its a long, slow process with approval needing sanction every step of the way. The closed pedigrees are are a problem, but the closed culture on top of that makes it a far bigger one. The only value to dogs recognised must be in the Pedigree. In the 'standard' condition of the dog. Its breed standard.

Not really. Domestic Dogs.... I think the Pure breed/Pedigree system is and has been affecting our attitudes and expectations for Domestic dogs. I think it has lead human communities to become less responsible in their breeding practices and understanding of the species. To view them more as commodities and status symbols. To dumb them down so they are less responding to their human environment and more reacting to stimulus according to fixed traits.

I would love to see a new register started based on purpose, free movement between groupings based on suitability to purpose, and even multiple category listing. A mission statement to promote value, responsibility and purpose. I think it would serve to better educate people about their choices, have a huge effect on welfare issues by promoting the idea that domestic dogs are a personal responsibility, Not an organisational one. I think that could reinforce Registered or not, there is a responsibility to promote value and purpose in breeding practices. At the moment, the registries don't do that. instead its implied that a Pure Breed Pedigree Register inherently supplies those benefits ( As one breeder told me ) It doesn't. A pedigree register is just a set of environmental conditions with no value of itself. It depends on the value brought to it. As it stands now, no value can be brought that isn't there to begin. Your breed has some advantages at this stage. Its a relatively recently recognised breed. There is still a very large 'control' population of Land race specimens, very likely a much larger gene pool with no historical 'bottle necks'. The Russians have their own unique cultural attitude to dogs that has been slower to embrace the Pure breed/Pedigree culture. Most Western cultures were pretty much at the same place regarding dogs about 75 years ago. I.M.O much healthier. The same does not apply for a majority of recognised breeds.

Or, they could breed with a clear purpose in mind, and select for that purpose based on what is proven in their own environment to deliver maximum value to that purpose. As open working dog registries do. Regardless of a mythical set of 'standard' conditions that may or may not have any bearing on your own.

Itoero, No, not the system. The culture. Sled dogs are bred for a purpose other than the 'standard' condition . I'm not familiar with the registry governing sled dogs, if there is one. But I'm pretty sure that if it is an open registry it will will not be recognised by the F.C.I that the majority of pure breed registries now come under, or that it will be the F.C.I or any affiliated registry running the sled dog trials or competitions. We have open registries here too for working dogs. mostly shepherd types. They are not recognised by 'Pure' breeders. Breeders of dogs such as working Basset hounds are discredited. Because their Dogs do not have an unbroken lineage pedigree proving it is the breed claimed, and differ in type. Do not conform to the standard as its recognised in the show ring today. Never mind that they are bred as Basset Hounds, from Basset Hounds, for the purpose of a Basset Hound and do it successfully. "Thats not a Basset" Open registry working breeds breeds may have a show line version that is recognised by Pure breed registries, but kept distinct and apart from its working counter part. Show lines have recognition, but not once a working line is introduced from an open registry. Dogs bred for any purpose other than the standard as its recognised in the show ring diverge. A pure breed working line version may still gain recognition in ring sports or trials under the F.C.I. Few breeds can gain recognition for value in both disciplines. Given enough time, I can almost guarantee no breed will. Breeders have tried to achieve success in both ring sports and show ring. Their success is almost nil and generally results in value lost to working line. No longer fit for purpose.

The biggest barrier to improvement in the K.Cs is the culture. To understand that, it makes sense to look at the constitution and mission statements. While I was exploring that angle, I looked for guides to the writing of a successful constitution and found a text where it was advised that negative rules or statements are avoided. The reasoning being that positive rulings/statements provide direction. Negative gives no direction , only blocks it, most often in unforeseen ways. It was also advised that any ruling or statement should be to define the working of the organisation, so relate to those only. Any reference in the negative to what lies beyond the workings of the organisation should also be avoided. Reason being that what is beyond the organisation is its environment. So a negative ruling is a ruling against the environment. I haven't been able to find that document lately, so can't refer back to it to be exact. In essence though, it said that in stating non pedigree Dogs are not recognised, the organisation would not recognise its environment. The result would be to take dogs out of their environment. The Organisation as Organism idea. I figured the K.Cs would be a very good test of that hypothesis since they Have been going for over 150 years, so multi generational. A generation as a breeder is shorter than a human one.( averages out at about 7-10 years, high rate of attrition) The dogs themselves and their position in their environment give an additional, observable evolutionary reference. Evolutionary changes should be easier to observe and note. And the effects able to be measured. So is that what is happening? I am sure it is. Though I think its more apt to describe the organisation as part of an organism, That identifies as something separate. Its definition of self excludes the organism. What its founded on. So actively undermines its own foundations. I know I'm not good at language to get this across well, but it looks to me like the K.Cs are driving cultural change and expectation to exclude dogs.They lose purpose and value to the human community and the human community looses its ability to respond to dogs- looses its response-ability to dogs. Legislation to target irresponsible practices becomes aimed at environments where poor practices are demonstrated, rather than promoting and rewarding demonstration of better practice. The K.Cs loose their ability to meet the needs and expectations of their environment. They are aimed at meeting the expectation and demands of the breed standards. Demonstrated as successful in the show ring or Ring sports. Not in the broader environment. The trend to cross breeds might look positive at 1st, but is connected to an increased commodification of dogs as accessories with little purpose and increased reliance on commercial motives and practices. We expect far less of dogs today than 100 or even 50 years ago. We loose our response-ability to dogs because we are less familiar with them, with their diverse needs and requirements. with the demonstrations of the practices that maximise their value to us. Familiarity and demonstration of value teaches responsibility. Legislation meant to target irresponsible practice is instead aimed at environments where irresponsible practice is recognised, because out side of the K.Cs, responsible practices rarely are. They are discredited. Even the designer dogs benefiting from their new popularity are increasingly driven to registering bodies that compete to standardise the breeding practices, and type. Pedigrees are given to validate the dog. Rather than the dog being recognised for the value it can demonstrate to its environment. The purpose of the K.Cs, if they are unable to recognise a dogs value without a pedigree, is to the pedigree, Not the dog. They promote Pedigrees, not dogs. Any improvement to dogs must come through elimination. They have defined the space the K.Cs will occupy by its conditions, not its own scope. Its possibilities are unrecognised.

Yeah. Interesting too to look at illustrations of some of our modern breeds and how they have changed in 100 years. Shar pei , Bull terriers, and most Mastiff breeds can be pretty shocking. You've hit it with this. Predictability isn't the same as reliability. Predictability reduces other possible responses. The push for predictability through a pedigree system also reduces our own response-ability to the species. The K.Cs could be a positive influence on Dog ownership and breeding practices. They are not, and I'm sure thats largely because they refuse to recognise the value of a dog without a pedigree. To be recognised as a 'Dog breeder' and assisted, mentored or encouraged requires membership into a Pedigree registry. So signing up to an agreement that those working out side that system shouldn't be recognised for any value. Re; parvo, Black and tan dogs are more vulnerable , and seem to be more commonly affected by haemophilia too. Regarding working ability of guardian breeds, These breeds under the K.Cs seem to inevitably split into two groups, Show line and working line. Working line dogs are tested and proven through trials. The working Dog version of the show ring. Set stimulus to provoke predictable response. Modern training methods have come to rely on training over natural ability for predictable results. A very high prey drive and state of arousal is usually sought to achieve that since its a drive that can be utilised for ease of training. Not within the ability of the average dog owner to manage safely or effectively. Even so, the rate of wash out seems to increase over time so that those once popular breeds are used less and less often. The Malinois is taking over for now.

Yes. These are increasing at an incredible rate and are becoming far more prevalent than most owners realise. Cancers, haemophilia, and mental disorders too.The list is growing and is at the stage now where to breed even cross breeds ideally requires extensive genetic testing for multiples of conditions. Then we have the deliberate breeding of extreme physical characteristics that cause their own problems for the dogs quality of life and life expectation. I understand the Pedigree system has a lot of benefits for reliability of traits. But the selection for those traits is no longer driven by 'environmental' demand or expectation. At least not if you consider the environment for domestic dogs must be humanity. The environment has become the K.Cs ( or Kennel Clubs) The Breed Standard, as awarded in the show ring, has replaced the environmental conditions governing selection. And shapes our expectation according to what is demonstrated.

I want to find ways to combat the problems seen in Pedigree dog breeding, and the Pedigree culture that perpetuates those problems. I immersed myself into that culture via forums to study and understand it. I have found it worse than I expected, not so much for the attitudes that prevail, as for the effects that culture has on its environment and the species as a whole. I see a very real danger that our rights to keep dogs, our abilities to respond to the species, and to breed for purpose is being increasingly eroded. Hoping for discussion that will help change that. The Pedigree Registries mostly include in their constitutions, or mission statements words to the effect that non-pedigree dogs are not recognised. I'm pretty sure that this statement is the root cause of the majority of problems and the difficulty in changing the culture. Its effects on the broader environment are hidden, but real.

There is such huge variation of phenotype in domestic dogs. Looking at a dog like the Koolie for example, its easy to think they might be be more closely related. There are likely more recent genetic studies you could find associated with conservation efforts and captive breeding.

Research is ongoing, but current studies seem to indicate that domestic dogs and grey wolves both evolved from a common ancestor wolf species, now extinct, while African wild dogs are related but more distantly. They can not be domesticated (or have not successfully been) or interbreed with Domestic dogs as The Grey wolf can. The more modern Grey wolf on the other hand has contributed to the genetics of Domestic dogs.

My point is still missed. Science is supported by evidence. Its not science without that. Yes you still have reason, critical thinking, probability etc. but with out evidence, science can only apply those to past experience and conditioning. Good reasoning to support a belief of expectation, or at the least to be extremely sceptical, yes. Not enough for me to have faith in that belief though. I'm not trying to support belief in a supreme being, or 'paranormal' experience. I've noted the results often and they can be horribly damaging. Just a persons right to have them, with out invoking science to discredit them. With out the evidence needed to support that as science. I can't assume a persons belief is based on faith with out taking their perspective into account. I don't see a perspective as wrong, just often incomplete. Faith when its unable to adapt and respond to changed or contributing conditions.

I didn't assume you did, but your response was still helpful to my understanding. If there were a person who could demonstrate clear reliable and cogent evidence of phenomena currently regarded as paranormal, its assumed its in their interests to provide that evidence for science. I think it very likely that person might see it differently. It seems there is little thought about the effects that might have on a person, the people around them, the reactions it could provoke or the demands made of them. Such a person may well not be in a state to think dealing with that is such a good idea. It seems to be viewed as an 'ability'. Its not unless you understand the causative factors. Too far off topic though and not the interest that brought me here.

No, you miss understood. I was referring to the a person who could demonstrate evidence reliable, clear and cogent. Not the science behind it or the research that explained it. The subject who could provide it. As a possible contributing factor for its lack. But thanks, it explains the down vote and lets me see where I went wrong. Yes. So I expect more will be explained in future, concerning things still often dismissed as woo.

Off topic, but since this seems to be a point people are stuck on I will say thats likely going to be the case until some one comes up with an idea of just what is happening, and how/if we can affect that. Or the person who can provide that evidence. Though I wonder what the future might hold for any who could. Personally, that alone would be incentive to hide deep.

Yes. Willing to look beyond past experience and conditioning to recognise whats present.

Agreed. Though I think far too few have the confidence of self you favour, when group affiliation is increasingly promoted as part of ones identity. Its easy to miss judge the effects and strength of the concerted opposition of a group you choose to identify with. It doesn't need to be universal to that group to have a huge effect on that groups diversity , while people who disagree with the vocal consensus prefer to avoid the same opposition. The effects on the environment also seem to be underestimated. As an area I've been led to explore, Its looking to me like faith is tied in to identity, by limiting perspective and available response. More than a 'property' of religion.

I'm gad you said 'may'. My understanding is not as poor as assumed here. I did say no fault of science if evidence is lacking. It was wrong to say paranormal research is discouraged by science. Enough people of science though, do a pretty effective job of discrediting those interested enough to undertake its research .Few who value their credibility to science are willing to try. Leaving the field more open to those who don't value credibility to science. I'm sure that and much more has a huge effect on the availability of suitable subjects. I agree clear, cogent and reliable evidence is lacking. But this is not the topic here, just an example used for its similarities to the question 'What is faith?' The assumptions made of people or their credibility who might be interested enough to try an idea. Thank you Phi for All, for your considered questions.

beecee, I don't question that a belief in a supreme being, or god, is how faith is defined by general consensus of the the scientific community. Just that any such consensus must be the final definition of science. That a scientific 'identity' rules out the chance there is more to faith, or there is any more to be learned from it. That it would block a direction science might take, based on past experience. Ruling out other possibilities.

A late attempt to answer, while I have time. I don't discount the principles of science at all. I see them as conditions, of an environment that exists as it is because we uphold them. What I am saying is I don't think a personal perspective of what those conditions 'mean' for anything that is (presently) beyond them add anything to your value as a scientist, or science itself. Insistence on a personal perspective of science, applied to what is currently beyond it, can only limit the direction science might take in regards to the subject. Your value as a person of science depends on what you bring to its conditions. Not others. They don't apply, and shouldn't. I don't think science needs fixing either. Its fine as it is, as long as we don't try to apply it to other environments where its conditions are not supported. There is no evidence to support science in religion. Science should not be there until there is support provided . That seems to me to be where the danger for science lies. It measures the value of science against what is beyond the scope of its space. So limits the potential for its space. Fixes science in time and space. Ie: I experience phenomena that some here might prefer to call supernatural. I don't believe in 'woo' as some here like to call it- so I look to science to explain it , one day. Rather than occultist environments. While science is discouraged from looking for evidence, and is more interested in discrediting or disproving what is provided, that limits its direction and the potential space it might occupy. No fault of science if the evidence is not there, or does not meet the scientific conditions. But until acceptable evidence is provided one way or another, evidence that supports its conditions, science shouldn't have a perspective on that subject. That would rely on faith, (or what I have come to view as 'faith') and a fixed 'identity' for science, and who/what belongs in the space it occupies. Meeting the conditions of science should be the only criteria of what science is, or its perspective becomes limited. No longer a set of environmental conditions, but a fixed identity with limited ability to respond to the changing conditions of its environment.