Join 3,435 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

Dog Simulation Game
April 17, 2006 4:53 PM   Subscribe

Fantasy football leagues not your thing? Think stock market sims are too dry? Have you ever dreamed of having your own quality dogs to raise, feed, groom, train, breed, and show? Monday non-flash fun, requires sign-up.
posted by Hal Mumkin (16 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
MY ARMY OF VIRTUAL SHOW PUGS WILL BE UNSTOPPABLE.
posted by docgonzo at 6:55 PM on April 17, 2006


"Best in Show" online. Fantastic.
posted by Pontius Pilate at 7:10 PM on April 17, 2006


This is one of the darndest things I've ever seen. Kinda reminds me of those Celebrity stock market simulations... but I guess people really do play 'em.

Which seems really weird.
posted by ph00dz at 7:10 PM on April 17, 2006


Wow! According to the "!!Sign up now!!" blurb, I can have a Whippet bitch! I've always wanted one!
posted by brundlefly at 8:33 PM on April 17, 2006


Whippet good!

Sorry.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:45 PM on April 17, 2006


I'm not allowed to have a Whippet because I would name it Devo.
posted by cmyk at 9:08 PM on April 17, 2006


Well, if there's a Crazy Dog Lady simulation, I'm going to start a Long-Suffering Husband simulation in which you have to carry the crates in from the car, sit around and read a novel quietly while avoiding being piddled on for several hours, and then lug it all back.

It seems like all of this would be better as a card game -- Haha, I've played my Two Gigantic Malamutes Are Fighting card and now you have to do a saving throw* versus your pup being eaten. Oh yeah? Well, here's a Spread Nasty Rumors About Your Breeding Practices card!

*Or whatever card games have instead of saving throws.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:07 PM on April 17, 2006


(I kid, I kid. Dog shows are fun.)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:07 PM on April 17, 2006


Caught by the wife, eh ROU? :)
posted by Malor at 10:51 PM on April 17, 2006


Fun, save for the whole smelling-of-eugenics thing.

Not snark aimed at you or your wife, ROU_Xenophobe. It's just that the whole dog show idea creeps the hell out of me. I'll stick with mutts, thank you very much!
posted by brundlefly at 11:00 PM on April 17, 2006


Meh... I'm holding out for virtual children.
posted by wfrgms at 11:03 PM on April 17, 2006


"Eugenics"? You do realise how we came up with dogs, yes? My pug is nothing but the product of thousands of generations of unnatural selection.

(My friend has a whippet. Named Devo. Very fine.)
posted by docgonzo at 4:09 AM on April 18, 2006


Are you telling me that judging and breeding dogs based on institutionalized "ideal" measurements (length of ears, etc.) doesn't remind you of anything? It's a pretty big jump to there from a lone hunter breeding two good hunting dogs 'cause he figures their pups will be good.

Not saying there's an actual historical connection between eugenics and dog shows. Haven't done any research on the subject, and, again, I certainly don't think that dog show people are closet eugenicists. It's just that the similarities give me the heebie jeebies.

[Also, you do realize we didn't "come up" with dogs? Dogs and humans evolved into a mutually beneficial relationship.]
posted by brundlefly at 7:13 PM on April 18, 2006


brundlefly, you don't think the idea of selective breeding comes from eugenics and not, say, the other way 'round, do you? Certainly eugenics was kindled by the misapplication of Darwin's work, but it's not like we haven't been breeding animals and cultivating plants for desired traits for a long, long time. Dogs have been domesticated for tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of years, and selective breeding is hardly new among dog fanciers, even though the last fifty to a hundred years have produced a particular flurry of recognized breeds. The lessons of eugenics are very relevant to breeders, however. Here's a relevant Wikipedia quote (from here; I'm not sure whose words these are):
The very idea of 'breed purity' often strikes an unpleasant chord with modern animal fanciers because it is reminiscent of nineteenth-century eugenics notions of the "superior strain" which were supposedly exemplified by human aristocracies and thoroughbred horses. The application of theories of eugenics has had far-reaching consequences for human beings, and the observable phenomenon of hybrid vigor stands in sharp contrast.

The idea of the superior strain was that by "breeding the best to the best," employing sustained inbreeding and selection for "superior" qualities, one would develop a bloodline superior in every way to the unrefined, base stock which was the best that nature could produce. Naturally the purified line must then be preserved from dilution and debasement by base-born stock. This theory was never completely borne out. It can be said that when the ideal of the purified lineage or aesthetic type is seen as an end in itself, the breed suffers over time. The same issues are raised in the world of purebred cats.
posted by Songdog at 2:28 PM on April 25, 2006


brundlefly, you don't think the idea of selective breeding comes from eugenics and not, say, the other way 'round, do you?

No, I don't think that. Re-read my last post. I would say I'm one of the animal fanciers from your quote.
posted by brundlefly at 2:48 PM on April 25, 2006


Sorry, brundlefly, I wasn't sure. I'm with you about mutts, by the way, though I do like some purebred's I've known. Personally I enjoy watching Westminster on TV once in a while just to watch all the dogs (and the people who do that sort of thing). I do think all the fixation on perfectly formed dog parts is quite a bit too much, but I imagine they just don't know how else they could judge a dog show. I hope they mark down for telltale signs of [just-too-much] inbreeding, whatever form these signs take in a particular breed.
posted by Songdog at 5:53 AM on April 26, 2006


« Older The Library of Congress has competed its annual se...  |  Sechtl-Vosecek.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments