Why wouldn’t it be a domesticated animal?
It seems more like clothing than a domesticated species. I wouldn’t count ants as domesticated, but we still use them for things. These seem to be like silk worms, but instead of people wearing the silk, they would wear the worm.
Silkworms are domesticated, and even so, why would living clothing necessarily be like insects?
Well I guess this boils down to where you draw the line between an animal and a piece of biotech. Personally, if I ‘domesticated’ (more like radically genetically engineered) a slug to the point where it functions as a desert environment suit, I would prefer if the game just treated it as a gadget with a weird fuel source, not an animal.
It is just a flat slug with a dry-skinned back that sticks to someone. This could easily evolve naturally before any sophont even appears, which makes it quite far from biotech
At what point is a domesticated animal a pet? Can’t you just treat all creatures the same and let the player out take what ever action equally? (this might take less coding and would probably be more flexible)
1 Like
Earlier in this chat I mentioned that the critter could be “retired” when it wasn’t needed. This trades out whatever boost it used to give for a happiness boost. In my opinion this can be done at any point. Also why do they have to be totally switched out? Say a Roman like Empire domesticated a monkey that gathered nuts and fruit to hide in it’s nest. When domesticated they are let lose in a area it’s not worth looking for food in and any excess in their nest is taken by humans. One well trained one is sent to the capital and the Prince has some fun with it, sending it to find food. Then it brings back a few exotic fruits from the kitchens and shares them with the Prince. The Prince reqests a breeding pare and a trainer and soon the monkeys are common presents in the capital for rich folks. They are breeded by the middle class as couriers. Back in the jungle they are made irrelevant due to farming installments in the area but are found to be cheaper than slaves to have run the fields. By the time of the industrial revolution five breeds exist. The explorer ones, who forage for food in unforgiving locales. The farming ones, who gather hard to harvest products far more cheaply then slaves and don’t get on the nerves of the human rights groups. The couriers, who can outperform any human courier due to then fact that human breeding for a single job seems crazy. The luxury breeds, yes, plural, the many breeds of cute and friendly animals are now available to the middle class. Many of these roles won’t be replaced by machines for century’s. I think that if the player decides they will find many uses for their domesticated critters.
1 Like
At what point would the ‘domesticated’ animals be benefiting more than the domesticator? Would the ‘pet’ start working less if they get fed the same amount every time?
Protection is a very good benefit. If someone killed my cat, I’d make sure they’d never hurt anyone ever again; I’d make them pay.
4 Likes
Would it be possible to domesticate a species that is more intelligent than the domesticators?
1 Like
Maybe but they would eventually rebel. That’s probably why we don’t domesticate apes, even though they have the same level of intelligence as we do.
I don’t know, I find myself unconsciously opening the door for my cat whenever he wants, maybe that counts as being domesticated.
In seriousness, I think that would push more into slavery territory, as a species more intelligent than your own would assumingly be sapient as well.
1 Like
What about a space civ that found a group of voluntarily techless “enlightened primitives” that were spiritual geniuses. They wouldn’t be that hard to tame if you steal their children and indoctrinate them. Ok I’m sorry my brain is too creative (and kinda sadistic) for it’s own good.
1 Like
An intelligent domestic animal wouldn’t necessarily be able to or want to rebel
1 Like
You arr right. Say they are very smart critters who have evolved to solve abstract problems. The cost is an inability to protect them selves. When some powerful but only humanly smart outsiders arrive they may not mind solving their problems as it changes little and protects them.
1 Like
A creature would not evolve to solve abstract problems specifically. I was thinking more of creatures which lack hands or other such structures, or perhaps a creature which does not value its freedom
Yeah that’s a lot more realistic 
.
… I mean, let’s look at some real life pets that are incredibly smart:
- Pigs.
I’ve raised pigs, actually, and given sufficient mental exercise (aka not raising them in an incredibly rote, boring environment auch as most farms) they’re curious, social, and tool using critters that will get into trouble. A lot. Tool use? Watch as they open doors they can reach, manipulate passerby for extra food, and amuse themselves with toys/blocks/games/what I swear was a three pig game of soccer. -.- that of course they stop when I try to film, and immediately start begging for food. Self aware? Eh, I can’t find any conclusive studies saying porkers are, but they are definitely intelligent.
- Parakeets/Parrots
While I have never personally owned one, parrots and parakeets are incredibly intelligent animals, so much so, that, as a pet owner, you need to make sure to interact with them or give them something to do often else they will start making trouble to get your attention. It’s actually one of the reasons they’re not recommended for everyone, given the amount of effort that goes into caring for one. I’ve heard comparisons to eternal toddlers before, actually.
- Dogs
Mankind’s favorite (and one of the most successful) attempts at mammalian bioengineering. Intelligent enough to be easily trained, physiology adapted to fit our needs and whims (we bread them to have puppy dog eyes, people) and psychology adjusted to fit into our homes. Not so much upkeep that they take up all of our time, but more than enough to live with us.
One of the limiting factors on how likely an animal is to become a pet is intelligence, actually. A (comparatively) unintelligent one, i.e. fish, plants, lizards, insects, maybe hamsters, tend toward a cosmetic or trophy pet . They look good, but tend not to be heavily integrated into the family structure itself.
From there, we tend to move into small mammals which are cuddled/lived with, maybe trained, and on up to about an upper limit of cats and dogs. Which, of course, tend to end up closer to functional members of the household.
Past that point, going into the intelligent birds/octopi, even for some dogs, the amount of upkeep needed to keep the animal entertained and happy tends towards a detriment for the average individual, even sometimes family. Octipi in captivity are known for dying because they get so bored they go exploring and end up suffocating.
… I guess, technically, it’s the upkeep itself that tends to be a limitong factor, which makes sense, if you have to spend a great deal of time caring for something,the porpotion of people who want to do it, instead of something else they may enjoy more decreases drastically.
Where am I going with all this?
This whole hypothetical is rather close to the truth.
3 Likes
Dang poor octos. Those pets are smart. A thing I have found is that humans have reached a level of intellect, stability and tech that we are no longer selected for our intelligence. It would make sense if a similar thing happened to our pets.
2 Likes
I believe it works the other way round too. A human settlement is a very unpredictable environment, so intelligence becomes a more valuable evolutionary trait. You have to make sense of things, and win the human’s attention, to survive. For example most mammalian pets like dogs and horses can read human facial expressions. But for their wild variants that trait is obviously useless.
1 Like