That hypothesis can make an interesting read, but if you think about it critically -- it is very unlikely. Suppose humans have already managed to somehow "uplift" dogs (such an assumption would probably go quite well with the many dog owners who are amazed by their pets...). The "uplift" must have happened at least 1000-2000 years ago given that modern dogs are unlikely to be that much smarter than their ancestors from the recorded history. Then, a question arises: if dogs indeed became orders of magnitude smarter than other animals because of their interaction with humans a few thousand years ago, why didn't packs of wild dogs completely dominate wolves, the way Homo sapiens (nearly) completely outcompeted Homo neanderthalensis?
I think the point is that whatever we're doing to domestic animals that makes them appear smart to our eyes is not necessarily what is required of them to appear smart to natural selection if humans were to disappear. In other words, we're not so much "uplifting" domestic animals as molding them to our needs.
Crows are the smartest birds out there, but they are also arguably the most annoying birds out there, and their high intelligence is actually a part of what makes them appear so annoying and pest-like to us (yes, we keep parrots as pets, and parrots are smart also, but in the tropics were parrots are common they cause as much trouble as crows cause here). I think it would be reasonable to conclude that if we ever domesticated crows, the direction that our crow breeds would take would be primarily towards agreeableness to humans even if that came at the expense of intelligence.
I agree that there's a big difference between "domestication" (that we've done with dogs) and breeding for intelligence. I'm not aware that we're doing that with any species (except for maybe Harvard Grads).
Also, one of the conceits of the "Uplift saga" is that genetic engineering tweaks cause most of the "uplift." It's also interesting to note that one of the first species "uplifted" are dolphins, a species that doesn't have much chance to annoy/outcompete humans.
I guess it boils down to how important "intelligence" is to evolutionary adaptation. It apparently conferred significant reproductive benefit to humans (the most populous primate species).
OTOH, to quote J.S.B. Haldane: "the Creator, if he exists, has a inordinate fondness for beetles."
I think the point is that whatever we're doing to domestic animals that makes them appear smart to our eyes is not necessarily what is required of them to appear smart to natural selection if humans were to disappear. In other words, we're not so much "uplifting" domestic animals as molding them to our needs.
Crows are the smartest birds out there, but they are also arguably the most annoying birds out there, and their high intelligence is actually a part of what makes them appear so annoying and pest-like to us (yes, we keep parrots as pets, and parrots are smart also, but in the tropics were parrots are common they cause as much trouble as crows cause here). I think it would be reasonable to conclude that if we ever domesticated crows, the direction that our crow breeds would take would be primarily towards agreeableness to humans even if that came at the expense of intelligence.