How and why did humans domesticate animals?(aeon.co)
aeon.co
How and why did humans domesticate animals?
https://aeon.co/essays/how-domestication-changes-species-including-the-human
5 comments
Has anyone read Sapiens? The book argues that the farming revolution around 10000 years ago was our biggest misstep in history. We casted off our symbiosis with nature and sprinted towards greed and alienation and have domesticated ourselves. I thought the idea that we have been enslaved by wheat was interesting since I never thought of it that way.
I love how the article elides that humans have also been domesticated by nobles without quite saying so.
Did you mean alludes? I looked up elides because it was a word I didn't know, but the definition does not seem to match the context.
I think elides works. The article doesn't directly assert that nobles have been domesticating humans, but does comes close to the implying it here:
"When humans start treating animals as subordinates, it becomes easier to do the same thing to one another. The first city-states in Mesopotamia were built on this principle of transferring methods of control from creatures to human beings...Scribes used the same categories to describe captives and temple workers as they used for state-owned cattle."
"When humans start treating animals as subordinates, it becomes easier to do the same thing to one another. The first city-states in Mesopotamia were built on this principle of transferring methods of control from creatures to human beings...Scribes used the same categories to describe captives and temple workers as they used for state-owned cattle."
I meant elide :)
The article skips over this conclusion while getting rather close. Nobody has really looked at this hypothesis in any depth because of the political consequences of finding it is true.
The article skips over this conclusion while getting rather close. Nobody has really looked at this hypothesis in any depth because of the political consequences of finding it is true.
I'll start researching it if I see the proletariat developing floppy ears and other cute features :)
It is not just the proles that get domesticated, it is the nobles too. Since in even the most ridged societies there is movement across classes, if the peasants become domesticated then the same genes will eventually end up in the nobles.
I sometimes wonder why humans would find animals "cute".
Is it mere coincidence?
Or is there some (evolutionary) reason for it?
Is it mere coincidence?
Or is there some (evolutionary) reason for it?
I think they have traits that set off the cuteness triggers we have for (human) babies - big eyes (relative to head), big head (relative to body), etc.
> cuteness triggers we have for (human) babies - big eyes (relative to head), big head (relative to body)
Known as "the baby schema". Is adaptive in the evolutionary sense - cute baby will be more attractive to adults, hence better cared for, etc.
Known as "the baby schema". Is adaptive in the evolutionary sense - cute baby will be more attractive to adults, hence better cared for, etc.
If I had to take a guess, I'd say parent training. When we see a cute animal, we want to cuddle and protect it like it's a child of our own. People talk to their pets like they talk to babies. Humans, in contrast to most other animals, require a lot of parenting to reach reproductive age. Taking care of a cat or a rabbit hones a decent amount of the skills that are required (later) in life to produce good offspring.
Maybe we are all pretty narcissistic. We like people who have the same opinions and thoughts as us. We also like animals that look "human".
Most don't mind having canned Tuna, but Dolphin meat is a no go.
Most don't mind having canned Tuna, but Dolphin meat is a no go.
Yes this was covered in previous HN threads [1] and articles [2].
There was even a couple scifi writers that have even pushed cuteness + evolution + domestication idea. Richard Morgan's Thirteen is one example (I don't recommend the book however).
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12128840
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/19/kumamon-the-ne...
There was even a couple scifi writers that have even pushed cuteness + evolution + domestication idea. Richard Morgan's Thirteen is one example (I don't recommend the book however).
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12128840
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/19/kumamon-the-ne...
I'd conjecture the answers are "long ago" and "because animals are awesome companions".
"Long ago"? Did the title read "when" instead of "how" at first?
> because animals are awesome companions
Now this is of course obvious to everyone here other than baby infants but domestic animals are "awesome companions" for many reasons:
- they're tasty food (and I might add fully nourishing for those whose ancestors thrived off mammoths for many ice-age millenia),
- or capable and strong beasts of burden,
- or providers of wool, hides, leather, candle wax and countless other useful product pre-cursors,
- or skillful hunting/tracking companions grateful to share the prey in a co-op fashion,
- or defenders of the realm against predators vermin and pests,
- or powerfully speedy transportation engines running on cellulose..
- later on, the soil fertilization didn't hurt either I reckon
I'm sure I'm even still missing aspects.
> because animals are awesome companions
Now this is of course obvious to everyone here other than baby infants but domestic animals are "awesome companions" for many reasons:
- they're tasty food (and I might add fully nourishing for those whose ancestors thrived off mammoths for many ice-age millenia),
- or capable and strong beasts of burden,
- or providers of wool, hides, leather, candle wax and countless other useful product pre-cursors,
- or skillful hunting/tracking companions grateful to share the prey in a co-op fashion,
- or defenders of the realm against predators vermin and pests,
- or powerfully speedy transportation engines running on cellulose..
- later on, the soil fertilization didn't hurt either I reckon
I'm sure I'm even still missing aspects.
>I'm sure I'm even still missing aspects.
Perhaps this comes under 'defenders of the realm', but: dogs bark at strangers thereby acting as an alarm system.
I wonder if dogs domesticated themselves, at least to begin with. By following a human camp around they would be more likely to breed with other human-liking and human-tolerated dogs.
Perhaps this comes under 'defenders of the realm', but: dogs bark at strangers thereby acting as an alarm system.
I wonder if dogs domesticated themselves, at least to begin with. By following a human camp around they would be more likely to breed with other human-liking and human-tolerated dogs.
Self-domestication is one of the current leading theories for the evolutionary history of dogs. Under that theory, wolves would scavenge scraps around the periphery of human encampments. The more pleasing a wolf was to humans, the closer it could get to the settlement. The closer it could get to the encampment the more food the wolf would receive, and the more it received the more likely it was to reproduce.
Over time, the differential rate of reproductive success emphasized traits that were not only useful but pleasing to human emotions and actions, in particular those related to our social interaction, bonding, and nurturing instincts. Dogs may not even be "domesticated" in the strictest sense of the word, but rather a symbiotic species that co-evolved with humans.
Over time, the differential rate of reproductive success emphasized traits that were not only useful but pleasing to human emotions and actions, in particular those related to our social interaction, bonding, and nurturing instincts. Dogs may not even be "domesticated" in the strictest sense of the word, but rather a symbiotic species that co-evolved with humans.
+1 the alarm system!
It occurs to me that domestic animals are (certainly in a moderately-warmish climate) all that's required for a "fine", "humane", "quiet pleasant" human civilization. Not a highly industrialized one perhaps, or a highly complex hierarchy of state and formal roles, but still, if & as long as humans could use enough of their gray matter to reign in their own breeding in sync with pasture-land availability and domestic-animal breeding.. seems even for metal-working and old-school defence (perhaps useless in the nuclear age) is quite doable without industry or slavery indeed. Something the doomsday preppers would be wise to keep in mind and focus on, rather than memorizing what small proportion of calorically meagre, highly seasonal, local herbs/mushrooms/nuts/berries aren't immediately deadly / long-term damaging, or wasting valuable pasture space trying to sprout a some silly freedom fries ;) one cow feeds a man for 12 months, or absent freezers, 12 men for a month, with full nutrition and copious kcals, nothing else will ever beat that. Smaller animals are a decent hedge and for variety.
It occurs to me that domestic animals are (certainly in a moderately-warmish climate) all that's required for a "fine", "humane", "quiet pleasant" human civilization. Not a highly industrialized one perhaps, or a highly complex hierarchy of state and formal roles, but still, if & as long as humans could use enough of their gray matter to reign in their own breeding in sync with pasture-land availability and domestic-animal breeding.. seems even for metal-working and old-school defence (perhaps useless in the nuclear age) is quite doable without industry or slavery indeed. Something the doomsday preppers would be wise to keep in mind and focus on, rather than memorizing what small proportion of calorically meagre, highly seasonal, local herbs/mushrooms/nuts/berries aren't immediately deadly / long-term damaging, or wasting valuable pasture space trying to sprout a some silly freedom fries ;) one cow feeds a man for 12 months, or absent freezers, 12 men for a month, with full nutrition and copious kcals, nothing else will ever beat that. Smaller animals are a decent hedge and for variety.
I wonder if cats are domesticating humans in the same way.
I always thought of cows as self-propelled factories that turn grass into food and methane.
Yeah, and all sorts of useful byproducts for clothing, housing, lighting etc. Again sturdy beasts of burden too, perhaps more so the bulls. Indeed these quite complex animals together with their micro-organism colonies are highly evolved to optimally convert a very basic and not very "rich" food source (grasses) into incredibly strong, docile, nourishing animals. Sure, such a 24/7 grazing-ruminating-and-digesting machinery will not evolve a grandiose brain but we can certainly work with that.
and do so quite inefficiently.
the only thing animals do is save time, when we were naked and running the meadows, other animals collected nutrients for us, stored them in the bodies and saved us extreme amounts of time.
currently, most of the animals we eat are just inefficient in converting edible to edible, soybean to meat. we're filtering food that we grow for them just so that we can eat food.
the only thing animals do is save time, when we were naked and running the meadows, other animals collected nutrients for us, stored them in the bodies and saved us extreme amounts of time.
currently, most of the animals we eat are just inefficient in converting edible to edible, soybean to meat. we're filtering food that we grow for them just so that we can eat food.
> and do so quite inefficiently
Matter of perspective. Compared to carnivores, all herbivores are "inefficient". A wolf (even humans) can gulp down some 1-2 pounds of fatty raw meat in 10-15 minutes and be done with eating for the day. Doesn't even need any manner of dentition if pieces are pre-cut to fit the tube into the stomach.
Put on another lens though and ruminants can be seen as profoundly "efficient" when look at the actual nutrient density of grasses and seeds.. with their micro-organism colonies they also synthesize various vitamins/vitamers that mammals need but grasses/seeds/soil doesn't provide.
But yeah grazing and ruminating all-waking-time isn't terribly "efficient" from the viewpoint of us goal-oriented or creative mammals.
> the only thing animals do is save time, when we were naked and running the meadows, other animals collected nutrients for us, stored them in the bodies and saved us extreme amounts of time.
Again, they can also break down cellulose which homo sapiens never could do, so it's not just "saved time". Thus herbivores can liberate (the majority of) micronutrients from vegetation that we cannot even access (except perhaps a few in a stew for the non-heat-sensitive vitamins, and a few in the juice run-off from certain fruits or leaves when mashed, bitten or squeezed or such). Finally they synthesize vitamins we cannot synthesize no matter what gut bacteria we host. Again, capabilities that go beyond "saving time".
> currently, most of the animals we eat are just inefficient in converting edible to edible, soybean to meat
What animals are fed soy beans, hopefully only pigs and not ruminants (grasses/seeds eaters)?
You're not converting "edible to edible", you're converting "barely palatable (save for hours of pre-processing and time-consuming cuisine theatre) to eminently, utterly enjoyable and fully nourishing + highly energizing, even raw" --- the animal takes a lot of time but the human is free to pursue other undertakings. There's no serious need to "speed up food animals" as long as plenty of them are kept.
Matter of perspective. Compared to carnivores, all herbivores are "inefficient". A wolf (even humans) can gulp down some 1-2 pounds of fatty raw meat in 10-15 minutes and be done with eating for the day. Doesn't even need any manner of dentition if pieces are pre-cut to fit the tube into the stomach.
Put on another lens though and ruminants can be seen as profoundly "efficient" when look at the actual nutrient density of grasses and seeds.. with their micro-organism colonies they also synthesize various vitamins/vitamers that mammals need but grasses/seeds/soil doesn't provide.
But yeah grazing and ruminating all-waking-time isn't terribly "efficient" from the viewpoint of us goal-oriented or creative mammals.
> the only thing animals do is save time, when we were naked and running the meadows, other animals collected nutrients for us, stored them in the bodies and saved us extreme amounts of time.
Again, they can also break down cellulose which homo sapiens never could do, so it's not just "saved time". Thus herbivores can liberate (the majority of) micronutrients from vegetation that we cannot even access (except perhaps a few in a stew for the non-heat-sensitive vitamins, and a few in the juice run-off from certain fruits or leaves when mashed, bitten or squeezed or such). Finally they synthesize vitamins we cannot synthesize no matter what gut bacteria we host. Again, capabilities that go beyond "saving time".
> currently, most of the animals we eat are just inefficient in converting edible to edible, soybean to meat
What animals are fed soy beans, hopefully only pigs and not ruminants (grasses/seeds eaters)?
You're not converting "edible to edible", you're converting "barely palatable (save for hours of pre-processing and time-consuming cuisine theatre) to eminently, utterly enjoyable and fully nourishing + highly energizing, even raw" --- the animal takes a lot of time but the human is free to pursue other undertakings. There's no serious need to "speed up food animals" as long as plenty of them are kept.
apologies, hn, shadowbanned me for my reply.
> What animals are fed soy beans, hopefully only pigs and not ruminants (grasses/seeds eaters)?
50% of worlds meat is raised using intensive animal agriculture. liquified soy for the chickens, fishmeal and soymeal for growth and finishing of livestock.
brazilian beef which is practically their biggest export, along with soy, eats it in ridiculous amounts, so long amazon rainforest.
given the amount of energy that is put in the process for producing meat and dairy, it's ridiculously huge compared to what can be done with the land in other way. most efficient production is of chicken flesh and that's already being done on ridiculous scale (about 50 billion of chickens every year in USA - other issues appear then).
IMO raising 60 billion land animals for food, given our current technological, moral and materialistic status is highly irrational, irresponsible, inefficient and ridiculous.
> What animals are fed soy beans, hopefully only pigs and not ruminants (grasses/seeds eaters)?
50% of worlds meat is raised using intensive animal agriculture. liquified soy for the chickens, fishmeal and soymeal for growth and finishing of livestock.
brazilian beef which is practically their biggest export, along with soy, eats it in ridiculous amounts, so long amazon rainforest.
given the amount of energy that is put in the process for producing meat and dairy, it's ridiculously huge compared to what can be done with the land in other way. most efficient production is of chicken flesh and that's already being done on ridiculous scale (about 50 billion of chickens every year in USA - other issues appear then).
IMO raising 60 billion land animals for food, given our current technological, moral and materialistic status is highly irrational, irresponsible, inefficient and ridiculous.
> given the amount of energy that is put in the process for producing meat and dairy, it's ridiculously huge compared to what can be done with the land in other way
That's the case for all industrial-age agriculture at today's 7-billion-people scale anyway.
With average mixed diet, it costs 10kcal (whether fossil fuels or renewables) energy expenditure for every 1kcal of food energy.
Isolated (or ancestral) immediate-return hunter-gatherers (roaming anywhere prey game abounds) average 10kcals of food energy gained for 1kcal energy expenditure invested.
So that lifestyle gives 100x better ROI. But it's not for this today's world, because at the top of the food chain "we"'d rather soon feed most/all humans food barely fit for animal feed (grains and soymeal etc) than "guide our reproduction more wisely".
That's the case for all industrial-age agriculture at today's 7-billion-people scale anyway.
With average mixed diet, it costs 10kcal (whether fossil fuels or renewables) energy expenditure for every 1kcal of food energy.
Isolated (or ancestral) immediate-return hunter-gatherers (roaming anywhere prey game abounds) average 10kcals of food energy gained for 1kcal energy expenditure invested.
So that lifestyle gives 100x better ROI. But it's not for this today's world, because at the top of the food chain "we"'d rather soon feed most/all humans food barely fit for animal feed (grains and soymeal etc) than "guide our reproduction more wisely".
Also all the others videos are worth watching.