How and why did humans domesticate animals?
aeon.co
aeon.co
Also all the others videos are worth watching.
"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."
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.
Is it mere coincidence?
Or is there some (evolutionary) reason for it?
Known as "the baby schema". Is adaptive in the evolutionary sense - cute baby will be more attractive to adults, hence better cared for, etc.
Most don't mind having canned Tuna, but Dolphin meat is a no go.
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...
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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".