Comment by anonytrary | Hacker News Reader

Comment by anonytrary | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is probably a highdea, but what if coyotes are having a tough time in the wild and they are smart enough to see how we treat dogs, so they are actually doing what wolves did thousands of years ago by slowly, cautiously edging their way into human society in hopes that they can integrate with us?

They aren't particularly hostile, they seem to just want to survive. There have been maybe a couple hundred reported coyote attacks in the past 50 years[0] compared to millions of dog-related attacks per year[1]. Of course, one would expect dog-related attacks to be more common because they interact with us more, so it's not quite a controlled comparison.

Why hate on coyotes? I guess it boils to how cute they are, unfortunately. I don't think we truly need them, and they aren't cute enough to keep around for most people. Perhaps if I raised a baby coyote, I would be very inclined to keep one as a pet.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_attacks_on_humans

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_Unite...

Coyotes really aren't having a tough time in the wild at all. They are thriving. With the demise of wolf populations, they've started taking on apex predator roles, but are still incredibly adaptable. They have no real predators, and the margins in trapping and hunting them has gone down as fur is less popular and fewer areas pay bounties on them.

I know a few people that hunt them, but it's just because they want to keep the coyotes from preying on the deer herd. So that they can prey on the deer herd themselves.

No! Thats a major point in the article. Coyotes don't meta-game. Trying to get your great-grand-cubs domesticated would be a meta-game strategy. Coyotes are masters of the scheming mini-game.

does any individual animal other than humans meta game? I'd be surprised if even chimps had long term deceptive overarching strategies

I think another point of the article is that even though we humans meta-game, we probably aren't meta-gaming at a high enough level and that might give the human species trouble at some point in the future. You could even argue that it's already happening with our fairly casual destruction of the environment, overfishing, over use of certain crops, etc.

We actually were meta-gaming at a high enough level: rush through the tech tree with massive resource expenditures and no concern for the side effects, then curbstomp all our problems with nanotech and space travel/megastructures. The problem is we stopped.

It may be a major point of the article, but that doesn't mean it's correct, or that the remark about coyotes trying to be domesticated is necessarily wrong. Doesn't mean it's right, either, by the way.

> in hopes that they can integrate with us

I think you can stop right there. The dog thing happened not because dog "wanted" to be with humans. Dogs were clueless about what happened, it just did. The explanation is on a higher level, not in their desires, not even in the desires of the humans who participated in most of the dog domestication (even if some of them may have thought about it, but by then it was already happening).

Selective quoting, you missed out the part where he said:

"are having a tough time in the wild and they are smart enough to see how we treat dogs".

Its a hypothesis and it doesn't seem unreasonable.

How exactly do they "see how we treat dogs"? I must admit I don't see a "reasonable" hypothesis at all.

> Selective quoting,

Yes - because that statement does not make sense regardless of context, so I didn't quote the rest. It also saves space. I always only quote the part that I respond to, the rest of the context always still is right there in an Internet forum, unless OP deletes the post. If I quoted in a different place, for example I quote someone in my own blog post, copying from another website, then I would have to provide the context.

>not even in the desires of the humans who participated in most of the dog domestication

[citation needed]

If you want to claim they caught wild wolves and started a breeding program like what was done with the famous Russian foxes then it is you need to bring a citation.

The outrageous claim that needs citations is that the wolves had "hopes that they can integrate with us".

How can you talk about these things with such a high degree of certainty?

I've read different theories about dog domestication. All of them have some strong and some weak points. All of them don't have enough evidence to be taken as the only source of truth.

> How can you talk about these things with such a high degree of certainty?

Because "in hopes that they can integrate with us" is just silly.

Of course, I admit that I take for granted that I don't have to justify a believe in evolution.

If you entertain the possibility it was a deliberate human act it would have required an effort like the Fox breeding experiment in Russia. They would have had to go out and catch wild wolves and breed them for generations - that seems extremely far-fetched. Much more likely that there already were wolves that had gotten used to humans, which means they had already changed. Which is what I said:

> even if some of them may have thought about it, but by then it was already happening

It sure is likely that humans at some point thought it useful, but the domestication started not because anybody in particular wanted it to happen.

By the way, I think horse domestication is (was) probably different. It's easy to see how wolves benefit from leftovers found near humans, but horses just need grass. Horses also still don't depend on humans nearly as much as dogs do.

Can you source any of your statements about what precisely happened and who desired what thousands of years ago?

Because you think the dogs had a long term plan?

> not even in the desires of the humans who participated in most of the dog domestication

Did you read the full text or just immediately jump to the snarky burn attempt?

The statement that requires proof is the one that dog evolution was caused by desires of any one in particular, especially "hopes to integrate with us" of wolves.

> not even in the desires of the humans who participated in most of the dog domestication (even if some of them may have thought about it, but by then it was already happening).

Again: Can you support this claim with anything? I'm actually curious, and you seem evasive.

Huh?

Again: Proof has to be provided by the one making the extraordinary claims.

The statement that requires proof is the one that dog evolution was caused by desires of any one in particular, especially "hopes to integrate with us" of wolves.

That statement was made by anonytrary, not by me.

Are you referring to the statement that he himself called an "highdea" and started with "what if"? In any case, I can't be bothered with this anymore. If you don't have a source for what you stated, then that's fine with me.

It was "please can you indicate what specifically about the claims you think is unlikely; or your purpose in questioning and expectations for a response".

I mean you don't actually think there's documentary evidence from the time dogs became domesticated of either what the people, or the dogs, were specifically thinking, do you? It was my hope that, perhaps, by reflecting on that I might draw attention to the obvious futility of the direction of questioning.

And yes, snark.

I just wanted to know how OP could state so precise things about the intentions of humans back then. I didn't even consider the types of existing evidence or whether the direction of questioning was obviously futile; I just asked a person if there was a source or data behind a statement. But thanks for the snark, it really improved the discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com