Elephants may be domesticating themselves | Hacker News Reader

Elephants may be domesticating themselves

science.org

122 pointsthala145 comments

If all the African elephants 200 or so years ago could communicate and coordinate, they could more or less take over the world - at least Africa + Eurasia.

An elephant goes where he wants and does what he wants, and only extremely thick steel or a fearless / stupid human with an elephant gun can stop it.

Now imagine 100k elephants working together and humanity is armed only with muskets.

I imagine primitve cannon would be effective, but in this alternate history, disciplined young elephants might charge and overcome an artillery position.

Imagining a bunch of elephants charging a fortified position in formation, I think they'd win most battles through shock/fear factor alone. I for one don't think I'd be disciplined enough to hold my ground against charging ~~Ultralisks~~ elephants with just a musket in hand.

It would only work if the elephants were completely disciplined and ignored injury, death of friends, and noise. But they could take down all but thick walls, and they can absorb a lot of bullets / almost unlimited arrows. They wouldn't have battlefield medicine (no hands) and their population does not grow very fast.

Pre-gunpowder humanity would be toast.

With all the excellent counterpoints to my comment by you and others in mind,

> It would only work if the elephants were completely disciplined and ignored injury, death of friends, and noise

How about drugged elephants then? What if, in this increasingly sci-fi alt history setting, the elephants were just smart enough to figure out a) what kind of plant, mushroom or whatever makes them go berserk, b) realize berserk elephants are much better at effectively fighting humans, c) were willing to make individuals sacrifice themselves for the herd, and d) were able to consistently use berserk assaults as a battle tactic?

I know it's a lot of assumptions, but I won't have mere historical facts make me let go of the image of OG ultralisks attacking pre-industrial humanity.

> realize berserk elephants are much better at effectively fighting humans

Here's the fly in the ointment.

Berserk elephants would not be better at fighting in the same way that berserk humans aren't better at fighting. It's discipline and order that make an effective fighting force.

If you know anything about ancient hand-to-hand battles, you'd know that there were very few casualties during the battle proper. It's only when one side's formation broke and their soldiers became chaotic and disorganized that the real casualties occurred.

If I were to guess, I'd guess that you're getting this idea from movies where the main character harnesses emotion to become more capable and powerful. In the real world, emotional people die quickly and are generally ineffective.

Enough with shark movies. There needs to be one with elephants.

There's a story in the Jungle Book about just that. That said, wild pigs are frightening, they are armed and brave.

We know that's not true. The Romans had no problem repelling them at the Battle of Zama. The legion or phalanx would just need to be trained to make noise to frighten them and open up lanes for the elephant to charge through (they weren't keen on charging into a wall of spears), and then you have a dedicated group of skirmishers to hunt the elephants down once they pass the line.

But I think the idea here is that the elephants in question are at a similar level to humans intellectually. They will be able to overcome fears (be courageous), plan with others, use tools, etc. Hard to know how would come out on top in that case. Probably would come down to food consumption, reproduction rates, adaptability to various environments etc. more than who would win in head-to-head battles.

Maybe, if we are positing alternate-history elephants that will hold formation like trained warriors.

We have pretty strong empirical evidence that real life elephants do not seriously outclass formations of humans armed with iron weapons. They were used in warfare in the Mediterranean for a few hundred years and in Asia for many centuries after that. They had some shock value, but never became a dominant, war-winning component of any army.

> Imagining a bunch of elephants charging a fortified position in formation, I think they'd win most battles through shock/fear factor alone.

Even trained war elephants weren't great, or at least that was the conclusion of the Romans once they had enough experience with them.

They might be enough to route civilians, but probably not anyone in the military. Soldiers used to be expected to walk into enemy canon and musket fire with discipline and good order.

Also, there were black powder elephant guns. Apparently 4-bore rifles were popular for both big game and birds.

The Romans are said to have used war pigs against elephants.

They set the pigs on fire and sent them towards the elephants, who panicked and trampled the people around them.

make that few hundred thousand years ago. We were probably much more fragile then, but still doubtful any other animal could

I don’t think 200 years ago is enough time. Humans already had centrally fortified positions (castles), cannons, guns etc. heck the Gatling gun was already 162 years ago. You need to go further back but that would likely just extend the inevitable as humans extend their technological advantage where the elephants aren’t (eg colder climates which is where a lot of tech advancement happened). So for them to actually defend against humans they’d need to similarly be able to do tech which their morphology prevents them from engaging in really. There’s also the other problem that they’re territorial but not expansionist. They’re not like lions that capture and defend large swathes of territory either. They just protect their herd / fight elephants for territory which makes sense because they’re not predators like we are. In other words, not only do they need richer communication to organize (which arguably they probably do to some extent), they need to have a complete change in how they’ve evolved to think about the world in terms of hunting like a pack / developing military strategy. Humans are annoyingly adaptable and dangerous and will adapt military techniques (and by the 1800s we’ve had millennia of fine tuning armies)

I'm pretty sure elephants can communicate with each other and coordinate, at least to some degree. As do many social species.

For me, a really interesting question is: why did humans evolve to build huge civilizations and spent so much energy on technology, when others species haven't?

I've heard several podcasts, some claim it's because humans think (much more) about the future. Others say it's because we use counterfactual reasoning. Others again say it's because we think about the future. Yet others say it's our curiosity, that seem to be much more pronounced than in other species.

None of these really convinced me. I kinda think that if we didn't encroach on other species' ecosystems and waited just a few million (or a few tens of million) years, some other species might develop and dominate similar to how humans do now.

Of course, that's not really practical, so now I wonder if there could be a way to simulate that.

> why did humans evolve to build huge civilizations and spent so much energy on technology, when others species haven't?

In a nutshell -- because humans invented agriculture, which led to ballooning human populations, and then the agriculture at scale required to sustain those populations required centralized laws and control (e.g. enforcing legal contracts around shared irrigation) which is a civilization. And agriculture is so valuable that civilizations use the economic surplus to invent weapons to invade other civilizations, so we jump from food tech to warfare tech.

But agriculture seems to be the main factor. Of course you can go further back and ask why humans invented agriculture where other animals haven't, and it's probably some combination of opposable thumbs and the social intelligence we developed to live in tribes etc. Elephants might have tremendous social intelligence but they don't seem to have the physical dexterity to hoe a field. (There might also be something about physical size, where elephants are too big, so they eat too much relative to what agriculture could produce through their physical output.)

Toxoplasmosis forces us to work for cats. Developing society allows us to better care for cats. QED.

Farming. Before that we accomplished jack shit.

The set of species that could conceivably do anything remotely similar/recognisable as such is basically primates. Within which there's no non-debunked evidence of intelligence/learning on anything like the same level - and they even benefit from the existence of us studying & trying to train them.

Another answer of course is 'they have, but they're extinct/superseded now' (others of the homo genus).

You may enjoy “the children of time” novel. It was a recommendation here on HN and I quite enjoyed it

Humans hunted woolly mammoths to extinction 10,000 years ago, and those were the size of African elephants.

There was probably never a woolly rebellion where they banded together against us though

Humans with spears can take on elephants. You'd probably have to go back to the invention of fire for elephants to drive humans out. Intelligence is a huge advantage, humans can make walls, have pike formations, farm fields, burn down forests, etc.

A bull elephant is the true king of the jungle. But a lot of humans with zero self-regard could take down maybe one or two elephants at a time.

Perhaps an ancient Roman legion with a ballista - and balls of steel - could do some damage.

But you can only stop a herd of elephants that work together with modern technology.

The only early walls that can stop elephants would would be castle walls and thicker, and those are major projects that you'd have to undertake while getting tusked and stomped. Maybe ditches would work better, or caltrops.

Well I am pretty sure elephants were used as mounts of war, and they were not unstoppable for opposing armies. Terrifying yes, but not an auto win.

IIRC they saw initial success but saw diminishing returns as it was figured out that they scare quite easily by fire, loud noises, pike formations, etc. If you manage to panic an elephant still in the enemy lines it can do quite some damage to their troops.

Hannibal did terrify Rome with them for a while, but Scipio Africanus figured out a very simple strategy to defeat them, which won the second Punic war for Rome at the battle of Zama. He just made corridors in his formation and channeled the elephants down them, which then ran away scared from the battle all together.

Those were Indian elephants, not the much larger and more aggressive African, and they were used in small numbers - 20 or so. The main defence was to scare them or to lure them into a bad position.

I'm envisioning all elephants working together with discipline and coordination which would make it nearly impossible to stop them.

Mammoths were exterminated with stone age technology.

> exterminated

Were they? Or was it a consequence of changing climate from the Ice Age?

Or did loss of megafauna contribute to the change in climate?

Fun project trying to test the direction of causality: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Park

African elephants contribute greatly to deforestation. They enjoy knocking trees down for some reason[1]. And there's no doubt that deforestation can effect local climate change.

[1] https://www.krugerpark.co.za/kruger-park-news-study-shows-el...

Yeah, but they've been doing so for millions of years without any measurable effect upon global climate.

You sure about that? Most likely they are having an extremely measurable effect, it's just the effect is maintaining the status quo. Do you really think that the climate in Africa wouldn't change if forests were permitted to grow? Remember that climate is a complex dynamical process full of feedback loops. If anything, given the size of the landmass, allowing the savannahs to become dense forest would be a huge source of carbon capture.

Also I deny the premise that all climate change is bad prima facie, although again because complex dynamical system it can be impossible to predict the eventual outcomes. Nevertheless, a climate change like greening the Sahara could at least potentially be a net positive for humanity.

The point is that a sudden change in climate can't be blamed on them continuing to do what they've been doing for millions of years.

Now I highly doubt that an elephant occasionally knocking over a tree is the only thing holding back the continent from being forested, especially given that many elephants live in densely forested areas, but if for the sake of argument we assume that their behavior is a major factor, you still need to explain why their behavior, and thus that forcing function acting on the environment, would suddenly change.

> Now I highly doubt that an elephant occasionally knocking over a tree is the only thing holding back the continent from being forested, especially given that many elephants live in densely forested areas

Indian and African elephants are quite different ecologically speaking.

> but if for the sake of argument we assume that their behavior is a major factor, you still need to explain why their behavior, and thus that forcing function acting on the environment, would suddenly change

I never claimed it would suddenly change, I claimed that it's been consistent and has maintained a status quo.

Am I misunderstanding you?

We don't need to speculate. Roman legions frequently encountered elephantry and absolutely trounced them. The Romans then adopted war elephants briefly, before dropping them as totally impractical.

https://acoup.blog/2019/08/02/collections-war-elephants-part...

Colour me impressed with the legionnaires. But remember that we're speculating about large herds of disciplined elephants working together.

Is digging a trench modern technology?

They kind of did. Mammoths and such existed for a very long time and it seemed like life on earth was big, not as big as in the time of the dinosaurs, but a lot of creatures were getting quite large akin to them.

Humans then left Africa and killed them all off. Our environmental niche seems to be perfect for hunting and killing big grazers.

It's our world now!

It feels to me like it's a coincidence of evolutionary pressures and timelines that humans evolved to a take-off level of intelligence before elephants or whales. Whales especially just haven't had the time, they are a much younger species/order than primates. If humpback whales had been contemporaneous with, say, australopithecus, who knows how things would have gone. And elephants maybe just didn't win the roll of the dice, it feels like there were some very pivotal moments of evolution where our ancestors were under tremendous pressure, where small populations and a tenuous grasp on species survival led to unique intellectual adaptations.

It would be fun to imagine a world where the Americas were just out of reach of human migration, but an elephant species on the continents developed speech and abstraction. In my mind it would be a smaller species of elephant, of which there were many, and who may have more need to take advantage of intelligence to prosper.

I also think about r- and K-selected species [1]; whether the survival of a species depends on the fitness of the individual or the fitness of the parent. Humans are incredible parents (being K-selected), and we preserve our line by preserving our children. We're physically decent I suppose, but definitely not as children. Whales are similar, with small numbers of children who require almost heroic parental effort to raise. Elephants are definitely on the same spectrum.

[1] https://www2.nau.edu/lrm22/lessons/r_and_k_selection/r_and_k...

Humans are incredibly badass physically once they reach adulthood. We have endurance, immune systems, and digestive systems that seem tailor-made for world domination. (you could walk a horse to death, and that's an animal we bred for endurance)

The catch is you have to be smart to take advantage of these things.

And tool usage, turns out articulated appendages with articulated grippy sausages are effective, energy efficient, and can apply both power and precision.

Maybe this is why Octopi are so efficient and smart? They forgo the hinges and just have a grippy sausage tube x 8

Rather than grippy sausage tube, I believe the proper term would be sucky sushi rolls.

On a more serious note, it may be due to similar genetics to humans, specifically the LINE family of transposons.[0] Though, maybe they’re just aliens.[1]

[0] - https://www.livescience.com/jumping-genes-octopus-intelligen...

[1] - https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/123479-trending-science-...

I've heard of the fact we have more endurance then the horse but walk one to death? Source? Or deeper explanation?

I think they're referring to humans' ability to conduct persistence hunting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting

I'm aware of this. We can run down a cheetah or bunny.

But we can't actually run down a horse. Only top ultra marathoners can do that.

But walking down a horse? Really?

Yes.

Horses are incredibly fragile, and over long distances would prefer to be moving at human walking speed.

Horses also require continuous grazing to sustain themselves, and because of how their digestive tracts work, really need time to amass energy.

It's not a question of "running down a horse." It's a question of heat exchange and endurance. Humans are incredibly efficient at maintaining homeostasis "under load." Horses are not.

If you read a histories any war/conflict where there are large numbers of horses involved, a common theme is them just dropping dead of exhaustion along the side of the trail, because they can't sustain the pace of the army marching with them.

>If you read a histories any war/conflict where there are large numbers of horses involved, a common theme is them just dropping dead of exhaustion along the side of the trail, because they can't sustain the pace of the army marching with them.

This is assuming that most of the army were full of people walking and the horses walking along side were getting exhausted? So an average human can walk down a horse?

Human children, boys especially, often appear to be actively trying to get themselves maimed or killed.

That's just part of the natural selection process.

You just can’t succeed technologically underwater. Can’t make fire. Can’t mix things, etc.

I think that 'take off' level of intelligence requires that increased intelligence lead to increased biological benefit. Those complex brains are expensive.

Since elephants aren't carnivores I don't think they would get much benefit out of the reasoning skills that enabled us to be really excellent pack hunters, which was probably why more intelligent ancestors of humans managed to out-compete the less intelligent ones.

If elephants gain abstract reasoning skills what does it get them? More efficient harvesting of bananas?

so if we want to evolve the most intelligent ai then we should make it a carnivorous pack hunter

T-800. Living tissue over a metal endoskeleton.

That's why I wonder if those times of extreme pressure, when human (or human-ancestor) populations dwindled to the thousands, cause this kind of adaptation. Like it wasn't just being carnivores or whatever, but that moment of having to rediscover survival as a species.

Like maybe if the Wilson Island Mammoths [1] had just a bit easier time of it, or their populations weren't quite as small (or by luck of the dice were much smarter!) then they could have survived.

In fact it would have really helped elephants if some of them were smart enough not to be made extinct by humans! Maybe if humans had been just a little less competent, pressuring but not exterminating the wooly mammoths...

I had an idle shower thought that technological restrictions might result in hyper-intelligence.

E.g.: humans could reach high technology relatively easily because our environment and physiology enables tool use, etc…

But if “takeoff” is blocked, and evolution continues, then it might still be possible for an aquatic species to overcome the limitations of their environment — but only once they’ve reached the much higher level of intelligence required to find workarounds for their miriad problems!

> who knows how things would have gone

There would be living ships, of course. This is a Star Maker reference.

I sometimes think about how if humans were to go extinct, and some other species were to eventually develop intelligence and replace us, then there is a pair of animals walking (or swimming or flying) the earth today that would be the ancestors of that species.

Whales lack hands. It's hard to build anything without hands. Without technology intelligence isn't much use.

They didn't prove to be that important in pre-modern warfare, though. Much less impactful than a horse. So maybe they're actually not that hard to deal with.

Humans literally made mammoths extinct with stone tools on multiple continents

Mammoths could have made those same tools though. The trunks had the dexterity.

This would make an amazing premise for a novel or movie!

Couldnt they also be stopped by simple ditches / dugouts - maybe guarded by some warriors with spears?

Delusional. It would be no contest.

Elephants are terrain-limited herbivores with limited manual dexterity and zero technology. They must spend most of their waking hours foraging.

We are omnivorous masters of terrain, endurance, fire, weapons, ropes, rock quarrying, deforestation, and deception. We can fill our stomachs in 5 minutes and spend the rest of the day waging war.

> We can fill our stomachs in 5 minutes

That is not at all now it has gone for most of human history. Feudalism and its ancient world precursors, an entire religious-social-economic system of vassalage, was necessary concentrate the tiny bits of surplus food into long standing specialized military forces.

Yeah but this was definitely achieve well before 200 years. Armies existed since the dawn of civilization. We are talking B.C. dates.

Most armies where farmers who did a little bit of training in their village in the off season. They would be called up for specific battles, given a couple weeks training and then off to battle, those who survived went back home.

Very few societies could afford a large standing army. There would be one or two village watchmen to keep watch over night. The king might have a dozen guards that were well trained. The bulk of the army was farmers conscripted a few weeks before at need, and sent back home when done. The economies just couldn't support more when 95% of the total human population had to be a farmer just to grow enough food.

There were exceptions. The Romans did manage to hold large standing armies, but they were exceptions.

So people can fill in 5 mins, whilst the others work to do this.

Elephants can't digest enough calorie rich food to be able to do this. They individually have to spend longer eating.

Yet war elephants are a thing.

Apparently specifically because of the food issue they weren't generally worth the trouble. ACOUP has a good post about it [1]. TL/DR: For the amount of fodder and manpower you need for one elephant, you can have a lot of traditional horse calvary.

[1] https://acoup.blog/2019/08/02/collections-war-elephants-part...

We've had standing armies for almost 3000 years. So, for most of "history".

> standing armies

Armies yes. Standing, not so much no. Human history is 100,000-200,000 years. That would be < 3% of human history. To do this, humans had to invent pre-feudal client/vassal networks of specialized food producer and warrior classes. This for the very reason that most humans had to spend most of their time in the act of producing food.

History is considered to be since the invention of writing. (<10000 years) Anything before that is pre-history.

We've always been able to eat that quickly.

If you're suggesting there wouldn't be enough food to feed an army of humans, need I remind you that elephants are made of meat?

Yet, humans lost the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War

If the Emu's were killing humans and livestock instead of crops the outcome would likely have been different. See grizzly bears and wolves in the continental US.

In case anyone takes this as a serious data point, the Emu War involved exactly three soldiers and two guns.

Isn’t that essentially all of Australia’s active military?

And on a similar note, only 24 rabbits were needed to successfully invade and colonize Australia[0]. And despite multiple plagues over hundreds of years, they’re nowhere close to the end of their rabbit war.[1]

[0] - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/23/australi...

[1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_plagues_in_Australia

Don't forget the cane toads. [0]

From wikipedia:

In June 1935, 102 cane toads (Rhinella marina, formerly ICZN Bufo marinus) were imported to Gordonvale from Hawaii, with one dying in transit due to dehydration. By March 1937, some 62,000 toadlets were bred in captivity and then released in areas around Cairns, Gordonvale, and Innisfail in northern Queensland. More toads were released around Ingham, Ayr, Mackay, and Bundaberg.[6] Releases were temporarily limited because of environmental concerns, but resumed in other areas after September 1936.

Since their release, toads have rapidly multiplied. They now[when?] number over 200 million and have been known to spread diseases, thereby affecting local biodiversity.[7] Not only has the introduction of the toads has caused significant environmental detriment, but there is no evidence that they have affected the number of cane beetles which they were introduced to prey upon.

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

It seems modern humans are not very good at ecological balancing. Especially not in Australia. I believe the original local aboriginal people were trying to get the hang of it however before they were rudely interrupted by the colonialists.

We are also omnivorous masters of destroying terrain.

Admittedly, all the weaknesses the parent comment points out elephants have are characteristics where emus strong.

Humans hunted mammoths friend.

Humans had long settled in places that elephants couldn't survive by 200 years ago. They wouldn't fare better attacking Russia in winter than Napoleon did. I don't know how well they could tolerate winter in Germany, say.

And, echoing other comments here, their close relatives who _could_ tolerate winter outside the tropics were long extinct by this point.

Edit to add: the worst they could do would be raiding parties in the late summer and autumn, eating whole harvests. Landbound pachyderm Vikings?

That made me laugh. Ever seen an elephant trying to climb out of a ditch.

I've read that the Romans got pretty good at anti-elephant tactics.

https://acoup.blog/tag/elephants/

Even at comparable levels of intelligence and social coordination, agility and opposable thumbs go a long way. This is a fun thought experiment, but my bet is on the humans.

but they have opposable noses

i'm not judging it but the fact this thread got so much hacker news engagement is interesting like we are cavemen and we want to talk about how we can fight elephants and mammoths

>If all the African elephants 200 or so years ago could communicate and coordinate, they could more or less take over the world - at least Africa + Eurasia.

The trebuchet would be enough to stop them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebuchet#Comparison_of_differ...

>Now imagine 100k elephants working together and humanity is armed only with muskets.

Crossbow would be sufficient. Your target is as big as an elephant. Whaling harpoons were also very popular for a very long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#History

Trenches would stop them pretty well.

>> An elephant goes where he wants and does what he wants, and only extremely thick steel or a fearless / stupid human with an elephant gun can stop it.

Or a small ditch. Or fast-moving water. Or rocky terrain. Or any incline of more than 25 degrees. An elephant is about as off-road capable as a Humvee or Jeep. It can do great things in the commercials, but in reality can only handle a small percentage of realworld terrain. Humans and other predators are amazing capable across most any terrain. Even without firearms, we would have wiped them out in a single generation had we put our minds to the task.

We managed to deal with mammoths.

African hunter gatherers have been hunting elephants for ages without guns or steel, who are maybe fearless but definitely not stupid. Search for "Pygmy elephant hunt".

Also many people think that mammoths were hunted to extinction by humans.

We already did this. Humans hunted all the megafauna, including mammoths, to extinction.

> "The scientists compared wild African elephants from the species Loxodonta africana with bonobos and humans on 19 social, cognitive and physical traits. The researchers found that elephants, like bonobos and humans, are not very aggressive, play a lot, have a long childhood. [...] By comparing the genome of wild African savannah elephants with those of 261 domesticated mammals such as dogs, cats and horses, the scientists identified 79 genes linked to domestication in other species that seem to have become more common in elephant generations over time."

what if we've been 'domesticating' them by killing the tuskiest ones for ivory or because we don't like their musth rampages, neotenizing even the wild populations

These behaviors have been present in oral histories of elephants for the last two thousand years or so. As far as I know, the intense hunting for tusks responsible for the endangerment of elephant species has only been present in the last few centuries. My bet is that this self-domestication has been occurring for a long time. At most, the recent selection for killing those with aggressive behavior, large tusks, would be an additional factor in this process.

Rapid population bottlenecks can easily cause non-linear evolutionary change by drastically changing the histogram of phenotypes.

Is it also possible that elephants have enough awareness to notice who among them is more likely to be murdered by humans, and start selecting partners differently?

Of course there could be sexual selection at play! I would argue though, that form of selection will take at many generations to take hold where as genocide of a species happens in a single generation. Of course, the smaller the population, the faster sexual selection will take effect but it might be hard to disambiguate with other fitness factors.

Fwiw, a very similar thing happens during selection for bacterial resistance. You eliminate all the cells susceptible leaving a population of resistant cells. This population then grows to replace the previous generation. You could analogize this with the elephants. Small tusk and docile elephants have a "resistance" to being murdered by poachers. The poachers eliminate all the others and suddenly the population seems domesticated.

Sure, but we need to keep in mind that when hearing hooves we should think horses not zebras.

"At most, the recent selection for killing those with aggressive behavior, large tusks"

Are million+ years recent?

Humans successfully hunt big animals since we exist and all the hunter societies that still exist, share the idea that the biggest trophies come from killing the most fearsome animals. And if an animal killed a tribe member, killing that specific animal comes with great respect for the hunter. So the organized hunting of elephants especially for their tusks might be a recent thing, but killing dangerous individuals is not.

Makes me curious what animals were like before we started killing everything that looked at us funny and eating anything that didn't immediately run away

Most of our modern farm animals and even wildlife have been domesticated in some way to the point that they're not really equipped to deal with predators, so you can look to their ancestors to see how they used to function.

See: the aurochs (ancestor of the modern cow) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs

The boar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_boar

The jackrabbit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare

The junglefowl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_junglefowl

etc.

Be careful with these sorts of generalizations when it's to related, but not identical, species. We can see with Bonobos and Chimpanzees that even within a genus there can be big behavioral differences.

For instance, your Hare link goes to Lepus.

Non-domesticated European rabbits (Oryctolagus) exist. If you don't trust that there hasn't been cross-breeding with domesticated rabbits, then Caprolagus would be a better comparison. Even Sylvilagus, phylogenetically closer to Oryctolagus than Lepus, is behaviorally distinct (not existing in warrens).

> Coprolagus would be a better comparison

Coprolagus (the 'poop hare') is a lesser known relative of the genus Caprolagus (the 'goat hare').

I thought what I wrote looked wrong. Thanks. I'm correcting the initial comment.

Looks at the Americas - humans appeared there only 15 kyrs ago while in Africa the wildlife evolved to survive in the presence of our species.

Not sure what I'm reading. Wild elephants are super unpredictable and are more times aggressive than they are not, especially when they have youngs..

Maybe you can imagine it like an analogy. Imagine you saw a very big thing. Now later you see that the thing is still big, but it's a little bit less big. Someone might even say that it has become smaller. But this is a paradox because even though it is big how can you say that it is smaller, when the word 'smaller' itself contains the word 'small' which is the opposite of 'big'?

I'm confused why your analogy is a paradox. "Big" and "small" are always in reference to something else. In the first instance where you are establishing that the "thing" is big, you are referencing something unstated (perhaps the size of the observer). In the second instance, you are referencing the old size of the "thing" when you are establishing that it is smaller. Because the reference has changed, there is no paradox to it being both big and smaller at the same time.

I’m sure it’s true that wild elephants can be aggressive.

I was surrounded by a herd of elephants in Pilansberg National Park in South Africa. We remained calm and they just walked around our vehicle.

Was simultaneously terrifying and thrilling at the same time.

Less aggressive doesn't mean not aggressive. It's a comparison. They're far less aggressive than most any other animal that could give you a bad day is. I'd rather run into a wild elephant than a wild wolf, lion, hippo, giraffe, etc.

Self-domesticating seems an interesting evolutionary track for the survival of a species. Elephants may have a bit of a hard time totally committing to it, as they're somewhat large. I have a hard time visualizing a herd wandering around a large city - although I do enjoy the clever elephants that cross streets and seemingly "thank" stopped motorists, or elephants that steal food from trucks they've stopped (obvy I can't tell intent)

If they're domesticating themselves in some way, natural evolution can take care of the rest (e.g. smaller sizes leading to long-enough lifespans to successfully mate and raise offspring long enough to repeat the cycle).

It would be a shame if mighty elephants were evolved to the size of piglets that people keep as pets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeoloxodon_falconeri:

“Palaeoloxodon falconeri is an extinct species of dwarf elephant from the Middle Pleistocene of Sicily and Malta. It is amongst the smallest of all dwarf elephants at only one metre in height. A member of the genus Palaeoloxodon, it derived from a population of the mainland European straight-tusked elephant (Palaeoloxodon antiquus)”

Not quite piglets, but getting there.

This is a good start up idea in biotech. And highly lucrative. Genetically engineered tea cup elephants.

The definition of "domestication" in this article does not seem to have anything to do with living with humans. It says bonobos have self-domesticated.

I'm honestly not sure the term is even well-defined.

In a round about way, I think it does mean being able to live around humans, by being less violent, and well: dumber. Humans were also domesticated, killed each other less (if you can believe that), became even dumber (if you can believe that), and well: look at our population.

Here's basically the same article about bonobos,

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tame-theory-did-b...

Being less aggressive, if I'm not reading things backwards, allows for a longer maturation time, and perhaps higher intelligence. Some domesticated animals show high intelligence, like bonobos and dogs. I wonder if the same idea applies to dolphins.

I truly, truly think that even if there is a sense in which being sociable and non-violent is “dumber,” it actually is one of the most mentally taxing things you can actually do on a daily basis. It requires good posture control, a diplomatic tone, a great theory of mind, and so so so much patience. Like this is what people talk about when they say a lack of privilege ages them prematurely.

My "became even dumber" was somewhat tongue and cheek, but a lower brain volume is what they are seeing in humans, bonobos, elephants, dogs - when compared to the "wilder" cousins/ancestors.

>Like this is what people talk about when they say a lack of privilege ages them prematurely.

I don't... know if I agree? I think generally being oppressed by the privilege class is quite detrimental to one's health, as well as having less access to things like healthcare. Compound this with a complete gaslighting of the privilege class telling the lesser that they actually DO have it well off and have NO reason to complain - all the while distancing the haves to the have-nots, and it's no wonder that well: there aren't as many violent uprising happening (and the ones that are, usually are spun to not be seen that way). Yeah - yeah: that can age someone.

In this context it’s basically pro-social, cooperative strategy. An environment where social ability is a meaningful factor in success, not just physical prowess.

We're describing pack and herd animals now, aren't we? Lions and wolves all need to understand their social context, but we don't call them domesticated

Same for cats:

wildcats, such as the species Felis lybica, began exploiting new resources offered by human environments, such as a proliferation of rodents in grain stores. These cats were tolerated by people, supporting their natural evolution to deviate further from their wild counterparts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-domestication#Cats

If you read the article, this is using a different definition of domestication. Both are types of self-domestication, but they are also different. Cats domesticate to live with/near human society. Elephants are domesticating not to live with humans, but to live in a society of their own.

That certainly sounds like a novel sense of the word "domesticate" that most people would not recognize.

Maybe a better word would be "socialized".

Domestication: the process of hereditary reorganization of wild animals and plants into domestic and cultivated forms according to the interests of people [1].

Using this word in the title is clearly not reflecting the nature of what might be happening. The correct term would probably be neoteny [2] or juvenilization

[1] Britannica and every other credible reference on the English language out there

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny

Interesting concept, but the article is referring to self-domestication[1]:

> Yet he and evolutionary anthropologist Brian Hare of Duke University have long held that self-domestication—a phenomenon where wild animals develop traits that are similar to domesticated animals [...].

"Elephants may be self-domesticating" would sound odd to the general reader. Indeed the paper referenced[2] is titled "Elephants as an animal model for self-domestication".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-domestication

[2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208607120

prosocial evolution is a lot better term than "self-domestication". of course, it's also completely unexceptional, so perhaps not favored in the academic (publishing) ecosystem.

Pretty interesting that signs of self domestication include a shrunken brain and aggressive males being eliminated from the population. I would not have thought that our brains have shrunk since we (humans) became self domesticated.

A further data point here is that Homo Neanderthalensis had a larger brain volume than Homo Sapiens.

It's now widely accepted that cats self-domesticated, making this claim ("Find would put pachyderms in a rare group that only includes humans and bonobos") a bit dubious.

Here's one article on the matter: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/domestica...

i wonder if this is a case of humans having domesticated them in the past (probably for war), then that population ended up going free for whatever reason, and they still have the traits because they're elephants and nothing will eat them

Humans kill anything that poses a threat to humans. Plenty of wild animals have had their populations decimated by this (bears, wolves, tigers, lions, etc).

And the much smaller populations that remain tend to be the less aggressive/less dangerous ones.

this is right but i think your perspective is off just a little

the bears, wolves, tigers and lions you listed are things that are still alive, humans probably got along with them more over the past 10-20,000 years than they did all the things they hunted to extinction. i think its rare to find a large animal, bigger than a small dog, that doesn't look cute in some way [to humans] when its not angry. this was their defense mechanism.

My impression was that wolfs self-domesticated into dogs as well.

The story I heard about wolf domestication was that some wolfs started living nearer to humans, cooperated during hunts, ate their scrap etc. I would consider this self-domestication.

If humans had captured wolfs and selectively bred them to be less aggressive, that wouldn't be self-domestication.

Or am I totally off track here?

You're missing the "self" part. The fact that humans are heavily involved in how wolves became domesticated means they're not "self" domesticated, at least as defined in this specific article.

inb4 USA liberates Elephants with $500 trillion aid package

Is the watering hole or the elephant graveyard above oil or lithium or uranium deposits tho?

The watering hole wants to be part of NATO, but the Elephants domesticating the others, don't want that to happen (there's lithium under the graveyard) ...

tl;dr - they want democracy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com