Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.
It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.
I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.
Support the archive
[–]JayJayEcks29 points30 points31 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (14 children) | Copy Link
Actually there was a very interesting breeding project done in Russia; starting off with ONLY wild "wolves" and via simply selecting for specific traits (breeding OUT aggression) they were able to basically "breed" a solid, loyal and well domesticated "working dog" in just a handful of generations... IIRC, less than 20 years total.
EDIT: Ah, here's a link to an article with more about it.
It was done (and is being done -- experiment is still going) with "foxes" (not wolves -- hey I was close) and apparently it took about 40 years (depending on what level you consider "domesticated").
Still the point is that it probably DIDN'T take 10,000 years; most likely didn't even take 1,000 years... and in fact -- when a man finally set out to PURPOSEFULLY breed a "working/domesticated" dog -- it was probably achieved in a single human generation or so (I would presume that depending on the region & the size of the "packs" of canines around, humans hunting/killing the more "aggressive" animals, and possibly tossing food to the friendlier ones would -- even in the absence of cages & a scientifically "controlled" breeding program -- nevertheless alter which animals survived, and thus sort of unwittingly apply selective quasi-artificial pressures to evolve a genetically less aggressive creature; the stock from which would then be a lot more amenable to purposeful "husbandry" and controlled breeding.)
[–]JayJayEcks2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Well multiple instances of (separate) "domestication" makes sense... especially if -- as I've noted, and the "experiment" in Russia sort of confirms -- it is something that could have been done relatively quickly (handful of generations), and possibly even somewhat or entirely accidentally (I suppose the word "serendipitously"* would apply & be an even better description).
--
So ending up with a pack of quasi-friendly/partially-domesticated nascent "hunting-work/wolf-dogs" nearby when you were only originally seeking to just protect say a flock of sheep or herd of cattle, by killing off the most aggressive wolves -- that would be a "serendipitous" event.
Yet one could see how that kind of change COULD easily happen independently and unintentionally in multiple places. In fact I would imagine it could likely have occurred in LOTS of different places, and LOTS of different times (not just "once" in Asia and "once" in Europe).
[–]WikiTextBot0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]kp761 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link
I think the phrase "domesticated themselves" is misleading and mischaracterized -- it smacks of a teleological CHOICE on the part of the wolves; and I rather highly doubt it played out quite like that.
-- More likely is what I have described here -- that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the change from nomadic "hunter gatherers" to herdsmen/husbandry led to a serendipitous "evolutionary adaptation to mildness" (and possibly even "cooperation" but NOT quite "domestication").
Chiefly that would have involved the KILLING of the NEARBY more aggressive wolves by the human herdsmen/farmers, shortening the lives of those wolf "dispositions" & thus dramatically reducing their ability to reproduce; making such "aggression" almost a genetic dead-end (at least to the extent that MANAGED pastures & farmland took over from "wild" fields & forests -- some aggressive wolf strains could & would obviously still survive {possibly even thrive and become MORE aggressive because aggression would still be evolutionarily rewarded in those "wild" regions}).
The bifurcation of the strains then could have also been enhanced even further by humans "tossing food" (especially the "entrails" -- distasteful/inedible to humans -- of any hunted ruminants/slaughtered livestock) to the LESS aggressive wolves that waited patiently/passively (possibly even "begging") near herds or following hunters. That would have ENHANCED the survival & reproductive prospects of those less aggressive (even "begging") wolves over and above the more "hunting-aggressive" wolves.
-- We've seen similar evolutionary adaptations in MANY species -- including bacteria & viruses -- with them "evolving to mildness" (and/or being eradicated & disappearing altogether) in regions with clean water supplies & modern sewer systems etc (*); and conversely "evolving BACK to highly-fatal-virulence" when such systems decay or are destroyed, abandoned, or overwhelmed.
-- (*) Classic (modern) cases include the massive reduction in Cholera in England; and of course the effective eradication of Malaria from the United States -- the latter chiefly achieved by the pervasive installation of "screens" on windows & doors, which not only blocked carrier mosquitoes from getting into most homes; but "quarantined" infected individuals within them (preventing any mosquitoes that might thus BECOME carriers of a virulent strain from getting out to spread it to others).
It's probably MORE likely that the total "transformation" occurred a bit more gradually, and thus probably over multiple human lifetimes; but yes its entirely possible that a single human generation MIGHT have witnessed a very LARGE & dramatic aspect of that change within their own life.
Most likely that would have been the portion of the transformation where quasi-wild/semi-feral "wolf-dogs" began to be used as "working companions" -- because I have little doubt that THAT aspect was indeed intentional on the part of some human(s).
-- Basically working dogs -- particularly as "herding" assistants and/or hunting "pointers/retrievers" -- were sort of the first form of "AI/Automation/Robots" (because that's what they effectively are; and they really ARE "effective").
[–]kp760 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
I think it's the reverse.
I think *I* have it "nailed" and the "current/newer theory" is the one that is "pretty close" but yet still NOT QUITE THERE.
Yeah, again I think that's only HALF the picture... AND it smacks too much of a teleological intent on the part of "nature" (the whole "progressive" mindset rather blinds them to reality). It entirely leaves out the OTHER HALF of the equation: the active KILLING of the more "aggressive" wolves by humans.
--
And again... that's mistaken in ANOTHER regard... it leaves OUT the likely ACTIVE aspect of humans generously FEEDING the "passive/begging" wolves (yet another problem with the "progressive" mindset is that it is ARROGANTLY biased against giving ancient humans any credit for brains... since they were "pre scientific" [sic] they must have just been ignorant savages... ergo the wolves TOTALLY "self-domesticated"... NOT!)
Yeah... most "scientists" can't help themselves, leaving ONE ditch they instantly veer all the way into the OTHER ditch on the opposite side.
Ergo they go from having a theory that it took TENS of thousands of years... to a ridiculous claim of it happening in ONE human lifetime.
Absurd.
[–]Toolman8900 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]kp760 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
This is true. And from that "first hand witness" standard no one ever can or will.
-- But your own comment inherently accepts & posits that there must be some objective truth to be arrived at, to wit:
So "actually pretty close" to WHAT exactly?
You didn't mean pretty close TO "the newer theory" -- because then you simply would have said exactly that; and the word "according" in that sentence you did write would be superfluous. Ergo you are implying that there is some truth -- and that it is somehow "knowable" even if it cannot be directly known on a first hand basis. You're simply assuming that "the newer theory" IS that truth, rather than simply an iteration that is "pretty close" to it.
-- I'm merely stating the opposite -- that I believe my own description is closer to what will probably be determined to be that "truth" than "the newer theory" is (at least as you have stated it in simplified {perhaps oversimplified} paraphrased summary form here).
[–]kp760 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]eltonl[S] 19 points20 points21 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]eltonl[S] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]unixpoop 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ManIsWalking12 points13 points14 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]eltonl[S] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MattFoley799 points10 points11 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]M26PershingTank1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jkarovskaya1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]MattFoley792 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]muscacavalcade 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Itisforsexy4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aussiewolf822 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RadicalAsceticMonk2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Luce_Bree3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]happyhumblehermit1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SnapshillBot0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aurelian19600 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]gradchad 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link