3 ms·

Can you offer cliff notes on what/why you found his argument persuasive? For one who has relatively little interest in reading such a book, the claim seems qui

Can you offer cliff notes on what/why you found his argument persuasive? For one who has relatively little interest in reading such a book, the claim seems quite outlandish. For instance Africa has everything from monkeys to elephants, and most have been tamed. Even the common exception of zebras isn't really an exception. One can find countless examples of them being tamed to varying degrees [1], but there seems to be no large scale and competent multi-generational effort to achieve that at scale. Taming in many species is a process that happens over many decades to centuries. And when you look at other places like Russia, everything from foxes to bears have been tamed. [1] - https://www.npr.org/2014/09/20/349856240/my-little-zebra-it-might-be-legal-that-doesnt-make-it-a-good-idea https://www.npr.org/2014/09/20/349856240/my-little-zebra-it-...

mr_toad 3y ago
Domesticated means more than tamed. Domesticated means bred in captivity for so many generations that their behavior and physique has changed. You can tame a wolf, but it won’t be a dog.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  Of course this is true, but I'm not entirely sure of the implication? A tamed animal can be used for work, which is presumably the crux of his hypothesis?
  - idiomaddict 3y ago
    Domesticated animals make more domesticated animals. Tamed animals make taming projects for their owners
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      Tamed animals also can generally reproduce in captivity, with exceptions being exceptions more than the rule. For instance zebras have yet to be domesticated but can be tamed, reproduce in captivity, and we've even created all sorts of hybrids since zebras also can reproduce with horses, donkeys and so on.
      - int_19h 3y ago
        GP's point is that for tamed animals, each animal has to undergo the long and arduous taming process before it becomes docile enough to be "useful". With domesticated animals, this isn't really the case - just being raised around humans is sufficient.
        somenameforme 3y ago
        Well yes, but it becomes easier and easier over time. And taming over generations can gradually trend towards domestication. For instance Russian experiments in domestication took something like 40 generations to create sustainably domesticated foxes, and that was starting with the cream of the crop in terms of sentiment - they were selectively pulling them from fox fur farms. For another example the horses we know of today are certainly very different creatures than the animals from which they were initially selectively bred. So I think we're now getting back to the point. The idea that this all had a meaningful, let alone critical, impact on the overall evolution and competence of civilizations just seems quite irrational without some sort of major missing link that nobody seems to be able to provide.
        int_19h 3y ago
        The idea isn't that it has impact on "overall competence" of the civilization so much so that it has effect on their economy. Which matters when it comes to fielding armies, and thus to who conquers whom in the end. FWIW I don't know if I buy this particular argument from Diamond myself in a sense that all those animals aren't possible to domesticate in principle. What is undeniable, though, is that horses and oxen are very efficient as beasts of burden. Which means that a single farmer can produce more surplus food to feed people doing other things (like say going to foreign lands to conquer them). And militarily, horses give you cavalry, of course, but perhaps even more importantly, they make military logistics that much more effective - and for pre-modern armies the logistics is often what defines their limits.
        somenameforme 3y ago

mr_toad 3y ago

Domesticated means more than tamed. Domesticated means bred in captivity for so many generations that their behavior and physique has changed. You can tame a wolf, but it won’t be a dog.

somenameforme 3y ago
Of course this is true, but I'm not entirely sure of the implication? A tamed animal can be used for work, which is presumably the crux of his hypothesis?
- idiomaddict 3y ago
  Domesticated animals make more domesticated animals. Tamed animals make taming projects for their owners
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    Tamed animals also can generally reproduce in captivity, with exceptions being exceptions more than the rule. For instance zebras have yet to be domesticated but can be tamed, reproduce in captivity, and we've even created all sorts of hybrids since zebras also can reproduce with horses, donkeys and so on.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      GP's point is that for tamed animals, each animal has to undergo the long and arduous taming process before it becomes docile enough to be "useful". With domesticated animals, this isn't really the case - just being raised around humans is sufficient.
      - somenameforme 3y ago
        Well yes, but it becomes easier and easier over time. And taming over generations can gradually trend towards domestication. For instance Russian experiments in domestication took something like 40 generations to create sustainably domesticated foxes, and that was starting with the cream of the crop in terms of sentiment - they were selectively pulling them from fox fur farms. For another example the horses we know of today are certainly very different creatures than the animals from which they were initially selectively bred. So I think we're now getting back to the point. The idea that this all had a meaningful, let alone critical, impact on the overall evolution and competence of civilizations just seems quite irrational without some sort of major missing link that nobody seems to be able to provide.
        int_19h 3y ago
        The idea isn't that it has impact on "overall competence" of the civilization so much so that it has effect on their economy. Which matters when it comes to fielding armies, and thus to who conquers whom in the end. FWIW I don't know if I buy this particular argument from Diamond myself in a sense that all those animals aren't possible to domesticate in principle. What is undeniable, though, is that horses and oxen are very efficient as beasts of burden. Which means that a single farmer can produce more surplus food to feed people doing other things (like say going to foreign lands to conquer them). And militarily, horses give you cavalry, of course, but perhaps even more importantly, they make military logistics that much more effective - and for pre-modern armies the logistics is often what defines their limits.
        somenameforme 3y ago