6 ms·

And wolves are ideal?

by usrnm 2y ago

fooker 2y ago
Yes, wolves are pretty intelligent and social compared to zebras. They understood the core concept of ‘do not bite the hand that feeds you’ instinctively.
- vintermann 2y ago
  Zebras understood the concept that "this guy can out-think you. If you behave predictably, you'll regret it. If you behave unpredictably, he may regret it too." There's this theory that's why there are so few domesticable animals in Africa: that they co-evolved with humans, and the ones who behaved predictably and weren't willing to randomly hurt you for no apparent reason at their own expense, were eaten by our ancestors.
  - short_sells_poo 2y ago
    > the ones who behaved predictably and weren't willing to randomly hurt you for no apparent reason at their own expense, were eaten by our ancestors. This doesn't make sense to me. Sure, an an animal that is generally a belligerent asshole will discourage humans from trying to tame it, but why would it discourage hunting? If anything, it would encourage hunting the bad animal to extinction, no? Humans successfully hunted Mammoths and other large game even in the stone age, so I don't see how having a bad temper would help.
    - vintermann 2y ago
      My guess is that while humans are great hunters, apes aren't, and that our distant ancestors would be a lot more dependent on prey behaving as expected and not, say, suddenly charge at you suicidally.
      - fooker 2y ago
        Chimpanzees are decent hunters.
  - ivanhoe 2y ago
    There's generally a lot more large wild animals in Africa than anywhere else in the world.
    - oblio 2y ago
      That actually brings up an interesting topic: are they (still) there because human populations are comparatively lower? Africa has some very fertile regions but except for some like the Nile Valley most of them couldn't really compete well with the Yellow River Valley, the Ganges Valley, etc. Just for comparison, the population of Africa around 1900 was around 100 million, out of which Egypt had 10 million, Ethiopia 10 million, Nigeria 30 million, and 1-2 other population centers around 10 million each. So 70 out 100 million people were bunched up in maybe 5% of the territory. In the meantime, just India had about 300 million people in 1900 :-) India within from 1500 to 1900 probably had more humans living in it than Africa from the beginning of mankind to 1900.
      - ffgjgf1 2y ago
        To be fair the slave trade (both Arabic and Atlantic) exerted (possibly) very significant downwards pressure on population growth in Africa during multiple centuries prior to 1900.
        oblio 2y ago
        True, but based on the limited info we have, Africa had a much lower population than either India or China even 1000 years prior to that. Just sheer fertility of regions, navigability of rivers, etc, as a Civilization of EU4 player would put it, meant a "better starting position" for some :-p
        aksss 2y ago
        Or was/is slavery enabled by excess population relative to resources (no matter time and place)? When life becomes very cheap, etc.? I'm not proposing it is, just wondering about how it looks economically.
    - InitialLastName 2y ago
wheels 2y ago
This isn't dead reckoning: there have been multiple attempts to domesticate zebras and dogs, and it's worked twice with dogs and zero times with zebras, thus, yes, one can say that wolves are approximately ideal. It just turns out that what we think of as necessary qualities are potentially wrong. There have been lots of attempts to domesticate zebras because they're so similar to horses and donkeys.
- suzzer99 2y ago
  I wonder if it could be something like horses being willing to trade their freedom for hay in the harsh winter, whereas zebras can just hang out on the grasslands year round.
dtech 2y ago
Wolves are much more social than zebras, which is advantageous in domestication. Zebras live in herds but it's much more free for all than a wolf pack.
ivanhoe 2y ago
Wolves are more aggressive than dogs, but can be successfully domesticated and kept as pets... can actually be quite friendly with humans, especially female wolfs as they're a lot less competitive/aggressive than males.
jklinger410 2y ago
There is more than one breed of dog/wolf (just like there are horses). And I think the evidence is pretty clear that, yes, they are ideal. Weird comment.

And wolves are ideal?

by usrnm 2y ago

And wolves are ideal?

Yes, wolves are pretty intelligent and social compared to zebras. They understood the core concept of ‘do not bite the hand that feeds you’ instinctively.

vintermann 2y ago
Zebras understood the concept that "this guy can out-think you. If you behave predictably, you'll regret it. If you behave unpredictably, he may regret it too." There's this theory that's why there are so few domesticable animals in Africa: that they co-evolved with humans, and the ones who behaved predictably and weren't willing to randomly hurt you for no apparent reason at their own expense, were eaten by our ancestors.
- short_sells_poo 2y ago
  > the ones who behaved predictably and weren't willing to randomly hurt you for no apparent reason at their own expense, were eaten by our ancestors. This doesn't make sense to me. Sure, an an animal that is generally a belligerent asshole will discourage humans from trying to tame it, but why would it discourage hunting? If anything, it would encourage hunting the bad animal to extinction, no? Humans successfully hunted Mammoths and other large game even in the stone age, so I don't see how having a bad temper would help.
  - vintermann 2y ago
    My guess is that while humans are great hunters, apes aren't, and that our distant ancestors would be a lot more dependent on prey behaving as expected and not, say, suddenly charge at you suicidally.
    - fooker 2y ago
      Chimpanzees are decent hunters.
- ivanhoe 2y ago
  There's generally a lot more large wild animals in Africa than anywhere else in the world.
  - oblio 2y ago
    That actually brings up an interesting topic: are they (still) there because human populations are comparatively lower? Africa has some very fertile regions but except for some like the Nile Valley most of them couldn't really compete well with the Yellow River Valley, the Ganges Valley, etc. Just for comparison, the population of Africa around 1900 was around 100 million, out of which Egypt had 10 million, Ethiopia 10 million, Nigeria 30 million, and 1-2 other population centers around 10 million each. So 70 out 100 million people were bunched up in maybe 5% of the territory. In the meantime, just India had about 300 million people in 1900 :-) India within from 1500 to 1900 probably had more humans living in it than Africa from the beginning of mankind to 1900.
    - ffgjgf1 2y ago
      To be fair the slave trade (both Arabic and Atlantic) exerted (possibly) very significant downwards pressure on population growth in Africa during multiple centuries prior to 1900.
      - oblio 2y ago
        True, but based on the limited info we have, Africa had a much lower population than either India or China even 1000 years prior to that. Just sheer fertility of regions, navigability of rivers, etc, as a Civilization of EU4 player would put it, meant a "better starting position" for some :-p
      - aksss 2y ago
        Or was/is slavery enabled by excess population relative to resources (no matter time and place)? When life becomes very cheap, etc.? I'm not proposing it is, just wondering about how it looks economically.
  - InitialLastName 2y ago

wheels 2y ago

This isn't dead reckoning: there have been multiple attempts to domesticate zebras and dogs, and it's worked twice with dogs and zero times with zebras, thus, yes, one can say that wolves are approximately ideal. It just turns out that what we think of as necessary qualities are potentially wrong. There have been lots of attempts to domesticate zebras because they're so similar to horses and donkeys.

suzzer99 2y ago
I wonder if it could be something like horses being willing to trade their freedom for hay in the harsh winter, whereas zebras can just hang out on the grasslands year round.

dtech 2y ago

Wolves are much more social than zebras, which is advantageous in domestication. Zebras live in herds but it's much more free for all than a wolf pack.

ivanhoe 2y ago

Wolves are more aggressive than dogs, but can be successfully domesticated and kept as pets... can actually be quite friendly with humans, especially female wolfs as they're a lot less competitive/aggressive than males.

jklinger410 2y ago

There is more than one breed of dog/wolf (just like there are horses). And I think the evidence is pretty clear that, yes, they are ideal. Weird comment.