• In total there are 6 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 6 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Zebras and Unhappy Marriages: A serious discussion, 2

#4: Sept. - Oct. 2002 (Non-Fiction)
yow
Official Newbie!
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 1:25 am
11

Zebras and Unhappy Marriages: A serious discussion, 2

Unread post

( The previous discussion of this is locked booktalk.org/zebras-and-unhappy-marriag ... t3695.html; another is combined with other issues http://www.booktalk.org/post99636.html#p99636 )

In "Zebras and Unhappy Marriages", about animal domestication, the author notes that Eurasia had more *domesticable* large mammals (cows, goats, sheep etc) than other regions. They are domesticable by with factors such as living in herds rather than solitary; having a hierarchical organization (so we can easily lead them); able to tolerate other herds instead of oppose them; and temperamental factors (e.g. zebras bite people); how long they take to mature (if slow, like elephants, it's too much work, and also takes longer to breed traits); and some other factors.

( He makes a strong argument that the large mammals that can easily be domesticated already have been: the last large mammal species to be domesticated occurred many thousands of years ago - subsequent efforts have failed (NB: that's for large mammals; small mammals such as foxes have been recently domesticated). And he has other valid arguments that I won't go into here. )

But the puzzling thing that he doesn't address is that Eurasia had a much higher *proportion* of domesticable animals than other regions (24% vs 5% vs 0%) before we started domesticating them.

So...why was it that Eurasia had a higher proportion of domesticable animals, in the first place?
yow
Official Newbie!
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 1:25 am
11

Re: Zebras and Unhappy Marriages: A serious discussion, 2

Unread post

To start things off, here's a theory (read: guess): large mammals in Eurasia become more "civilized", as far as animals go, having more complex "societies" that manage to co-exist without conflict (hierarchical, overlapping, temperament). These are very much "civilized" traits, in that they directly facilitate animals living at higher densities - which is how we ourselves live, in a civilization, and how we want our domesticable animals to live. Aggressive traits, such as head-butting in the mating season, are a waste of expensive resources.

A precondition for these to evolve is some benefit, which here is the advantage of numbers for protection, and greater numbers also enables them to spread and out-compete other species. Evolution also requires support for higher densities, which comes from Eurasia (particularly the Fertile Crescent) being fertile and able to support large numbers. Evolution is helped by time, numbers and diversity - the long east-west shape of Eurasia gives many habitats at similar latitudes, making a larger "test tube" for evolution; and the number of niches within that gives diversity. There's a coincidence here, that faster maturation enables faster evolution of these traits, which also is convenient for further evolution by us (i.e. domestication).

If this theory is correct, animals in other regions would tend to also evolve towards these herding traits and temperaments. i.e. I'm seeing it as a parallel to our own civilization (which we might well call our own "domestication" - *we* ourselves were a domesticable species).


EDIT: found an essay on point: http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/zebra.html It claims that because zebras evolved alongside humans, they are wary of us; whereas large mammals in other regions were tame. This lead to the extinction of large mammals at human hands in Australia and America - why not in Eurasia too? This doesn't explain their generally antisocial behaviour, which is also directed to their herd-fellows, and not specifically reserved for human beings http://www.africa-wildlife-detective.com/zebras.html; and their wariness would be related to the many predators in Africa, not just humans.

IDEA: perhaps those herds in Eurasia were also in an expanding phase filling an empty habitat, rather than a crowded competitive arena like Africa? Like a business in a new field, it succeeds by telling people about it and getting them to try it; but in a mature industry, it's a nasty zero-sum game). I don't know if Eurasia *was* empty - except that at that time (13,000 BC), an ice age was just ending, opening and expanding ecological niches. Whatever animals could fill them fastest would win.
Post Reply

Return to “Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies - by Jared Diamond”