Zebras and Unhappy Marriages: A serious discussion, 2
Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 2:04 am
( 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?
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?