This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It isn't a story. It is the definition he uses, and very much the standard one
You are the one who brought up breakability as a criterion, not Diamond, nor I. It sure seems to me that if pigs are unbreakable yet domesticated, then the natural conclusion is that breakability is not required for domestication. And breaking a horse "refers to the process used by humans to get horses to let themselves be ridden or harnessed." What does that have to do with how humans use pigs? Or chickens? Or most other domestic animals?
Breaking being used by me as a synonym for taming. One of the main points of a domestication program is to breed tamer traits while not breeding wilder, more rambunctious individuals. Zebras have a decently long reproductive period (similar to horses) which makes the program more ambitious than a dog, cat, or chicken taming process, but considering how easily manipulated they were by Europeans, and how they love to bump uglies it indicates that either:
Domesticating zebras would have been easily done by whoever domesticated horses; or
Domestication of zebras was actually partially done, and the modern zebra is a 50/50 (or so) hybrid wild-type/domesticated animal, similar to how no truly wild type aurochs have existed for millennia.
Yes, I know. The point is that taming is not domestication. Taming is done to an individual animal. Domestication is done to a species. The fact that one can tame an individual animal says nothing about whether one can, through artificial selection, engineer an animal with naturally tame traits.
The definition you gave earlier yourself says nothing about tameness, only about human interest, and another person already showed you that we did change zebras from their wild variant.
I was specifically responding to the following statement by anti_dan: "One of the main points of a domestication program is to breed tamer traits while not breeding wilder, more rambunctious individuals."
Which person was that?
Well, it seems like the correct response was to point out that even breeding a more aggressive variant still counts as domestication, if this is what you wanted to accomplish.
Esperanza
Why would I say that, when my point was that his statement, "Zebras can be trained to be tame" says nothing about whether zebras can be domesticated?
? Esperanza makes an unsupported claim that "Zebras have been modified by being bred in captivity," and then goes on to conflate taming with domestication. His one concrete ostensible example, Lord Rothschild, is specifically mentioned by Diamond on page 171 of my edition, as an example of what domestication is not.
Because the response I suggested makes the same point without contradicting the definition of domesticability you cited, which is what your response did.
The part that says the ones we have larger and smaller captively bread zebras does not conflate the two, and fulfills the criteria from your definition. The lack of support is a valid argument, and maybe @Esperanza can elaborate and provide sources. But keep in mind under these criteria, the claim that the captive zebras are the same as the wild ones is also unsourced, despite the amount of ink spilled saying "no one domsesticated zebras".
He didn't cite is as an example of domesticability, it was a tangent.
? I really don't understand why you think that. I linked to a definitiin which says it is "the process of hereditary reorganization of wild animals and plants into domestic and cultivated forms according to the interests of people. In its strictest sense, it refers to the initial stage of human mastery of wild animals and plants. The fundamental distinction of domesticated animals and plants from their wild ancestors is that they are created by human labour to meet specific requirements or whims..." I elsewhere quoted this definition by Diamond: "domesticated animal is defined as an animal selectively bred in captivity and thereby modified from its wild ancestors, for use by humans who control the animal's breeding and food supply."
There is nothing contradictory about accepting that tameness is one of the "interests" or "specific requirements" or "modif[ications]" that humans might select for in a particular species.
Note that I referenced two articles re the guy mentioned who raises zebras in Utah or thereabouts, both of which referred to them as being the same as wild ones. Obviously reporters often get things wrong, but that is not "unsourced." In contrast, Esperanza seems to be making things up. I just looked at several zebra selling websites, and none make that claim. Note also that 1) there are larger and smaller species of zebra; and 2) Esperanza's claim isn't even about domestication, which involves changes at the species level, rather than merely repeatedly having your largest stallion and mare have sex, then selling the foals. If you are not cross breeding the foals over generations, you are not engaging in artificial selection.
Not how I read it.
Btw, Esperanza says "Obviously, their breeding is controlled by humans, " but perhaps not. This place says: "Most adult female zebras we sell are exposed to males and usually pregnant."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link