site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31030 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 2023

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.

9
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I understand your objection, but I think Diamond's book is one of those that taken as how he states it fits into the not even wrong category. You read the book, and it all sounds very science-y and convincing. But then you think about it again and it occurs to you that, hmm wait a minute, how can you even suppose to think about what a "wild" pig, chicken, horse etc actually is? The fact is the ostensibly wild populations of these things are hopelessly interbred with escaped chickens and horses from the early and current selectively bred populations, and its not easily done determinable when breeding really started.

Then you did down into things like his zebra arguments, and they are just obviously rubbish because there are multiple instances of Europeans going to Africa in the 1800s and early 1900s and remarking on how easy to break zebras are, and it seems his zebra-horse comparison is actually like 180 degrees from what actually was the difficulty level. And then you have to think to yourself, "huh, if he got this super easy thing so wrong, how much else is just him spinning nonsense?" And then even small inquiries indicate yes. And your logical conclusion is delving into the rest is simply a massive waste of time and energy.

I didn't even get to that point - I saw GGS from the outset as an attempt to provide an alternative hypothesis to the HBD explanation, but the only reason you need an alternative hypothesis to the HBD explanation is social pressure. The metaphor that comes to mind is of a child trying to explain why the cookie went missing when you left the room, entirely unaware that you had them on video surveillance the whole time. When you already know the answer, there's very little to be gained from listening to an excuse you know is going to be false beyond laughter (and there were a few great memes shitting on GGS).

Then you did down into things like his zebra arguments, and they are just obviously rubbish because there are multiple instances of Europeans going to Africa in the 1800s and early 1900s and remarking on how easy to break zebras are,

But, breaking an animal is not the same as domesticating an animal. As noted on page 159: "Elephants have been tamed, but never domesticated. Hannibal's elephants were, and Asian work elephants are, just wild elephants that were captured and tamed; they were not bred in captivity. In contrast, a 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."

And of course to this day zebras have not been domesticated.

But, breaking an animal is not the same as domesticating an animal.

What is the actual definition of "domestication"? Like, I see this elsewhere in the thread:

Domestication, 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 and are adapted to the conditions of continuous care and solicitude people maintain for them.

...But this seems to be a fairly loose definition.

Zebras can be tamed, and they can be bred in captivity, and these can be done in a handful of generations from completely wild animals. Is there a reason to suspect that another two or three hundred generations of selective breeding would not render them completely domesticated?

Diamond observes that certain species were not domesticated, despite being very similar to species in other areas which were domesticated. He concludes that the species which were not domesticated were therefore harder to domesticate. This might make sense if domestication was pursued equally effectively in all the areas in question, but what evidence do we have that this was the case? What separates Diamond's thesis from a post-hoc rule that all the animals that were domesticated were therefore the easiest to domesticate, and the animals that were not couldn't have been? If zebras are harder to domesticate than horses, but easier than wild boar, doesn't that invalidate his thesis?

He concludes that the species which were not domesticated were therefore harder to domesticate.

No, he makes an argument re why that was the case. His argument might be wrong, but it indeed an argument. He does not simply conclude that they were undomesticable from the mere fact that they were not domesticated.

No, he makes an argument re why that was the case. His argument might be wrong, but it indeed an argument. He does not simply conclude that they were undomesticable from the mere fact that they were not domesticated.

I didn't posit that he argued it, but rather concluded it. I think someone can argue rationally for a conclusion they've drawn irrationally, a process commonly known as "rationalization". One of the better evidences that this is happening is that their arguments are consistently wrong in their favored direction, ignoring obvious evidence to the contrary, collecting only the evidence that helps their conclusion and repeatedly missing anything to the contrary. If his argument is wrong, maybe that's because he made a mistake, or maybe it's because he's rationalizing. If he's rationalizing, it raises the question of whether he actually has a legitimate argument at all. It seems to me that this is a reasonable question to ask, isn't it?

Notably, I don't actually know, because I haven't read the book and am getting the arguments involved second-hand. This would work better if people would dig into the arguments more, rather than arguing about arguments about the argument. But fuck it, I needed audio anyhow. Piracy time.

ignoring obvious evidence to the contrary,

As I recall, one of the strengths of the book is that he often acknowledges the existence of contrary evidence and arguments, and attempts to address them. Whether he does so successfully, I do not recall, but he certainly does not generally ignore countervailing evidence.

The entire premise of the book is an attempt to explain why people in Papua New Guinea have so little while white people have so much. Do you recall him addressing the argument that you would get if you posed that question here?

Jared Diamond’s journey of discovery began on the island of Papua New Guinea. There, in 1974, a local named Yali asked Diamond a deceptively simple question:

“Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo, but we black people had little cargo of our own?”

Diamond realized that Yali’s question penetrated the heart of a great mystery of human history -- the roots of global inequality.

Diamond knew that the answer had little to do with ingenuity or individual skill. From his own experience in the jungles of New Guinea, he had observed that native hunter-gatherers were just as intelligent as people of European descent -- and far more resourceful.

Diamond just knew that it had nothing to do with "ingenuity or individual skill." He did not have to prove that; he just knew it.

His answer is fabulous, as it presumes that animals and plants can be radically different depending on the continent they are in (hence zebras and horses) but denies that any such difference could exist between people from different continents. A zebra is from Africa, and we can presume that it cannot be domesticated because of its genetics, but genetics only work for plants and animals. We could never countenance such a claim about an African person.

He completely fails to engage with the other side and refuses to even consider the possibility that some countries did well because of individual decisions. It has to be geography that matters, not decisions made by people. Even on this point which he believes because of Marxism, he can not be consistent, as he blames China not dominating the seas on the decision of a single emperor. Basically, he is a hack that refuses to argue.

Sure that is a story. But being breakable is easily translatable to domestication so long as breeding isn't a problem. There is no evidence that, for example, Bison or zebras don't breed when put into fences.

If livestock is breakable + breedable, it is maximally easy to domesticate, so long as you have a long timespan outlook. Pigs are seemingly unbreakable and were still domesticated. Under the Diamond theory of the world, pigs would be an order of magnitude harder to domesticate than zebras.

Sure that is a story.

It isn't a story. It is the definition he uses, and very much the standard one

Pigs are seemingly unbreakable and were still domesticated.

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:

  1. Domesticating zebras would have been easily done by whoever domesticated horses; or

  2. 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.

Breaking being used by me as a synonym for taming

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.

Ok? Basically every-time we try breeding naturally tame traits these days the experiments show that the only real limit is them actually breeding enough and within our patience for trying.

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.

The definition you gave earlier yourself says nothing about tameness,

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."

another person already showed you that we did change zebras from their wild variant.

Which person was that?

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."

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.

Which person was that?

Esperanza

More comments

There is no evidence that, for example, Bison or zebras don't breed when put into fences.

Not only that, there's evidence that they do (NSFW). We've been breeding them in captivity for how long now?

And of course to this day zebras have not been domesticated.

This probably highlights my issue with GGS the best. Why would you say that without checking first? Why would Diamond?

I did check. Did you?

Yes. They are tamed, and bread in captivity. What's supposed to be the problem, that they haven't diverged enough? If so the only reason it hasn't happened is because we didn't want it to.

What's supposed to be the problem

The problem is that we are talking about domestication. Every source I have seen says that the have not been domesticated. Do you have a source that says otherwise?

If so the only reason it hasn't happened is because we didn't want it to.

How do you know? Where is your evidence for that claim? Diamond says that there are something like 170 wild species of large herbivores, yet humans have managed to domesticate only 15. Did we not want to domesticate the other 155 as well? Or is it possible that only a few species are susceptible to domestication?

The problem is that we are talking about domestication. Every source I have seen says that the have not been domesticated. Do you have a source that says otherwise?

I was under the impression that "zebras have not been domesticated until this day" was an argument for why cultures that developed with animals that were domesticated had some sort of an advantage, not that it's an otherwise contentless claim, only true via a technicality. Are you saying it's the latter?

How do you know? Where is your evidence for that claim?

Because the only criterion necessary for "domestication" is that we artificially breed them to have some characteristic making them more useful to us, than their wild counterpart. Unless you wish to make the claim that zebra's DNA is somehow locked and set in stone, it's only a question of time before you find some heritable feature, a cosmetic one, if nothing else, that you can breed more of.

Did we not want to domesticate the other 155 as well?

Yes. Why do you find it that unlikely? Based on what evidence?

Or is it possible that only a few species are susceptible to domestication?

It's possible, but it needs supporting evidence, like someone actually trying, and then failing to accomplish it.

In the case of zebras we can dimiss it, because the population that lived next to zebras didn't seem to even try (they didn't tame them, or breed them in captivity, even though we know it's possible), and by the time other populations discovered them, they had little practical use for a new specialized animal species.

I was under the impression that "zebras have not been domesticated until this day" was an argument for why cultures that developed with animals that were domesticated had some sort of an advantage,

No, it was merely an argument that Diamond is correct that zebras are difficult to domesticate.

It's possible, but it needs supporting evidence, like someone actually trying, and then failing to accomplish it.

I find that a rather astonishing statement, since we are talking about the merits of a book which spent many pages making that exact argument, with supporting evidence. That doesn't mean that the book is correct, but your claim that no such argument has been made doesn't wash. And, re zebras, Diamond does refer to unsuccessful modern efforts to domesticate zebras.

And, remember, none of us cares about zebras. Rather, we are discussing the accuracy of Diamond's claim about zebras. And that claim is about domestication, which he defines in the standard way 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."

No, it was merely an argument that Diamond is correct that zebras are difficult to domesticate.

Right, so that would be "an otherwise contentless claim, only true via a technicality"

Diamond does refer to unsuccessful modern efforts to domesticate zebras.

But he refers to them in the same way he refers to wheat vs teosinte and maize, i.e. he makes it insanely difficult to figure out where reference even is, and then it usually turns out he's presented it in a misleading way. Have you seen even a bit of the video I linked?

And, remember, none of us cares about zebras. Rather, we are discussing the accuracy of Diamond's claim about zebras.

Actually, as per your own argument, we're discussing the accuracy of the connections he drew from the basic component of other researcher's claims about zebras. I can grant the simple fact that they haven't been domesticated - I'm sure that if we looked into the details it's actually debatable, but like you said, we don't care about zebras. What I cannot grant is that it's evidence for his broader argument.

Why are you ignoring the rest of the definition of "domesticate"? And, your very source s headlined, "Zebra breeding tough" and says "The striped equines are still wild animals at heart." And here is an article about that guy from 2021 which says, "Unlike Watusis, which have been domesticated for thousands of years, zebras are still very feral."

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats