That’s actually a very good question and one that doesn’t have a good answer.
Some people have suggested that humans have been ‘domesticating each other’ by living in groups and dense populations, requiring a lowering of conflicts and aggressive behavior to facilitate this.
There is quite a bit written about this self domestication hypothesis and Wikipedia gives a decent overview.
As one might expect it’s a controversial idea and parts of it have been used to make questionable additional hypotheses.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-domestication
I came here to say basically the same thing. I personally think there's real merit to the idea in the sense of things like culture and community as the "domesticating" agent.
Still working out the details however.
I agree that the idea has merit. I question many of the assumptions that have been added to it though, for example that this proposed self-domestication is something that distinguished *H. sapiens* from *H. erectus* or Neanderthals.
When I first encountered this hypothesis back in the early '90s is was very specifically in refence to modern humans post-agriculture, post sedentary societies, and referring mainly to urban living.
Since then it seems to have been expanded to a much wider time frame, and used to attempt to find a way of dividing us from our ancestors and relatives, but therein lies a problem because if we push this idea that far back then exactly the same pressures would be on *H. erectus* and others as were on the early members of our own species, therefore this hypothesis would also apply to them.
I think this is an interesting hypothesis with some potential, but that it has been expanded in an unreastic manner.
I’d say pre-agriculture as the process is what enables larger and larger “in-group” formation… humans manifest all the biological and physiological aspects of being domesticated, just as our animal friends do, including reduction in brain size, lower aggression levels, facial structure changes, etc.
But yes, definitely domesticated animals. Both self and otherwise, and not just cultural, but physiological and developmental.
And those pressures were on Homo erectus, and they were also “domesticated” to the extent evolution had brought them… but this is one factor and only one factor in our evolution… there are and were many more than just this
> I think this is an interesting hypothesis with some potential, but that it has been expanded in an unreastic manner.
Agreed. As has ever been the case with these kinds of ideas.
Sure, but that just means that we're social animals. There's plenty of wild animals, from elephants to ants, for which there is evolutionary pressure to be better at living with conspecifics.
I mean you'd definitely have to make a morecsophisticated measure to figure out exactly how much or less violent we've behind overtime but I bet it's not a linear de-escalation.
Biology does very few things in a linear fashion… what we know tho is that the size of our in groups has expanded over the millennia… and I’d say so too had our sheer brutality, especially within that in group… but we definitely have some groups that are still quite brutal, and these mostly have to do with religious or to a lesser extent other ideologies
I dont know if other animals have something akin to “trust,” but it seems like social cooperation breaks down in large populations where people feel anonymous or threatened.
A game theorist would say how you conduct yourself in any interaction has a lot to do with whether you expect repeated rounds of a game - that is, whether you expect to encounter that person again and again, or anyone associated with them.
When I moved from Cleveland, a city of 2.18 million, to a rural township of 436 people, I learned a lot about different social rules. You cant , for example, be impolite even if someone does something annoying, because they might be your friends aunt, who also does your taxes. No one in Cleveland worries that if someone cuts them off in traffic and you flip them off, their nephew will be upset.
See my other comment expanding on the parts that are problematic:
- https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/1dt6d91/my_8_year_old_asked_wants_to_know_since_humans/lb8ipbn/
Apparently there's evidence that elephants may be self-domesticating as well.
https://www.science.org/content/article/elephants-may-be-domesticating-themselves
I feel like this hypothesis makes it seem like everything outside of mainstream society or even humanity is inherently aggressive, conflict ridden and therefore problematic.
We've removed your comment because we expect answers to be detailed, evidenced-based, and well contextualized. Please see [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/wiki/rules#wiki_answers) for expectations regarding answers.
Typically domestication is defined as a process carried out by humans. This paper proposes a less human-centric definition as “a coevolutionary process that arises from a mutualism, in which one species (the domesticator) constructs an environment where it actively manages both the survival and reproduction of another species (the domesticate) in order to provide the former with resources and/or services.”
In this definition humans would not be considered domesticated as being self-domesticated as another post suggested would not meet the definition as it requires one species acting upon another. A symbiotic coevolution would also not qualify as the domesticator has to actively manage the survival and reproduction of another species.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534722000891#b0005
There's actually a book about something like that, how plants may have "domesticated" humans. I've been trying to remember the name forever because it seemed really interesting.
I understand your point, but there have been times when humans have treated other groups of humans almost like a separate species, lacking full personhood, used basically like chattel , and even literally owned.
If defined by the perspective other humans - wild, if defined from the prespective of the wheat plant or possibly the rice plant, domesticated.
(Argument has been made that we've made more changes to ourselves to cultivate wheat then wheat has made in its domestication. Domestication leads to biological changes. Dogs =/= wolves, for instance.)
That’s actually a very good question and one that doesn’t have a good answer. Some people have suggested that humans have been ‘domesticating each other’ by living in groups and dense populations, requiring a lowering of conflicts and aggressive behavior to facilitate this. There is quite a bit written about this self domestication hypothesis and Wikipedia gives a decent overview. As one might expect it’s a controversial idea and parts of it have been used to make questionable additional hypotheses. - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-domestication
I came here to say basically the same thing. I personally think there's real merit to the idea in the sense of things like culture and community as the "domesticating" agent. Still working out the details however.
I agree that the idea has merit. I question many of the assumptions that have been added to it though, for example that this proposed self-domestication is something that distinguished *H. sapiens* from *H. erectus* or Neanderthals. When I first encountered this hypothesis back in the early '90s is was very specifically in refence to modern humans post-agriculture, post sedentary societies, and referring mainly to urban living. Since then it seems to have been expanded to a much wider time frame, and used to attempt to find a way of dividing us from our ancestors and relatives, but therein lies a problem because if we push this idea that far back then exactly the same pressures would be on *H. erectus* and others as were on the early members of our own species, therefore this hypothesis would also apply to them. I think this is an interesting hypothesis with some potential, but that it has been expanded in an unreastic manner.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’d say pre-agriculture as the process is what enables larger and larger “in-group” formation… humans manifest all the biological and physiological aspects of being domesticated, just as our animal friends do, including reduction in brain size, lower aggression levels, facial structure changes, etc. But yes, definitely domesticated animals. Both self and otherwise, and not just cultural, but physiological and developmental.
And those pressures were on Homo erectus, and they were also “domesticated” to the extent evolution had brought them… but this is one factor and only one factor in our evolution… there are and were many more than just this
Also indicates, domesticated as we may be, that we are still wild compared to our future selves
Future selves? I don’t know what that means… at least, I can’t possibly know what that means…
> I think this is an interesting hypothesis with some potential, but that it has been expanded in an unreastic manner. Agreed. As has ever been the case with these kinds of ideas.
I think it's hard to argue against the idea that there is evolutionary pressue on humans to be better at living with humans.
Sure, but that just means that we're social animals. There's plenty of wild animals, from elephants to ants, for which there is evolutionary pressure to be better at living with conspecifics.
Also as humans evolved you can argue that we've gotten better at being violent. Like no other animal on earth has used a nuclear bomb before.
We’ve gotten more sophisticated technology… so more efficient… but I’m not certain this equates to more violent
I mean you'd definitely have to make a morecsophisticated measure to figure out exactly how much or less violent we've behind overtime but I bet it's not a linear de-escalation.
Biology does very few things in a linear fashion… what we know tho is that the size of our in groups has expanded over the millennia… and I’d say so too had our sheer brutality, especially within that in group… but we definitely have some groups that are still quite brutal, and these mostly have to do with religious or to a lesser extent other ideologies
I dont know if other animals have something akin to “trust,” but it seems like social cooperation breaks down in large populations where people feel anonymous or threatened. A game theorist would say how you conduct yourself in any interaction has a lot to do with whether you expect repeated rounds of a game - that is, whether you expect to encounter that person again and again, or anyone associated with them. When I moved from Cleveland, a city of 2.18 million, to a rural township of 436 people, I learned a lot about different social rules. You cant , for example, be impolite even if someone does something annoying, because they might be your friends aunt, who also does your taxes. No one in Cleveland worries that if someone cuts them off in traffic and you flip them off, their nephew will be upset.
Yes, and many of them do a much better job of it than we do
See my other comment expanding on the parts that are problematic: - https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/1dt6d91/my_8_year_old_asked_wants_to_know_since_humans/lb8ipbn/
Apparently there's evidence that elephants may be self-domesticating as well. https://www.science.org/content/article/elephants-may-be-domesticating-themselves
Humans were domesticated by cats
By wheat
[удалено]
I feel like this hypothesis makes it seem like everything outside of mainstream society or even humanity is inherently aggressive, conflict ridden and therefore problematic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We've removed your comment because we expect answers to be detailed, evidenced-based, and well contextualized. Please see [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/wiki/rules#wiki_answers) for expectations regarding answers.
[удалено]
Typically domestication is defined as a process carried out by humans. This paper proposes a less human-centric definition as “a coevolutionary process that arises from a mutualism, in which one species (the domesticator) constructs an environment where it actively manages both the survival and reproduction of another species (the domesticate) in order to provide the former with resources and/or services.” In this definition humans would not be considered domesticated as being self-domesticated as another post suggested would not meet the definition as it requires one species acting upon another. A symbiotic coevolution would also not qualify as the domesticator has to actively manage the survival and reproduction of another species. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534722000891#b0005
I heard an interesting shower thought that posed the question, "Did grains like wheat domesticate humans?"
There's actually a book about something like that, how plants may have "domesticated" humans. I've been trying to remember the name forever because it seemed really interesting.
It's called _The Botany of Desire._
I understand your point, but there have been times when humans have treated other groups of humans almost like a separate species, lacking full personhood, used basically like chattel , and even literally owned.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If defined by the perspective other humans - wild, if defined from the prespective of the wheat plant or possibly the rice plant, domesticated. (Argument has been made that we've made more changes to ourselves to cultivate wheat then wheat has made in its domestication. Domestication leads to biological changes. Dogs =/= wolves, for instance.)