While We Wait: Part 4

[Abaddon]

Native Americans - bison and deer.
Sub-Saharan Africans - giraffes, elephants, rhinos, hippopotamuses, etc.
Australian Aborigines - kangaroos.

How is that proof? linky linky!

 

[Daftpanzer]

@Dachspmg!!!, regarding EU II etc on Vista. I forgot to mention, there was an issue where I had to tone down Vista graphical spam to get it to work, setting it to 'classic' mode or something. It was easy to sort out, so much so that I don't remember exactly what was wrong or how I fixed it .

 

[das]

Symphony - I meant that they did, as a matter of fact, have the "concept" of domesticating animals. Not big animals, but the transition is not really difficult (especially since they did have an unified concept of animals which included both dogs and bisons), so even on a purely theoretical level Abaddon's argument does not work.

 

[Abaddon]

das, please tell me how that collapses my arguement?

........................

Before the arrival of the Euros.. there was not sufficient need to overcome the difficulties in domesticating the buffalo.

Following euros arrival, there certainly was no need to since our animals sufficed and filled the niche the buffalo could have.

 

[Symphony D.]

I see, my mistake then. I apologize for the misinterpretation. In that case, I believe it is relatively safe to say that all those who have spoken up on the matter are opposed to Abaddon's theory, excepting Abaddon himself.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Eh, das, please tell me how that collapses my arguement?

Because the Native Americans succeeded in domesticating some animals for food, showing that they did indeed have the concept of domestication in their culture, but they failed to domesticate others for the same and different purposes, showing that the domestication failed not because of a lack of will but because of a lack of domesticability.

 

[North King]

of course! But did any warn those that didnt bother?

...Good God. Did you seriously read my post? At all? I find this incredibly hard to believe.

If Society A domesticates an animal, then Society A has an advantage over the hunter-gatherer Society B. Thus, Society A will end up dominating.

There were around 100 million people in the Americas prior to contact. To assume that none of them bothered to try domesticating any animals there is lunacy. Since some of them tried, and since none of them succeeded, we can conclude the animals weren't domesticatable.

Yes, but what if you have no concept of it, and they arn't readily available to the point of being easy?

NO ONE HAD A CONCEPT OF IT! One does not go around and think, hey, that goat over there would look really nice in my pen. But some people ended up with the goat in the pen. Funny that. It's almost as if you don't need a concept of it to do it anyway.

Again, they had no concept the enemy would be riding either.. and I don't think they had time to try once we arrived!

Jesus Christ! I'm not talking about fighting Europeans, as would be patently obvious to anyone who even bothered to read more than half of the words in my post. I'm talking about internecine warfare among Natives.

Indeed, but it isn't universal either, nor a majority.

I guess that's why Guns, Germs, and Steel won a Pulitzer Prize, and a Phi Beta Kappa Award. Yeah, definitely controversial, widely opposed views.

How is that proof? linky linky!

Thinky thinky! Why wouldn't they have domesticated those animals?

 

[Abaddon]

@ Jal~ That merely shows that some animals are more difficult to domesticate than others....

 

[Abaddon]

...Good God. Did you seriously read my post? At all? I find this incredibly hard to believe.

If Society A domesticates an animal, then Society A has an advantage over the hunter-gatherer Society B. Thus, Society A will end up dominating.

There were around 100 million people in the Americas prior to contact. To assume that none of them bothered to try domesticating any animals there is lunacy. Since some of them tried, and since none of them succeeded, we can conclude the animals weren't domesticatable.

Erm, some things WERE domesticated in NA. Just not the Gruffalo

NO ONE HAD A CONCEPT OF IT! One does not go around and think, hey, that goat over there would look really nice in my pen. But some people ended up with the goat in the pen. Funny that. It's almost as if you don't need a concept of it to do it anyway.

Please, don't bat on about me not reading what you write and stop at the AND in my sentances! I said the concept and the ease. You don't need both, but it helps.

Jesus Christ! I'm not talking about fighting Europeans, as would be patently obvious to anyone who even bothered to read more than half of the words in my post. I'm talking about internecine warfare among Natives.

Sorry, not a single person has mentioned wars between natives up to this point, but a whole lot about europeans arriving and stuffing things up because they had domesticated more things!

I guess that's why Guns, Germs, and Steel won a Pulitzer Prize, and a Phi Beta Kappa Award. Yeah, definitely controversial, widely opposed views.

Don't needlessly exaggerate. Thats hardly what I said

Thinky thinky! Why wouldn't they have domesticated those animals?

Because they couldn't for the amount of effort it was worth expending to achieve?

 

[Symphony D.]

@ Jal~ That merely shows that some animals are more difficult to domesticate than others....

But not impossible, because they didn't spend an infinite amount of time actually testing it, right? Man, I'm sure if we just had some people run into walls until the end of time, eventually they'd learn to teleport through! It's not impossible, guys, it just takes an arbitrarily long time!

Erm, some things WERE domesticated in NA. Just not the Gruffalo

IRRELEVANT, learn to readz, kthnxby.

 

[andis-1]

this discussion brings in mind a proverb I've heard; One madman asks more than 10 wise can answer...

 

[Abaddon]

But not impossible, because they didn't spend an infinite amount of time actually testing it, right? Man, I'm sure if we just had some people run into walls until the end of time, eventually they'd learn to teleport through! It's not impossible, guys, it just takes an arbitrarily long time!

Or it could be they tried, failed and gave up? I don't see your point here. As I have repeatedly said, it wasn't worth doing, thats why it didn't happen.

IRRELEVANT, learn to readz, kthnxby.

Sorry, but just because he decided to discount by size doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

 

[Symphony D.]

Or it could be they tried, failed and gave up? I don't see your point here. As I have repeatedly said, it wasn't worth doing, thats why it didn't happen.

So in your mind nothing is impossible then? Nothing's just flat out infeasible? Do you talk to Luckymoose often?

Sorry, but just because he decided to discount by size doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

No, but we are, even if you aren't, because his point is valid that small domesticates are relatively tangential additions at best vis-a-vis large, complex societies (read: the things NESes concern themselves with), which are based on food and thus, large mammals. Small animals don't replace large animals. They don't "fulfill need."

 

[Abaddon]

Of course things are impossible.

But for the vast majority of animals they were not domesticated because it simply wasn't worth it, not because it was impossible.

 

[North King]

Erm, some things WERE domesticated in NA. Just not the Gruffalo

See Symphony's post.

Please, don't bat on about me not reading what you write and stop at the AND in my sentances! I said the concept and the ease. You don't need both, but it helps.

Sorry, the second part of your sentence was nigh on unintelligible; it was hard to answer.

Sorry, not a single person has mentioned wars between natives up to this point, but a whole lot about europeans arriving and stuffing things up because they had domesticated more things!

I did. It was pretty damn obvious when I started talking about societal selection.

Don't needlessly exaggerate. Thats hardly what I said

You don't win those prizes when you have views not held by the "majority" as you put it yourself.

Because they couldn't for the amount of effort it was worth expending to achieve?

So what you're acknowledging is that it's impossible given a non-insane human society. Gotcha.

Guess the argument's over.

 

[Abaddon]

FFS the possibility for it has never been my argument,

I'm not even trying to bog down in the origins of domestication.

I was merely trying to say why there are few domesticated animals now.

 

[North King]

You make the claim that it is not possible to domesticate an elephant.

You base this on a book stating that elephants used in a case that is often cited for domestication were in fact not.

I accept that elephants have not been domesticated.

What I am arguing that all animals COULD be domesticated if sufficent directives were obtained.

...I think you just did my job for me. Thanks.

 

[Abaddon]

Eugh, i should forget to use abslutes when i shout.

The arguement had moved on from that idea long ago.. roughly when das asked me why.

 

[das]

Before the arrival of the Euros.. there was not sufficient need to overcome the difficulties in domesticating the buffalo.

Excuse me? Primitive tribes just about always existed on the brink of starvation. There was a constant pressing need to find new food sources; that is basically why other peoples have assimilated buffaloes. The failures here were not for the lack of need.

@ Jal~ That merely shows that some animals are more difficult to domesticate than others....

It shows that the difficulties were not conceptual ones.

Because they couldn't for the amount of effort it was worth expending to achieve?

Because they couldn't despite all the efforts they doubtless put to the problem of basic survival, the most powerful motivator in existence at least as far as primitive human societies are concerned, and so gave up, instead devising a cunning, effective survival tactic that we know as their way of life. Note, however, that in all the probability they had only done so because the alternative (i.e. continuing their attempts to domesticate local wildlife) threatened their tribes with near-extinction, or at least with great long-term harm.

That, at least, seems the most likely explanation to me.

 

[Masada]

Heh.

I'm not going to enter the conversation as such, but from a disinterested observer’s point of view, and perhaps this might help the argument, can someone define for my benefit the "textbook" answer of what constitutes taming and what constitutes domestication of an animal… I’m guessing the domestication claim for the elephant or the foxes might have to do more with definition than anything else (there might be a slightly different technical meaning behind domestication which would vary from the layman’s version, there’s also likely to be a test or indicators to apply to check).