While We Wait: Part 4

[Abaddon]

Can a pig bear you wool? Can a horse cross the desert? Can a sheep breed at will? Not as well as another animal.

No animal is complete, but with a handful you fill most needs. Different environments also play a part.


What animals are there, that could have been useful to domesticate that we have "failed" to?

 

[das]

Possible Daas because I didn't.

If so... then what the hell are you trying to achieve here? As far as I could see all you are doing is argue (rather poorly, if steadfastly) with Symphony D. about various irrelevant technicalities, at least for the last few pages.

Thank you for wasting several hours of everyone's time. This has I'm sure been very educational for those watching.

Quite.

Isn't the Soviet symbol a bear? Hey yall.

The symbol of Great Novgorod, but not, for instance, of the polity that had conquered it, or of any of its successors.

 

[Abaddon]

If so... then what the hell are you trying to achieve here? As far as I could see all you are doing is argue (rather poorly, if steadfastly) with Symphony D. about various irrelevant technicalities, at least for the last few pages.

Achieve? Why would I be doing this merely on some little wim from a NES. I have a background in this matter, and beleive my point of view has logic that is of value. I do not believe the principle thrust of SD's argument. I am arguing because I think the point I am trying to make is correct.

An I am sorry, but I did not raise to playing with technicalities until it was done to myself. I am not a good debater, I accept that, but I know what I am trying to prove, and I am damned if he will bury it.

 

[Dachs]

One of these days, you'll carelessly put out one bit of information on the webs--a picture, a video, a paper, anything--and your fears will not be unfounded.

The above statement indicates how truly lazy you are. Any moron could have figured out who I am as of at least late May, and I'm pretty sure some of you already have. A few people I IM could probably have done it earlier.

well I'm back from my three day trip home, noticed the only thing to have changed is the ww got a few (by which I mean a lot of) pages longer

As is its wont. Having already read Guns, Germs, and Steel, the vast majority of this isn't even enlightening as some past discussions have been. I feel cheated.

Not quite, perhaps my punctuation was amis.

You're speling and gramer is rong 2.

Thanks, Daft. I might go and pick up Vicky now, thanks.

 

[das]

but I know what I am trying to prove,

Which would be what exactly?

 

[Abaddon]

Eugh.


That the difficulty in domesticating some animals, is not the principle reason behind the apparent low frequency of domestication.

 

[das]

The principle reason behind the lack of more animals being domesticated up until now is indeed more correctly put as the comparative ease in domesticating some other animals, therefore making the need for domestication of less easily domesticated animals this much less pressing. But technically that and what you say to be arguing against are merely two sides of the same coin.

 

[Abaddon]

The principle reason behind the lack of more animals being domesticated up until now is indeed more correctly put as the comparative ease in domesticating some other animals, therefore making the need for domestication of less easily domesticated animals this much less pressing.

EXACTLY!!! This is what I have been trying to say for PAGES, but Symp keeps going on about elephants and cheetahs!

But technically that and what you say to be arguing against are merely two sides of the same coin.

bu? does not compute...

 

[Symphony D.]

What animals are there, that could have been useful to domesticate that we have "failed" to?

You'll notice that the vast majority of the large megafauna inhabit Eurasia and North Africa, with a few in the Sahel region of Africa. These are a large chunk of the reason why Eurasia and general (and Europe in particular) gained such a huge advantage over the rest of the world in terms of sophistication and population.

So, to answer your question: any large animal in North and South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, Indonesia, or the Pacific, would have been tremendously useful to the local people in bolstering their population growth, by extension their sophistication, and thus their resistance (or ability to "give as good as they got") to European military incursions and biological warfare. Obviously, none of them experienced success in this field.

To name a few examples: any number of African savannah animals (African Buffalo, Gazelle, etc) for meat, milk, and blood, as cattle are tremendously vulnerable to the tse-tse fly. Hippopotamus or Elephants for meat or labor in dense jungle environments where there are no other megafauna, such as the Congo region. Capybara similarly in the Amazon basin. Buffalo, Elk, Moose, Reindeer, various Sheep, Pecarries/Javelina, and assuredly many others in North America. Emu and Kangaroo in Australia, Cassowary in New Guinea...

In general, most of the usable big animals are in Eurasia. The other continents did not have their "need" already filled, and would have filled it if they could have. They didn't, not because they didn't need to, but because they couldn't with the animals locally available, with the sole exception of the Alpaca and Llama in the Andes. Your "need" theory thus falls apart. Several continents had a need that wasn't met until European colonists arrived. It wasn't because they just didn't have the imagination or willpower, it was because the animals weren't suited for it.

Likewise grains, fruits, and vegetables, which are similarly concentrated in Eurasia. You make do with what you have. What the other continents had sucked, and didn't domesticate, and so in the history of the world, they lost.

I reiterate: you are wrong.

 

[das]

bu? does not compute...

If we say that some animals are easier to domesticate, we imply that other animals are more difficult to domesticate. And if we say that some animals are difficult to domesticate, we imply that some other animals are more easy to domesticate. How could this possibly not compute I fail to see.

Furthermore, if we say that some animals were domesticated because they were easier to domesticate, we imply that the animals that weren't domesticated were probably more difficult to domesticate (or possessed other disadvantages, but if we are just looking at the animals that might be of some serious direct use to humans this line could safely be abandoned). And, once again, vice versa. All remaining disagreements are indeed technicalities and half-tones (which are irrelevant for all the purposes of the present argument).

 

[Symphony D.]

(or possessed other disadvantages, but if we are just looking at the animals that might be of some serious direct use to humans this line could safely be abandoned)

Incorrect. Abaddon's need theory assumes all animals are equally available to everyone, everywhere. Clearly they were not.

If you don't have anything notable domesticated, you will want to domesticate whatever you can, even if you don't know that someone is going to come kill 95% of your population in a few hundreds or thousands of years, but because it's convenient (even if you don't know you're working toward domestication). If there are no "easy" animals to domesticate, you don't just not domesticate. This proves the point that it is the animal's strengths and weaknesses that dominate the equation. It may be the case that if you have a bunch of easy to domesticate animals, as Abaddon supposes, that they will supplant and diminish the need for harder to domesticate animals.

But that argument completely falls to pieces if you don't have access to them because there's an ocean in the way, or because they die like flies in your local geographic region. It which case, again, synchronization comes into play. And for every continent but Eurasia, almost every animal failed the test, no matter how useful it may have been, or how hard the people tried--and having no other option, you can safely assume they did.

Animal cohabitability with humans is therefore the ultimate deciding factor. Eurasia had it. The rest of the world didn't. The history of the world bears this out rather plainly. Anna Karenina stands, Need falls.

 

[North King]

Jeff Corwin was just on Fox News and said Elephants were domesticated. He is an animal expert...

Then there's one animal "expert" you ought to write off. I have seen it in encyclopedias, in books on animal domestication, and in Indian history books that elephants were never domesticated. They make this point repeatedly and specifically.

What animals are there, that could have been useful to domesticate that we have "failed" to?

I'm pretty sure the Native Americans had about a dozen that would have been extremely useful which they never "bothered" to domesticate.

 

[Abaddon]

Dear me.. I am really going to have to start spelling things out in really big letters. I meant within places humans did have the relative plethora of domesticated animals.. but anyway, i'll try to respond to your misdirection since I am nice like that.

You'll notice that the vast majority of the large megafauna inhabit Eurasia and North Africa, with a few in the Sahel region of Africa. [No, I dont] These are a large chunk of the reason why Eurasia and general (and Europe in particular) gained such a huge advantage over the rest of the world in terms of sophistication and population.

So, to answer your question: any large animal in North and South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, Indonesia, or the Pacific, would have been tremendously useful to the local people in bolstering their population growth, by extension their sophistication, and thus their resistance (or ability to "give as good as they got") to European military incursions and biological warfare. Obviously, none of them experienced success in this field.

But.. they had no concept of this. They did not know there was a need to have a greater population, to domesticate something so when the Eurpeans arrived they would be on equal terms. In most cases they were living in "stable" socities with no concept of the greater world, nor could plan for it.

To name a few examples: any number of African savannah animals (African Buffalo, Gazelle, etc) for meat, milk, and blood, as cattle are tremendously vulnerable to the tse-tse fly. Hippopotamus or Elephants for meat or labor in dense jungle environments where there are no other megafauna, such as the Congo region. Capybara similarly in the Amazon basin. Buffalo, Elk, Moose, Reindeer, various Sheep, Pecarries/Javelina, and assuredly many others in North America. Emu and Kangaroo in Australia, Cassowary in New Guinea...

In general, most of the usable big animals are in Eurasia. The other continents did not have their "need" already filled, and would have filled it if they could have. They didn't, not because they didn't need to, but because they couldn't with the animals locally available, with the sole exception of the Alpaca and Llama in the Andes. Your "need" theory thus falls apart. Several continents had a need that wasn't met until European colonists arrived. It wasn't because they just didn't have the imagination or willpower, it was because the animals weren't suited for it.

Likewise grains, fruits, and vegetables, which are similarly concentrated in Eurasia. You make do with what you have. What the other continents had sucked, and didn't domesticate, and so in the history of the world, they lost.

I reiterate: you are wrong.

You make do with what you have? So why bother domesticate? Now you are contradicting youself.

Have you read anything on this subject other than this one book?

The native americans had a perfectly stable environment.. there was no NEED to domesticate the Buffallo for example.

Agriculture/domestication gave man an unbalance with the environment around him. The fact not all cultures evolved the behavioural setting to try and domesticate something, or the environment that desired it does not prove you corrent.

Please, stop insinuating you know something for certain when even the person who came up with the idea accepts it is not definitive. Why do you think simply reading this one book and then trotting out its ideas means 100% that is the right way to go about something?

 

[Symphony D.]

But.. they had no concept of this. They did not know there was a need to have a greater population, to domesticate something so when the Eurpeans arrived they would be on equal terms. In most cases they were living in "stable" socities with no concept of the greater world, nor could plan for it.

Cognitive awareness of the process is totally irrelevant, and you know it. We already had this discussion several posts back.

You make do with what you have? So why bother domesticate? Now you are contradicting youself.

Congratulations, now you can't read. You make do (ie: attempt to utilize, read: domesticate) what you have. It's implicit. Have some of your own medicine.

Have you read anything on this subject other than this one book?

Apparently I needn't have, since you have yet to actually refute anything it says.

The native americans had a perfectly stable environment.. there was no NEED to domesticate the Buffallo for example.

No, they frequently had dramatic collapses in population, as happened to the Maya and the Anasazi. The Native Americans learned to live "in harmony with nature" because they had precious few resources, not because they were just naturally connected with the land. It was the only way they could survive. Humans are inherently exploitative.

Agriculture/domestication gave man an unbalance with the environment around him. The fact not all cultures evolved the behavioural setting to try and domesticate something, or the environment that desired it does not prove you corrent.

Or they simply couldn't. All people likewise desire to improve their situation and that of their descendants. If they can, they will.

Please, stop insinuating you know something for certain when even the person who came up with the idea accepts it is not definitive. Why do you think simply reading this one book and then trotting out its ideas means 100% that is the right way to go about something?

Well golly-gee Abaddon, I don't know, I think it sounds like a pretty good idea when you can't come up with one single coherent counter to it.

 

[Abaddon]

Is there any proof of failed domestication in the areas of the world that did not achieve domestication until outsiders introduced the idea?

 

[das]

Symphony - I meant their usefulness to humans. There is, indeed, little need to domesticate squirrels; domesticating bisons, meanwhile, would indeed have been useful, and it is beyond doubt that the Amerinds have tried and have failed not for the lack of effort, but rather for the difficulty of the task and possibly the lack of time. With this much I do agree.

Could it have happened had people arrived to the New World considerably earlier/originated in South America?

EDIT: Technically, the Native Americans did have some domesticated animals, so that argument pretty much fails.

 

[North King]

But.. they had no concept of this. They did not know there was a need to have a greater population, to domesticate something so when the Eurpeans arrived they would be on equal terms. In most cases they were living in "stable" socities with no concept of the greater world, nor could plan for it.

This is simple societal evolution. Societies which domesticate animals tend to do better. Thus they outcompete societies which never bothered to domesticate.

You make do with what you have? So why bother domesticate? Now you are contradicting youself.

Because when you have readily domesticable animals around, you domesticate them.

The native americans had a perfectly stable environment.. there was no NEED to domesticate the Buffallo for example.

Tell that to people who died of pellagra. The Native Americans ate dogs to get meat in their diets. Something like a domesticated bison would definitely have helped them out a great deal. Also imagine the psychological advantage in war they could have gotten from riding one.

Please, stop insinuating you know something for certain when even the person who came up with the idea accepts it is not definitive. Why do you think simply reading this one book and then trotting out its ideas means 100% that is the right way to go about something?

It ain't just the one book, brotha. Jared Diamond isn't exactly alone on this.

 

[North King]

Is there any proof of failed domestication in the areas of the world that did not achieve domestication until outsiders introduced the idea?

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

 

[Abaddon]

This is simple societal evolution. Societies which domesticate animals tend to do better. Thus they outcompete societies which never bothered to domesticate.

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

Because when you have readily domesticable animals around, you domesticate them.

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

Tell that to people who died of pellagra. The Native Americans ate dogs to get meat in their diets. Something like a domesticated bison would definitely have helped them out a great deal. Also imagine the psychological advantage in war they could have gotten from riding one.

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

It ain't just the one book, brotha. Jared Diamond isn't exactly alone on this.

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

 

[Symphony D.]

EDIT: Technically, the Native Americans did have some domesticated animals, so that argument pretty much fails.

Ones that did not meet the qualification for "big," eg: 100lbs+.

Many of these small animals thus yielded food, clothing, or warmth. But none of them pulled plows or wagons, none bore riders, none except dogs pulled sleds or became war machines, and none of them have been as important for food as have big domestic mammals. Hence the rest of this chapter will confine itself to the big mammals.

The importance of domesticated mammals rests on surprisingly few species of big terrestrial herbivores. (Only terrestrial mammals have been domesticated, for the obvious reason that aquatic mammals were difficult to maintain and breed until the development of modern Sea World facilities.) If one defines "big" as "weighing over 100 pounds," then only 14 such species such species were domesticated before the twentieth century (see Table 9.1 for a list). Of those Ancient Fourteen, 9 (the "Minor Nine" of Table 9.1) became important livestock for people in only limited areas of the globe: the Arabian camel, Bactrian camel, llama / alpaca (distinct breeds of the same ancestral species), donkey, reindeer, water buffalo, yak, banteng, and gaur. Only 5 species became widespread and important around the world. Those Major Five of mammal domestication are the cow, sheep, goat, pig, and horse.

In short, they are not the animals we are discussing, and are irrelevant. The Native Americans had the dog, as far as this discussion is concerned, and that's it. The Inca had the alpaca and llama to boot, and that's it. They didn't have any of these 14 (except the Inca and their predecessors), and there were other big animals around that were not those 14.

They didn't just say "Gee, I guess we'll suffice with chinchillas and quail." They went for the big guns, and it failed.