Comment on Dogs may have domesticated themselves because they really liked snacks, model suggests

• sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  When you remove evolutionary pressure, things that used to be selected against start becoming prevelant again.

  Yes. That … is part of domestication.

  When a relatively self sustaining, organized society assembles itself, becomes more sedentary and less mobile, ie, domesticates itself, evolutionary selection pressures shift.

  With humans, this is vastly exagerated and complexified due to our societies developing technology.

  C Sections become prevalent, evolutionary pressure against a neotenous trait (adult females having narrow birth canals) lessens, thus the trait becomes more common.

  The exact science on what leads to ‘baby faces’ is extremely complex, but it certainly seems safe to say that body fat levels, obesity levels, have risen, and that a lot of that can be linked to endocrine systems being altered/disrupted by our technologically mass produced food, leading to higher rates of neotenous features in adults.

  Domestication is a prerequisite for human civilization, which is seemingly a prerequisite for most of our advanced technology, said technology then intensifies neoteny.

  source

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Neoteny is 100% a thing and relevant to domestication…

    But that’s more because childhood is a very very expensive thing biologically that is punished harshly in most environments, but pays off dividends in adulthood.

    At a certain point, it’s best to never grow out of those conditions.

    Domestication is a prerequisite for human civilization (permanent urban centers) which is seemingly a prerequisite for most of our advanced technology, said technology then intensifies neoteny.

    You’re still viewing it thru the lens of human civilization

    The nature of domestication is often misunderstood. Most definitions of the process are anthropocentric and center on human intentionality, which minimizes the role of unconscious selection and also excludes non-human domesticators. An overarching, biologically grounded definition of domestication is discussed, which emphasizes its core nature as a coevolutionary process that arises from a specialized mutualism, in which one species controls the fitness of another in order to gain resources and/or services. This inclusive definition encompasses both human-associated domestication of crop plants and livestock as well as other non-human domesticators, such as insects. It also calls into question the idea that humans are themselves domesticated, given that evolution of human traits did not arise through the control of fitness by another species.

    www.cell.com/trends/…/S0169-5347(22)00089-1

    I think you’d be interested in that article

    source

    • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      You’re not wrong that a broader view of domestication as any kind of biological mutualism is more broadly correct and useful in many senses.

      But… I’m talking about humans.

      Such phenotypic similarities may arise from parallel/convergent evolution [71,72], possibly associated with secondary effects of the domestication process (for example, increased population density or sedentism) [68,69] but arguably do not directly spring from the human/crop, human/livestock, and human/pet mutualisms. Those who have remarked on these similarities need to explore other mechanisms to explain these evolutionary convergences.

      As I already mentioned, I disagree on the bolded part.

      Look at our food system and see what it is currently doing to us.

      Even with the definition that ‘domestication is naturally arising mutualism, not necessarily an initial intention in mind’… this still fits into it.

      We altered our food, it altered us.

      If you’re less cynical than me, well, it was unintentional that our changes to food would change us, so its unintentional mutualism.

      If you are as cynical as me, well then:

      Certain extremely powerful groups and people chose to do things like massively subsidize corn, knowingly fallaciously drum up fats as the main risk to general public health, when they actually knew the real problem was certain kinds of sugars, but they buried that research, and now US citizens eat some kind of HFCS in absurd amounts in all kinds of food.

      This fucks our endocrine systems and increases neoteny.

      Then its… an intentional mutualism, as directed by an elite and powerdul social group of humans toward the plants and the other humans.

      Either way… this did all start with humans domesticating plants, whether initially intentionally aiming at this outcome or not.

      You larger idea of domestication is valid, but I’m talking about the constrained case of domestication and its effects as they relate to humans.

      I find other kinds of interspecies mutualistic relationships fascinating, but I don’t think expanding the concept of domestication to be less anthropocentric… somehow negates the application of the term to what it expanded from, and does not disclude.

      source

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        But… I’m talking about humans.

        Well that’s whete the miscommunication was

        Every species can domestic themselves, even humans did it.

        source