Quote:
Originally posted by Kalkbreath
Sure some domesticated dog species likely cant survive in the wild , but ; Domesticated pigs and horses survive just fine in the wild given the correct habitat.
In fact ,domesticated Pigs and Horses seem to thrive in many places of the world when reintroduced into the wild.
We bred them to grow faster and bigger, traits which also benefit their species in the wild.
Demanding that in order to be deemed a true "domesticated" species somehow the species must benefit mankind while not benefiting the species itself silly.
Most breeds of dogs were cultivated to better refine their existing skills,,,, not to lick your face.
Wild dogs hunted long before breeders refined them to see better and swim faster and respond to the alpha humans commands.
Nature had already bred larger feet on snow dogs long before sled breeders requested even bigger feet.
House cats were bred to be smaller then their wild counterparts.
this smaller statue in turn now makes the common domestic kitty one of the most effective predators ever in North America.... killing more wild birds and rodents then their origins the bobcats links and panthers ever could.
Sure bioengineering can be used to refine a species for both domestic service and wild superiority?.
Lets say a new zooxanthellae modification which makes the algae better suited to warm temperatures ?
lets say the new zoox cultivar is injected into a coral and the corals injected with this super zooxanthellae now grow better in aquariums and the ever warming oceans as well.
Your notion that domesticating a species must somehow only serve the needs of its human captor (like a lionhead or bubble eye goldfish swimming in a fish bowl) is an outdated concept.
Cultivating wildlife to live a new and unnatural domestic lifestyle is nothing new.
The squirrels , foxes and birds living in my subdivision have been living a domesticated lifestyle for thirty plus years. You can find more wildlife living around my neighborhood then I ever see while walking or camping in the woods .
Sure there are different degrees of domestication , but to reserve the title only for the genetic freaks like tiny poodles, is a bit to narrow for me.
|
Jeff- You have to remember, we are talking about domestication here, not adaptation/evolution. Domestication is a sole result of human involvement, and ipso facto, is specifically to the benefit of humans desires. This is not an outdated or innappropriate concept, it is a definitive one. No other species on this planet provides artificial conditions for another in order to purposefully change that secondlary species in order to make it more useful to themselves. This is what domestication does. All other species change and adapt themselves in order to better suit the conditions.
Domestic animals can go feral- but you stated an important issue with that "if given the correct habitat". Why is this important, and what does it mean? They need the correct habitat because they have adaptively changed to likely be unable to survive certain conditions their wild ancestors have. But, regardless, feral animals are capable of adapting to unusual conditions as are wild animals to captive conditions- but not absolutely and a not without certain individual failure. But, at any rate, what does this have to do with domestication? If anything, feral animals will OVER TIME revert back to ancestral conditions.
Your comments on domestic dog breed traits and such as actually kinda proving my point. Many dogs were not domesticated for licking our faces, you are correct. They were domesticated to assist in human survival- ie- hunting skills, swimming skills, work dogs, etc. Domestic cats were bred smaller to hunt smaller prey- such as mice and rats, because the larger ones were not adapted to such. And this was done so to assist humans. It's not like there weren't any rat or mouse predators out there, they were just not candidates for domestication.
This point I am hoping you understand is that using your concept of domestication- nearly every animal is domestic. Bears that eat garbage, elephants that raid African farms, your raccoons and foxes that live in your backyard- they are no different than your "domestica" clams. Animsl that have been raised in a certain environment and have adapted. Does this get passed on to future generations? Absolutely not. Does this help them better survive those conditions? Absolutely yes. If those specific individuals happened to be raised in "wild" conditions, would they be as likely to survive as a "wild born" individual- in my mind yes. Because they has been no adaptive selection that has taken place which would select for different holotype. If any one of the above listed animals developed a morphological or physiological or biochemical adaptation which made them better suited for this environment- this is adaptive evolution. If humans have selected for such traits, we are domesticating them.
Keep this in mind- humans puproses are quite encompassing. For example, absolute direct benefit to specific indivudal humans is not necessarily a requirement. Conservation efforts do not necessarily benefit any particular purpose, yet humans actively and vigorously engage in it- and as such, benefit humans.