(2020-04-11 9:45)Ora Wrote:
(2020-04-11 9:34)Lynx26 Wrote: Pets used to be wild; now they have evolved to be domestic by nature.
I'm not sure I believe in that. I've seen a few "domesticated" animals who completely refused to be near humans. And if the humans around them are bad to them, I honestly think there's literally no possibility for these animals to think "this is my destiny, this is where I'm supposed to be and how I'm supposed to live". They just seem to be passive, from what I've seen (my horse was like that, he suffered a lot before coming in my life and never forgot that).
I also have a dog who's completely anxious, even though we have always treated her well and loved her. She's just not able to relax, despite having us around to give her some "security".
I think it's like a lot of things: as every animal is unique, we can't really make a generality out of this question. Let's also not forget that it really isn't about evolution, but genetic tests that we made. Every dog, cat, horse breed exists now because we decided to mix "primal" breeds to make new ones that we wanted, whether for aesthetic purposes or useful ones (for hunting for example). It even got to the point where we could decide how a certain breed would be mentally speaking, even though we can find a few differences between individuals.
Note: this stands loose from the 'domestic dog therians want to wear collars cuz they think its related to being domestic?' topic. And only related to the specific text written by Ora
I disagree that domestication means nearly nothing (what ur text comes down to really short said) and is only related to what animal species we have made ourselves by crossbreeding etc.
It is so far only still a study, so no more than a possible explaination based on a few results and theories.
But in a few researches people are trying to figure out what makes an animal 'domesticated', and/or what domestication changes within an animal. There is a project by example where people for 10-20 or more years have been breeding foxes (originally wild) to become domestic. The results were quiet outstanding: foxes appeared with spots and patterns (simular to how a wolf has 3 pigments per hair while a dog only has 2, which allows the dog to have spots and specific solid patterns and the wolf not), as well as floppy ears, short snouts, short legs, nub tails etc. Simular things as we see within dogbreeds or catbreeds. You can also see this if you compare a wild pig with upstanding ears with the spotted domestic pig with floppy ears. Same with a goat etc. Further on the foxes seemed much calmer. Not automaticly approaching humans, that had to be teached, but much easier comfortable.. trusting.. friendly. (this project was done by breeding the calmest and friendliest with eachother and eliminating the aggressive and fearful foxes), Physical research then showed that these domestic foxes produced a certain hormone (I think it was connected to adrenaline) much less than their wild cousins. This same hormone would have effect on their physical traits like colour, face, tail and leg lenght. This whole domestication process would hereby be a physical change in the animal (and possibly psychological?) which physically makes them calmer and have less fight/flight tendencies. Ofcourse, abuse can psychologically create this or maybe even genetics can create the opposite (if you'd breed aggresive/fearfull dogs with eachother.. would the hormone then become more again in offspring?)
So there is a clear physical red line that defines an animal as domesticated in this adrenaline hormone as well as the physical signs.
Atleast, if the research is confirmed. I repeat, it's still just a research, theory, hypothesis,..
It's maybe just something nice to know hha, and may not mean much to this conversation.