A question I've often heard asked with regard to domestic pets is whether they're "food motivated". I've never met a dog or cat that wasn't... is there some rando in Arkansas that has a Dachshund that enjoys true crime documentaries and experimental mathematics more than treats? Or is my impression that fuzzy quadrapeds with walnut-sized brains are universally food-motivated a correct one?
“Food-motivated” in dogs means something more like “can be induced to listen to commands from a human in exchange for food.” Some dogs are only interested in their own plans. Others are only interested in really good food, or are much more interested in some other reward, like having a ball thrown.
My dog for instance is not particularly food motivated. He believes strongly that there is “food” and “better food” and will hold off until he’s really hungry to eat something that’s just food. But he’s very motivated by attention. He will do tricks for treats he doesn’t like and then drop the treat on the floor once you give it to him.
One of my cats is the same way. If anything, he's _more_ excited by getting attention from me than he is from food. Sometimes when he'll be eating, I'll get up from my desk (which is at the far side of the living room from the couches) and he'll notice and excitedly run off to the opposite side of the living room and hop on the couch and stare up at me until I come over because I've conditioned him to go there to get pets and cuddles (since he originally would try to lead me to a spot on the floor where it was far less comfortable to sit). Although he really loves a specific brand of treats, he's at least as much excited by just getting some love from his favorite humans (who are, in order, my wife, then me, then my mother-in-law, and then anyone else who's he's met enough to trust and want affection from) as he is from getting treats.
Food is just a "has to be there in case I'm hungry" for our cat.
But she'll run up to us, meowing and running around us and bumping into our legs to try and lead us to her favourite spot on the floor (on a rug, so it's nice and warm), throw herself on the floor and on the side to get petted.
I'm not sure if there's a "too early" for my cat or if he just will always do this, because I've never managed to give him attention long enough that he's satisfied. A minute, ten minutes, an hour...
My other cat actually seems pretty similar to her in that regard; she's super food motivated (begging constantly for literally anything edible, even human food like fries or ramen noodles, although of course we don't give her any), but she also demands pets and rubs the point where she seems like she's overstimulating herself. Although she'll happily settle on literally anyone's lap (even a stranger), if you pet her more than a little bit, she'll slowly start to lick your fingers, and then if you don't withdraw them give them a nibble, and then just absolutely chomp on them, all while refusing to budge off your lap. Sometimes she'll just go right from headbutting to chomping, and it doesn't actually seem like she's unhappy with the sensation or anything; she just gets excited and enjoys biting our hands as much as getting pet by them (or maybe even a bit more...).
She's pretty weird in a lot of ways though, and I suspect a big part of it is a lack of proper socialization before I adopted her. When I got her from a shelter, she was already 10 years old, and they evidently didn't keep their records super carefully, since I was initially told she wasn't spayed over, then told in person she was spayed and given documentation indicating that, but she definitely wasn't! She kept going into heat, which can apparently still happen after being spayed if they accidentally leave behind a small amount of ovarian tissue, so my vet had me get her into surgery right when she had started going into heat at one point so that the leftover tissue would be swelled and easier to remove, but the surgeon told me after that she had definitely never actually been spayed before; her words were something along the lines of "I opened her up, and then BAM, uterus!"
In addition to her infinite appetite for things she has no business being interested in and her violent cuddling tendencies, she's also the only cat I've ever known to run _towards_ loud sounds when something falls over or something. She's even growled menacingly at sounds in the hallway on more than one occasion; I think she thinks she's a guard dog or something.
My recall training improved dramatically when I stopped only using treats as he got wise to that game, he would only do that consistently at home or solo. When I started using the come command with a game like tug of war or running away slightly then throwing a ball, he associated it with fun/activity and comes more often now.
this. i have a shiba inu. one of the most picky, stubborn breeds. he can be food-motivated but it depends on which treat i offer him. some have higher value to him than others. In addition, sometimes they won’t motivate him at all if there’s something else he deems worthy of his focus.
Yeah, we have two and one is very clearly in the food motivated camp and the other likes food and treats, but won't do anything for them like our other.
It's a pretty wide spectrum. Here's a fun example. I've fostered rescue dogs before, and two dogs I fostered were on opposite ends.
The rescue org asked all fosters to crate train their dogs. The first I fostered was a lab mix. He hated his crate, but all I had to do was throw one piece of kibble in and he would sprint inside. As soon as I locked the door he would whine, for upwards of 30 minutes, which was hard for a first time dog owner. I kept checking the camera I setup until he finally settled down and I was able to relax. This routine happened every time.
The other one was a Boxer/Pit mix. He would not go into his crate for all the kibble in the world. He just didn't care. He knew what would happen if he went in, so he wouldn't budge. When I eventually managed to coax him inside, and I closed the door, he was totally silent. He made the choice to go in knowing what would happen. This happened every time.
So based on my limited experience, food motivation is not about whether or not a dog wants to eat, but what other desires that desire for food (even when not particularly hungry) will override.
Ours wasn’t a fan at first… until we got him a bigger wire crate with plenty of room to stand, turn around, sprawl out, and see on all sides…
… and also that’s where we put his electric heating blanket. Sometimes when I ask him if he’s hungry, he just huffs and raises his eyebrows at me, like “do I have to eat now??”
Try the working breeds (don’t actually do this unless you live on a farm).
For them food is absolutely ignored if there’s a possibility of something to do. Food in a bowl and a ball nearby? Food is secondary to ball. We used to worry about our border collie and have to constantly make effort to lock him in a room with food so he’d eat and not just allow the other dogs to take the food.
Cats can be similarly ‘fussy’ as well. I have two indoor cats, a Garfield (can’t leave food out near him or he’ll eat to the point of throwing up) and one thats play obsessed and not at all interested in food except as needed at the most minimal levels. Makes it hard to feed them since one needs food left out to graze and the other has to be controlled.
Not sure I'd go as far as "ignored". Family member had cocker spaniels from a working dog breeder (gun dogs). Both would do anything for food. Another has a golden retriever, also from gun dog "lineage" and again, they'll do anything for food.
Sure, they like a ball, or better still a squirrel to chase, but they'll give up that chase instantly for a piece of bacon.
Came here to say this. I have an Aussie and he really does not care about food. They just want to run and do stuff, food is secondary. I've never needed to use treats to train him either. Good boy and a pat on the head suffices.
My cattle dog will be begging for food and giving me all the looks that she's hungry, but if I put a bowl of food down and then grabbed a ball she wouldn't give the bowl a second glance. I can't even give her a treat for bringing the ball back and dropping it, she's too focused on the ball. As soon as I put the ball away, she'll do anything I want for the treat. I think she considers the ball her job and it overrides anything else.
I have two border collies at the moment. The older one is definitely food motivated but also ball-motivated. If presented with both, she goes back and forth, undecided as to what she wants first. The younger one is "meh" on food and would easily ignore it entirely if given the chance to run flat-out in a wide-open space. Her nickname is "Speed" (though my Apple watch thinks it should be "Loud Environment").
Someone can likely give you a more technical explanation - but to give an anecdotal example, my parents have German Shepherds which are grazers. They put a few cups of food in their bowl in the morning, and the dogs will eat throughout the day as they're hungry. They like treats, sure, but I wouldn't call them food motivated.
My dogs are lab mixes, and if food is out they'll sniff it out and immediately scarf it down. When one was younger, if we left food on the counter or table while he was home alone, he would jump onto the counter and eat it. I would call my dog very food motivated.
How could you know if the German Shepherds are food motivated if they literally have food available to them whenever they want? I would guess if they were fed at discrete times of the day they would start looking at the owners for food.
That is a difference between "starving" and "being food motivated".
Think about humans: all humans need calories, but some people just want to drink Soylent and other people will spend hours creating elaborate meals. Some people will barely eat because they know they need to, while others will eat until they are sick if they don't stop themselves. Some people will walk miles for the best ice cream, while others will walk miles to see their favorite band.
Food drive is a thing in humans too, and it's something that's largely genetic -- and it's something that you can modify with anorectic drugs like GLP-1 RAs and stimulants. How much you eat is a combination of intrinsic food drive and trait conscientiousness.
Everyone knows someone who will eat like 3 potato chips and move onto something else, while others will sit and mow down the whole bag. Taking a GLP-1 will basically just convert you from one kind to the other in a dose-dependent way.
The same kind of variability is present in dogs - but without the conscientiousness axis.
I had a husky-lab mix. He was not food-motivated at all. We did _not_ leave food for him all day long, because the other doggo, purebred lab, would eat the food designated for the husky if we did.
So we fed them both at the same time, twice a day, and had to watch if the husky would eat or not for that meal, and remove the food bowl if he wasn't hungry, so the lab wouldn't scarf it down.
This is an n=1 anecdote that your guess was the opposite of my experience. That dog just didn't care about food. He did however love eating ice cubes. I never tried just a bowl of ice cubes.
Some cats are certainly more food motivated than others. One of my cats will get up 24/7 if I shake the treat container and will run to me from anywhere in the house. My other cat will only come for treats if he isn't feeling sleepy or lazy.
I had a cat that would beg like a dog and as a kid I definitely slipped her things I shouldn't have.
You moved the bag of treats and there she was. Lasagna was a hit.
Angel food cake was her favourite, she would fight you for it, and 18 lbs of cat packs a punch. Probably my fault. Lured her out of many places with crumbs though. Worked better than the Temptations.
It varies from dog to dog though just how much of a lever it is, or how necessary it is.
e.g. our border collies will do things for you just because it's interesting to them or because they figure it might please you. Without treats. Look at a collie herd sheep or ducks, and they're totally blissing out on it, and they don't get food rewards after. It's just something they love to do.
There's other dogs who won't do anything unless they get a tasty treat out of it.
Food motivation isn’t merely “does it want food”, it is more “will it do a complex action for food”. My GSD will spin, sit, stay, speak, shake hands, play dead and do a whole host of back to back commands for a tennis ball, but do maybe half a command for a standard treat. The GSD would not be considered to be very food motivated unless a “high value treat” like a hot dog is being offered.
Even in a mostly smooth walnut brain, there exists a genetically diverse hierarchy of desires. My dog was the runt of the litter, a different puppy was the glutton that ate every scrap in 10 seconds.
All animals are motivated by food. If you look at what those "talking" apes that can sign actually communicate, most of their discernible communication is just requests for food.
When we first got one of our dogs off the street, she was incredibly food motivated. She would hop the fence and roam and bring back cabbages, avocados, cauliflower, chips, and anything else she could find to snack on. Those are just examples we witnessed. But she always came back before we got home from work.
Now, 7 years later, she's picky. She'll spit out some food I give her if it isn't appealing enough. She can still obviously be motivated with food and treats, but it's far less unconditional.
Never underestimate the focus on food of a person or any animal who experiences(d) true hunger. I haven't come even close to it, yet the crave for any sort of energy when you are long over burning any sort of energy reserves was gradually overshadowing my mind.
In war times there are stories of people boiling and eating leather belts, boots and similar stuff. Imagine the drive to spend non-trivial amount of time and energy to eat that.
Food motivated is also observable in people imo. I'm pretty food motivated - I'm a lot more interested in doing something if there's a meal associated with it than if there's not. I've definitely observed this variance in both people and dogs. Some people seem to get more joy out of it - probably partly just some genetic disposition.
Food motivated is usually the degree to which a dog responds to food in conjunction with other stimulus. When food is used for training as opposed to their normal meals.
Some dogs when training don't respond to food as much as other dogs.
There are dogs that are not food motivated. Some are play motivated while others can be attention (petting, praise) motivated. You come across the occasional one that isn't really motivated by anything and they are quite the training challenge.
My non working breed 30lbs dog will not care about food. He just looks at the bowl in complete disgust every time I give him food. It was extremely hard to train him because of that. I then I realized he’s praise motivated. Now I give him hugs and cuddles for good behavior and that’s how he gets trained.
I will apologize to dogs in advance for any insensitivity I might show here.
My relationship with dogs is complicated. Once I read that their eyes rounded in response to their long adaptation to humans, I started feeling a little remorseful. Their Family is fundamentally altered and some of their natural self has been remolded to serve as our adjunct.
I know we didn't set out to do that but I regret it some, nonetheless.
In regard to all pets, I've come to feel a debt for sacrificing their independence. I feel an obligation to understand them, to accept them as what they are and to treat them in a way that respects that being. Hopefully they'll receive some fulfillment they otherwise wouldn't have.
But with dogs, that obligation feels uniquely expansive. I don't really know how to do it justice.
> Their Family is fundamentally altered and some of their natural self has been remolded to serve as our adjunct.
You're assuming we weren't also remolded to them.
Growing up on a farm, the relationship with the dogs made sense to me. They worked, we worked, we both got food and shelter, and were better off than if we didn't have each other. After work, there was time to be friends. A dog who is just a pet that sits in the house all day and waits for the family to come home is harder for me to understand.
I've thought about the same. Dogs have "eyebrow" muscles that wolves do not which make their expressions more human-like. Domesticated dogs have William's syndrome [1], which is a human genetic disorder which leads to many changes, one of which is hypersocial behavior. Essentially, I think that our modern relationships with dogs are just plain weird. I don't think pet ownership is for me but am happy so many people find their companionship valuable.
I don't think this is a rational feeling, but I can relate.
I've successfully trained my dog to be non-reactive towards squirrels/birds/etc. on walks. The other day she walked by a rabbit from within a few feet, and hardly gave it even a look. And I felt bad, as though I've suppressed her natural self and ability to be excited about such a thing. She's now pacified to live in my world.
An irrational feeling, because she's now at much less risk of being run over by a vehicle, but it was a feeling nonetheless.
Dogs are social pack animals. It is their nature to work with the pack following social rules of order and behaviour. That is paramount and fulfilling that obligation is more important than chasing a lagomorphic snack to the detriment of the pack.
By following your (the pack's) rules your dog is being truer to their nature than chasing a rabbit would be.
>And I felt bad, as though I've suppressed her natural self and ability to be excited about such a thing. She's now pacified to live in my world.
> An irrational feeling, because she's now at much less risk of being run over by a vehicle, but it was a feeling nonetheless.
I think this respects my position and my intent. You're being a pragmatist, giving her the best life possible.
Speaking to changing her nature and protecting her. They might not be in harmony but they both suggest thoughtful, considerate reasoning. And it's okay if they aren't in harmony; a future understanding might reconcile them.
Domestication is an evolutionary strategy that has ensured that many species will exist for as long as humans will.
Assuming humans don't wipe themselves out, dogs and cats and many other species will outlive the Earth itself.
If humans are the most successful species on the planet, dogs are second.
Dogs as an entire species would not exist at all without humans. If dogs hadn't co-evolved with humans, we'd only have wolves. It's more than just simple domestication like cats and goats, dogs evolved into a new species alongside early humans. They aren't simply wild animals that tolerate humans, this is an entire species specifically evolved to be the ideal companion to humans. The entire point and purpose of this species is only to be companions to humans, that's what they evolved to be. By and large dogs need human companionship and suffer without it.
While the relationship between humans and dogs is very symbiotic, I think dogs get the better end of the deal. All their needs and wants as a species are taken care of by humans, the species will exist forever, and all the dogs have to do is learn the best way to beg for belly rubs.
> Domestication is an evolutionary strategy that has ensured that many species will exist for as long as humans will.
I agree. Outcomes always matter. Not exclusively but they're up there.
> Dogs as an entire species would not exist at all without humans. If dogs hadn't co-evolved with humans, we'd only have wolves.
True. And I appreciate the existence of dogs. I also appreciate what they gave up to be. One notion doesn't quash the other. The two viewpoints coexist and make the relationship complex.
I should clarify that my perspective doesn't demand that something must happen or that some thing must not be. At most, it suggests 1) that we value the independence of animals - to our benefit as well - and 2) it's okay to morn a little for what dogs gave up to be dogs. The worst you'll get from #2 is finding more reasons to treat dogs well.
As humans we've shaped the lives of most animals (pets, livestock, and wild animals). I don't think it's a bad thing to have changed their evolution, every animal is molded to their environment. What I feel bad about is that we've been rather poor stewards of animals, many domestic animals are mistreated but also we've been perpetrators of mass extinctions of wild animals.
The more I'm around animals the more I feel like they really matter, I've looked into their eyes and seen love and frustration and grief. It's a tragedy how callously we treat them in general.
> I know we didn't set out to do that but I regret it some, nonetheless.
This is not correct. Humans have been selectively breeding animals and plants for thousands of years.
Also dogs, for most of human history, provided services (hunting and security) to humans in exchange for "petship". It's only a very recent phenomena that (many but not all) pet dogs have to provide nothing to humans besides companionship. It is now that the maladaptation in dogs have started to appear because of the one way relationship.
But they aren’t useless. My in-laws had a Doberman and a Chihuahua at one point. The little dog can’t guard you, but she was an excellent watch dog. She woke up the Dobie.
“Yip yip yip yip [lots of scrabbling on wood floor] WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF”
People don’t mess with you when a 90-pound Doberman looks to you for guidance. I used to take her for walks in remote areas. I saw sketchy people. They saw me put her back on her leash when I saw other people. They knew I could drop that leash at any second.
Well companionship is a type of service too. Dogs that are emotional service animals do many compassionate things for their human owners to make them feel better.
>Having compassion for another living, feeling, emotional creature means they must hate themselves?
Why is "I regret that we domesticated dogs" "compassion"?
It's just the naturalistic fallacy.
Wolves still exist. It's just that some of their babies hung out with us and over ten thousand years some of those babies hung out with us even more and we both changed to accommodate our relationship.
Why was it wrong to build legitimate companionship with other creatures? Why is it morally wrong to adapt over extremely long time periods?
> It's just the naturalistic fallacy. Wolves still exist.
No one here made the argument that because dogs exist, other species don't (or some other similar loss happened). At least, that's what you seem to be pushing back on.
In my OP, I made this observation about dogs. Much of the Family's independence and self-determination has been replaced with subservience to us.
I also shared how I personally felt about that. I hopefully did all that in a way that preserved desires to make dogs happy.
That's pretty much it - except for a sidebar about pets in general.
> You must deep down actually hate yourself or all of humanity
I don't. I'm not less for thinking more of something that isn't me. I'm arguably more for embracing more value than I started with.
Your assertion seems stark. Do you really feel my perspective is likely fueled by self-loathing? If so, what is it about human nature that led you to that?
All the dog owners I know feel the same sense of comradery with their animal companions so your obligation to understand them is not a particularly unusual one.
The model showed that over 15,000 years, natural selection could potentially drive dog self-domestication. But for this to happen, two conditions had to be met: Wolves had to choose to stay near humans to eat food scraps, and they had to select mates with a similar temperament.
Why would humans feed wolves scraps without them providing something of value in return?
Wolves have to provide something to humans in order for humans to keep feeding them right? In this case, humans would want some wolves around them. Therefore, it seems very unlikely to be self domestication because humans would have a heavy sway in how dogs evolved.
On this point I’m convinced that bears are well on the way to domestication.
National parks have a name for the ones starting to show domesticated behaviours - ‘problem bears’. Bears that go out of their way to interact with humans. I feel that’s a case study for domestication right there.
Issue is that for domestication to be possible, there has to be a preexisting social structure like herding, colonies, or packs. If it's too weak or non existent, there's no chance that domestication is possible. Having docile examples are always going to be a thing, as snakes aren't exotic pets nor social by any stretch, but that's not what domestication is.
There's an additional risk with omnivorous/carnivorous animals could see people as prey, and this risk pretty much goes up with the size of the animal.
I have no idea how bears act with one another, but I do know they can eat meat and are basically person sized.
>for domestication to be possible, there has to be a preexisting social structure like herding, colonies, or packs. If it's too weak or non existent, there's no chance that domestication is possible.
Is that really true? A cat seems to relate to a person as if the person were the cat's mother. The kneading with its paws that a cat does after it jumps into your lap is what a kitten does in the wild to induce its mother to express milk.
Feral domestic cats have colonies. I don't think their nearest wild relatives do, but its at least conceivable that colony structure of cats living around human populations, off of leavings and rats, etc., that were attracted to human populations developed first, then domestication happened later.
I've seen "problem baboons". The issue with baboons is that they are clever and dexterous enough to do things that other wildlife does not. They know to pull on door handles. So they can get into a kitchen via an open window, open cupboard doors until they find the one with the cold food inside, leave the door open, haul the food out, eat some, shit on the floor, climb up the drainpipe onto the roof with some of their haul etc.
They're clever enough to scatter when someone raises a rifle and points it at them; but they'll do the same if you use a wooden walking stick.
And of course they're highly social, seldom encountered alone.
IME bears are sadly quite thick. They will get used to humans but also easily feel threatened by them. So first they won't keep their distance, but then may well act aggressive / threatened. They'd need to somehow lose the aggression to continue on the road to pethood.
Based on many reports of brown bear behaviour in the Carpathian mountains and an N=1 natural experiment.
Black Bears 'aggression' is almost exclusively what is called bluster. It is a stress/fear response.
But they aren't social hunters so the ability to lose that fear response isn't something that was selected for.
Similar to racoons and even bald eagles, which are like pistons in Alaskan fishing towns, with a wider fear boundary radius.
Urban coyotes, which are typically solitary, mating pair or sibling group limited are similar, being there but hiding in the shadows in fear typically.
If you have ever had the misfortune of knowing someone with a wolf hybrid, that fear resulting in unpredictable behavior is fairly obvious.
Brown bears have more subtle stress indicators, if you watch the tragic videos recorded by Timothy Treadwell, and have experience with brown bear stress indicators it is quite obvious.
Obviously most animals are opportunistic, with even animals like horses being willing to eat voles or chicks that enter the pasture, and Treadwell stayed past the bountiful times when brown bears suppress their fear to co-feed with other bears which changed the calculus and ended poorly for him and his girlfriend.
The species that have been domesticated almost universally are cooperative either for protection or for finding food.
IMHO, the development of the ability to read human emotions is what allowed for the domestic dog.
My first job in highschool was as the kennel boy at a rural veterinary clinic. Dealing with injured animals safety was almost always about controlling my own lack of stress indicators and trying to communicate intent while observing for stress indicators in the animal. No matter if it was an injured dog or horse etc...
But you often had to remove them from their owners because dogs, being social are great at picking up clues from their owners. If an owner was concerned their dog would bite, it would almost always do so. Yet if you removed that cue, it is amazing how much less likely it was .
If you observe bears interaction with other bears it is typically filled with stress indicators like jaw clacking etc...
They never comfortable with any bear that isn't a mother or sibling.
So I doubt that there is a real reliable path to pet hood for them, just as there isn't, unfortunately, for most wolf hybrids.
The aggression (really almost always harmless bluster) is simply a secondary emotional response to the primary fear and anxiety.
They aren't 'thick' they just aren't built the same way.
> Why would humans feed wolves scraps without them providing something of value in return?
Human beings aren't all always that transactional. "Homo economicus" is joked about for good reasons.
You can easily imagine situations where a) food is in a temporary surplus due to a successful hunt, so there is little downside to wasting some and b) a sentimental child has access to it.
close, but of course far more complex, Wolves are
savy negotiators, highly social, and often (not always) fun loving, the variations in personality
amongst them is large.Wolves team up with Ravens, another species with complex behaviors, ravens work as airial spoters, and wolves take out the targeted prey, with both sharing the kill, in exceptionaly close quarters, it's easy to see that
those roles could change, with humans around, and
there is a limited window to prepare and consume, and drag off a large kill, before it atracts an apex preditor, or just a huge flock of hungry birds, that can decimate an untended carcas in miniuts.So teaming up, rather than dependency, is the most likely begining.
Archiological work on wolf dens, show that choice sites in the Canadian High Arctic, have been in continious use for 10000 years, by Canadian Wolves
showing that a core group, will maintain a teritory, indefinitly.....even with humans and other large dangerous animals around...
Peoples view of dogs, is often based on experience with what are breeds that are strictly house pets
and have been inbred to the point of bieng helpless morons or neurotic edgy wierdos, but that
one central behavior, of guarding what and where they are instructed to, remains.
There are plenty of humans that got a 100% wolf and managed to keep them around, even in modern times.
In the past, people were always looking for ways to automate hunting, just like we do with technology, as this was the hardest thing.
And if you ever hunted, imagine having a wolf around when you hunt, it's nuts. They are so powerful and can so easily find prey, they have sick instincts too, much better than humans.
Pair them together and you can understand why that combination works so well.
Our ancestors also gave up lots of surviviability skills to become homo sapiens together with our beloved doges.
modern people are so capitalism brained the idea of feeding the animals without them paying is out of scope. Humans love animals, and feeding animals, and keeping them around, people will go to huge lengths to take care of animals for no reason at all.
I'd imagine there's a fair amount of folks with autism here. Nothing wrong with that, but it can lead to these narrower perspectives about certain social topics.
Humans have always like having pets and frequently interacted with all kinds of nature before the industrial revolution, which is an extremely recent event in human history.
Although it turns out domesticated dogs have a wide number of uses _now_, early humans had no idea that would be the case, they probably just liked feeding the wolves.
Edit: there is also speculation that "feeding" wasn't entirely deliberate, that wolves started eating scraps from the garbage piles close to early human settlements and the ones that were friendly to humans (likely children especially) evolved closer and closer into dogs.
Yeah I wouldn’t imagine that “feeding” was anything but wild animals realizing that human encampments have food and therefore need to follow them around or be in their proximity. The animals that would present themselves with aggression, would potentially be killed by the humans and the ones who would keep a more tame approach would be tolerated by humans. Over centuries, the tame behavior turned into domestication.
Providing them less desirable—to humans—-scraps would have likely prevented competition with them in hunting game. Why hunt living game if you can wait around and get scraps for free? So original intention of humans likely not domestication, but still leads that way if the wolves get what they want.
So humans give them food so they don't compete with humans in hunting. The wolves would get full from humans, don't have to hunt, and spend all their time reproducing, which will create even more competition for humans.
ok, so Grug and team know they can take wolves (spears), wolves know they can eat and not be bothered by Grug and team by eating cast off bones/scraps because all of their relatives that went to steal food from Grug didn't make it, but the ones that ate the scraps and were chill with Grug and Grugette ended up making it until Grug Jr.^3 and by then had decided to be on the same team as Grug Jr.^3
Human groups that intentionally or unintentionally fed surrounding wolves are at an advantage. The presense of wolves near the humans would drive off more aggressive predators, which also helps up the local prey populations.
Human groups that did not feed or intentionally drove off wolves are at a disadvantage and more likely to be eaten during the night, or be out-competed for food.
Repeat for a million years or until your wolf grows eyebrows.
Additionally, wolves share their hunt with their pack. It's possible that some early groups were fed at least partially by the wolves hunting for them. If that dynamic ever got established, that group would be at a tremendous advantage.
humans have a natural drive to do this, not everything is some quid pro quo. How could you see a wolf puppy and not light up? Humans think almost every animal is cute in its own way, its very in our nature.
Well without wolves around it would leave more room for other, potentially much more dangerous, predators. And big cats once roamed most the entire world and are definitely more dangerous to humans than wolves.
Just to expand on that, humans keep dogs not just as pets but as guard animals. It could be imagined that early humans feeding wolves to keep them around might also present a deterrent to aggressors.
I would also guess that in some early stages of domesticating other animals feeding the animals that might prey on those animals could effectively lessen the predation.
Yes, the theories in that article don't make a lot of sense. For example this about cats:
> settling into a mutually-beneficial relationship in which they hunted and ate rodents in exchange for food.
Cats mostly hunt birds, because rondents are smarter, faster, stronger and have weapons (teeth).
Also humans and primates throw rocks and sticks at predators. Early dogs must have been caught as puppies, or their parents killed by humans and their flesh eaten.
The whole model has been domesticated to portray a cartoony interaction.
"Cats mostly hunt birds, because rondents are smarter, faster, stronger and have weapons (teeth)."
Where did you get that from? I'm pretty sure it's not accurate, both from reading and personal experience.
Cats don't tackle rats often, and they are at a low risk of being bitten by mice (the hunting technique for mice involves first stunning the mouse by whacking it as hard as possible, ideally using body weight). Mice are smaller than most birds.
Cats do have instincts for rodents, birds and fish. But in most areas rodents are more available, so the cats don't get very good at hunting the other two.
My cousins from the countryside have several cats, and there is plenty of mice and birds. Mostly every prey the cats bring home are birds. Birds are easier to track, nest in visible places, while mice hides better, they are good detectors by smell and sound. Maybe in the city birds are harder to reach.
The more I think about the article the less it makes sense. Humans would have eaten all their preys' meat, and thrown the bones they didn't use to build tools and accesories into pits, would have burned the rest to avoid bringing predators. Proto-dogs would have been like pigs to them, they are still like such in Asia. It's just that their decendants are good alarms and defenders, and can be trained to help in hunting and other tasks.
I've had outdoor cats -- at one point two brothers.
One was a complete terror for birds. He'd go after them all, including hummingbirds. Left bits everywhere. Then we lost him due to something bigger and sharper.
The other one couldn't be arsed to hunt anything, until we moved a couple miles into the country and the house had rodents (due to the previous owner feeding birds). Over the course of the first year, he got 25 and I got 2 with traps. Never saw any evidence of dead birds.
That reminds me of a story. The author Elizabeth Moon and her husband kept horses, and one year they decided to get oats for the winter instead of hay. They didn't realise that oats need to be stored differently, not just in a pile on the barn floor.
They took one of their horses to the vet because he developed a persistent cough; the vet asked a few questions. When he heard how they were storing the oats, his eyes widened, and he leaned forward. "You need to get rid the oats. Now." Then he explained why...
So as soon as they got back they started shoveling the contaminated pile of oats into bags to depose of it. And as they did so, first a few, then a stream of mice started running out of the pile of oats. Their hair was standing on end from disgust, but they had to keep shoveling. At the sound, the cats came from all the nearby farms, so that they were at the centre of a ring of cats; but by the end all the cats had eaten so many mice that they were stuffed; and could only lie there, and watch the mice go by.
>But work in Mendelian genetics was essentially illegal at the time in the Soviet Union, because of a pseudo-scientific charlatan by the name of Trofim Lysenko (Joravsky 1979; Soyfer 1994).
>In the mid-1920s, the Communist Party leadership, in an attempt to glorify the average citizen, began to promote uneducated men from the proletariat into the scientific community.
You cannot fix science through ideology, especially when that ideology is actually just loyalty, and is mostly being used as an excuse to get rid of people who keep telling you that you are wrong.
In my study, (n=2), I can attest, indeed, that both of my dogs will willingly give up roaming outside in the wild for snacks, scritches, and belly-rubs.
My current dog wouldn't give up. It really depends on the breed.
Some ancient races still have those very old instincts of hunting and being independent, even doing some weird scream when given a bone or a having found a potential "hunt". (that's how people used to hunt!)
Youtube shiba scream :-)
All my previous dogs (>5) would always prefer the snack though.
Like terriers, Jack russel etc. lol. They will just go. They will ignore you. Yes we tried having meatballs. They don't care. Hunt hunt hunt. (Male, non snipped)
I can confirm. My Rat Terrier will absolutely not respond if she gets out. Best I can do is throw tennis balls towards the house so she runs in that general direction, assuming that’s the most interesting thing she’s found to hunt yet.
Wheat domesticated us because agriculture put the politics and power into the hands of the landowners (whoever is big enough warlord to control arable territory)
No that's just basic control and domination of resources that exised eons before humans did. Lots of animals have and guard their "territory" and don't farm. Plenty of human tribes did the same before they had developed agriculture.
That is true, but you could always move to another region and there would still be some level of fish & game.
a) the ability to have grain stores, etc thru the winter; and b) the long food cycle of plant in spring, harvest in fall; really put everything on steroids in terms of what "territory" was important (the grain stores, the planted land) and what territory was less important
You can see this in the development of forts, castles, etc later on where the "keep" was the most protected thing, and held the grain store for an entire village
I find the self-domestication theory quite plausible for cats, but I'm having a hard time accepting it for wolves. Why would human tribes tolerate wolves in close proximity?
Small cats are largely harmless and get rid of pests. Wolves compete for the same food sources, kill children, and are otherwise a nuisance.
Granted, selective breeding of captive animals also doesn't jibe with what we know about the Stone Age, but we don't know all that much.
> Why would human tribes tolerate wolves in close proximity?
Wolves will scavenge if they are hungry enough, and will eat food humans may have found unfit, such as bones. So they may have come to view humans as a source of food, but were too timid to attack, and followed around hunter/gatherer tribes. The wolves would be little more than an annoyance, if the humans even notice them at all. Generally the wolf is going to notice you before you notice it - they have superior sense of smell and hearing. In an environment with heavy vegetation (i.e. forest), thats going to count for alot more than vision.
On the other side of the coin, its possible the humans also followed around the wolves who would have been superior trackers with better sense of smell/hearing, mutually beneficial hunts may have been possible.
Eventually, a tolerance could have developed and the tribe found the wolves useful for things like, keeping away more dangerous predators such as large cats/bears/etc. or even rival packs of wolves. They would also be useful as a alarm system. Given enough time, the more sociable wolves, yet less dangerous, wolves may have selected for. There is a theory that dogs are basically wolves whose mental developed stopped at the younger ages, and lack independence like adult wolves have.
Wolves keep away other animals, and are more alert than humans. If I'm a Paleolithic human, having a wolf nearby that isn't eating my kids precisely because I give it snacks instead, and that is going to just naturally ward off bears or other pests, even in the dark of night, seems like a great win.
Consider the megafauna situation of 20-30k BP: huge, scary animals more dangerous than wolves. It might've started as a temporary alliance against other apex predators.
You are talking about the second domestication period, not the first. The first domestication period was not intentional by humans. It was that some wolve packs scavenged scraps from around human settlements, and so were in slightly closer contact. Over generations, the humans and wolves became slightly more comfortable with each other and humans started seeing some benefits from the proximity (early warning system, additional deterrent against other predators, etc.). This likely reinforced the developing relationship and prompted some humans to occasionally actively feed scraps/leftovers to the least skittish wolves, which again over generations, led to some wolves being close to what we would call “friendly” towards humans.
Right, but the argument here isn't that humans domesticated wolves, but that wolves self-domesticated themselves (i.e., humans tolerated adult wolves in close proximity).
Hunting parties may have cooperated with wolves to route or take down prey. Humans have smarts and persistence, but they aren't sprinters. A wolf can run 30-40 mph.
I love it when statistical modelling is used for research like this. I think we're underestimating the impact research simulations will have on science, especially when they get cheaper and easier to build. Exciting stuff!
There was also a study that showed dogs are healthiest when they eat a single meal a day (as opposed to the usual twice a day most people do). https://www.newsweek.com/dog-feed-once-day-cognitive-health-... Behaviour isn't always aligned with biological needs though.
slightly off topic: does anyone have the link to genetic arguments dogs descend from wolves, rather than dogs and wolves being both descended from a common proto-canine? i should be able to find such, the article alludes to such as a foregone conclusion, but no luck.
Well they both share a common ancestor, the question is how "wolf-like" was that common ancestor. Pretty sure most biologists believes wolves haven't change much since dogs were domesticated.
Hasn't this been determined for quite some time? "Wolves found out they could get easy food and some shelter by working with humans" is a determination I've been seeing since at least the 00's, maybe even 90's.
Reminds me of the scene in Blood Meridian where they find a dog in an abandoned Apache camp and Brown says, “you won’t man that thing,” and Captain Glanton says, “I can man anything that eats.”
As a dog lover I believe that sure they might have first learned to trust us thanks to food, but I believe they stayed and became our best friends thanks to scritches.
One of the hypotheses for how civilization emerged is that humans domesticated each other. Every time I take a neighbor some cookies I think of it as me doing my part for human evolution.
I can see that. Maybe in ancient societies they found they could accomplish sustainability in less movement. By that I mean.. they have a place where they live and a place where they source food, water, etc. Bringing those together means less travel and more concentration. Over time.. domestication.
A question I've often heard asked with regard to domestic pets is whether they're "food motivated". I've never met a dog or cat that wasn't... is there some rando in Arkansas that has a Dachshund that enjoys true crime documentaries and experimental mathematics more than treats? Or is my impression that fuzzy quadrapeds with walnut-sized brains are universally food-motivated a correct one?
“Food-motivated” in dogs means something more like “can be induced to listen to commands from a human in exchange for food.” Some dogs are only interested in their own plans. Others are only interested in really good food, or are much more interested in some other reward, like having a ball thrown.
My dog for instance is not particularly food motivated. He believes strongly that there is “food” and “better food” and will hold off until he’s really hungry to eat something that’s just food. But he’s very motivated by attention. He will do tricks for treats he doesn’t like and then drop the treat on the floor once you give it to him.
One of my cats is the same way. If anything, he's _more_ excited by getting attention from me than he is from food. Sometimes when he'll be eating, I'll get up from my desk (which is at the far side of the living room from the couches) and he'll notice and excitedly run off to the opposite side of the living room and hop on the couch and stare up at me until I come over because I've conditioned him to go there to get pets and cuddles (since he originally would try to lead me to a spot on the floor where it was far less comfortable to sit). Although he really loves a specific brand of treats, he's at least as much excited by just getting some love from his favorite humans (who are, in order, my wife, then me, then my mother-in-law, and then anyone else who's he's met enough to trust and want affection from) as he is from getting treats.
This.
Food is just a "has to be there in case I'm hungry" for our cat.
But she'll run up to us, meowing and running around us and bumping into our legs to try and lead us to her favourite spot on the floor (on a rug, so it's nice and warm), throw herself on the floor and on the side to get petted.
And if you stop too early, she'll run after you.
I'm not sure if there's a "too early" for my cat or if he just will always do this, because I've never managed to give him attention long enough that he's satisfied. A minute, ten minutes, an hour...
It's weird. She'll swat at you / bite when she's had enough. Or sometimes just coz she's excited but really wants you to continue.
You'll only know which it was based on whether she chases you after you've got a new scratch and walked away or not!
My other cat actually seems pretty similar to her in that regard; she's super food motivated (begging constantly for literally anything edible, even human food like fries or ramen noodles, although of course we don't give her any), but she also demands pets and rubs the point where she seems like she's overstimulating herself. Although she'll happily settle on literally anyone's lap (even a stranger), if you pet her more than a little bit, she'll slowly start to lick your fingers, and then if you don't withdraw them give them a nibble, and then just absolutely chomp on them, all while refusing to budge off your lap. Sometimes she'll just go right from headbutting to chomping, and it doesn't actually seem like she's unhappy with the sensation or anything; she just gets excited and enjoys biting our hands as much as getting pet by them (or maybe even a bit more...).
She's pretty weird in a lot of ways though, and I suspect a big part of it is a lack of proper socialization before I adopted her. When I got her from a shelter, she was already 10 years old, and they evidently didn't keep their records super carefully, since I was initially told she wasn't spayed over, then told in person she was spayed and given documentation indicating that, but she definitely wasn't! She kept going into heat, which can apparently still happen after being spayed if they accidentally leave behind a small amount of ovarian tissue, so my vet had me get her into surgery right when she had started going into heat at one point so that the leftover tissue would be swelled and easier to remove, but the surgeon told me after that she had definitely never actually been spayed before; her words were something along the lines of "I opened her up, and then BAM, uterus!"
In addition to her infinite appetite for things she has no business being interested in and her violent cuddling tendencies, she's also the only cat I've ever known to run _towards_ loud sounds when something falls over or something. She's even growled menacingly at sounds in the hallway on more than one occasion; I think she thinks she's a guard dog or something.
My recall training improved dramatically when I stopped only using treats as he got wise to that game, he would only do that consistently at home or solo. When I started using the come command with a game like tug of war or running away slightly then throwing a ball, he associated it with fun/activity and comes more often now.
this. i have a shiba inu. one of the most picky, stubborn breeds. he can be food-motivated but it depends on which treat i offer him. some have higher value to him than others. In addition, sometimes they won’t motivate him at all if there’s something else he deems worthy of his focus.
Yeah, we have two and one is very clearly in the food motivated camp and the other likes food and treats, but won't do anything for them like our other.
[flagged]
It's a pretty wide spectrum. Here's a fun example. I've fostered rescue dogs before, and two dogs I fostered were on opposite ends.
The rescue org asked all fosters to crate train their dogs. The first I fostered was a lab mix. He hated his crate, but all I had to do was throw one piece of kibble in and he would sprint inside. As soon as I locked the door he would whine, for upwards of 30 minutes, which was hard for a first time dog owner. I kept checking the camera I setup until he finally settled down and I was able to relax. This routine happened every time.
The other one was a Boxer/Pit mix. He would not go into his crate for all the kibble in the world. He just didn't care. He knew what would happen if he went in, so he wouldn't budge. When I eventually managed to coax him inside, and I closed the door, he was totally silent. He made the choice to go in knowing what would happen. This happened every time.
So based on my limited experience, food motivation is not about whether or not a dog wants to eat, but what other desires that desire for food (even when not particularly hungry) will override.
Our dog loves his crate. He will often go into it towards the end of the night, basically saying he's ready to go to sleep.
Ours wasn’t a fan at first… until we got him a bigger wire crate with plenty of room to stand, turn around, sprawl out, and see on all sides…
… and also that’s where we put his electric heating blanket. Sometimes when I ask him if he’s hungry, he just huffs and raises his eyebrows at me, like “do I have to eat now??”
Im so jealous, our dog cannot be enticed to go in there at all.
Try the working breeds (don’t actually do this unless you live on a farm).
For them food is absolutely ignored if there’s a possibility of something to do. Food in a bowl and a ball nearby? Food is secondary to ball. We used to worry about our border collie and have to constantly make effort to lock him in a room with food so he’d eat and not just allow the other dogs to take the food.
Cats can be similarly ‘fussy’ as well. I have two indoor cats, a Garfield (can’t leave food out near him or he’ll eat to the point of throwing up) and one thats play obsessed and not at all interested in food except as needed at the most minimal levels. Makes it hard to feed them since one needs food left out to graze and the other has to be controlled.
Not sure I'd go as far as "ignored". Family member had cocker spaniels from a working dog breeder (gun dogs). Both would do anything for food. Another has a golden retriever, also from gun dog "lineage" and again, they'll do anything for food.
Sure, they like a ball, or better still a squirrel to chase, but they'll give up that chase instantly for a piece of bacon.
Came here to say this. I have an Aussie and he really does not care about food. They just want to run and do stuff, food is secondary. I've never needed to use treats to train him either. Good boy and a pat on the head suffices.
I'm guessing you both have very well fed dogs, and that is why they are often not food motivated.
My cattle dog will be begging for food and giving me all the looks that she's hungry, but if I put a bowl of food down and then grabbed a ball she wouldn't give the bowl a second glance. I can't even give her a treat for bringing the ball back and dropping it, she's too focused on the ball. As soon as I put the ball away, she'll do anything I want for the treat. I think she considers the ball her job and it overrides anything else.
I have two border collies at the moment. The older one is definitely food motivated but also ball-motivated. If presented with both, she goes back and forth, undecided as to what she wants first. The younger one is "meh" on food and would easily ignore it entirely if given the chance to run flat-out in a wide-open space. Her nickname is "Speed" (though my Apple watch thinks it should be "Loud Environment").
Someone can likely give you a more technical explanation - but to give an anecdotal example, my parents have German Shepherds which are grazers. They put a few cups of food in their bowl in the morning, and the dogs will eat throughout the day as they're hungry. They like treats, sure, but I wouldn't call them food motivated. My dogs are lab mixes, and if food is out they'll sniff it out and immediately scarf it down. When one was younger, if we left food on the counter or table while he was home alone, he would jump onto the counter and eat it. I would call my dog very food motivated.
How could you know if the German Shepherds are food motivated if they literally have food available to them whenever they want? I would guess if they were fed at discrete times of the day they would start looking at the owners for food.
That is a difference between "starving" and "being food motivated".
Think about humans: all humans need calories, but some people just want to drink Soylent and other people will spend hours creating elaborate meals. Some people will barely eat because they know they need to, while others will eat until they are sick if they don't stop themselves. Some people will walk miles for the best ice cream, while others will walk miles to see their favorite band.
Food drive is a thing in humans too, and it's something that's largely genetic -- and it's something that you can modify with anorectic drugs like GLP-1 RAs and stimulants. How much you eat is a combination of intrinsic food drive and trait conscientiousness.
Everyone knows someone who will eat like 3 potato chips and move onto something else, while others will sit and mow down the whole bag. Taking a GLP-1 will basically just convert you from one kind to the other in a dose-dependent way.
The same kind of variability is present in dogs - but without the conscientiousness axis.
All the training in the world goes out the window when a GSD can graze.
But if there's something tasty going down like diced chicken breast or some steak, they'll show you they remember every learned command perfectly.
Even mentioning their favourite food gets their attention as some words are worth learning and remembering.
I had a husky-lab mix. He was not food-motivated at all. We did _not_ leave food for him all day long, because the other doggo, purebred lab, would eat the food designated for the husky if we did.
So we fed them both at the same time, twice a day, and had to watch if the husky would eat or not for that meal, and remove the food bowl if he wasn't hungry, so the lab wouldn't scarf it down.
This is an n=1 anecdote that your guess was the opposite of my experience. That dog just didn't care about food. He did however love eating ice cubes. I never tried just a bowl of ice cubes.
Some cats are certainly more food motivated than others. One of my cats will get up 24/7 if I shake the treat container and will run to me from anywhere in the house. My other cat will only come for treats if he isn't feeling sleepy or lazy.
I had a cat that would beg like a dog and as a kid I definitely slipped her things I shouldn't have.
You moved the bag of treats and there she was. Lasagna was a hit.
Angel food cake was her favourite, she would fight you for it, and 18 lbs of cat packs a punch. Probably my fault. Lured her out of many places with crumbs though. Worked better than the Temptations.
It varies from dog to dog though just how much of a lever it is, or how necessary it is.
e.g. our border collies will do things for you just because it's interesting to them or because they figure it might please you. Without treats. Look at a collie herd sheep or ducks, and they're totally blissing out on it, and they don't get food rewards after. It's just something they love to do.
There's other dogs who won't do anything unless they get a tasty treat out of it.
I've got a cat that doesn't have any interest in treats or table scraps. She spent most of yesterday watching Breaking Bad.
My other cats are all at least normally motivated by food.
Food motivation isn’t merely “does it want food”, it is more “will it do a complex action for food”. My GSD will spin, sit, stay, speak, shake hands, play dead and do a whole host of back to back commands for a tennis ball, but do maybe half a command for a standard treat. The GSD would not be considered to be very food motivated unless a “high value treat” like a hot dog is being offered.
Even in a mostly smooth walnut brain, there exists a genetically diverse hierarchy of desires. My dog was the runt of the litter, a different puppy was the glutton that ate every scrap in 10 seconds.
When training a puppy (I've trained five +, strictly amature) food is very useful
As an adult it becomes a relationship, and the dog is more responsive to praise and criticism.
That is what is meant IMO by "food motivated"
Feeding time is best, best ever, joy joy, for their entire lives
All animals are motivated by food. If you look at what those "talking" apes that can sign actually communicate, most of their discernible communication is just requests for food.
When we first got one of our dogs off the street, she was incredibly food motivated. She would hop the fence and roam and bring back cabbages, avocados, cauliflower, chips, and anything else she could find to snack on. Those are just examples we witnessed. But she always came back before we got home from work.
Now, 7 years later, she's picky. She'll spit out some food I give her if it isn't appealing enough. She can still obviously be motivated with food and treats, but it's far less unconditional.
Never underestimate the focus on food of a person or any animal who experiences(d) true hunger. I haven't come even close to it, yet the crave for any sort of energy when you are long over burning any sort of energy reserves was gradually overshadowing my mind.
In war times there are stories of people boiling and eating leather belts, boots and similar stuff. Imagine the drive to spend non-trivial amount of time and energy to eat that.
Yes
I have a dog that starved as a puppy (not by me, I rested him, best thing I have done in the last decade).
He is four now, and we have an extensive routine securing every acces to food like substances when he is left alone.
Other dogs I've had, not so much
That question supposes that humans aren't also primarily motivated by food (I've also never met a man or woman that wasn't).
Food motivated is also observable in people imo. I'm pretty food motivated - I'm a lot more interested in doing something if there's a meal associated with it than if there's not. I've definitely observed this variance in both people and dogs. Some people seem to get more joy out of it - probably partly just some genetic disposition.
My parents dog OD only interested in food if:
- the treats you have are good-enough (better have delicious chicken, otherwise, no dice)
- she hasn’t decided that there isn’t something else she’d rather be doing
- hours much of a process she feels like being today.
You can motivate her with food only on her terms. Conversely, my partners dog would commit crimes just to be near the cheese packet.
We're all food motivated to some extent.
Food motivated is usually the degree to which a dog responds to food in conjunction with other stimulus. When food is used for training as opposed to their normal meals.
Some dogs when training don't respond to food as much as other dogs.
My first dog was not food motivated.
There are dogs that are not food motivated. Some are play motivated while others can be attention (petting, praise) motivated. You come across the occasional one that isn't really motivated by anything and they are quite the training challenge.
My non working breed 30lbs dog will not care about food. He just looks at the bowl in complete disgust every time I give him food. It was extremely hard to train him because of that. I then I realized he’s praise motivated. Now I give him hugs and cuddles for good behavior and that’s how he gets trained.
I had a dog that was toy motivated. He obviously liked treats but would go half mad when he got a new toy.
Aren't we all?
Yeah this finding is not surprising in the least.
I will apologize to dogs in advance for any insensitivity I might show here.
My relationship with dogs is complicated. Once I read that their eyes rounded in response to their long adaptation to humans, I started feeling a little remorseful. Their Family is fundamentally altered and some of their natural self has been remolded to serve as our adjunct.
I know we didn't set out to do that but I regret it some, nonetheless.
In regard to all pets, I've come to feel a debt for sacrificing their independence. I feel an obligation to understand them, to accept them as what they are and to treat them in a way that respects that being. Hopefully they'll receive some fulfillment they otherwise wouldn't have.
But with dogs, that obligation feels uniquely expansive. I don't really know how to do it justice.
> Their Family is fundamentally altered and some of their natural self has been remolded to serve as our adjunct.
You're assuming we weren't also remolded to them.
Growing up on a farm, the relationship with the dogs made sense to me. They worked, we worked, we both got food and shelter, and were better off than if we didn't have each other. After work, there was time to be friends. A dog who is just a pet that sits in the house all day and waits for the family to come home is harder for me to understand.
I've thought about the same. Dogs have "eyebrow" muscles that wolves do not which make their expressions more human-like. Domesticated dogs have William's syndrome [1], which is a human genetic disorder which leads to many changes, one of which is hypersocial behavior. Essentially, I think that our modern relationships with dogs are just plain weird. I don't think pet ownership is for me but am happy so many people find their companionship valuable.
1. https://www.science.org/content/article/what-makes-dogs-so-f... (Link to the primary text is in here but I find the scientific news articles to be easier to read)
I don't think this is a rational feeling, but I can relate.
I've successfully trained my dog to be non-reactive towards squirrels/birds/etc. on walks. The other day she walked by a rabbit from within a few feet, and hardly gave it even a look. And I felt bad, as though I've suppressed her natural self and ability to be excited about such a thing. She's now pacified to live in my world.
An irrational feeling, because she's now at much less risk of being run over by a vehicle, but it was a feeling nonetheless.
Dogs are social pack animals. It is their nature to work with the pack following social rules of order and behaviour. That is paramount and fulfilling that obligation is more important than chasing a lagomorphic snack to the detriment of the pack.
By following your (the pack's) rules your dog is being truer to their nature than chasing a rabbit would be.
>And I felt bad, as though I've suppressed her natural self and ability to be excited about such a thing. She's now pacified to live in my world.
> An irrational feeling, because she's now at much less risk of being run over by a vehicle, but it was a feeling nonetheless.
I think this respects my position and my intent. You're being a pragmatist, giving her the best life possible.
Speaking to changing her nature and protecting her. They might not be in harmony but they both suggest thoughtful, considerate reasoning. And it's okay if they aren't in harmony; a future understanding might reconcile them.
Domestication is an evolutionary strategy that has ensured that many species will exist for as long as humans will.
Assuming humans don't wipe themselves out, dogs and cats and many other species will outlive the Earth itself.
If humans are the most successful species on the planet, dogs are second.
Dogs as an entire species would not exist at all without humans. If dogs hadn't co-evolved with humans, we'd only have wolves. It's more than just simple domestication like cats and goats, dogs evolved into a new species alongside early humans. They aren't simply wild animals that tolerate humans, this is an entire species specifically evolved to be the ideal companion to humans. The entire point and purpose of this species is only to be companions to humans, that's what they evolved to be. By and large dogs need human companionship and suffer without it.
While the relationship between humans and dogs is very symbiotic, I think dogs get the better end of the deal. All their needs and wants as a species are taken care of by humans, the species will exist forever, and all the dogs have to do is learn the best way to beg for belly rubs.
We have dogs because dogs want us to have them.
> Domestication is an evolutionary strategy that has ensured that many species will exist for as long as humans will.
I agree. Outcomes always matter. Not exclusively but they're up there.
> Dogs as an entire species would not exist at all without humans. If dogs hadn't co-evolved with humans, we'd only have wolves.
True. And I appreciate the existence of dogs. I also appreciate what they gave up to be. One notion doesn't quash the other. The two viewpoints coexist and make the relationship complex.
I should clarify that my perspective doesn't demand that something must happen or that some thing must not be. At most, it suggests 1) that we value the independence of animals - to our benefit as well - and 2) it's okay to morn a little for what dogs gave up to be dogs. The worst you'll get from #2 is finding more reasons to treat dogs well.
>If humans are the most successful species on the planet, dogs are second.
Second likely goes to a bacterium species, hell they might even be first. There are 10x more bacteria cells in your body than there are human cells.
As humans we've shaped the lives of most animals (pets, livestock, and wild animals). I don't think it's a bad thing to have changed their evolution, every animal is molded to their environment. What I feel bad about is that we've been rather poor stewards of animals, many domestic animals are mistreated but also we've been perpetrators of mass extinctions of wild animals.
The more I'm around animals the more I feel like they really matter, I've looked into their eyes and seen love and frustration and grief. It's a tragedy how callously we treat them in general.
> I know we didn't set out to do that but I regret it some, nonetheless.
This is not correct. Humans have been selectively breeding animals and plants for thousands of years.
Also dogs, for most of human history, provided services (hunting and security) to humans in exchange for "petship". It's only a very recent phenomena that (many but not all) pet dogs have to provide nothing to humans besides companionship. It is now that the maladaptation in dogs have started to appear because of the one way relationship.
But they aren’t useless. My in-laws had a Doberman and a Chihuahua at one point. The little dog can’t guard you, but she was an excellent watch dog. She woke up the Dobie.
“Yip yip yip yip [lots of scrabbling on wood floor] WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF”
People don’t mess with you when a 90-pound Doberman looks to you for guidance. I used to take her for walks in remote areas. I saw sketchy people. They saw me put her back on her leash when I saw other people. They knew I could drop that leash at any second.
Well companionship is a type of service too. Dogs that are emotional service animals do many compassionate things for their human owners to make them feel better.
You must deep down actually hate yourself or all of humanity to feel such remorse for the impact we have had on nature/dogs. Doesn't sound healthy
Wow what a weird comment to make.
Having compassion for another living, feeling, emotional creature means they must hate themselves?
Oof what a lame take.
>Having compassion for another living, feeling, emotional creature means they must hate themselves?
Why is "I regret that we domesticated dogs" "compassion"?
It's just the naturalistic fallacy.
Wolves still exist. It's just that some of their babies hung out with us and over ten thousand years some of those babies hung out with us even more and we both changed to accommodate our relationship.
Why was it wrong to build legitimate companionship with other creatures? Why is it morally wrong to adapt over extremely long time periods?
> It's just the naturalistic fallacy. Wolves still exist.
No one here made the argument that because dogs exist, other species don't (or some other similar loss happened). At least, that's what you seem to be pushing back on.
In my OP, I made this observation about dogs. Much of the Family's independence and self-determination has been replaced with subservience to us.
I also shared how I personally felt about that. I hopefully did all that in a way that preserved desires to make dogs happy.
That's pretty much it - except for a sidebar about pets in general.
> You must deep down actually hate yourself or all of humanity
I don't. I'm not less for thinking more of something that isn't me. I'm arguably more for embracing more value than I started with.
Your assertion seems stark. Do you really feel my perspective is likely fueled by self-loathing? If so, what is it about human nature that led you to that?
All the dog owners I know feel the same sense of comradery with their animal companions so your obligation to understand them is not a particularly unusual one.
Wolves have to provide something to humans in order for humans to keep feeding them right? In this case, humans would want some wolves around them. Therefore, it seems very unlikely to be self domestication because humans would have a heavy sway in how dogs evolved.
Ever visit any national park or even city park where people are feeding ducks, squirrels, birds etc???
What 'value' outside of entertainment does that provide to the humans?
On this point I’m convinced that bears are well on the way to domestication.
National parks have a name for the ones starting to show domesticated behaviours - ‘problem bears’. Bears that go out of their way to interact with humans. I feel that’s a case study for domestication right there.
Issue is that for domestication to be possible, there has to be a preexisting social structure like herding, colonies, or packs. If it's too weak or non existent, there's no chance that domestication is possible. Having docile examples are always going to be a thing, as snakes aren't exotic pets nor social by any stretch, but that's not what domestication is.
There's an additional risk with omnivorous/carnivorous animals could see people as prey, and this risk pretty much goes up with the size of the animal.
I have no idea how bears act with one another, but I do know they can eat meat and are basically person sized.
>for domestication to be possible, there has to be a preexisting social structure like herding, colonies, or packs. If it's too weak or non existent, there's no chance that domestication is possible.
Is that really true? A cat seems to relate to a person as if the person were the cat's mother. The kneading with its paws that a cat does after it jumps into your lap is what a kitten does in the wild to induce its mother to express milk.
Feral domestic cats have colonies. I don't think their nearest wild relatives do, but its at least conceivable that colony structure of cats living around human populations, off of leavings and rats, etc., that were attracted to human populations developed first, then domestication happened later.
They are not cooperative hunters, unlike wolves, but they do display some social traits. See chapter 4:
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/78460899/Complete-libr...
Lions have colonies, so certain types of cats are capable of it pre-domestication.
I've seen "problem baboons". The issue with baboons is that they are clever and dexterous enough to do things that other wildlife does not. They know to pull on door handles. So they can get into a kitchen via an open window, open cupboard doors until they find the one with the cold food inside, leave the door open, haul the food out, eat some, shit on the floor, climb up the drainpipe onto the roof with some of their haul etc.
They're clever enough to scatter when someone raises a rifle and points it at them; but they'll do the same if you use a wooden walking stick.
And of course they're highly social, seldom encountered alone.
IME bears are sadly quite thick. They will get used to humans but also easily feel threatened by them. So first they won't keep their distance, but then may well act aggressive / threatened. They'd need to somehow lose the aggression to continue on the road to pethood.
Based on many reports of brown bear behaviour in the Carpathian mountains and an N=1 natural experiment.
Black Bears 'aggression' is almost exclusively what is called bluster. It is a stress/fear response.
But they aren't social hunters so the ability to lose that fear response isn't something that was selected for.
Similar to racoons and even bald eagles, which are like pistons in Alaskan fishing towns, with a wider fear boundary radius.
Urban coyotes, which are typically solitary, mating pair or sibling group limited are similar, being there but hiding in the shadows in fear typically.
If you have ever had the misfortune of knowing someone with a wolf hybrid, that fear resulting in unpredictable behavior is fairly obvious.
Brown bears have more subtle stress indicators, if you watch the tragic videos recorded by Timothy Treadwell, and have experience with brown bear stress indicators it is quite obvious.
Obviously most animals are opportunistic, with even animals like horses being willing to eat voles or chicks that enter the pasture, and Treadwell stayed past the bountiful times when brown bears suppress their fear to co-feed with other bears which changed the calculus and ended poorly for him and his girlfriend.
The species that have been domesticated almost universally are cooperative either for protection or for finding food.
IMHO, the development of the ability to read human emotions is what allowed for the domestic dog.
My first job in highschool was as the kennel boy at a rural veterinary clinic. Dealing with injured animals safety was almost always about controlling my own lack of stress indicators and trying to communicate intent while observing for stress indicators in the animal. No matter if it was an injured dog or horse etc...
But you often had to remove them from their owners because dogs, being social are great at picking up clues from their owners. If an owner was concerned their dog would bite, it would almost always do so. Yet if you removed that cue, it is amazing how much less likely it was .
If you observe bears interaction with other bears it is typically filled with stress indicators like jaw clacking etc...
They never comfortable with any bear that isn't a mother or sibling.
So I doubt that there is a real reliable path to pet hood for them, just as there isn't, unfortunately, for most wolf hybrids.
The aggression (really almost always harmless bluster) is simply a secondary emotional response to the primary fear and anxiety.
They aren't 'thick' they just aren't built the same way.
Raccoons too. There's some in our neighborhood who hold out their hands to beg
Besides that, in wolves' case it would be the meat that would rot or invite other predators. Better those standing by wolves finish of the scraps.
> Why would humans feed wolves scraps without them providing something of value in return?
Human beings aren't all always that transactional. "Homo economicus" is joked about for good reasons.
You can easily imagine situations where a) food is in a temporary surplus due to a successful hunt, so there is little downside to wasting some and b) a sentimental child has access to it.
close, but of course far more complex, Wolves are savy negotiators, highly social, and often (not always) fun loving, the variations in personality amongst them is large.Wolves team up with Ravens, another species with complex behaviors, ravens work as airial spoters, and wolves take out the targeted prey, with both sharing the kill, in exceptionaly close quarters, it's easy to see that those roles could change, with humans around, and there is a limited window to prepare and consume, and drag off a large kill, before it atracts an apex preditor, or just a huge flock of hungry birds, that can decimate an untended carcas in miniuts.So teaming up, rather than dependency, is the most likely begining. Archiological work on wolf dens, show that choice sites in the Canadian High Arctic, have been in continious use for 10000 years, by Canadian Wolves showing that a core group, will maintain a teritory, indefinitly.....even with humans and other large dangerous animals around... Peoples view of dogs, is often based on experience with what are breeds that are strictly house pets and have been inbred to the point of bieng helpless morons or neurotic edgy wierdos, but that one central behavior, of guarding what and where they are instructed to, remains.
> Wolves team up with Ravens
I had to search it. For example https://www.yellowstone.org/naturalist-notes-wolves-and-rave...
There are plenty of humans that got a 100% wolf and managed to keep them around, even in modern times.
In the past, people were always looking for ways to automate hunting, just like we do with technology, as this was the hardest thing.
And if you ever hunted, imagine having a wolf around when you hunt, it's nuts. They are so powerful and can so easily find prey, they have sick instincts too, much better than humans.
Pair them together and you can understand why that combination works so well.
Our ancestors also gave up lots of surviviability skills to become homo sapiens together with our beloved doges.
modern people are so capitalism brained the idea of feeding the animals without them paying is out of scope. Humans love animals, and feeding animals, and keeping them around, people will go to huge lengths to take care of animals for no reason at all.
> modern people are so capitalism brained
"Not all people" but yeah, a certain class of HN commenter who tries to be "rational" about everything.
I'd imagine there's a fair amount of folks with autism here. Nothing wrong with that, but it can lead to these narrower perspectives about certain social topics.
Right. It is not rational to assume that all human behaviour is rational.
Humans have always like having pets and frequently interacted with all kinds of nature before the industrial revolution, which is an extremely recent event in human history.
Although it turns out domesticated dogs have a wide number of uses _now_, early humans had no idea that would be the case, they probably just liked feeding the wolves.
Edit: there is also speculation that "feeding" wasn't entirely deliberate, that wolves started eating scraps from the garbage piles close to early human settlements and the ones that were friendly to humans (likely children especially) evolved closer and closer into dogs.
Yeah I wouldn’t imagine that “feeding” was anything but wild animals realizing that human encampments have food and therefore need to follow them around or be in their proximity. The animals that would present themselves with aggression, would potentially be killed by the humans and the ones who would keep a more tame approach would be tolerated by humans. Over centuries, the tame behavior turned into domestication.
Providing them less desirable—to humans—-scraps would have likely prevented competition with them in hunting game. Why hunt living game if you can wait around and get scraps for free? So original intention of humans likely not domestication, but still leads that way if the wolves get what they want.
That doesn't make sense to me either.
So humans give them food so they don't compete with humans in hunting. The wolves would get full from humans, don't have to hunt, and spend all their time reproducing, which will create even more competition for humans.
That’s not how reproductive cycles work.
The details may be off, but the main point still stands right? More food = more wolves, no?
ok, so Grug and team know they can take wolves (spears), wolves know they can eat and not be bothered by Grug and team by eating cast off bones/scraps because all of their relatives that went to steal food from Grug didn't make it, but the ones that ate the scraps and were chill with Grug and Grugette ended up making it until Grug Jr.^3 and by then had decided to be on the same team as Grug Jr.^3
Humans and wolves appear to have cooperated in their hunts. The two can do different things and so together have more success that either alone.
It doesn't say the humans had to feed the wolves. Bones, parts that humans don't eat, etc. is scraps near humans that wolves might want.
Easy, pure evolution.
Human groups that intentionally or unintentionally fed surrounding wolves are at an advantage. The presense of wolves near the humans would drive off more aggressive predators, which also helps up the local prey populations.
Human groups that did not feed or intentionally drove off wolves are at a disadvantage and more likely to be eaten during the night, or be out-competed for food.
Repeat for a million years or until your wolf grows eyebrows.
Additionally, wolves share their hunt with their pack. It's possible that some early groups were fed at least partially by the wolves hunting for them. If that dynamic ever got established, that group would be at a tremendous advantage.
I breezed through the responses to this thread, and I believe the quote may be misinterpreted.
> Wolves had to choose to stay near humans to eat food scraps...
I don't read that humans fed the wolves scraps, just that wolves ate scraps, probably discarded by humans.
Then one day maybe a bold doggo decides to hang out closer, and bam, a shitty disney movie is born. ;D
humans have a natural drive to do this, not everything is some quid pro quo. How could you see a wolf puppy and not light up? Humans think almost every animal is cute in its own way, its very in our nature.
Or do we only think wolf puppies are cute because we co-evolved with dogs?
We haven't really co-evolved with pygmy hippos, qokka, or chevrotain, but folks think they're cute too. Cute is cute regardless of familiarity
Well without wolves around it would leave more room for other, potentially much more dangerous, predators. And big cats once roamed most the entire world and are definitely more dangerous to humans than wolves.
Where I live we still have the megafauna and can confirm that pretty much none of them will mess with large dogs.
> Why would humans feed wolves...
It's the same reasons they feed dogs.
Just to expand on that, humans keep dogs not just as pets but as guard animals. It could be imagined that early humans feeding wolves to keep them around might also present a deterrent to aggressors.
Dogs also hunt rodents, they can lead you a dead deer, find a rabbit hole. Dogs chew on skins, bones and eat other parts that humans don't like.
Dogs could be source of calories as well....
They also look sooo cute.
> Why would humans feed wolves scraps
Human feces is very attractive to a dog. So perhaps not deliberate?
I would also guess that in some early stages of domesticating other animals feeding the animals that might prey on those animals could effectively lessen the predation.
Yes, the theories in that article don't make a lot of sense. For example this about cats:
> settling into a mutually-beneficial relationship in which they hunted and ate rodents in exchange for food.
Cats mostly hunt birds, because rondents are smarter, faster, stronger and have weapons (teeth).
Also humans and primates throw rocks and sticks at predators. Early dogs must have been caught as puppies, or their parents killed by humans and their flesh eaten.
The whole model has been domesticated to portray a cartoony interaction.
"Cats mostly hunt birds, because rondents are smarter, faster, stronger and have weapons (teeth)."
Where did you get that from? I'm pretty sure it's not accurate, both from reading and personal experience.
Cats don't tackle rats often, and they are at a low risk of being bitten by mice (the hunting technique for mice involves first stunning the mouse by whacking it as hard as possible, ideally using body weight). Mice are smaller than most birds.
Cats do have instincts for rodents, birds and fish. But in most areas rodents are more available, so the cats don't get very good at hunting the other two.
My cousins from the countryside have several cats, and there is plenty of mice and birds. Mostly every prey the cats bring home are birds. Birds are easier to track, nest in visible places, while mice hides better, they are good detectors by smell and sound. Maybe in the city birds are harder to reach.
The more I think about the article the less it makes sense. Humans would have eaten all their preys' meat, and thrown the bones they didn't use to build tools and accesories into pits, would have burned the rest to avoid bringing predators. Proto-dogs would have been like pigs to them, they are still like such in Asia. It's just that their decendants are good alarms and defenders, and can be trained to help in hunting and other tasks.
I've had outdoor cats -- at one point two brothers.
One was a complete terror for birds. He'd go after them all, including hummingbirds. Left bits everywhere. Then we lost him due to something bigger and sharper.
The other one couldn't be arsed to hunt anything, until we moved a couple miles into the country and the house had rodents (due to the previous owner feeding birds). Over the course of the first year, he got 25 and I got 2 with traps. Never saw any evidence of dead birds.
So, it varies. By the cat.
I own a horse farm and have several barn cats. They aren't there to keep the bird population down.
That reminds me of a story. The author Elizabeth Moon and her husband kept horses, and one year they decided to get oats for the winter instead of hay. They didn't realise that oats need to be stored differently, not just in a pile on the barn floor.
They took one of their horses to the vet because he developed a persistent cough; the vet asked a few questions. When he heard how they were storing the oats, his eyes widened, and he leaned forward. "You need to get rid the oats. Now." Then he explained why...
So as soon as they got back they started shoveling the contaminated pile of oats into bags to depose of it. And as they did so, first a few, then a stream of mice started running out of the pile of oats. Their hair was standing on end from disgust, but they had to keep shoveling. At the sound, the cats came from all the nearby farms, so that they were at the centre of a ring of cats; but by the end all the cats had eaten so many mice that they were stuffed; and could only lie there, and watch the mice go by.
The silver fox domestication experiment that ran for 60 years
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.118...
Great article. The addendum on Soviet "scientist" Trofim Lysenko at the end was almost more interesting than the fox study itself!
>But work in Mendelian genetics was essentially illegal at the time in the Soviet Union, because of a pseudo-scientific charlatan by the name of Trofim Lysenko (Joravsky 1979; Soyfer 1994).
>In the mid-1920s, the Communist Party leadership, in an attempt to glorify the average citizen, began to promote uneducated men from the proletariat into the scientific community.
You cannot fix science through ideology, especially when that ideology is actually just loyalty, and is mostly being used as an excuse to get rid of people who keep telling you that you are wrong.
But don't worry, that could never happen here.
In my study, (n=2), I can attest, indeed, that both of my dogs will willingly give up roaming outside in the wild for snacks, scritches, and belly-rubs.
My current dog wouldn't give up. It really depends on the breed.
Some ancient races still have those very old instincts of hunting and being independent, even doing some weird scream when given a bone or a having found a potential "hunt". (that's how people used to hunt!)
Youtube shiba scream :-)
All my previous dogs (>5) would always prefer the snack though.
"Some ancient races"
Like terriers, Jack russel etc. lol. They will just go. They will ignore you. Yes we tried having meatballs. They don't care. Hunt hunt hunt. (Male, non snipped)
I can confirm. My Rat Terrier will absolutely not respond if she gets out. Best I can do is throw tennis balls towards the house so she runs in that general direction, assuming that’s the most interesting thing she’s found to hunt yet.
Is a bred in behavior to hunt vermin domestication or lack of domestication?
Absolutely a form of domestication, just in the way short wheat and buff chickens are instead of the way floppy-eared friends are.
"Ignore everything else to single-mindedly go after prey" is, in the wild, a great way to get eaten by slightly larger predators.
Of course, otherwise you get a Siberian Husky that hunts everything that moves, including chicken. It's only a dog only when 3 ft away.
Just making fun of the "oohh aaah le ancient races will ignore humans. le epix"
Wheat may have domesticated us because we like bread.
Wheat domesticated us because agriculture put the politics and power into the hands of the landowners (whoever is big enough warlord to control arable territory)
No that's just basic control and domination of resources that exised eons before humans did. Lots of animals have and guard their "territory" and don't farm. Plenty of human tribes did the same before they had developed agriculture.
That is true, but you could always move to another region and there would still be some level of fish & game.
a) the ability to have grain stores, etc thru the winter; and b) the long food cycle of plant in spring, harvest in fall; really put everything on steroids in terms of what "territory" was important (the grain stores, the planted land) and what territory was less important
You can see this in the development of forts, castles, etc later on where the "keep" was the most protected thing, and held the grain store for an entire village
Plants evolved animals to spread seeds.
s/bread/beer/
I find the self-domestication theory quite plausible for cats, but I'm having a hard time accepting it for wolves. Why would human tribes tolerate wolves in close proximity?
Small cats are largely harmless and get rid of pests. Wolves compete for the same food sources, kill children, and are otherwise a nuisance.
Granted, selective breeding of captive animals also doesn't jibe with what we know about the Stone Age, but we don't know all that much.
> Why would human tribes tolerate wolves in close proximity?
Wolves will scavenge if they are hungry enough, and will eat food humans may have found unfit, such as bones. So they may have come to view humans as a source of food, but were too timid to attack, and followed around hunter/gatherer tribes. The wolves would be little more than an annoyance, if the humans even notice them at all. Generally the wolf is going to notice you before you notice it - they have superior sense of smell and hearing. In an environment with heavy vegetation (i.e. forest), thats going to count for alot more than vision.
On the other side of the coin, its possible the humans also followed around the wolves who would have been superior trackers with better sense of smell/hearing, mutually beneficial hunts may have been possible.
Eventually, a tolerance could have developed and the tribe found the wolves useful for things like, keeping away more dangerous predators such as large cats/bears/etc. or even rival packs of wolves. They would also be useful as a alarm system. Given enough time, the more sociable wolves, yet less dangerous, wolves may have selected for. There is a theory that dogs are basically wolves whose mental developed stopped at the younger ages, and lack independence like adult wolves have.
Wolves keep away other animals, and are more alert than humans. If I'm a Paleolithic human, having a wolf nearby that isn't eating my kids precisely because I give it snacks instead, and that is going to just naturally ward off bears or other pests, even in the dark of night, seems like a great win.
Consider the megafauna situation of 20-30k BP: huge, scary animals more dangerous than wolves. It might've started as a temporary alliance against other apex predators.
> Why would human tribes tolerate wolves in close proximity?
You don't start with the adults.
You kill the adults and raise the pups.
Even today, there are wolf sanctuaries with wild wolves who've become quite friendly and acclimated to their carers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gePE-_lrJUU
>You kill the adults and raise the pups.
You are talking about the second domestication period, not the first. The first domestication period was not intentional by humans. It was that some wolve packs scavenged scraps from around human settlements, and so were in slightly closer contact. Over generations, the humans and wolves became slightly more comfortable with each other and humans started seeing some benefits from the proximity (early warning system, additional deterrent against other predators, etc.). This likely reinforced the developing relationship and prompted some humans to occasionally actively feed scraps/leftovers to the least skittish wolves, which again over generations, led to some wolves being close to what we would call “friendly” towards humans.
Right, but the argument here isn't that humans domesticated wolves, but that wolves self-domesticated themselves (i.e., humans tolerated adult wolves in close proximity).
That’s the last bit of my comment. People get adopted by wolf packs at times. Both approaches probably worked for different groups.
Hunting parties may have cooperated with wolves to route or take down prey. Humans have smarts and persistence, but they aren't sprinters. A wolf can run 30-40 mph.
I can tell you for a fact that our dogs love snacks. Especially the one, he's asking me for one right now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf9fjF26-ZU
In Hoh Xil, China. a wild wolf started begging for food from humans. It now approaches vehicles for food, and also shows some dog-like habits.
I love it when statistical modelling is used for research like this. I think we're underestimating the impact research simulations will have on science, especially when they get cheaper and easier to build. Exciting stuff!
There was also a study that showed dogs are healthiest when they eat a single meal a day (as opposed to the usual twice a day most people do). https://www.newsweek.com/dog-feed-once-day-cognitive-health-... Behaviour isn't always aligned with biological needs though.
slightly off topic: does anyone have the link to genetic arguments dogs descend from wolves, rather than dogs and wolves being both descended from a common proto-canine? i should be able to find such, the article alludes to such as a foregone conclusion, but no luck.
Well they both share a common ancestor, the question is how "wolf-like" was that common ancestor. Pretty sure most biologists believes wolves haven't change much since dogs were domesticated.
It could be the other way around, where dogs that were domesticated were the ones that responded to humans' love of feeding them.
Humans love feeding animals. It's a unique behavior in the animal kingdom. And the first step to domesticating anything is feeding them.
Hasn't this been determined for quite some time? "Wolves found out they could get easy food and some shelter by working with humans" is a determination I've been seeing since at least the 00's, maybe even 90's.
Reminds me of the scene in Blood Meridian where they find a dog in an abandoned Apache camp and Brown says, “you won’t man that thing,” and Captain Glanton says, “I can man anything that eats.”
As a dog lover I believe that sure they might have first learned to trust us thanks to food, but I believe they stayed and became our best friends thanks to scritches.
Those five fingers work magic.
They can't scratch their own armpits. And they can't scratch each other.
What does the Model say about parasites, they like to snack too (:
They aren't many examples of humans making "friend" with other animals without the help of food
Coincidentally this is also how I have a partner.
The same could be said about humans.
The title reads like a factoid produced by an LLM.
Also they like to be told they are good doggies.
My dog agrees.
why so many fake "science" articles posted on HN lately?
Your dog is a gmo.
Peckish pups
I, too, was domesticated because I like snacks. :)
One of the hypotheses for how civilization emerged is that humans domesticated each other. Every time I take a neighbor some cookies I think of it as me doing my part for human evolution.
I can see that. Maybe in ancient societies they found they could accomplish sustainability in less movement. By that I mean.. they have a place where they live and a place where they source food, water, etc. Bringing those together means less travel and more concentration. Over time.. domestication.
Maybe?
This is the most xkcd thing I've ever read outside of xkcd.
Me as well. I have a theory that that's why every tech startup always has a bunch of snacks in the kitchen.
is this why RDJ would always bring snacks to the Marvel sets
Until I see evidence to the contrary I am going to just take this as fact: RDJ was trying to domesticate his coworkers.
There's a theory that wheat domesticated humans, that isn't far from that https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/slaves-to-wheat-how-a-grain-d...
Lol, I read this and my first thought was also "Yeah, humans too."
[dead]