domestication

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by sculptor, Nov 16, 2019.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,476
    I recently read a book wherein the question
    "Did man domesticate wheat, or did wheat domesticate man?" was asked.

    Your thoughts?
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,543
    Hariri's Sapiens?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,476
    Yes

    Your thoughts?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    The question doesn't really make any sense using standard definitions of domestication. What would wheat domesticating man even mean? I get that man went from a roaming hunter to a more settled and agrarian life when he starting planting and raising livestock but it's just playing with semantics and inventing a new meaning for domestication to suggest that a plant can domesticate man.

    Is which came first, the chicken or the egg, the next topic for discussion?
     
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Has been decided long ago

    Chicken

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    I don't recognize TIME so this question makes no sense. All I recognize is NOW.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    That is how wheat domesticated man

    Provide good food and man will think "why go to the effort moving around. Stay here, grow more this stuff

    WHEAT - Got yer

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Long ago was another NOW

    The period between is AGE

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    There is no such thing was "first" so the chicken couldn't come first. The chicken came BEFORE.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2019
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Well the explanation goes like

    Eggs are produced internally in the chicken
    Later evolution figured out how to protect the egg in a manner (cover it with a shell)
    Result - eggs layer which are capable of surviving outside of chicken

    Chicken came first

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    I agree that the chicken came first. There are no eggs without chickens.
     
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Same applied to the dinosaurs when they were around

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,543
    I rather agree with Seattle about wheat. I mean, you can always argue that some plant or animal Man finds useful can be thought of as in a kind of symbiosis, because Man goes to some trouble to cultivate it and that alters how he lives. You might say the same for the horse. But neither the horse nor wheat set out to change Man's way of life from "wild" to "domesticated".

    I suppose it is Hariri's characteristically rather hyperbolic way of making the point that it was the cultivation of wheat that caused Man to give up the hunter-gatherer existence. Part of his schtick seems to be that we were all better off as hunter-gatherers anyway and everything has gone downhill since.

    Hariri has made a name for himself as a lippy iconoclast, using the perspective of his outsider status as a gay Israeli academic. A lot of what was in that book I found a bit glib and not very well substantiated. It's the sort of book you don't really find yourself going back to again and again for its insights. I found the sequel Homo Deus, unreadable.
     
    sculptor and sideshowbob like this.
  17. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    I don't find myself going back to re-read Tiassa's long treatises for the same reason. All style, little meat on the bone.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,543
    I couldn't possibly comment.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Truck Captain Stumpy and Seattle like this.
  19. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    I didn't read that book, but have learned some anthropology. Seems like people were pretty much forced to settle down and cultivate crops when game became scarce or there was too much competition from other predators or human migration became too difficult for geographic or climate reasons. If they settled in places where grain was abundant, they were able to increase their numbers faster than they might have by gathering berries and root-crops. Once they did settle to cultivation, they improved the yields by selection, irrigation and fertilization, and in turn, the heavy investment of labour tied a people irrevocably to the land... and thus, to ownership > patriarchy> fratricide > hierarchy > civilization > progress > arms race and all the subsequent shite.
    So, it would seem to be a mutual domestication/destruction process.
    The more fertile the land, the more fiercely contested, the more nationalism and xenophobia.

    As for the chicken, the first chicken(s) were in the egg(s) of jungle fowl, Gallus gallus and Gallus sonneratii as well as one or two other relatives - about 9,000 years ago, but we don't know which ones or exactly when, because there were no biologists present and taxonomy hadn't been invented. Its breeding thereafter was due to human agency.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2019
  20. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    But the dinosaurs laid eggs. And then they evolved into chickens. So eggs came first.
     
  21. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,476
    I concur.
    It seemed to me that much of what he wrote was poorly thought out, and often just wrong.
    He is by no means the first nor the only one to suggest that we traded quality of life for quantity of our numbers when we took up the plow.
    However:
    I had never read nor heard it phrased just that way.... ergo this thread.
     
  22. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    The dinosaurs did not evolve into chickens - they mostly went extinct. A few eventually evolved into birds and a few of those eventually differentiated into land-dwelling fowl and a few of those eventually branched off into domestic chickens.
    It doesn't ask about eggs in general - because in that case, insects would have come first.
    The riddle is about a chicken egg. It was (presumably) posed at a time when philosophers didn't know about evolution.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2019
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    I wasn't suggesting that dinosaur eggs were the first eggs, only that they were before chickens.
    It really isn't though. That would be trivial. It's about making you think about origins.
     

Share This Page