Re: [Freeflight] Domestication and Freeflight

[rex <rex@n...>]

jd021357@a... <jd021357@a...> [2003-02-10 13:29]:
> In a message dated 2/10/2003 1:43:15 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
> Dougandmona@m... (quoting Michael Pollan) writes:
> 
>> Rather, domestication happened when a small handfull of especially
>> opportunistic species discovered through Darwinism trial and error that
>> they were more likely to survive and prosper in an alliance with humans
>> than on their own. 
> > 
> 
> Mona -- Just finished the Botany of Desire -- more unsual out of the box 
> thinking. It must be Pollens schtik. The idea that anything humans do is 
> "natural" isn't new. It breaks down very quickly when you realize that 
> dismantling ecosystems and eventually destroying all life on earth would be 
> deemed as a natural event under that way of thinking. 

How does an outcome we abhor make it "unnatural"?

> Likewise, thinking that some especially opportunistic species "discovered"
> through Darwinism trial and error that they were more likely to survive and
> prosper in an alliance with humans than on their own is way off track in a
> evolutionary sense.  

It appears perfectly on track in an evolutionary sense to me. For example,
look at the success of the rock pigeon in urban environments. They are not
there because humans want them there, they are there because genes that keep
them in cities are more likely to prosper than genes that cause them to
leave. Or, look at the house mouse (_Mus musculus_) for another example. They
have evolved to exploit dwellings and cultivated fields and are uncommon in
environments undisturbed by humans. There are, of course, many other
examples of animals that have opportunistically evolved to exploit habitats
created by _H. sapiens_. 

> And that you'll never understand them unless you think of them in a wild
> context first, then in the physical environment of your home second. 

How can thinking of them in a "wild context" help when there is no agreement
on what the term means? Domesticated vs wild is a useless distinction unless
it has some operational significance. Casting about for some useful
distinction I consulted Karen Pryor's excellent book (_Don't Shoot the Dog_)
on animal training and found: 

Psychologist Harry Frank suggests that this resistance to negative
reinforcement is a principal difference between wild and domestic animals.
All domesticated animals are susceptible to negative reinforcement -- they
can be herded, led, shooed, or generally pushed around.

[...]

With one exception: the cat. It is, for example really hard to teach a cat
to walk on a leash; go to a cat show and you will see that the
professionals don't even bother to try -- cats are carried or cats are
caged, but they are not walked around on leashes.

So we are forced to look for another criterion to distinguish wild and
domesticated or claim that cats are wild. In my opinion it's best to give up
trying to make the wild vs domesticated distinction altogether; it's much
more useful to simply say: "Some animals respond poorly to negative
reinforcement, e.g., cats and birds." 

> If your birds are captive bred and you actively support preservation of
> wild habitat/populations (not feral conures in SF though!), what apologies
> are there to make?

How are parrots that inhabit cities different from rock doves that inhabit
cities? Or do you favor extermination of city pigeons, too?

-rex
-- 
"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government
and report the facts." - Will Rogers