Your post definitely gave me a lot to think about. I have to admit I’m not much of a dog person, so I’m glad I read your post and started thinking more about all different types of dogs. I did somewhat think about these differences while reading, however, in the context that I can imagine many dogs that act differently between breeds. The behavior of Inyo doesn’t really seem too far off from an untrained black lab I once knew, for example. Like you, thinking about the vast differences between breeds really makes me questions how domestication happened. I like your thought that it’s similar to the fox experiment in that some animals were selected for their natural inclination towards human companionship. Perhaps this happened at varying degrees and led to the behavioral differences between dog breeds? I’m no scientist, but it seems to make sense.

I’m actually really glad you brought up your comparison to cats. That’s exactly what I was thinking. I do understand, as Kelly mentioned, that the reading doesn’t necessarily support this idea, but that fact aside, I did still have this thought while reading, and I obviously wasn’t the only one. It’s not a scientific theory or anything, it’s just an interesting idea to ponder when considering the different ways that dogs and cats were domesticated. Obviously, dogs and cats each have an extremely different demeanor, and although cats aren’t as large or destructive as a wolfdog, I can still see some of the similarities between Inyo’s behavior and many cats. It’s just an intriguing thought.

I liked what you picked up on in reference to “unintentional management.” It occurs to me that this point of view makes animal domestication by humans seem very much part of a natural evolutionary process. In my opinion, people begin thinking of human actions as artificial when the human brain comes into play. As if our brain function is some higher power that belongs above the other organisms on the planet. I’m still unsure about this idea, but your points definitely add some fuel to the fire.

I think the research you did about giving birth provides an answer that seems much more logical to me than Dunn’s explanation. I understood that nighttime would be a time when all the animals were together, however because our bodies are completely unfit to function in the dark, that still seemed a little illogical to me. Doing it in the late afternoon when nocturnal predators are not quite active yet, but everyone is still settling into an overnight location makes much more sense. I also liked your final thought about the process of human domestication. It kind of seems to me like the first wave of evolution you discussed, being faster and cleverer, sounds like natural selection. The ones who weren’t quick enough or who weren’t effective hunters did not survive. Then, as we settled down into communities, it began to enter a stage that was referred to on the radiolab as human domestication. This is an interesting difference to me. Is the first phase natural and the second artificial? Or is it all natural selection because humans, as a part of the natural world, act within “nature” and not artificially?

I felt the exact same way as you about Animals as Domesticates. I really appreciated getting some scientific background that was easy for me to digest as a person who has no understanding of domestication. I think your discussion of culture is very interesting. As you mentioned your time in Barcelona, I began to think about when I visited Nicaragua last year. Almost totally contrary to your experience, there were stray dogs absolutely everywhere. Most people just ignored them, and they seemed to understand that they should go unnoticed. Stray dogs are a huge problem in Nicaragua, and most have diseases, fleas, ticks, and are very malnourished. It makes me wonder about the history of the culture as compared to your example. Was the dog introduced and then forgotten when the people realized they had no use for it? Does the poverty level contribute to a difference in the domestication of the dog? I’m sure there must be some kind of correlation here.

I totally agree with the way that this section of Bulliet was much better than the first. He seemed to really begin to dig into the subject of domestication, which I thought would have served as a great background to some of his bold claims from the first several chapters. I was also interested by his assessment of Jared Diamond. I didn’t notice when I watched the video, but he does seem to skim over some really important facts when laying out his theory. One example was the Peccary that Bulliet discusses, and explains the way that none of Diamond’s explanations about why domestication could fail for certain animals applied to the Peccary. I believe we also mentioned several things in class that Diamond grazes over, including dogs. It seems to me that Bulliet is kind of picking up on Diamond’s unsound theories, which is one of the first things I’ve enjoyed about Bulliet.

I agree with your criticism of Bulliet’s writing style. Throughout the reading we did for this week, I felt like I was getting whiplash trying to keep up as Bulliet veered and zoomed through various topics that were very difficult to pull a point out of. I’m sure our class discussion will lend various perspectives, but part of my concern with my blog post for this week was that I had taken the complete wrong meaning away from what Bulliet was getting at…although I can’t be too sure due to the fact that his writing is bogged down with a lot of fluff. I don’t know about you, but I was a little confused as to why it seemed like much of this section of the reading consisted of movie and cartoon titles. I do understand the metamorphosis of entertainment as our views of animal cruelty have evolved, however I don’t get why that point was made through the listing of pretty much every cartoon that contained animals.

I also am glad that you mentioned the development that Bulliet lacks. As I commented on in my post, I think Bulliet fails to examine the details of societal development that would underline some of his points on changing from a domestic to postdomestic society. I’m glad you brought up the change to reliance on machinery for farming purposes, because I think these large scale meat production farms are the real problem with what Bulliet calls our postdomestic society. However, the explanation of societal changes and the development of the problems with current society and an answer to what needs to be done are all things that are missing from Bulliet’s writing. I understand the book is only beginning, but I think this was necessary in setting up the background for his book. Like you, I remain unconvinced and unimpressed by Bulliet so far.

I’m really glad you posted this article. It was interesting for me to see some different perspectives on this type of food source. as a personal preference, the thing that freaks me out about most meat nowadays is that it’s so full of antibiotics and preservatives and it’s created in such a disturbing way. The image of thousands of animals shoved into confined spaces and slaughtered is really unsettling. That being said, this bio-engineered meat gives me the same uncomfortable feeling. I think the problem overall with the US and meat consumption is how artificial it’s all become. I know a lot of people who will only eat locally farmed meats, and I think that’s the best change we could make to how we consume meat. I definitely think lab-grown meat would push us further away from the best way humans could be consuming meat. Thanks for sharing the interesting article!

I definitely agree with your assessment of Dunn’s writing style. He does an excellent job of grabbing the reader and creating an image. I was especially taken by the image of the 2 feet of sand on top of Ardi’s remains, and the picture of the changes the world underwent after her death. The simple 2 feet of sand separating our world from Ardi’s seems so insignificant, yet Dunn really paints a picture of crucial those 2 feet really were in the development of modern humans. Even from the first moment you open the book, Dunn grabs you and pulls you into his world, and even by the end of the first chapter you find yourself yearning to live in a simpler time, ages ago, when humans were in harmony with nature. That being said, I think Dunn’s captivating writing, as beautiful and whimsical as it may be, is really the method he uses to camouflage a lack of real evidence for his claims. As I found myself dreaming of this “simpler time,” I began to think on the concept a little more and realize this time was a harsh, short and dangerous reality. The developments humanity has made have not only given humans more anxiety and more disease, but it has also lengthened human lifespans and saved many people from cruel and horrible deaths. I really do enjoy reading Dunn, and I think there is much to be said about his writing ability when you really consider the lack of support that he offers for his claims.

I’m glad I read your post! Your thoughts on Dunn complete the uneasy feelings I had with the reading, however I was unable to quite pinpoint why. For some reason, I had an issue with the complete separation of everything humanity has accomplished from nature. That just doesn’t feel right to me, and reading your much more detailed and deeper understanding of the reading gives some weight to the feelings I was having. It certainly seems unfair of Dunn to give an abridged version of humanity’s accomplishments and twist them all in a way which seems very negative. I do see Dunn’s point in that not every process humanity has created has been perfect, (such as the misuse of antibiotics you mentioned) however it’s completely unfair to not credit any of the positive impacts of modern medicine and technology,. I also appreciated your Ardi link. I was really curious to see how she looked!