“Dynamic” could not describe this reading better. I agree that he should have gone more into depth on the opposition to Isbell’s theories, which is why I felt so curious about other findings on the matter. Though I really enjoyed his “storytelling,” for it helped show the link between historical domestication and the modern world, I can see how some of his stories seemed ambiguous and distracting to the scientific claims in the novel.

Some of human conflict stems from abstract concepts- religion and ideals- which animals obviously don’t have the intelligence capacity to understand, much less wage war over. But territorial disputes make up another large basis of war in the human world, and that is definitely something animals could relate to as well. It’s not as obvious to us because in the grand scheme of things, the outcome of which pride of lions gets pride rock isn’t going to affect the rest of the world like a nuclear war will. There are also animal disputes over mates, which is no strange thing in the human world either. However, it’s interesting to note that the things animals fight over are necessary for survival- food, mates, territory. While humans fight over these essentials as well, some of our largest battles have been over disagreements in policy, religion, and opinion. We may be the most intelligent species, but obviously that has its drawbacks when it means we’ll sacrifice thousands of lives for something that, in the end, doesn’t really matter.

You’re right that he found a few inconsistencies with that particular theory, but he did not go very in depth with it, which is what prompted me to further research it. His main issue to me, seemed to be with the notion that a species (of plant or animal) could impact a separate species’ ability to see color at all (page 175). When I mentioned his “theories” in my post, I should have clarified that these were simply others’ theories he brought up in his novel, not necessarily ones he held true. He seemed to struggle with any of the theories for the reasoning behind their ability to see color, and he did not make many absolute statements on the matter, but the article I attached gave a little more background on that area of research.

Humans do have such an interesting amalgamation of both characteristic predator and prey traits. The tendency to give birth at night certainly goes back to our ancestral days avoiding predators. So do our “fight-or-flight” neurological tendencies, and our tendency to live in large communities. But there are many human traits that align more with a predatory phenotype; front facing eyes, altricial young, and higher intelligence, to name a few. I wonder which of these characteristics were “selected” for as our ancestors bred and tried to survive- human beings seem to have the perfect combination of genes.

I agree about Dunn’s writing style. I’m not a fan of the storytelling.

The fact that such great changes could occur in foxes in 10 years is a testament to evolution. Sure, processes of artificial selection occur more quickly than natural selection. But, even people who accept evolution struggle with fathoming how a natural process can produce such complex life. But if 10 years can do that much, it’s no surprise what billions did.

>>Can it be called “artificial selection” just because humans are doing the selecting?<<

Yes, because what we call artificial selection and what we call natural selection are different processes. The difference doesn't lie the fact that humans are doing it, but in that there is conscious intention and deliberation behind artificial selection. Natural selection, however, occurs because of unconscious ecological pressures.

Society is a human construct, so even if it was larger social forces that “domesticated” us as a species, doesn’t that still lead back to us?

I could be wrong, but my sense from that chapter was that Dunn did not so much buy into the claim that better vision in Old World monkeys was related to fruit. Instead, as my post focuses on, he proposes the snake theory of better vision as a better alternative (that I disagree with). I may have missed something though.

I really like the concept of “domesticating ourselves.” Though I disagree with your implication that social status and charisma weren’t relevant in a hunter-gatherer tribe. I’d say they are relatively more relevant today but not necessarily in an absolute sense. Although, this domestication isn’t in the traditional sense (That would require eugenics). It is a kind of social domestication where various social characteristics are more favorable. But of course these favored traits change in the same way that clothing fads change.

But I will ask the question: are we domesticating ourselves or are the larger social forces that emerge in a developed society domesticating us?

I think you are oversimplifying Dunn’s argument by saying that he holds snakes solely responsible for the development of the human brain. And it would be worth checking back on how he uses Isbell’s theory (and those of other scientists). Dunn is interested in how the interactions between humans (including our hominid ancestors) and other species have shaped the people we are today. He asserts that Isbell’s theory about snakes, primate evolution and vision is both “wild and plausible” (p. 179), and would agree with you completely about the significance and magnificence of the human brain. The point about smell (and the other senses) is that as vision and the brain became more developed and prominent, other senses, including smell and hearing probably deteriorated.
The chapter I thought you’d find the most intriguing was Ch. 10 (From Fight to Flight), but I’m glad the snakes got you going! Still I hope we can talk about anxiety disorders during class tomorrow.

You’ll have to tell us more about your thoughts on “unintentional management” tomorrow. (I think that quote and part of your first paragraph might be missing something?) Dunn’s equation of humans to hotdogs is funny and provocative. What did you make of his discussion of the development of the fight-flight mechanism and its legacy?