I think it’s important to acknowledge the time period in which the book was written and not hold Darwin’s ignorance of the theories of mutual domestication pathways we’ve examined as a lack of insight or bad judgement on his part. Considering what he was starting with in terms of evolutionary theory his ideas are remarkably perceptive. We have about 150 years or so on him and far greater advances in all sorts of technology from DNA sequencing to finding fossils with ground penetrating radar. I know that we all know this already, but it’s easy to forget that kind of stuff when criticizing earlier theories. It’s kind of like learning about ancient explanations for why the sun rose and set each day. Sure they sounds ridiculous now, but at the time they seemed to make perfect sense in the worldview of those who held those beliefs.

I pretty much agree with Darwin as well. It might be cynical and pessimistic, but I think human beings are a pretty selfish race. It’s not necessarily a bad quality- we’re biologically programmed to do whatever it takes to ensure our own survival. Very few species have truly altruistic qualities, the only thing that sets us apart from other animals doing whatever it takes to survive is that we’re better at it most of the time. Some might say this gives us a responsibility to care for the well-being of the earth, but I don’t think our higher intelligence and capabilities automatically forces us to bear that burden. Rather, we should care for the environment and animals because we do feel the bond you were talking about. It’s in our species’ best interest as well.

I really like the point that you made about how societies to protect pets were created before societies to protect wild animals. Early zoos, pet shows, and organizations about animal welfare were only started for the benefit they would provide to humans. I wonder if the focus towards actual animal welfare came about because of our world getting bigger and our improved knowledge of how everything affects the health of this planet, and therefore the future and health of mankind? If this is the case, could it be said that these societies are still created with the welfare of humans in mind above all else? Or do you think mankind has really become more selfless and empathetic towards animals and other life on this planet?

I really like that you pointed out that ultimately, some animals just cannot and should not be domesticated. I think Brantz tip-toed around this point, without explicitly stating it.
I trust your judgement on the matter because you have participated in a variety of animal studies, and I agree that some animals just are meant to be exploited by humans. I feel that Brantz came a little closer to that point than you seem to, but I understand why you feel she did not give the reader insight into just how vast the impact really is. I feel she did not want to it into a comment on modern downfalls of agriculture, but rather, wanted to include a wide array of cultural history as impacted by domestication.

I agree with your point that if animals seem to serve no purpose to humans, then they are seen as a nuisance. I noted in my post, as I collected from the readings, that our views on what makes an animal important has changed vastly over time. Animals used to serve as a means for survival, and later became a means of social status in France.

We also falter as humans when we ignore certain traits that could be extremely important, like color, for example.

I think mutualism maybe exists within some species, such a household pets, but one could argue how important this “benefit” to the animal really is. We have increased the populations of livestock tremendously, which some would think makes a species successful; while others,note through a moral point of view that these overpopulated species suffer.

I also identified with and enjoyed the link between cultural and domestication but had similar troubles getting through the material because I felt it wasn’t written in the easiest format. I think it is especially important today to always try and be future oriented and try to best predict the consequences of our decisions today.

I am also hesitant to say it was a mutual relationship as well just because of how much we have altered their lives in comparison to ours.

In the long run yes evolution improves on adaptations. But I’m saying if you look at it from a pure numbers standpoint the vast majority of mutations are not helpful and I’d argue are actually harmful. Variability makes a huge difference. Mutations occur at the level of DNA, which encodes RNA, which gives the blueprints for proteins. You’ll certainly get mutations in the DNA that have no difference in the end result of the proteins, but I believe it’s more common to get a mutation that does alter the amino acid sequence of a protein and that can have big effects because proteins are so specific.

With Darwin I’m talking about the tendency to talk about superiority of the domesticated pigeons as opposed to those that aren’t, especially in regards to England vs India or Java. They’d certainly be superior in the sense that they have traits that are prized by English breeders, but they are not superior in the sense that if released into the wild they might end up killed off far more quickly than the less domesticated or inferior versions produced in India or Java. It’s all relative to what you’re using as a measure of fitness

I don’t think you’re opinions are too one-sided. In the case of the rabbits they certainly were an invasive species and had a huge impact on Australian ecology. The bit about the viruses as a biological warfare agent against rabbits is really cool, I remember learning about that in virology. The more modern version is called calicivirus. Interestingly it was found that in areas that already had a version of the calicivirus the rabbits were essentially vaccinated against the more deadly man made form and so its effect was reduced.