Topic: Let the Pandas Die! (Read 5753 times)

Classic · « **Reply #40 on:** September 24, 2009, 12:50:42 PM »

I do that in the active thread.

Mongrel · « **Reply #41 on:** September 24, 2009, 01:17:59 PM »

Quote from: Lady Duke on September 23, 2009, 08:47:01 PM

Funny. I was just reading about this in /an/ on 4chan.

Quote from: Beta Ray Büge on September 24, 2009, 11:46:52 AM

Pacobird · « **Reply #42 on:** November 16, 2009, 10:22:39 AM »

Quote from: Mongrel on September 23, 2009, 03:44:17 PM

I can't tell if you guys are responding seriously or not.

I don't think so (especially in Doom's case), but maybe that's just me hoping.

Well, I guess it depends on how you define "cute". Recent research suggests the first dogs were the most human-friendly of the wolves who congregated around human campsites, so if you consider sociability and disposition to be part of cuteness beyond simple looks, then yes, cuteness probably was a successful evolutionary strategy for the first dogs. Can't say about the first cats, though they probably had more to benefit from being low-maintenance rat-killing machines.

As far as looks, of course selective breeding by humans played into making the cutest breeds. My girlfriend's parents' Shih Tzu is probably pretty useless in any functional manner but holy fucking shit is she the cutest motherfucker alive. Lucy's descended from dogs who were deemed the cutest and were bred on account of that; maybe I'm being a bit obtuse here but I don't see how that's different from natural selection in any practical sense.

Classic · « **Reply #43 on:** November 16, 2009, 10:43:25 AM »

Mostly that the selection was human controlled. But no, you are correct that the principle of "advantageous" traits being passed on isn't changed.

The rate at which these traits are spread through populations is accelerated due to a less fickle hand guiding them, but...

Pacobird · « **Reply #44 on:** November 16, 2009, 10:58:07 AM »

I'll totally grant that on the issue of selective breeding, but I'm not really so sure on the campsite-loitering issue. I mean, yeah, human agency was involved, but that doesn't mean humans understood what they were doing; we're talking 15,000 years ago at least. Organisms adapting towards symbiosis with other, more powerful organisms isn't really any different than selection based purely on the environment. We wouldn't say bees weren't subject to the same rules of natural selection because of flowers, after all.

Classic · « **Reply #45 on:** November 16, 2009, 11:45:05 AM »

Ah, I'm sorry. I'd forgotten the greater context of the comment. No, you're right, but we're also very vain creatures. We will cheerfully assume human agency and give it a special category.

I heard that Guns, Germs, and Steel had a chapter devoted to the origins of animal husbandry. I won't try to summarize it because I haven't read it myself, but I was told it discusses the prerequisites found in domesticated (which is more stringent than simply being trainable) animals.

Mongrel · « **Reply #46 on:** November 16, 2009, 12:54:36 PM »

Yeah Jared Diamond is definitely Some Good. Ever read his other stuff?

Anyway, I have no idea why this thread was necro'ed but uh... I agreed with what Paco posted earlier today. So, uh, okay?

Maybe that wasn't clear from my older, rather glib posts in here? ~~I dunno, I'm too lazy to actually go back through this thread and read my replies to check.~~ Huh. I went and read 'em anyway. No idea why Paco's quoting me (or that post in particular, since the reply is to an older point Zara and I both joked about - in totally different posts).

OH WELL WHATEVER, NO HARM DONE. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Pacobird · « **Reply #47 on:** November 16, 2009, 01:12:06 PM »

Suggesting that Doom was being facetious re: cats and dogs being the ones to beat in the evolutionary cuteness industry.

Mongrel · « **Reply #48 on:** November 16, 2009, 01:29:15 PM »

Still looks like pretty much a non-sequitur that came over 3 weeks later, but okay.

FYI, I'm not trying to be a dick, that post just confused the hell out of me at first.

Pacobird · « **Reply #49 on:** November 16, 2009, 02:30:31 PM »

Oh, no, I understand. It was pretty out of the blue, I know, but longue duree history is kind of a passion of mine.

Mongrel · « **Reply #50 on:** November 16, 2009, 06:05:26 PM »

Quote from: P. Birdy on November 16, 2009, 02:30:31 PM

longue duree history is kind of a passion of mine.

SAME HERE

Brentai · « **Reply #51 on:** November 16, 2009, 06:55:46 PM »

Dogs and and other utility animals probably don't factor into this conversation. Dogs may be cute, but they're also easily trained and very good at a variety of things that humans are somewhat lacking in. They could all have been pitbulls in the beginning and mankind would probably still have taken them in so that they would later chew on all his enemies.

Cats I'm going to assume were probably a lot more functional in the days before household pesticides were invented. Egypt did have an awful lot of vermin squirming around.

Pacobird · « **Reply #52 on:** November 17, 2009, 12:51:02 PM »

There was probably a niche for "animal companion to humans" that would have been filled by something, sure, but I'm more concerned with the fact that it was dogs specifically. I'm not sure a wolf is more inherently trainable than, say, a bear.

Detonator · « **Reply #53 on:** November 17, 2009, 01:10:55 PM »

Wolves are pack animals unlike bears, so I think they are more trainable.

Misha · « **Reply #54 on:** November 17, 2009, 01:13:06 PM »

not to mention the fact that wolves aren't really a big threat individually. If the bear you're training decides to kill you it's much harder to stop it.

SCD · « **Reply #55 on:** November 17, 2009, 01:15:06 PM »

This is pretty true.

Pacobird · « **Reply #56 on:** November 17, 2009, 01:51:58 PM »

Fair enough.

Mongrel · « **Reply #57 on:** November 17, 2009, 01:54:59 PM »

It's also worth noting that, the survival margins for early humans were much much narrower than they are now. Any animal that that consumed or scavenged human food (especially meat!) or energy and hung around for any noticeable period of time had better pull some weight or else face the dinner pot itself. At least out of sheer necessity.

"Cute" is a luxury afforded to those who are not on the wild-eyed edge of starvation.

Pacobird · « **Reply #58 on:** November 17, 2009, 01:59:54 PM »

See, but this is what I'm saying; it was the sociability and friendliness of dogs that allowed them, specifically, to mooch off humans (and the recent research does, in fact, suggest they were mooching). That's being cute.

Maybe it would be better to frame it in terms of an evolutionary trait of humans, too; we're more inclined to find the helpful and loyal to be aesthetically pleasing, and if those pleasing things rely on us (like dogs or babies), we think they're cute.

Misha · « **Reply #59 on:** November 17, 2009, 02:13:13 PM »

cuteness is not the same as friendliness. Chimps are adorable but they will fuck you up

News:

Author Topic: Let the Pandas Die! (Read 5753 times)