Why did Africans never domesticate Zebra's, or any animal for that matter?
Imagine how terrifying an army of Africans riding zebras and giraffes would be. They would have had a huge advantage had they put in the effort to domesticate certain African wildlife.
>>335880
I don't think Zebra's are as scary as you think
>
Why?
They had horses (where climate allowed), cows, chickens, goats, sheep, cats, and dogs already
The back of the zebra is not strong enough to carry an adult male.
>>335889
Horses in Africa are extremely rare.
>>335898
More like a favorable set of circumstances. Dogs were domesticated because they hung around human camps feeding off of scraps and eventually buddied up with humans. Cats hunted mice around grain houses. Cows, sheep, and pigs were caught and kept for food. Horses were caught because there was little else to eat on the Asian steppes aside from horse milk and occasionally horse meat.
If Zebras weren't domesticated then it is probably because they don't have the temperament or their was little incentive.
>>335880
Zebras and giraffes can't be domesticated. However, plenty of animals were domesticated in Africa. Unless the Maasai built their entire culture around magically herding undomesticated wild cattle.
>>335902
In the tsetse fly belt
>>335909
What do you mean they 'can't be domesticated'? Literally any animal can be domesticated with enough time.
>>335908
>More like a favorable set of circumstances.
Circumstances certainly nudged things in a certain direction, but after a while it boils down to the willingness of a people to invest in domestication.
>If Zebras weren't domesticated then it is probably because they don't have the temperament or their was little incentive.
They do have the temperament, but you're right that africans had little incentive.
>>335914
only over the span of several millenia and through a benneficial relationship with humans. Zebras, unlike horses, arent strong enough to plough fields nor reliably carry people, nor do they produce any product capable of sustaining human needs, so there was really no reason to domesticate them other than "they look cool"
>>335914
>Literally any animal can be domesticated with enough time.
>Literally any animal
>tfw there are still no elephant domestication breeding programs
Fuck this gay Earth.
![hydra1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/MJz60dy.jpg "hydra1[1].jpg")
>>335914
>tfw no pet hydra
:(
>>335936
>He doesn't have domesticated lobsters
>>335914
Really? Because humans have lived with and tamed elephants for thousands of years - they're still not domesticated. All those tamed Elephants you see in India have to be captured from the wild, because you can't breed elephants in captivity.
>>335914
there are six criteria for domestication zebras fail two of them temperament and fuckin in cages
>>335880
Rothschild did it, iirc it didnt work out to well for to long though
>>336178
Tamed not domesticated though
>>336191
Going hurrr and imitating someone isn't a refutation
>>335880
Why did native Europeans never domesticate horses, or any animal for that matter?
Imagine how terrifying an army of native Europeans riding horses and mammoths would be. They would have had a huge advantage had they put in the effort to domesticate certain European wildlife.
>>335880
Africans (by which i assume you mean black sub saharan Africans, though that is a huge diverse group still), did domesticate fowl. They also had cattle, and where applicable, horses. Dogs were used in east Africa too.
If you ask why they didn't domesticate the Zebra you might as well ask why they didn't domesticate any animal. Zebras only look like horses, they behave quite differently.
>>336199
Why don't European barbarians have any agriculture or civilization? Yes it is because they stupid.
t. Redpilled Sumerian
>>336199
Why didn't Europeans domesticate Irish Elk?
They're WAY bigger than deer and maybe more fun to ride
![packanimals[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/jgJyKYe.jpg "packanimals[1].jpg")
>>335890
The peruvians domesticated llamas doe, almost exclusively as pack animals and for wool
>>336191
Horses were never domesticated with the intention of being ridden.
They were captured and used for food and milk, selective breeding, probably unintentional (just kill the uncooperative ones) turned them docile and eventually they realised they could use them to pull shit. This in turn made them breed the stronger ones and eventually they realised they could ride them.
Unless those specific circumstances happened in Africa you're not going to domesticate Zebras.
>>336191
Aurochs were actually very tolerant of being touched by humans
>>336191
>Europeans domesticated fucking Aurochs
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/21/8113.full
>The available genetic and archaeological evidence points to at least two major sites of domestication in India and in the Near East, where zebu and the taurine breeds would have emerged independently. Under this hypothesis, all present-day European breeds would be descended from cattle domesticated in the Near East and subsequently spread during the diffusion of herding and farming lifestyles.
>>336209
Get redpilled. They were tolerant due to our white supremacy.
>>336210
Stormfags really are fucking deluded.
>>336217
>someone is misinformed
>"he mentioned europe!!" "must be a neo nazi!!"
what the fuck even goes through your head to come to a conclusion like that?
>>336229
Maybe he replied to the wrong guy
>>336229
It's quite obvious that OP is trying to subtly imply African racial inferiority and white supremacy.
>Inb4 "not at all im just asking a valid question blah blah"
>>335880
Zebras aren't domesticable
>>336202
> 45 BC
> Europeans North of Alps are still living in Mud Huts
Why should we allowed them the citizenship to our Empire again?
Why should
>>336191
>Europeans domesticated fucking Aurochs
>Big=hard to domesticate
>>336319
The only dumb person here is you.
>>336337
>everyone is born a blank slate!!
Kill yourself.
>>336319
Unfalsifiable nonsense
>>336343
Where did you get that from?
>>336345
It's not unfalsifiable...
Read : "the 10000 year explosion" and "a farewell to alms".
The best example of this phenomenon is the upwards drift of ashkenazi jewish intelligence during the middle ages.
>>336361
I inferred from your "ur dumb" that you disagreed with my post. Hence you must believe that "culture" supersedes "nature". Am I wrong?
>>336366
Summarise the arguments. I fail to see how you could test the IQ of dead men.
>>336238
Tell me why OP's question isn't valid.
>>336378
>Summarise the arguments.
I'll try.
>I fail to see how you could test the IQ of dead men.
You don't need to.
Basically, the basic axiom is that intelligence is mostly genetic in origin. This is supported by plenty of studies done in the past few decades, studying the IQs of adopted twins, which put the heritability of IQ somewhere around 0.8 (this means that the variance in IQ among a population is 80% genetic in origin, 20% environmental in origin).
From this basic axiom, it follows that intelligence is largely hereditary, since the child inherits the genes of his parents which determine (mostly) his intelligence. Once again, many studies show this to be true : children have on average similar IQs to their parents.
Once you've established that, it follows that within a population, if the smarter individuals breed at higher rates than the dumber individuals, the average intelligence in the group will rise over the generations.
Now what could select for intelligence? It just so happens that a "free market capitalist" (I use this term loosely) society does a pretty good job at rewarding intelligence and harshly punishing stupidity. For instance, starting from the 1200s,
in the British Isles the number of surviving children ratio between the upper class and the rest of the population was 2:1. These means that medieval England was a society of downwards mobility : the stupid failed to reproduce, the smart reproduced a lot, but since there was limited room at the top some of the smart lost their status and joined the lower classes. This phenomenon is documented (with proof) in "A farewell to alms".
cont.
>>336378
>>336418
Ashkenazi jews are a result of such selection but on a much more intense scale. Ashkenazi jews, being barred from most occupations, could only work in "high IQ" occupations such as money lending and trade. Such occupations heavily select for IQ, and the less intelligent ashkenazi jews simply died off.
This is the reason why the average IQ of ashkenazi jews today is an astounding 115, a whole standard of deviation above the white average. And this high IQ is not "cultural". Sephardi jews and Mizrahi jews, despite both being very jewish, have average and below average IQs, respectively.
>>336366
>I inferred from your "ur dumb" that you disagreed with my post. Hence you must believe that "culture" supersedes "nature". Am I wrong?
Yes you're wrong. While intelligence is genetic and inheritable i don't believe IQ is a racial trait.
>>336410
Not that anon, but it seems more like bait to me
>mentioning zebra after this has been mentioned in dozens of threads
>Choosing giraffes as 'terrifying' instead of elephants or even rhino ffs
>>336424
>While intelligence is genetic and inheritable i don't believe IQ is a racial trait.
So you believe that despite being separated for tens of thousands of years and evolving in very different environments (which caused them to evolve very different physical features), intelligence of different races evolved in the exact same way?
>>336420
Uh.... the dumb Ashkenazis just vanished or what? Or are they the ones who got holocausted cause they were too dumb to hide?
>>335880
Domestication is harder than you think and zebras are far more wild and aggressive than horses.
>>336435
>Uh.... the dumb Ashkenazis just vanished or what?
They died out without reproducing.
>Or are they the ones who got holocausted cause they were too dumb to hide?
The holocaust certainly helped raise the average ashkenazi jewish IQ. Most upper class ashkenazi jews fled to America in 1933.
>>336431
Intelligence is too much of a variable trait to be defined by race. It's not like skin colour, an obvious and quick adaption to high or levels of UV radiation, it's essentially a personality trait of an extremely complex organ, the brain. It varies so much within a single population, hell a single family, that it's insane to claim any racial basis for it.
>>336449
>Intelligence is too much of a variable trait to be defined by race
Not true at all. Intelligence has a very precise definition : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
>It's not like skin colour, an obvious and quick adaption to high or levels of UV radiation, it's essentially a personality trait of an extremely complex organ, the brain.
So what? Whites and blacks differ in other very complex ways. For instance, some heart medication which works for whites doesn't work for blacks, because of some innate difference in heart biology between whites and blacks.
> It varies so much within a single population, hell a single family, that it's insane to claim any racial basis for it.
But many traits vary a lot within a single population. Take height.
Height varies a lot within a population. You have tall japanese people, short japanese people, tall dutch people, short dutch people.
But I don't think anyone will seriously claim that there is no difference in average height between the dutch and the japanese. Or otherwise that person is blinded by an egalitarian anti-heightist ideology.
>>335890
Neither were horses before successful breeding.
Chariots were a necessity before the introduction of larger heavier horses
>>336507
Chariots were used because the saddle and stiirups weren't known to the near east or west, as soon as they had those things no one used chariots anymore
>>336457
You just proved yourself wrong. The Dutch aren't tall because of genetics, but for their life style. The Dutch went from being the shortest Europeans to the tallest in 100 years.
What was the name of that scientist that proposed that giraffes became taller by reaching for the tops of trees? >>336554
>>335880
Stop making this thread every day.
Black Africans domesticated cattle, goats, donkeys, and likely other animals.
Zebras are difficult to domestic en masse, which is why zebra rides were nothing more than a curiosity under European rule.
>>336574
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
He's been BTFO to many times to count
>>336210
Top kek
Animals that Africans used for various reasons
>Cattle
>Horses
>Fowl
>Elephants
>Dogs
>Goats
>Cats
>Camels
>Ostriches
>Bees
>>336418
>>336420
This is not an axiom. It is still heavily debated and I've read some of the studies you refer too, and it was a range of 0.4-0.8 not a flat 0.8 rate. Further, a meta-analysis of the studies literally has an entire passage talking about how environmental factors play a massive role and that the gentic factor was greatly overstated.
>>336580
If it isn't some environmental reason, then what is the reason really?
>>336609
Evolution?
Lemarck stated that a antelope type creature craned its neck to reach higher leaves, and the action of repeatedly doing this cause it to change the genetics so that it and its offspring had longer necks.
He was BTFO as soon as someone mentioned that amputees don't have amputee children. Or how, those freaky tribeswomen who make their necks really long still have normal children..
>>336609
What do you mean? Lamarck suggests the inheritability of acquired characteristics, this was a pre Darwinian theory btw, which was superseded by natural selection and Mendelian genetics.
If Lamarck was correct, then the fact that your parents were a blacksmith would mean you inherit strong arms, or if were talking giraffe then because your parents reached for taller trees you get a longer neck, instead of the actual explanation where there is variation in the neck length in the girrafe population, those with longer necks survive and pass on long neck genes, shifting the gene pool of the population towards longer necks on average over a long period of time
>>336554
>You just proved yourself wrong.
Not really...
> The Dutch aren't tall because of genetics, but for their life style
This is not true. A dutchman growing up in Japan will be on average taller than a japanese person growing up in the Netherlands.
>The Dutch went from being the shortest Europeans to the tallest in 100 years.
That doesn't refute at all a genetic predisposition to being tall. Growth is easily stunted by malnutrition, which is why the average height in Europe rose so much during the 20th century.
But today, if you raise a japanese person and a dutch person in the same exact lifestyle, the dutch person will be, on average, taller.
>>336598
>This is not an axiom
It really is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
> It is still heavily debated
It's debated whether the true figure is .75 or .85, and what the remaining environmental factors consist of.
>and it was a range of 0.4-0.8 not a flat 0.8 rate
The studies showing a heritability of .4 are old, imprecise studies. Could you post recent studies showing such low heritability?
>Further, a meta-analysis of the studies
What meta-analysis? What the fuck are you talking about?
>>336609
You are discounting the wrong part. Darwin has animals with features more able to survive to pass on genetic material, so over time the proto-Giraffe population has longer legs and longer necks selected for, where Lamarck had inheritance of acquired characteristics so the Giraffe that reaches for tall branches develops its neck and that acquired trait can be passed on to its offspring.
>>336636
>epigenetics isn't real because "muh feels"
>>336632
>This is not true. A dutchman growing up in Japan will be on average taller than a japanese person growing up in the Netherlands.
No they wouldn't. Height is mostly down to your well your childhood goes and what sort of food you get. Less developed places always have smaller people.
>But today, if you raise a japanese person and a dutch person in the same exact lifestyle, the dutch person will be, on average, taller.
Prove it. You can't, even if you compare Japanese and Dutch today you're not taking into consideration the hugely different diets they have. They do not have the exact same life style.
>>336651
Jesus, you redditors are insufferable.
I never claimed that epigenetics isn't valid. Epigenetics is perfectly scientific.
I'm saying that the existence of epigenetic mechanisms is being subverted by anti-racist moronic ideologues such as yourself to push an anti-hereditarian political agenda.
>epigenetics exist?
>this proves that everyone has exactly the same cognitive capabilities!
>>336636
>gene expression is independent from environmental factors
wew
>>335949
what would be the difference between a wild or domesticated hydra
literally the only thing it can willingly do is snatch particles of food from surrounding water
>>336653
>No they wouldn't. Height is mostly down to your well your childhood goes and what sort of food you get.
Sheesh
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14624724
> Less developed places always have smaller people.
Right, which is why I compared the Netherlands and Japan, and not the Netherlands and the Congo (although the average congolese is probably taller than the average japanese...)
>Prove it.
See the study I linked to you. 0.9 heritability for height among males.
>You can't, even if you compare Japanese and Dutch today you're not taking into consideration the hugely different diets they have.
Unless you can prove that the japanese diet stunts growth, you don't have any proof to back up your claims.
an elephant can pretty much stomp the fuck out of any of those animals
>>335939
>tfw there are still no elephant domestication breeding programs
>>336677
humans domesticated the fuck out of elephants.
being domesticated enough to be reliable and recognize allies during war time is pretty much as domesticated as it gets.
there were no large civilizations because the land wouldn't readily support agriculture.
if there are no large, war-beasts are pointless because there are no large armies.
>>336204
Don't forget about the alpaca. They are far cuter than the llama.
>>336699
>independent
That's where you're wrong.
Long necks are advantageous because it helps giraffes eat leaves from tall trees.
>>336662
Calm down Frances E. Dec. Which is more likely; you are being targeted by radio-controlled redditor anti-racist gangster redditor thought police, or your original statement was poorly worded so as to be easily interpreted as just another anti-scientific shitposter.
>>336686
Taming individuals in not domestication
from another thread
>For many years the Belgian government has maintained a training station for elephants at Wanda [, Belgian Congo]. From the wild herds that roam in the surrounding forests, they capture young animals and these are brought to the post for a course in discipline. They are then sold to plantations or to the missions. The African animal is quite different from the Indian species, a much harder beast to domesticate, never becoming entirely docile. Until the Belgians undertook this work, it was thought impossible to train the African elephant. They have succeeded to a certain extent, but the results obtained are small considering the amount effort and time expended, and it is not likely that this animal will ever become a great aid to mankind, comparable to his Indian cousin.
>>336715
>Frances E. Dec
I have no idea who that is
>Which is more likely; you are being targeted by radio-controlled redditor anti-racist gangster redditor thought police, or your original statement was poorly worded so as to be easily interpreted as just another anti-scientific shitposter.
What's more likely is that you're an insufferable moron unable to muster up more intelligent responses than a single green text line.
they got along just fine with domesticated cattle for millenia.
there was no immediate pressure for civilization to evolve further, nor was there a concept of what evolution of civilization looks like.
so there would be no collective or sustained effort toward such an ends.
in Eurasia you had many civilizations competing for finite resources with one another, which placed constant pressure to continue developing on each because of human social instinct to want to be dominant in a clan.
>>335939
are you stupid? there are plenty in India and domestic elephants have been around there for a long time.
>>336707
I get that, but it would mean that it is independent in the sense that it is natural selection that chose the long necks, and not the other way around, i.e an animal reaching for a high tree making their neck larger.
It just seems weird to me that a gene can produce a long neck in an animal simply for that animal to be able to eat leaves on a tall tree.
>>336699
Long necks have no inherent benefit, but if say there are harsh conditions were starvation is factor, then those individuals who inherited genes for slightly longer necks may reproduce more frequently than those with shorter necks, while in plentiful conditions a long neck may be a hindrance due to the extra energy wasted due to the longer neck, not to mention the greater distance needed to pump bloody, and the extra resources used to grow a longer neck that could go towards producing more milk for your offspring for example
evolution has no foresight and does not pick certain characteristics, it does act to filter certain traits however
>>336734
I'm going to be blunt : have you literally never heard of darwinian selection? Are you underage?
If you're too lazy to read a fucking book, at least read this fucking wikipedia article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>>336742
Thanks for the insight. Evolution is really one of the things in the sciences I have the least knowledge of as a layman.
what would be the point of a long necked animal in war
>>336756
No reason to be so fucking asspained.
I'm just asking questions you fucking mongoloid sperg.
>>336725
Your post was hardly dignified, you shat the bed as soon as I misunderstood you, and I wasn't the only one. You should have been more clear.
>>336761
It's just that this is the equivalent of asking "so who won the civil war? The Union or the Confederates?"
I mean honestly if you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever on a subject it's polite not to intervene in a discussion about the subject. At least that's what my mom taught me.
>>336758
bite the fuck out of soldiers posted on walls and in guard towers before men from below could climb up their necks to mount the fortifications
>>336767
>and I wasn't the only one
Yeah, all two of you.
>You should have been more clear.
You should have been more patient instead of jumping the shark with "LOL POLFAG"
>>336768
>I mean honestly if you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever on a subject it's polite not to intervene in a discussion about the subject.
Are you being serious nigger? This is 4chan, not your fucking sociology class.
Kill yourself.
>>336748
except there are entirely domestic populations in India
>>336410
because zebras can't be domesticated. it is well known
>>336686
>taming is not domesticating
Elephants don't breed in cage.
>>336675
>muh link
No, make your own argument.
Netherlands and Japan are both well developed, but both have very different diets. What promotes growth is lots of proteins, fats, and lots of dairy, the Dutch eat a lot of cheese. The Japanese mainly eat rice and fish, its a great diet for health and longevity but it doesn't push your body into overdrive in your youth to make you go to huge sizes. Check out Japanese Americans though, they're tall.
>>336909
>>muh link
>No, make your own argument.
"I'll ignore your paper and can't be bothered to find my own. Please argue based on assumptions, 'muh feels' and anecdotes like I am, because I want to continue, but not so much that I'll actually put any effort in."
>>336927
Your argument type is the worse
>Read this it proves im right!
Copy and paste the part that proves it at least.
And you're still ignoring the effects of diet and upbringing on height.
>>336909
First of all, that guy >>336927 was not me.
But he is entirely correct. If you're unwilling to even read the fucking abstract of the paper (10 lines max) where it states that the heritability of height is 0.9, then I suppose we have nothing more to discuss.
I wish you good luck in your future life spent denying reality and taking refuge in comfortable ideology.
>>335880
Because they are inferior
It's the only explaination, don't listen to apologist
>>336050
> you can't breed elephants in captivity
stop spreading lies.
>>337082
https://nationalzoo.si.edu/SCBI/ReproductiveScience/ElephantBreedRepro/
bob barker was wrong.
elephants are animals, not humans.
>>336946
>10 lines
Its pages and pages. If your form of argument consists of telling to go read something rather then telling them the evidence yourself then i feel sorry for you.
>>335920
>If Zebras weren't domesticated then it is probably because they don't have the temperament or their was little incentive.
>They do have the temperament, but you're right that africans had little incentive.
>They do have the temperament
You're joking, right?
>>337241
>Its pages and pages.
What part of "abstract" don't you understand, you fucking moron?
Jesus, make an effort.
>>336860
You're a fucking worthless hack Jared, I hope you know that.
>>337333
(You)
>>337333
Go home to pol you rapist reactionfag.
>>336896
There are young elephants in zoos all the time
>>337277
Human height has an incredibly strong environmental component. That's why historians and archaeologists use human height as an accurate proxy for the quality of living conditions past societies.
http://www.fu-berlin.de/en/presse/informationen/wissenschaft/2012/201208/201208_rosenstock.html
>>337333
How about you read the posts you link to before posting.
Your /pol/ tier shitposting isn't welcome here.
>>335912
Seriously, fuck the Tsetse fly.
>>337333
>In the wild, they were just as savage as zebras
They weren't though.
>>337333
Horse domestication occurred in a single short interval on the Eurasian steppes some 5000 years ago.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n4/full/ng1326.html
>>337462
I've always assumed but never confirmed that Africa has such horrific parasites because that's where humans have lived the longest. Nature is always trying to kill you. The longer you stick around in one location the better that bitch gets.
>>337493
>Africa
Australia
ftfy
although both of them are legit horrorshows
>>336191
>Europeans domesticated fucking Aurochs
No they di-
>>>336210
Never mind, I guess he got rekt enough.
In this thread:
WE
>>337607
WUZ
KINGZ
Ever since that fartcake redditor CGPGrey released his shitty Guns Germs & Steel vid pseudo-intellectual teenagers opened like 1000 threads about that bullcrap.
>>336199
why did native scandinavians never domesticate the moose?
imagine how terrifying an army of native scandinavians riding a mooses would be, They would have had a huge advantage had they put the effort to domesticate the moose
>>337686
>ice gooks
>having the brain capacity to domesticate a moose
They couldn't domesticate a paper bag, with their mud hut and stick engineering.
>>337427
Goodness gracious, I never denied that bad nutrition can stunt growth. But, as long as you don't chronically starve, height is determined by GENETICS.
I mean, according to your stellar logic, everyone should grow to 10 feet tall if given the correct nutrition, right? Or do you AT LEAST believe that there is an upper bound to human height dictated by genetics?
>>337456
>That's not the entire study.
Indeed. It's this thing called "abstract", which means summary, which enables feeble-minded individuals such as yourself to avoid straining your tiny brain reading a full study. Although it's quite obvious that even reading a small abstract overwhelmed you intellectually speaking. I'm surprised you can muster the brainpower to type out posts.
>all it shows is that height is hereditary,
>but it doesn't prove its the defining factor in height.
Pick one you big dummy
>>336591
You forgot baboons. The Khoisan use them for hunting warthogs.
>>337697
>ice gooks
Why didnt you call them "snownigger" like everyone do?
Oh......of course....so, how's that Minnesota chimping out going?
>>336209
Nice source bro!
>>337728
He called them ice gooks because of their eyes.
>>337686
Not really an answer to your question, but the Russians started doing it and then got sidetracked
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kostroma_Moose_Farm
>>337697
>They couldn't domesticate a paper bag
literally no one could domesticate a papper bag since it isent a living organism
> with their mud hut and stick engineering.
do you even know where scandinavia is?
>>337753
>russians
If I had to guess, I'd put my money on them.
>>337753
yeah i know the swedish military started to domesticate the moose to
but it was way to hard to fashion a saddle for its back that wouldent have a tendancy to slide of when it started running
not to mention that mooses arent all to happy about having a monkey sitting on its back telling it where to go
>>337810
Why would they attempt this?
>>337778
You can't tell that he's trying to bait?
I hope you aren't Scandinavian.
![1223477281_b0010f4b17[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/i7l3ZvZ.jpg "1223477281_b0010f4b17[1].jpg")
>>335909
what about muh Carpophorus' rape giraffes?
>>335880
in theory, any animal could be domesticated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Domesticated_Red_Fox
Of course this was a controlled experiment, so take it as you will.
>>335880
African animals are just all mean as shit. They can't be domesticated. In Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" he goes into some detail on this.
Zebras also don't let go when they bite. So, that's a downer.
>>338046
>African animals are just all mean as shit. They can't be domesticated. In Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" he goes into some detail on this.
Are you implying that some animals have innate behaviors which makes them naturally more aggressive, less willing to cooperate, etc.?
>>338046
Horse predecessors were mean as well. Mustangs are still very mean.
The process of domestication implies breeding the aggression out of them, that is the entire purpose of it. Jared Diamond is also a moron.
>>338179
So Africans didn't domesticate zebras because they had plenty of other sources of meat that was easier to hunt, capture, and contain.
>>338046
>In Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel"
I want reddit to leave.
>>337810
IIRC they also had issues with acclimating them to gunfire, making them effectively useless for war.
>>337778
scandanavia was a shithole until later medieval
>>338046
>African animals are just all mean as shit. They can't be domesticated
It applies to African humans too btw
>>338385
No shit
>Domesticating a human
That's just asking for trouble.
>>338231
Africans didn't feel the need to develop their civilization more because thy had all they needed at disposal
And evolution being what it is, Africans ended up becoming genetically speaking intellectually inferior to the races of humans that needed to use their intellect to survive
>>338403
>all they needed at disposal
wat
>>338403
Your statement is absurd.
The average "civilized" person was a farmer or employed in a similarly labor intensive profession. There was no selection for smarter individuals. If anything the civilizations that did the best and out competed others were the civilizations who had more docile and less intelligent individuals. In fact the human brain case has gradually shrunk since the days when every human was a hunter or a gatherer. I wouldn't claim that humans in modern times, "civilized" or otherwise, are less intelligent than hunter gatherers but it goes to show how poorly substantiated your "theory" is.
>>338489
Get over it, my inferior dindu friend
I know the truth is harsh, but denial is useless
>>335880
Why the hell does any discussion about Africa bring in all the autists in one place?
What about this continent that looks like that jpg of a sad dog so triggering to people?
>>338531
Africa is objectively inferior, but some tards try to deny the obvious truth so it always spawn huge debates
>>338489
>There was no selection for smarter individuals
Actually, farming DOES take some intelligence. It takes a lot planning and discipline. There's a reason why Rhodesian farms who were seized from white farmers and redistributed to blacks immediately fell into disrepair. Blacks cannot into agriculture.
>>338489
> In fact the human brain case has gradually shrunk since the days when every human was a hunter or a gatherer.
This is true. Homo sapiens idaltu, Cro-Magnons, and other various prehistoric members of our species all had bigger brains than us.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
>He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” If our brain keeps dwindling at that rate over the next 20,000 years, it will start to approach the size of that found in Homo erectus, a relative that lived half a million years ago and had a brain volume of only 1,100 cc. Possibly owing to said shrinkage, it takes me a while to catch on. “Are you saying we’re getting dumber?” I ask.
>Fucking Homo erectus sized brains
>>338550
So why did farming develop in West Africa independently from East Africa, which had more contact with the outside world?
>>338552
The overall brain shrunk but the prefrontal cortex is much larger in modern populations.
>>338557
>So why did farming develop in West Africa independently from East Africa
No idea. It probably came from the east.
How is this relevant to the discussion at hand?
>>338550
So does hunting and gathering.
And Rhodesia had more to do with skills, not intelligence. They black farmers weren't trained to be good farmers. It's a bad example.
>>338571
>So does hunting and gathering.
Not really. It takes hunting skills, but it doesn't take any foresight, knowledge of seasons, stuff like that. That's why most hunter gatherer societies have no concept of time. Calendars were born along with agriculture.
>And Rhodesia had more to do with skills, not intelligence. They black farmers weren't trained to be good farmers. It's a bad example.
[citation needed]
You can't dismiss evidence by saying "it's a bad example".
>>338565
It was independent though.
That's how the Bantu migrations were a thing along with their development in iron tools allowing them to dominate the lands they settled in since the locals in that area had inferior tools for agriculture.
>>338565
>it probably came from the East
It didn't. Hence why I said "independently". Same for metal working, especially iron.
>>338579
Mugabe confiscated farms and handed them off to supporters - regardless of their abilities to maintain them - as a means to reward supporters and punish dissidents. Arguably, the resulting collapse was even his intention. He diverted aid and what little food they still had to those who supported him, and it became harder to oppose him when you're starving to death.
You Rhodesiafags need to stop using Zimbabwe as "proof" of anything other than how terrible a person Mugabe is.
>>338579
>It takes hunting skills, but it doesn't take any foresight, knowledge of seasons, stuff like that.
what the fuck am i reading
>>338579
>Not really. It takes hunting skills, but it doesn't take any foresight, knowledge of seasons, stuff like that. That's why most hunter gatherer societies have no concept of time. Calendars were born along with agriculture.
You are talking out of your ass here. Hunter gathers closely followed the changing of the seasons in order to be in the right spot at the right time for gathering the right tubers or shellfish or following animal migrations. Tracking animals takes a lot of effort. I'm not going to split hairs on this topic but I think there is a strong enough argument for hunting and gathering being as mentally intensive as some Egyptians literally just waiting for the flood waters to recede before sticking seeds by hand in clods of silt.
>>338637
The delusional posting of a rhodesiafag
>>335880
You can't domesticate zebras fucktard. They aren't just horses with strips.
>>338649
>They aren't just horses with strips
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidae
>>335939
Hannibal pls leave
>>335930
>Several Millenia
fuck off retard.
Artic Foxes were shown to be showing signs of domestication after 50 generations.
I wish people would stop making excuses for why Africans didn't domesticate large animals. They just fucking didn't do it for whatever reason, not because it's not possible to do so.
>>336073
>temperament
Europeans tamed fucking aurochs.
>>338649
waiting for zebra rider pic
>>338649
It's like as a beast of burden donkeys and cattle beat it.
As a mode of transportation Camel beats it hard and is better adapted to Africa climate and is a very good source of food both milk and meat. Horses are better sprinters and some stuff better then camels and others worse.
>>336191
>It's not like they walked into Europe and had all these easily domesticated animals
That's right, they had to wait for dozens of millennia until middle-eastern migrants brought domesticated animals to Europe.
>>338649
See >>337333 huge retard
Do you think horses werent wild too before domestication?
>>336238
You're really paranoid. That's not even what I'm implying at all. The reason I ask is because I recently read gun germs and steel and while Diamond attempts to answer this question, his argument essentially boiled down to, 'zebras can't be domesticated because they weren't'.
So there is a perfectly good explanations as to why the zebra wasn't domesticated but Diamond fucked it up.
/thread
>>338676
Who only went aggressive you went aggressive.
When you walked up to one they were fine according to Anton Schneeberger reports.
Also Indians tamed them too
>>338550
>Blacks cannot into agriculture.
You know like 30% of the African workforce is engaged in agriculture, right?
>There's a reason why Rhodesian farms who were seized from white farmers and redistributed to blacks immediately fell into disrepair.
I didn't study the history of land reform but I'm pretty sure it's the same reason land that was redistributed to poor farmers in Latin America fell into disrepair.
>>338550
No one can immediately into agriculture.
If i stuck you in a field with some seeds you'd do a shit job.
Farming takes a lot of experience. I know a guy whose job it is to simply advise farmers.
>>338661
And a lion is just a big kitten.
>>338531
>Why the hell does any discussion about Africa bring in all the autists in one place?
Pic related
>What about this continent that looks like that jpg of a sad dog so triggering to people?
Southerners still pissed about the outcome of the War of Northern "Aggression".
Well seeing as Europeans tamed fucking aurochs you can all shut the fuck up
>zebras
fuck that, i want domesticated cheetahs
>>338844
Me too senpai
but
>though the ancient Egyptians prized pet cheetahs, the large cats won't breed without elaborate courtship rituals (including running together over long distances), and so they never achieved domestication.
>>338844
Well seeing as we domesticated fucking aurochs I don't see why it couldn't be done
>Not domesticating pigeons and selectively breeding them to a huge size so that we can ride them
>>338579
t. not a hunter
>>338891
>pigeons
<not peregrine falcon's
plebian.>
>>338929
We as in uswhites
>>336366
> Farewell to alms
Bad data, bad economic history, bad science.
>>338939
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/21/8113.full
>The available genetic and archaeological evidence points to at least two major sites of domestication in India and in the Near East, where zebu and the taurine breeds would have emerged independently. Under this hypothesis, all present-day European breeds would be descended from cattle domesticated in the Near East and subsequently spread during the diffusion of herding and farming lifestyles.
>>337982
>Foxes in Class I are friendly toward experimenters, wagging their tails and whining.
There is no Zebra like this.
All zebra are class IV: Kick you and other zebras to death.
You can't breed them together because if you stick two selected Zebra's together in an enclosed space, rather then breeding, they kill each other.
>>338815
It doesn't matter if it were Europeas or not.
They were able to be tamed besides their temperament.
Even bisons can be tamed.
Africans not being able to tame any large animal is due to sheer incompetence.
>>339059
That's nice.
But I need some sources.
>>339107
here is the first one I found
Domesticating Animals in Africa: Implications of Genetic and Archaeological Findings
Journal of World Prehistory
May 2011, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 1-23
>>339207
>Recent zooarchaeological and animal genetics research has prompted a thorough revision of our perspectives on the history of domestic animals in Africa. Genetic analyses of domestic animal species have revealed that domestic donkeys are descended from African ancestors, opened a debate over the contribution of indigenous aurochs to African domestic cattle, revealed an earlier and possibly exogenous origin of the domestic cat, and reframed our vision of African dogs. Genetic diversity studies and mapping of unique traits in African cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and chickens indicate adaptations to regional environmental challenges
>>337333
The zebra cannot be domesticated. Many have tried and all have failed.
>>339247
Whites domesticated fucking aurochs, don't give me that bullshit
>>338506
Not that guy but he's actually right based on available evidence and you need to go back to /pol/
>>339278
Actually, Indians did. We just hunted Aurochs to extinction.
>>336860
From Wikipedia
>Attempts have been made to train zebras for riding, since they have better resistance than horses to African diseases. Most of these attempts failed, though, due to the zebra's more unpredictable nature and tendency to panic under stress. For this reason, zebra-mules or zebroids (crosses between any species of zebra and a horse, pony, donkey or ass) are preferred over purebred zebras.
In England, the zoological collector Walter Rothschild frequently used zebras to draw a carriage. In 1907, Rosendo Ribeiro, the first doctor in Nairobi, Kenya, used a riding zebra for house calls. In the mid-19th century, Governor George Grey imported zebras to New Zealand from his previous posting in South Africa, and used them to pull his carriage on his privately owned Kawau Island.
Jumping an obstacle: riding a zebra in East Africa, about 1900
Captain Horace Hayes, in "Points of the Horse" (circa 1893), compared the usefulness of different zebra species. In 1891, Hayes broke a mature, intact mountain zebra stallion to ride in two days time, and the animal was quiet enough for his wife to ride and be photographed upon. He found the Burchell's zebra easy to break, and considered it ideal for domestication, as it was immune to the bite of the tsetse fly. He considered the quagga (now extinct) well-suited to domestication due to being easy to train to saddle and harness
>>339643
Taming =/= domestication
do you think individual bears can be tamed, or are they domesticated
>pic related
>>336728
>There was no civilization because there was no civilization
Anon, please.
There were also plenty of competing tribes
>>338670
the same happened with foxes
the russians have been selectively breeding them for a while now and it's fun to see what happens when you keep crossing the more docile ones-they start getting physical general traits from our household pets: their tail bends and it's now used to show emotion rather than only having an impact on their balance, they get brighter fur patterns and getting their heat 2 times per year instead of once per year.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Domesticated_Red_Fox)
i think the same could be done with pretty much every single species on earth, but those with smaller lifespans are easier to work with since they evolve "faster"
>pic related: it was tried by the royality and nobles for centuries and it failed miserably since they didn't have much info on the subject,creating inbred abominations; and ultimately put to the test by hitler but also failing mostly due to outside intervention-but we all know it's a matter of time until it happens agains
>>337982
I need a white fox
>>337715
>Goodness gracious, I never denied that bad nutrition can stunt growth. But, as long as you don't chronically starve, height is determined by GENETICS.
Try again, retard. The paper you provided is terribly ill-suited to explore this issue since it uses twins in a pointless way, in a pointless way while also ignoring many pre-natal factors that may be important to determine height, such as nutrition during pregnancy. Plus, it leaves unexplained why the genetic effect is different between men and women. On the good side, they admit that these results are only for affluent caucasians.
>>340295
>i think the same could be done with pretty much every single species on earth
No. If you performed the Domesticated fox experiment with some animals, they would simply die.
>>338738
Which seems to be the prevalent answer in this thread as well
>>338670
>Artic Foxes
And this is why humanities majors (and I doubt you're even that if you can't spell fucking Arctic) should never, ever talk on biological matters. Arctic foxes being domesticable or not has nothing to do with fucking zebras.
Why do people keep posting shit about foxes?
Just because a species previously thought to be impossible to domesticate became domesticated doesn't mean the same is true for all species. The only way to prove that zebras are domesticatable is to actually domesticate zebras themselves, and thus far all attempts to do so have failed.
>>338738
There were multiple attempts by modern mighty whitey scientists to domesticate them, as late as the 1970s. They all ended in failure.
You can't domesticate Zebra because when you put two zebras in a confined space, they freak out and murder each other rather than fuck.
>>341257
You can tame them but that requires mind breaking them to do so.
>>341428
Taming and domesticating are two different things
>>341471
I know I'm just mentioning how even just to tame one it's a pain in the ass.
So I should've said
>Even just simply taming them is a pain in the ass that requires abusing the animal to even tame it. It can be tamed but with the amount of resources put into doing that and mind breaking it until it's dead inside is not worth the price.
>>341243
Because I want a fucking fox
>>341471
Europeans managed to domesticate fucking aurochs, I doubt a zebra would be difficult
>>341777
>Europeans
They were domesticated in the near east tbqhfam
>>341777
I'm sure you're an expert on the topic with years of experience in animal husbandry
>>338992
literally the only person in this thread who knows what they're talking about
>>341842
Yeah but so what of Zebras get rowdy? We domesticated fucking aurochs and they're hardly calm
>>341777
Then fucking DO IT faggot. There have been attempt by countless people with time, money, and more experience then you, because there's a huge demand for it.
If it's so fucking easy, go and do it yourself.
It's annoying that Europeans Bitch about our inability to domesticate Zebras but ignore then fact that we domesticated African donkeys in both Sudan and Somalia.
>>337414
The result of pain-staking artificial insemination.
>>341918
No. For the millionth time in this thread alone, no. Domestication is not the plural of taming.
>>341851
You seem to be an expert in animals you've never interacted with in your life.
Aurochs were huge, but were largely docile unless provoked according to historical accounts. Not too different from the modern day dairy cow.
>>338046
This is a shitty argument on multiple levels.
Africans DID domesticate animals. Donkeys, for example. The tsetse fly is a much bigger factor as to why domestication is so difficult in Africa.
To sum this thread up:
>Taming is not the same thing as domestication
>The reason we have not domesticated X animal is because X animal has traits that do not lend themselves well to domestication. Aggressive nature, impossible to breed in captivity, no real reason to domesticate said animal besides "it'd be cool"
>Animals born in zoos are usually the result of artificial insemination and pain-staking breeding programs.
>There are domesticated animals that originate from Africa. The donkey for example. The tsetse fly is a bigger factor than "There's no animals to domesticate" or "Niggers are stupid"
>Just because foxes may be possible to domesticate, doesn't mean every animal previously thought to be undomesticatable is just waiting for us to try hard enough.
>Just because the aurochs were huge doesn't mean it was a massive feat that they were domesticated.
>>336238
>triggering=/=invalid
It really is a valid question to ask why certain animals were never domesticated
So far Africans are known for sure to have domesticated
Donkey
Cats
Guinea Fowl
Camel
On the last one people argue that southernmost Arabia and not Somalia is the origin of Camel but given the fact that Cushitic speaking populations are the basis of Modern Southern Arabian languages it's basically a non-issue.
Mehri from Saudi Arabia and Yes and Somali people are interrelated
Meanwhile Europeans just domesticated rabbit and a fox a few years ago.
Let's not even talk about African auroch domestication bruh....
>>342051
This. OP asked a valid question. It's not like he came in here and asked "Are niggers stupid for not domesticating zebras?"
>>342051
This. I mean we domesticated fucking aurochs, they have no excuse
>>342112
10/10, legit trolled
>>342112
Daily reminder Indians are white.
>>342177
>proceeds to beat his wife when drunk
