# Are short lifespans inherently linked to domestication? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 24, 2020, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-short-lifespans-inherently-linked-to-domestication/848424 "2020-02-24T06:50:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2020, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-short-lifespans-inherently-linked-to-domestication/848424/21 "2020-02-24T23:57:08Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Aren’t breeding ages generally proportionate to lifespans? > > I’m genuinely asking this. I don’t know if there’s a rule of thumb on this, like the billion heartbeat theory. Not really. As an example: most parrots are fully mature and able to breed in 1-3 years, yet have lifespans comparable to human beings that take 12-18 years to mature physically (mentally is another question). Birds in general mature very quickly in a relatively long lifespan compared to mammals. Then there are animals like salmon where “maximum age” and “breeding age” are pretty much the same (meaning the sorts of salmon that die after spawning once). Even a lot of mammals mature quickly compared to entire lifespan when compared to humans. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2020, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-short-lifespans-inherently-linked-to-domestication/848424/22 "2020-02-25T13:35:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I did consider this point when I was thinking about the topic. But I feel that forest management is a pretty fringe example of domestication. Do people really breed oaks in the sense that they’re looking to modify the traits of the trees? Or are they simply acting to produce a future generation of trees like the ones they have now? They’re not breeding the way you are discussing above, I was merely addressing the issue of long-term projects, that span the lifetimes of several generations. With the example of oak trees, the generations that live in the years between planting and harvesting have to have a commitment that goes beyond their own immediate profit. You only make money when you cut down the tree, so every year, they would need to make the positive decision to not profit this year, so that someone else will profit even more decades down the line. I see no reason why you couldn’t find people to do the same with breeding animals, is the point. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2020, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-short-lifespans-inherently-linked-to-domestication/848424/23 "2020-02-25T18:06:41Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > They’re not breeding the way you are discussing above, I was merely addressing the issue of long-term projects, that span the lifetimes of several generations. With the example of oak trees, the generations that live in the years between planting and harvesting have to have a commitment that goes beyond their own immediate profit. You only make money when you cut down the tree, so every year, they would need to make the positive decision to not profit this year, so that someone else will profit even more decades down the line. > > I see no reason why you couldn’t find people to do the same with breeding animals, is the point. Just growing trees is a passive project, even if it takes a long time. You plant the acorn and wait for the tree to grow to a harvestable size. Breeding, on the other hand, is an active process. You need to monitor the traits your breeding stock has and make choices about which ones will reproduce. ---
**Author:** ![HelenGawn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@HelenGawn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HelenGawn)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2020, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-short-lifespans-inherently-linked-to-domestication/848424/24 "2020-02-26T01:01:05Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > Well, if you consider [the history of forest management](https://blog.longnow.org/02014/12/31/humans-and-trees-in-long-term-partnership/), some humans already do this. Growing oak trees that are sufficiently large for building construction purposes takes centuries. Well, _that_ site is quite the rabbit hole. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2020, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-short-lifespans-inherently-linked-to-domestication/848424/25 "2020-02-26T02:14:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Would humans put the effort into domesticating another species if they knew that the benefits wouldn’t begin appearing until their great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren’s time? Not sure I agree with the premise. The primary measure of domestication is temperament rather than genetics. The classic question: why has nobody succeeded in domesticating the zebra? If _Bos taurus_ had the same temperament as _Bison bison_ humans would be eating a whole lot more chicken and pork. In the case of the horse, what determines it’s value for domestication is being able to be broken in, which has a little but not much to do with genetics. Now sure, if you were wanting horses as a draught animal then breeding for size is a substantial aim for genetic improvement. However a horse bred to be the size of a bus which can’t be accustomed to standing between the shafts it has no value to the cropper-farmer compared to a Shetland pony which will. The value of sheep can be dominated by the value of the wool produced, which is why wethers (castrated males) may be kept as productive livestock their entire lives rather than being slaughtered from meat in their prime. The time limit to the productive value of sheep is their teeth, which fall out after 6-8 years in good conditions. There has been no genetic improvement in that character in millennia. Similarly the value in agriculture of the mule, a typically placid, sterile hybrid, which patently has seem no genetic improvement. The agronomic advantage of domesticated farm animals is that they stay on the farm. That phenotypic improvements can be achieved through selective breeding is a bonus. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2020, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-short-lifespans-inherently-linked-to-domestication/848424/26 "2020-02-26T04:42:36Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > The primary measure of domestication is temperament rather than genetics. The classic question: why has nobody succeeded in domesticating the zebra? If _Bos taurus_ had the same temperament as _Bison bison_ humans would be eating a whole lot more chicken and pork. I think it’s temperament due to genetics. Wild animals aren’t naturally domesticated. They’re bred for domestication just as they are for other traits. I agree that not all species have the potential to be domesticated. Some species, like zebras, will never be domesticated even if you try to establish a breeding stock of them. Other species might be domesticable but offer no obvious benefits to justify the work of domesticating them. So I’m not saying that lifespan alone if the determining factor. I’m arguing that an appropriate lifespan (or at least a breeding age if you prefer that term) is a necessary factor. A species which has the potential to be bred into a domesticated species with valuable traits will never be domesticated if it doesn’t have the right lifespan. ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2020, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-short-lifespans-inherently-linked-to-domestication/848424/27 "2020-02-29T06:49:09Z")
Short-lived cats seem to have domesticated long-lived humans, not vice versa. Curious. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Aren’t breeding ages generally proportionate to lifespans? I searched on REPRODUCTION AND LIFESPAN but found no general rule, either of earliest or longest breeding ages. Maybe I missed something. The youngest verified human mother gave birth at age five years, seven months, and 21 days; the oldest was almost 67. Modern medicine could extend that range. The youngest known dad I can find became a father at age nine; the oldest, at 96. So humans can start VERY young and continue for a LONG time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-short-lifespans-inherently-linked-to-domestication/848424.md?page=1)