Watching a great show on PBS about dogs and there is speculation that we probably would not have evolved beyond hunter/gatherers without our canine friends.
I’m pretty convinced this is true. What sez you.
Possibly the wrong forum.
I’m pretty sure dogs played no part in the development of the sciences.
Would we have had the time and resources to develop science without them?
Mr. Diamond doesn’t seem to share your view.
Liontamer,
Would you mind telling us what the arguments of that show were? Also, a link to watch it or at least the title would be nice.
Gunner the Great Dane has made me a better person, so I vote yes.
Well, for cultures who have relied on dogs as food for physical sustenance, dogs made them who they are in a very literal sense.
The show posited that dogs adapted to us and us to them. We trained them to be guards, herders, hunters and companions.
While we generally have better sight then them they can smell and hear better than us.
Try herding sheep or bird hunting without one.
With the exception of those dogs who salivated for Ivan Pavlov.
I watched part of the show tonight (Nature - a repeat from 2007 I think) and I found the argument interesting, but not completely persuasive. I don’t think they really made their case, except that dogs provided something that humans, at the time, could not.
We evolved together, but I don’t think its fair to blame dogs for how we’ve turned out.
I’m pretty sure we made dogs what they are. They became part of our “pack” because we took wolves and bred them to be what we wanted.
I have seen the show before and really enjoyed it. It led me to read several books on canine intelligence and behavior, so I am grateful for the inspiration.
The theory is that dogs effectively domesticated themselves. There was very little human intent in their development until they were already significantly not-wolf.
From there, the theory is that the dog-human partnership allowed humans to accomplish things they would have struggled with on their own … particularly the deliberate effort to domesticate sheep, cows, horses etc.
I liked that theory a lot. It certainly made sense that domesticating a wild species without fences would be much easier with a herding dog. Protecting chickens and stored goodies would be much easier with a guard dog.
However, the show did not offer much evidence beyond the thought experiment.
In all the books that I read, nobody else was making that same grandiose claims, so I have been unable to find any science to back up the good story.
Was that warmth on a 3 dog night?
Sorry, I haven’t seen the show.
The way it’s done is the same way police dogs are chosen from a litter, or docile pets are chosen from the same litter. Sure, it is genetic engineering but in a natural way, you choose two docile pups from two different litters, take them away from their wild parents, bring them up in a docile manner, breed them or presumably have multiples of partners at this stage and continue choosing the docile ones for several generations and not allowing the parents to teach them many of their natural inherent traits. They will still have instincts but will respect their alpha’s ‘your’ lead.
No, Pavlov had a bunch of dogs that trained him to ring a bell and feed them. As a reward, they would salivate for Pavlov and give him everlasting fame.
As Obi Wan (that huge liar) once said, it largely depends on your point of view.
Dogs may have civilized humans from homo erectus (snicker, snicker), but we civilized dogs from frickin’ wolves. And your well heeled female dog is the kind of bitch you can live with. Dogs really usually make far better people than people.
Taking this seriously…
While you have dogs throughout pre-Columbian Americas from the earliest moment of human habitation there, you only see sedentary civilization and agriculture in certain places like the Inca and Aztec regions. And even then, people and dogs were living in the Americas for something like 12,000 years before the first civilizations.
Looking further back and world-wide, Wikipedia suggests the domestication of dogs may be on the order of 135,000 years ago. We had dogs for 125,000 out of 135,000 years and only figured out agriculture at the very end?
I just don’t see any strong correlation between dogs and agriculture. All humans had dogs from a long time ago, but only some humans recently developed agriculture.
Why not? Some of them are real bitches.
There was this little thing called “the last ice age” standing in the way of agriculture.
As for hunting/guarding duty who knows how long dogs have been around doing that for us?
This. I’d rather be surrounded by more dogs in public places than people. They’re less apt to do things like accidentally shoot you in Wal-Mart. And most of them are much friendlier than most people. You can just walk up to any dog in a public place and start playing with it. (Well, I can. I always get pushback when I write that, but I’ve been doing it since I was four years old, and haven’t gotten chewed up yet. Yes, that includes a number of Pit Bulls too. They’re actually fairly high up on the friendliness scale, most of them.) Try that with most people, and that’s how you get your ass chewed.
Here is a story, currently making headlines internationally, about a black Labrador in Seattle who regularly hops on the bus by herself to go three or four blocks to the dog park.