Most influencial ANIMAL in human history?

[CarnalK]

obvious answer: “Big Daddy”
Sorry.

I’d go with cattle/ox for their multi-use(don’t forget pulling carts). I’m curious just how much dogs helped us in hunting in the early days.

[Lightkeeper]

*Originally posted by sghoul *
I would be interested in a timeline of what point different animals began being used by humans.

I just looked it up. Timeline, kinda:
Sheep - 15,000 - 10,000 BC
Dogs - 10,000 BC
Cows - 9000 BC
Goat - 7500 BC
Pigs - 7500 BC
Cats - 6000 BC
Donkeys - 6000 BC
Camels - 4000 - 3000 BC
Horse (riding, not just taming) 2000 BC
Chicken - 2000 BC

This is of course widely disputed by archaeologists… as I said before, some hold that dogs were domesticated before sheep.

[rjung]

A vote for horse here, with cows/cattle coming in second. Most of the benefits from cattle can also apply to horses.

[XT]

Hm…I’m now starting to think maybe the cat, based on this exciting ‘new’ evidence. Please check it out.

PPCT

-XT

[Jonathan_Chance]

I’ve got to go with the dog, for all the reasons stated and that early dog demonstrated to early man that animals could be domesticated.

I’ve got to toss out the sheep/goat thing because, even with the advances in herding and food production (all useful, no doubt about it) herding of sheep goats led to environmental degradation that probably retarded development in desertified regions.

[sghoul]

Based on that timeline, I am going to go with Dogs.

Things like cattle and sheep gave us things…but they gave us things we could get from anything. And a big question would be how wide spread these animals were. We see dogs in cultures all over the world. But horses or sheep or cattle are not.

And lets not forget fish

[XT]

From the PPCT

The cat was the first animal to be domesticated, more than 4 million years ago, long before the genus Homo evolved. And in fact it was the cat, or rather the loss of cats, that molded and shaped the evolution of Homo. (If “domestication” doesn’t sit well with you when applied to the relationship between a prehuman primate and a cat, think of it as a quasi-symbiotic relationship.)

There are many unexplained matters in the early history of hominines. How could the australopithecines survive in Pliocene Africa? No tools for hunting, too small and weak to complete with other scavengers, teeth (in the gracile form) unadapted for plant eating, they seem to have been unable to even feed themselves. And the slow and small australopithecines would have been easy prey for the first large carnivore to come along. Where did they spend the night? In spite of their disadvantages, australopithecines managed to survive almost unchanged for 2 million years. How? And why did these survivors suddenly evolve into a new genus, Homo, just then the large carnivores were dying out? The answer to all these questions: the Pliocene Pussy Cat.

As you all surely see, this is VERY conclusive ‘evidence’. The cat was definitely the most important animal. See here:

Again, from PPCT (in fact, one of my favorite parts):

As anyone who has ever petted a cat during dry weather (weather like that on the African savanna) knows, cat fur has the potential for producing enormous amounts of static electricity. Rub a child’s balloon on a cat and it will stick to the ceiling, sometimes for days. I propose that australopithecines used this static-producing property of cats to help them spend the nights safely in the trees, out of the reach of the many large carnivores that roamed the African savanna. If an australopithecine rubbed itself briskly with one or more cats, it might be able to build up a large enough electro-static charge for it to stick to the branches of the tree just as the balloon sticks to the ceiling.

It’s possible the australopithecines had to wait for the coming of the morning dew to discharge the static charge and allow them to drop to the ground. More likely they discharged themselves by urinating. A stream of urine is a good conductor. You can test this by peeing on an electric fence. This history may explain why humans have such a disproportional large penis, the largest penis of any primate. The males may have used the better aim their long penis gave them to “shoot down” the females and young.

I know you are all convinced now…hell, cats even gave us men bigger penis’s for gods sake. Whats more important?? :dubious:

-XT

[cuauhtemoc]

Another vote for dogs. I thought I had read somewhere that dogs have been with man for about 20,000 years.

[pravnik]

It’s the horse by a furlong.

[sghoul]

Let’s leave cats out of this. They have never been useful to mankind…except for punting

[MLS]

*Originally posted by jsgoddess *
**Wouldn’t those civilizations have been without horses, as well? I think I recall that horses were brought to the Western Hemisphere by Europeans.
Julie **

The civillizations in the Americas were without cattle, or horses, or the wheel. Of course, without a large draft animal you don’t have much need for wheels.

Interestingly, some scientists say that horses evolved in North America but disappeared at around the time humans first arrived. One theory is that they hunted and ate the horses, which helped prevent their more rapid technological development since they were limited by what they could carry, as well as how far and how fast they could travel. One of the several factors that helped Europeans take control was, of course, the horse.

[bizzwire]

• from rjung:*
  A vote for horse here, with cows/cattle coming in second. Most of the benefits from cattle can also apply to horses.

Like horse milk and horse cheese?

Ethilrist nailed it; after the cow (food, clothing, traction which allowed the development of agrarian society), Yersinia Pestis made things very, very interesting…

[kniz]

*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
**Proof that civilization is possible without cattle: The civilizations of Mesoamerica and the Andes. **

The same would apply to the horse.

Why hasn’t Guns, Germs and Steel been mentioned?

[ul] [sup]I’m glad to see cats get some R_E_S_P_E_C_T.[/sup][/ul]

[Lemur866]

Yes, but I wasn’t claiming that civilization would be impossible without the horse, like Lightkeeper suggested civilization might be impossible without cattle.

Of course civilization is possible without the horse, the only domestic animal that New World and Old World civilizations had in common was the dog.

I’m just claiming that the use of horses in warfare was tremendously important, for two reasons. Horses allow nomadic herding civilizations to periodically overwhelm and conquer settled farming civilizations, and horses also entrench aristocracy by raising the barriers for entry into the warrior elite. Every farmer can afford a spear and train to use it especially if he is fighting with his buddies from his village, but not every farmer can support a cavalry horse and train to use it effectively in combat. The horse-riding elite enserfs the foot-slogging yeomanry.

Without horses, Old world civilizations would have been more egalitarian and also more parochial and less warlike. Part-time farmers would rather farm than fight usually, but full-time horse warriors have no other purpose than fighting.

[PigArcher]

*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
**Without horses, Old world civilizations would have been more egalitarian and also more parochial and less warlike. Part-time farmers would rather farm than fight usually, but full-time horse warriors have no other purpose than fighting. **

Interesting theory, but it doesn’t appear to be born out by the facts.
Mesoamerican cultures lacked horses, but were not egalitarian, parochial, or peaceful.

[Llama_Llogophile]

I’d say Mr. Ed, followed closely by Lassie and my personal favorite: Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp.

[Mangetout]

Eyelash mites have (arguably) had the one of the broadest influences on humanity, just not a very deep one.

[JThunder]

My vote goes to that bat which crashed its way through Bruce Wayne’s window.

[Jonathan_Chance]

Human’s are a superstitious, cowardly lot…

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Myself, I would vote for those microbes in our digestive systems.