# why couldn't humans tame zebras ?? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 31, 2007, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799 "2007-12-31T14:57:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2008, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/101 "2008-01-08T22:39:21Z")
[QUOTE=Shalmanese] Given that you’ve read him, it’s odd that you’re raising points which he specifically counters in the book like the difference between “tame” and “domesticated” and how critics often conflate the two. [/quote] 😕 Can you show me where I confused “tame” and “domesticated”? > [@](#): > > I don’t have the book on hand but I recall his argument is quite different from what’s been set out here. You know what? I don’t really care. This thread is about zebras, not about Guns Germs & Steel. As far as I’m concerned, an argument stands and falls on its own merits. The author of that argument is of secondary importance. > [@](#): > > It also specifically addresses the zebra aggression issue by stating that zebras injure more US zookeepers than tigers What is his reference for this claim? Does he say anything about the relative numbers of zebras and tigers in American zoos? Does he say anything about differences in precautions taken with zebras and tigers? Without this sort of information, it’s hard to take his claim seriously. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2008, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/102 "2008-01-08T22:43:10Z")
[QUOTE=Zyada] How is the book “PC”? :dubious: [/QUOTE] Lol, that’s beyond the scope of this thread. Start a thread on the book, and I will attempt to answer that question. ---
**Author:** ![Lightray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightray/32/391_2.png) [@Lightray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightray)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2008, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/103 "2008-01-09T02:20:49Z")
[QUOTE=Zyada] Maybe you should check out the nearly thirty pages of suggested readings in the back of the book for further information… [/QUOTE] Huh, I had, indeed, forgotten his “Further Readings” in the back that were apparently in lieu of attributing his sources for specific information. Good if people are motivated to study more in-depth; not-so-good if you just want to go look up how many cultures are known to have attempted domestication of the zebra, alas. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2008, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/104 "2008-01-09T08:32:19Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] 😕 Can you show me where I confused “tame” and “domesticated”? [/quote] Apologies, that was someone else. > [@](#): > > You know what? I don’t really care. This thread is about zebras, not about Guns Germs & Steel. As far as I’m concerned, an argument stands and falls on its own merits. The author of that argument is of secondary importance. Where are **your** cites? The extent of your argument seems to be that zebra aggression doesn’t make sense to you, ergo, it’s up to us to prove that zebras are more aggressive than wolves. But just because it doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean it’s prima facie absurd. Maybe the species of wolf that lead to the dog is far more docile than north american wolves. Maybe Zebras are ornier than you imagine. It _does_ matter who the author is because as far as I’m aware, he represents the scientific consensus. You’re not in possession of all the facts and neither am I but uhm… domesticologists who _are_ in possession of all the facts don’t seem to be at all troubled by his statements so why would you have any reason to be? Whether you have “respect” for him or not doesn’t matter. Unless you can produce cites which provide evidence that Diamond is wrong, then the default assumption should be that he’s done a fair and intellectually honest job of reviewing the existing literature. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2008, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/105 "2008-01-09T08:53:25Z")
[QUOTE=Shalmanese] Where are **your** cites? [/quote] Show me a specific claim that I made that requires a cite, and I will try to find one. > [@](#): > > It _does_ matter who the author is because as far as I’m aware, he represents the scientific consensus. I don’t see why you would assume that. As far as I’m aware, he’s one man who published a hypothesis in a popular book. If you believe that virtually every biologist believes that zebras were too aggressive to be domesticated, you’ll need to give me some cites to back it up. > [@](#): > > You’re not in possession of all the facts and neither am I but uhm… domesticologists who _are_ in possession of all the facts don’t seem to be at all troubled by his statements so why would you have any reason to be? I have no idea if they are or if they aren’t. > [@](#): > > Whether you have “respect” for him or not doesn’t matter. Do you agree that if the book contains fallacious arguments, it’s less credible as a whole? Do you agree that if the book doesn’t contain specific footnotes and references, it’s less credible as a whole? The book claims that New Guineans are probably genetically innately superior to Westerners in mental ability. Do you agree that a legitimate scientist would back up a claim like this with a reference to a study? By the way – is that the scientific consensus? That New Guineans are probably genetically innately superior to Westerners in mental ability? > [@](#): > > Unless you can produce cites which provide evidence that Diamond is wrong, then the default assumption should be that he’s done a fair and intellectually honest job of reviewing the existing literature. Sorry, but I don’t have the burden of disproving his claims. But I would like an answer to my question: Is the scientific consensus that New Guineans are probably genetically innately superior to Westerners in mental ability? ---
**Author:** ![Zyada](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zyada/32/3028_2.png) [@Zyada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zyada)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2008, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/106 "2008-01-09T13:54:31Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] But I would like an answer to my question: Is the scientific consensus that New Guineans are probably genetically innately superior to Westerners in mental ability? [/QUOTE] The book in no way whatsoever makes this claim. As a matter of fact, the entire thrust of the book is that there is no such thing as one group that is innately genetically superior and that the only difference between where one culture is technologically superior to another is their technological history. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2008, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/107 "2008-01-09T14:34:59Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] The book claims that New Guineans are probably genetically innately superior to Westerners in mental ability. Do you agree that a legitimate scientist would back up a claim like this with a reference to a study? [/QUOTE] This statement is so far from being true that it must be one of the following: (1) a flat lie (2) a complete misunderstanding of that portion of the book Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2008, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/108 "2008-01-09T18:50:28Z")
[QUOTE=Zyada] The book in no way whatsoever makes this claim. As a matter of fact, the entire thrust of the book is that there is no such thing as one group that is innately genetically superior and that the only difference between where one culture is technologically superior to another is their technological history. [/QUOTE] A little googling found a review which purports to quote the relevant part of the book: > [@](#): > > My perspective on this controversy comes from 33 years of working with New Guineans in their own intact societies. From the very beginning of my work with New Guineans, they impressed me as being on the average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive, and more interested in things and people around them than the average European or American is. At some tasks that one might reasonably suppose to reflect aspects of brain function, such as the ability to form a mental map of unfamiliar surroundings, they appear considerably more adept than Westerners. Of course, New Guineans tend to perform poorly at tasks that Westerners have been trained to perform since childhood and that New Guineans have not. Hence when unschooled New Guineans from remote villages visit towns, they look stupid to Westerners. Conversely, I am constantly aware of how stupid I look to New Guineans when I’m with them in the jungle, displaying my incompetence at simple tasks (such as following a jungle trail or erecting a shelter) at which New Guineans have been trained since childhood and I have not. > > It’s easy to recognize two reasons why my impression that New Guineans are smarter than Westerners may be correct. First, Europeans have for thousands of years been living in densely populated societies with central governments, police, and judiciaries. In those societies, infectious epidemic diseases of dense populations (such as smallpox) were historically the major cause of death, while murders were relatively uncommon and a state of war was the exception rather than the rule. Most Europeans who escaped fatal infections also escaped other potential causes of death and proceeded to pass on their genes. Today, most live-born Western infants survive fatal infections as well and reproduce themselves, regardless of their intelligence and the genes they bear. In contrast, New Guineans have been living in societies where human numbers were too low for epidemic diseases of dense populations to evolve. Instead, traditional New Guineans suffered high mortality from murder, chronic tribal warfare, accidents, and problems in procuring food. > > Intelligent people are likelier than less intelligent ones to escape those causes of high mortality in traditional New Guinea societies. However, the differential mortality from epidemic diseases in traditional European societies had little to do with intelligence, and instead involved genetic resistance dependent on details of body chemistry. For example, people with blood group B or O have a greater resistance to smallpox than do people with blood group A. That is, natural selection promoting genes for intelligence has probably been far more ruthless in New Guinea than in more densely populated, politically complex societies, where natural selection for body chemistry was instead more potent. > > Besides this genetic reason, there is also a second reason why New Guineans may have come to be smarter than Westerners. Modern European and American children spend much of their time being passively entertained by television, radio, and movies. In the average American household, the TV set is on for seven hours per day. In contrast, traditional New Guinea children have virtually no such opportunities for passive entertainment and instead spend almost all of their waking hours actively doing something, such as talking or playing with other children or adults. Almost all studies of child development emphasize the role of childhood stimulation and activity in promoting mental development, and stress the irreversible mental stunting associated with reduced childhood stimulation. This effect surely contributes a non-genetic component to the superior average mental function displayed by New Guineans. > > **That is, in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners** , and they surely are superior in escaping the devastating developmental disadvantages under which most children in industrialized societies now grow up. Certainly, there is no hint at all of any intellectual dissadvantage of New Guineans that could serve to answer Yali’s question. > > The same two genetic and childhood developmental factors are likely to distinguish not only New Guineans from Westerners, but also hunter-gatherers and other members of technologically primitive societies from members of technologically advanced societies in general. Thus, the usual racist assumption has to be turned on its head. Why is it that Europeans, despite their likely genetic disadvantage and (in modern times) their undoubted developmental disadvantage, ended up with much more of the cargo? Why did New Guineans wind up technologically primitive, despite what I believe to be their superior intelligence > **[Review of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies...](http://brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/529)** > > BrothersJudd.com reviews Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies - Grade: C+ (bolding added) Do you agree that this is an accurate quote? I’m not 100% sure, but it does jibe with my memory. ---
**Author:** ![JR\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JR\_Brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JR_Brown)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2008, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/109 "2008-01-10T03:13:43Z")
[QUOTE=Lightray] But I’m skeptical on the need to take 10,000 years to domesticate the Cape hunting dog. Following the link to the domesticated fox study from the story I’d linked to, above, it only took 25 years for them to (accidentally, apparently) get many of the marks of domestication. [/QUOTE] Half-right, but probably irrelevant to this discussion. The fox domestication project was intended to produce “calm”, human-tolerant animals, although they did not aim to produce foxes that are as strongly human-oriented as they eventually did. But this was 25 years of intense, carefully-designed selection on a large population (several thousand foxes, each individually scored for temperament, and about 1% of each generation selected for breeding, IIRC). Furthermore, the starting populations of foxes had been maintained in captivity for many generations and had probably had some selection for lowered aggression already. It’s highly unlikely that a stone-age semi-agricultural society would be able to come up with the idea of selective breeding on the one hand or maintain a large enough population under tight enough control to be able to actually carry out such a plan on the other. [QUOTE=Lemur866] I don’t think farmers spend a lot of time capturing wild animals and trying to raise them in captivity. Now, it’s true that farmers probably hunted a lot more than people imagine, and the line between a hunter with a small plot of corn, beans and squash, and a farmer who takes a break from hoeing every chance he gets to hunt is pretty thin. But those hunters aren’t capturing animals and raising them for food, if they come across a baby horse they don’t raise it, they butcher it. [/QUOTE] Actually, if you trust the anthropologists it’s quite common for hunter-gatherers to keep non-threatening (usually immature) animals that have been captured alive around for a while; they are treated more or less as a pet until they get too big / too aggressive / too hard to feed / too yummy-looking, and then end up in the stewpot. If some more dedicated person from a more settled community decided to try keeping some beasties until adulthood (perhaps for a handy meat source), and if the animal in question never gets too far out of hand and can breed in captivity, this might be the first steps toward domestication. JRB ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2008, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/110 "2008-01-10T15:01:45Z")
Caveat - IANA Zebra expert… I have worked (briefly) with zebra and other hooved stock in a zoo setting. And I once knew, and occasionally interacted with, a privately owned “tame” zebra that would pull a cart. (On good days, anyway.) And, allowing comparison, I own horses. Like most equids, the basic zebra reaction to threat is flight. Most of the time, they will simply run away. Occasionally though a challenged stallion or a mare with foal at her side will display aggression-- toward a keeper, or an interloping dog. They are quick, nimble, and powerful, and can stomp you flat. Zebras therefore have a reputation as “potentially quite dangerous” with zoo keepers. That said though, I hardly think this trait would be sufficient to prevent domestication. The real barriers to domestication, as stated upthread, are time, opportunity, and economic benefit. To domesticate an animal, a number of breeding individuals must be kept isolated, and selectively bred for a large (but admittedly undetermined) number of generations. Simply maintaining this herd presupposes that the society has sufficient space, technology to maintain adequate fences, and a year-round source of animal feed. The un-domesticated “starter herd” cannot be simply ‘driven’ to another pasture if the first becomes over-grazed. The African savanna, with its seasonal cycle of wet and dry and the concomittant seasonal cycle of grass versus no grass strikes me as a poor choice for such an endeavor. If this first hurdle could be overcome, perhaps by fencing and cross fencing a truly huge area, then a beginning herd could be maintained. But since domestication could at best be only a dimly perceived long term goal, the herd must provide some immediate benefit in order to justify the effort. Presumably this would be a ready supply of meat without the necessity for hunting and possible long distance travel. So we already know what will be done with culls, and can assume that culling will take place. How large a herd then is needed to support the human population? Or to supplement a supply of hunted “wild” meat? Is that fenced pasture really big enough? And how often will there be ‘bad years’, years of drought or famine, in which the entire herd will be eaten or simply perish, negating all previous selection for domestication and necessitating starting over with new wild stock? Even if such occurs only once in a century, or even longer, it would prevent successful domestication through selection. Again, Africa seems to be especially problematic in this regard, mediating against domestication of zebra. How often might a pride of lions, or a prairie fire, or a herd of elephant, or some other scenario cause the herd to escape their enclosure? The larger the necessary pasture, the more likely such a misadventure becomes. And again, even if this is a once in a century event, the result is back to square one on the domestication front. To me, there is no surprise in the fact that zebras were never domesticated. Any measure of aggression seems trivial compared to the other hurdles that must be overcome. Historical African aboriginal societies seem ill equipped for this effort. Could some other, richer and more settled historical society, perhaps the ancient Egyptians or the Persians, have succeeded? Possibly, if they were willing to devote the necessary resources to the effort. One could envision a relatively small herd maintained strictly for the long term goal of domestication, not an immediate food supply. This could be maintained for maximum breeding production and minimum generational time, while being ruthlessly culled. Some hundred or hundreds of years of sustained effort should result in a fair measure of domestication. But what would be the point? Is there any reason to expect that such an animal would be superior to the domestic or semi-domestic horses, donkeys, and other equids already available at that time? Or superior to such specialty beasts of burden as oxen or water buffalo? Or as easy to maintain for ready food supplies as sheep or goats? Massive practical, logistical, and economic difficulties to overcome with specious potential long term benefit (not aggressive behaviors) equals null program. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2008, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/111 "2008-01-11T01:02:22Z")
[QUOTE=CannyDan] To me, there is no surprise in the fact that zebras were never domesticated. Any measure of aggression seems trivial compared to the other hurdles that must be overcome. Historical African aboriginal societies seem ill equipped for this effort. Could some other, richer and more settled historical society, perhaps the ancient Egyptians or the Persians, have succeeded? Possibly, if they were willing to devote the necessary resources to the effort. One could envision a relatively small herd maintained strictly for the long term goal of domestication, not an immediate food supply. This could be maintained for maximum breeding production and minimum generational time, while being ruthlessly culled. Some hundred or hundreds of years of sustained effort should result in a fair measure of domestication. [/quote] I think you may be on to something here. If a society is sufficiently agricultural, it will arguably be in a much better position to domesticate horses or zebras or whatever. For example, a sufficiently agricultural society would seem likely to have full time soldiers/policemen/king’s men who might be interested in the military aspects of using horses or zebras or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2008, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/112 "2008-01-11T09:28:39Z")
[QUOTE=Lightray] Most of what I’ve seen on zebras (not much, BTW) is reports of attempts at zebra domestication after the colonization of Africa was underway. And that really tells us nothing of why the zebra did not get natively domesticated before then. If there are studies which explore that, it would be interesting to know what they concluded. But I, too, would say that Diamond alone is flimsy support for the “zebra aggression prevents domestication” hypothesis. [/QUOTE] I think this is a good point. It comes down to my earlier question: What exactly was done to attempt to domesticate zebras? Given that it apparently can take a looooooong time to domesticate an animal, what does it matter if a few (eccentric?) Brits took a few stabs at it? > [@Jared Diamond](#): > > Efforts at domestication went as far as hitching them to carts: they were tried out as draft animals in 19th century South Africa, and the eccentric Lord Walther Rothchild drove through the streets of London in a carriage pulled by zebras In line with **lemur** ’s theory, it seems likely that after a few unpleasant incidents, people would correctly surmise that it’s just easier to use (already domesticated) horses than zebras. ---
**Author:** ![Indian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c0e974/32.png) [@Indian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indian)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2008, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/113 "2008-01-12T09:16:41Z")
well, I love this board … There are knowledgabale posters on almost every subject in SDMB. This kind of a debate is possible only in SDMB. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Zyada](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zyada/32/3028_2.png) [@Zyada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zyada)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2008, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/114 "2008-01-14T03:03:31Z")
Unfortunately, I’m not an expert - just someone who read and absorbed a book and won’t let go of this argument. 😛 [QUOTE=brazil84] I don’t see why you would assume that [he represents the scientific consensus]. As far as I’m aware, he’s one man who published a hypothesis in a popular book. [/quote] Well, I wouldn’t say that he “represents the scientific consensus”. However, I gather from the [awards he has won](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond#Awards_.26_Honors) and his [professorship at UCLA](http://www.geog.ucla.edu/people/faculty.php?lid=3078&display_one=1&modify=1) that he is well respected by his peers and the scientific community. Not to mention the number of magazines that had portions of the book as articles. [QUOTE=brazil84] Do you agree that if the book doesn’t contain specific footnotes and references, it’s less credible as a whole? [/quote] For me? It depends on the intended audience. If the book or article is addressed to a scholarly audience then the arguments are going to be more intricate and the footnotes are there for the scholars to cross-reference the sources to see if they agree with the author’s interpretation. But in books for general consumption, footnotes can detract from readibility without helping the majority of the readers. Diamond adds detailed recommended reading at the end of the book, which will help the sincere critics while allowing the more casual reader to read without the distraction of footnotes. > [@](#): > > Do you agree that if the book contains fallacious arguments, it’s less credible as a whole? > > The book claims that New Guineans are probably genetically innately superior to Westerners in mental ability. I did look this up, and this is pretty much what Diamond says _in the prolog_. Did you notice that little word “probably”? That means it is not a fact. It’s not even a hypothesis. It’s conjecture, and even scientists are allowed to make unsubstantiated opinions as long as they don’t present them as fact. Not only that, but the basis for this statement is sound - intelligence is the main advantage that humans have, and harsh environments where only a small percentage of the population are going to live long enough to mate are going to favor intelligence. Face it, most of us don’t live in a harsh environment - all it takes for a very high majority of the first world population to survive long enough to add to the next generation is to be born and not kill ourselves with truly reckless behavior. It does sound contradictory to his basic thesis at first reading. It is also unfortunate that he put this in his prolog, just because it is going to piss off the very people he is trying hardest to convince. While **CannyDan** brings up some interesting points, I have to question if these were truly significantly worse in Africa than in Asia or Europe. There were predators and natural disasters in those areas as well - and if they were truly worse in Africa, how did humans manage to survive there? There is also the assumption that horses and zebras would only be domesticated for transport; however, the first domesticated horses [were kept for food, not transport](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061023192518.htm). So why weren’t zebras domesticated for food? There is also the idea that someone would have set out with a plan to domesticate the zebras. Were any animals domesticated that way? It doesn’t seem likely that any culture that was at the hunter-gatherer or hunter-agrarian level would be investing work in something that wouldn’t bear fruit (so to speak) for generations. So there needed to be intermediate steps between wild and domesticated that still allowed a culture to get benefit from an animal. [QUOTE=brazil84] … people would correctly surmise that it’s just easier to use (already domesticated) horses than zebras. [/quote] See, this is where you lose me every single time. What people are you talking about? From [this site](http://www.hiddentrails.com/africa/kenya/history-horses.htm), it sounds like horses didn’t arrive in sub-saharan Africa until very, very recently. So why would zebras not have been domesticated as a food animal much earlier? ---
**Author:** ![Lightray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightray/32/391_2.png) [@Lightray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightray)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2008, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/115 "2008-01-14T06:38:12Z")
[QUOTE=Zyada] See, this is where you lose me every single time. What people are you talking about? From [this site](http://www.hiddentrails.com/africa/kenya/history-horses.htm), it sounds like horses didn’t arrive in sub-saharan Africa until very, very recently. So why would zebras not have been domesticated as a food animal much earlier? [/QUOTE] He’s replying to my comment that most of the attempts at zebra domestication which I have read about, occurred after the colonial period in Africa. Hence, after already-domesticated horses were available as an alternative to zebra domestication attempts. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2008, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/116 "2008-01-14T09:06:42Z")
[QUOTE=Zyada] Well, I wouldn’t say that he “represents the scientific consensus”. However, I gather from the [awards he has won](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond#Awards_.26_Honors) and his [professorship at UCLA](http://www.geog.ucla.edu/people/faculty.php?lid=3078&display_one=1&modify=1) that he is well respected by his peers and the scientific community. [/quote] To me, it doesn’t matter if he’s won 1000 awards. His arguments must stand or fall on their own merits. > [@](#): > > For me? It depends on the intended audience. If the book or article is addressed to a scholarly audience then the arguments are going to be more intricate and the footnotes are there for the scholars to cross-reference the sources to see if they agree with the author’s interpretation. But in books for general consumption, footnotes can detract from readibility without helping the majority of the readers. Perhaps, but in that case it’s a bit of an overstatement to claim that the book should be treated as some kind of scientific authority. Or should be given some kind of scientific imprimateur. > [@](#): > > I did look this up, and this is pretty much what Diamond says _in the prolog_. Did you notice that little word “probably”? That means it is not a fact. It’s not even a hypothesis. It’s conjecture, and even scientists are allowed to make unsubstantiated opinions as long as they don’t present them as fact. I would say that “may be” or “might be” mean conjecture. “Probably” is more than conjecture. Anyway, I was careful to include the word “probably” when I first pointed out this part of the book and your response was that the book “no way” makes such a claim. Now you are just spinning things. And note that not all of Diamond’s statements are so qualified: > [@Diamond](#): > > This effect **surely** contributes a non-genetic component to the superior average mental function displayed by New Guineans. (bolding added) Is this more conjecture? Personally, I believe that a lot of the Western TV shows and computer games made for small children are very educational. Diamond doesn’t cite any studies for his claim. (Or maybe he does – it’s hard to know.) Entire generations of American children learned a little reading, writing, and counting from watching Sesame Street. > [@](#): > > Not only that, but the basis for this statement is sound - intelligence is the main advantage that humans have, and harsh environments where only a small percentage of the population are going to live long enough to mate are going to favor intelligence. I question that, and I also question what you mean by “harsh environment” I also question whether the sort of intelligence that might be promoted by living as a hunter gatherer is the sort of intelligence that would help create “cargo.” But those are questions for another thread. > [@](#): > > While **CannyDan** brings up some interesting points, I have to question if these were truly significantly worse in Africa than in Asia or Europe. There were predators and natural disasters in those areas as well - and if they were truly worse in Africa, how did humans manage to survive there? I’m not sure what your point is here. > [@](#): > > See, this is where you lose me every single time. What people are you talking about? Lord Walter Rothchild, for example. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2008, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799/117 "2008-01-14T09:13:05Z")
[QUOTE=Lightray] He’s replying to my comment that most of the attempts at zebra domestication which I have read about, occurred after the colonial period in Africa. Hence, after already-domesticated horses were available as an alternative to zebra domestication attempts. [/QUOTE] Basically, yes. It appears that few Englishmen or Dutchmen made sporadic attempts between 1800 and 1900 to domesticate Zebras. For Diamond to look at these attempts and say “See, people tried to domesticate zebras too” is not very persuasive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-humans-tame-zebras/431799.md?page=5)