In Southeast Asia monkeys are trained to pick coconuts.
You might be thinking of a short story called “Bimi” by Kipling. Two Europeans are living on a south sea Island, and one of them tells the other of how he had a domesticated Orangutang as a pet/factotum. Their life is serene until the owner finds a mate, who comes to live with them. The Orangutang becomes jealous, with grisly results.
Some other problems. Chimps, gorillas and orangutans are rare species. 10,000 years ago there were packs of wolves, cats everywhere, herds of sheep, goats, horses and cows running free. But to domesticate an ape you’d need a source population of apes to pull from. Apes simply weren’t available.
Also, most primates are impossible to potty-train. Think about it. A monkey or ape who lives in a tree can just let go whenever they feel like it, and the waste falls to the forest floor out of sight, out of mind. You can’t do that in a house. Dogs and cats already know how to avoid soiling their dens, they just need a little help.
Plus primates are slow breeding, and take years to mature. Dogs have a litter every year and you can pick out the best few and cull the rest of the pups. Chimps have a single offspring every 4-5 years. Selective breeding becomes almost impossible on that scale.
Plus primates are often pretty grumpy critters, and they are smart enough to see through some of the dominance tricks that work against dogs and horses.
Plus human slaves are much easier to control. Almost all work that can be done by an ape or monkey could be done better by a human slave.
Well, the apes do. 
An important thing to bear in mind is that true domestication (as opposed to taming or training, as done with the large cats) is not an asynchronous interaction. As much as humans have a hand in selecting and husbanding a domesticated species, the animals themselves have to “choose” to be domesticated. This isn’t a deliberate choice, of course, but rather one in which the interest of man and beast coincide.
The generally accepted theory for the domestication of canis familiaris occured because wolves with less fear of humans than their compatriots started loitering around dumps an at the edges of encampments, feeding from scraps and waste, and permitting them to spend less time hunting and survive during lean years; i.e. feeding off of human ingenuity. Eventually, some bright boy realized that the wolves make a good deterrent and alert, and deliberate fed the wolves, perhaps even taking in the pups from a dead or injured bitch. Eventually, wolves evolved into a creature that became virtually inseperable from human civilization; the dogs functioned as guards, labor, and food source, and in exchange received protection from the elements, support for their offspring, and food. The altered in appearance to a more infantile form (shorter snouts, more human-like faces) and became less aggressive and more amicable to training and cooperation.
Other domestic species, such as the horse or the housecat have similar stories. Even the cattle or sheep, which exist in domestication only to be eaten, receive a significant benefit, in terms of security while alive and the enhanced likelyhood of passing on their genes, over wild oxen and goats. One thing that is common among all domestic species is that they are pack animals (or at least are agreeable to pack life) with a simple, hierarchical social structure. (Even housecats, which most consider only partically domesticated, have well-defined dominance routines.) And once dominance is established by the alpha, the other members fall in line with only occasional squables. Pack animals, even dogs, don’t war on one another.
Primates, particularly the great apes, have a far more complicated social structure that does not lend itself to domestication; dominance for different issues is divided among various members. Most ape clans have regular dominance struggles, and they are highly intelligent with substantial initiative. This alone makes them unsuibable for domesticatability, though they may be capable of being raised and trained individually, albeit at no small risk to the owner, as has been seen with chimpanzees in captivity.
Another possible factor is disease transmission; many of our most virulent viral and bacterial malodies we suffer have their roots in domesticated livestock and have managed to jump from one species to another. Keeping in close proximity a species that is genetically similar would most likely result in an exchange of disease organisms which would be detrimental to both groups.
I can’t pass this one up without (again) debunking the notion that gorillas are agressive. Despite the writings of Burroughs (a man who never set foot on the African continent) and film portrayals from King Kong through Congo, gorillas are not aggressive or naturally violent creatures. They are natively vegetarian, and while strong and offering displays of fierce behavior (screaming, chest thumping, jumping) they are actually very timid and would likely not stand ground in any kind of confrontation with a human. It might be possible to condition an individual gorilla to respond violently to stimulus, but such a creature would not be controllable or domesticated. Chimpanzees and orangutans are more aggressive by nature but are far too willful and dominating to be subjected to such conditioning, espeically in the presence of other members of their species. It’s worth noting that virtually all chimps kept in captivity are single members who do not learn and reinforce the naturally aggressive behaviors they would express in the presence of other chimps.
Stranger
Or “I’m not even supposed to be here today!” Instead of spanking the monkey, the monkey will spank us! They’re start wearing our cloths and using our cities and acting just like us. In the end, only the most intelligent humans will survive to say “You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! GOd, damn you all to hell!”
Well, the apes do.
An important thing to bear in mind is that true domestication (as opposed to taming or training, as done with the large cats) is not an asynchronous interaction. As much as humans have a hand in selecting and husbanding a domesticated species, the animals themselves have to “choose” to be domesticated. This isn’t a deliberate choice, of course, but rather one in which the interest of man and beast coincide.
The generally accepted theory for the domestication of canis familiaris occured because wolves with less fear of humans than their compatriots started loitering around dumps an at the edges of encampments, feeding from scraps and waste, and permitting them to spend less time hunting and survive during lean years; i.e. feeding off of human ingenuity. Eventually, some bright boy realized that the wolves make a good deterrent and alert, and deliberate fed the wolves, perhaps even taking in the pups from a dead or injured bitch. Eventually, wolves evolved into a creature that became virtually inseperable from human civilization; the dogs functioned as guards, labor, and food source, and in exchange received protection from the elements, support for their offspring, and food. The altered in appearance to a more infantile form (shorter snouts, more human-like faces) and became less aggressive and more amicable to training and cooperation.
Other domestic species, such as the horse or the housecat have similar stories. Even the cattle or sheep, which exist in domestication only to be eaten, receive a significant benefit, in terms of security while alive and the enhanced likelyhood of passing on their genes, over wild oxen and goats. One thing that is common among all domestic species is that they are pack animals (or at least are agreeable to pack life) with a simple, hierarchical social structure. (Even housecats, which most consider only partically domesticated, have well-defined dominance routines.) And once dominance is established by the alpha, the other members fall in line with only occasional squables. Pack animals, even dogs, don’t war on one another.
Primates, particularly the great apes, have a far more complicated social structure that does not lend itself to domestication; dominance for different issues is divided among various members. Most ape clans have regular dominance struggles, and they are highly intelligent with substantial initiative. This alone makes them unsuibable for domesticatability, though they may be capable of being raised and trained individually, albeit at no small risk to the owner, as has been seen with chimpanzees in captivity.
Another possible factor is disease transmission; many of our most virulent viral and bacterial malodies we suffer have their roots in domesticated livestock and have managed to jump from one species to another. Keeping in close proximity a species that is genetically similar would most likely result in an exchange of disease organisms which would be detrimental to both groups.
I can’t pass this one up without (again) debunking the notion that gorillas are agressive. Despite the writings of Burroughs (a man who never set foot on the African continent) and film portrayals from King Kong through Congo, gorillas are not aggressive or naturally violent creatures. They are natively vegetarian, and while strong and offering displays of fierce behavior (screaming, chest thumping, jumping) they are actually very timid and would likely not stand ground in any kind of confrontation with a human. It might be possible to condition an individual gorilla to respond violently to stimulus, but such a creature would not be controllable or domesticated. Chimpanzees and orangutans are more aggressive by nature but are far too willful and dominating to be subjected to such conditioning, espeically in the presence of other members of their species. It’s worth noting that virtually all chimps kept in captivity are single members who do not learn and reinforce the naturally aggressive behaviors they would express in the presence of other chimps.
Stranger
I think what he had in mind was , as he noted, the Jules Verne novel The Mysterious Island, where the castaways adopt an orangutan and name him “Jupiter”. He becomes a servant, and they teach him to smoke.
If you look, you’ll find cases of somewhat domesticated apes. In one of his books, Frank Buck wrote about a domesticated orangutan. He knew it was domesticated because of the way it acted – it strooked his arm gently, instead of grabbing, from its cage. He let it out on a rope, and it proved to be very gentle. One day he walked by with a bucket of water and a towel to use in washing off a sick animal. The orang stopped him, sat down with the cloth and bucket, then began to wash it, inspecting it for dirst, then finally spreading the cloth out on the grass to dry. From this he figured that it had been owned by people who did laundry (or who employed launderers), and the ape had learned by watching. Buck was able to take the ape along on a ship and have it act as a passenger, socializing with the other passengers, sitting in deck chairs, and so on.
Of course, hje kept it in that cage at the start because the apes are generally dangerous. He tells another story about being attacked on board a ship by an orangutan.
Even monkeys asre suspect. When I was a kid I heard a story about a jealous monkey that attacked a baby in the house – possibly UL, but certainly possible, as noted above. My cats I can keep out of the garage and cabinets. Monkeys would regard it as a challenge.
A factoid you keep seeing floating about is that the ancient Egyptians trained baboons to wait on tables. I really seriously doubt that they did on a regular basis - one reference somewhere probably spawned repeating of this, which is simply too easy to have fun with (“We currently use unemployed actors for the same task.” … “Some resturaunts seem to continue the practice to this day.” … fill in your own wiseass remark). It may, however, be the case that the Egyptians tried to domesticate baboons - I’ve also run across statements that they trained them to perform various menial tasks, like picking fruit. The baboon was at one point a sacred animal to the Egyptians, due to their association with Thoth. According to this, the Egyptians, at least the wealthy ones, had some interesting pets, including baboons:
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/ethnoarchaeology/ethnozoology/epets.html
Sounds less improbable than the two entries above it.
What a horrifying story.
Historically, animals have been domesticated to either provide food (cattle, pigs) or to do things humans can’t do (dogs to track scents, horses to carry large loads, etc.). Primates were never domesticated for food because they aren’t docile, and in general offer a poor meat:size ratio. Likewise, they’re not used for other reasons because there isn’t anything useful they can do that a human can’t. Any attempt to train them would likely take far longer than just doing the task oneself, or enslaving a more intelligent human to do it.
Or paying other humans to do for you.
The Field Museum in Chicago has them being used by the police to nab miscreants as well.
“Smithers, release the baboons!”
Thanks for all the responses. Although I have to say this is one of the more depressing threads I have read on the SDMB.
No monkey butler for me. :mad:
Personally, I like the anecdote noted by Benjamin Beck, in his 1980 book Animal Tool Behavior: The Use and Manufacture of Tools by Animals. A paraphrase is:
From http://wvwv.essortment.com/primatesmammal_rrtr.htm.
So no monkey carpenter for you, either.
You might be able to have an ape flint-knife maker.
'Course, it probably isn’t a good idea to try and domesticate a strong, resourceful, escape-prone animal, AND teach him how to built weapons that won’t show up on a metal detector. :eek:
A dog is already domesticated so domestication only really applies to the wolf. Wolves and dogs are pretty different.