• marzhall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Literally had put the book down at this section when I saw this post. Was like seeing double.

      That said, I think the “who domesticated whom” question is a little bit of a farce in itself. In reality, there’s no agent making informed decisions to domesticate; it’s the result of two adjacent processes benefiting from being around each other, and over time, variations in the communities that fit the environment better sticking around. “Simple” evolution. Ascribing agency to it seems a little silly.

    • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I was just about to bring that book up! I’m reading it now and it’s fascinating.

      The Dawn of Everything for people who are interested.

      Drawing on pathbreaking research in archaeology and anthropology, the authors show how history becomes a far more interesting place once we learn to throw off our conceptual shackles and perceive what’s really there. If humans did not spend 95 percent of their evolutionary past in tiny bands of hunter-gatherers, what were they doing all that time? If agriculture, and cities, did not mean a plunge into hierarchy and domination, then what kinds of social and economic organization did they lead to? The answers are often unexpected, and suggest that the course of human history may be less set in stone, and more full of playful, hopeful possibilities, than we tend to assume.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      I really like how the first farmers were just “let’s seed these banks that are flooded every season and wait, because we sure as fuck are NOT going to till the soil, fill it with manure and keep the weeds away, especially when I can just walk around for 5 minutes and get some stuff to eat”