
A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves - hacknrk
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/how-humans-tamed-themselves/580447/
======
Toine
This is just one more "proof" of René Girard's mimetic theory. The scapegoat
mechanism at the core of all human societies was heavily explained and
documented 50 years ago. René Girard, whose theories heavily influenced the
world vision of Peter Thiel and many more, is still dramatically absent in
this kind of articles. I'm not sure why. His mimetic theory absolutely
revolutionized the field of anthropology, theology, and many more should come.
I strongly suggest reading Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World.
Changed my life.

~~~
devoply
I really wonder how these ideas are such a revelation, we are still
domesticating people just look at the prison system, what do you think that's
all about?

~~~
Toine
I'm not sure I can summarize such a global theory in a comment, but basically,
he started from a simple truth : the mimetic nature of humans. You want what
you want, not because of the intrinsic qualities of objects, but because
you're imitating others. Inevitably, this leads to rivalry and conflict.
Animals deal with this violence with what we call dominance patterns : the
loser will very often yield to the now dominant animal, and the entire society
will be ruled with complex hierarchies based on this. However, humans are too
mimetic to be able to end violence like that. In our species, unrestricted
violence ends in death. It can then rapidly spread across the community and
bring chaos. The way primitive humans have dealt with this conflict is to turn
the blame on someone else, the scapegoat, which suddenly turns into a
primitive sacred being. At first, he is seen as an evil being responsible for
all the chaos. Then, after being sacrificed, he is seen as the ultimate savior
of the community. You now have the mechanism creating primitive religions.

English isn't my native language, I hope I've been clear enough so that you
can imagine the enormous consequences of such a ground-breaking theory on
every aspect of human life. I suggest reading the books.

------
blacksqr
Funny, Freud suggested something very similar in _Totem and Taboo_, and faced
a lot of ridicule for it. Would be interesting if he were finally vindicated
to some extent.

~~~
tossaccount123
Common sense would tell you there's some truth to it. For centuries we killed
murderers and rapists and thus removed them from the gene pool. Data shows
testosterone levels, which are correlated with violence, have dropped
massively over the last few decades, whether that is genetic or environmental
and to what extent for each is up for debate

WWI and WII basically selected to kill off Europe's bravest and most
nationalistic men, those who immediately signed up to fight and were thrown in
the meat grinder.

I'm partly convinced that's why America is so different from Europe, we
managed to avoid most of the carnage of those wars

~~~
toasterlovin
Don't forget that immigrants to America were probably skewed toward certain
personality types. And, of course, all personality traits are heritable to
some degree.

------
vmh1928
Bonobos compete for genetic dominance at the level of sperm. They are what we
would call promiscuous, the females mate with multiple partners. He with the
greatest volume of seamen and sperm washes out the competition. There's no
need to be aggressive in person. Bonobo testicles are very large compared to,
say, humans. Southern right whales are very similar in their mating habits. On
the other hand, species where the male physically secures the females - elk,
blue whales, humans, have much smaller testes and rely on physical ability to
fend off other male challengers and secure their own genetic future. These
traits were set in place long before "culture" developed. Culture is the
result of these physical / genetic traits, not the cause.

~~~
klyrs
So you're saying that it's the culture of everybody fucking everybody that
brings world peace. Hippie

------
sadris
Yeah of course. Violence, like all traits, is moderately heritable 1.
Europeans engaged in a multi century eugenics program after the Christian
church took over society 2. They executed 2% of their most violent every
generation. This resulted in a severe decline in criminality across the
European population group.

1\.
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-011-9483-0](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-011-9483-0)

2\.
[http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1474704915013001...](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470491501300114)

------
hyperpallium
Neoteny is the retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood. The
constellation of traits that emerge when selecting for friendliness (foxes:
[https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_fox](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_fox))
seem to be neotenous. So dogs are puppies, cats are kittens, and men and women
are children.

Friendly people are selected for, by the benefits of cooperation, trade and
civilization.

tl;dr the civilization of humans was their domestication

------
danieltillett
This is the old theory that the nobility domesticated peasants while the
peasants were domesticating animals.

~~~
navaati
In my reading of the TFA, it's not. It's the idea that less aggressive
individual were naturally selected, partly via sexual selection of the males
by the females, partly by pruning of the most violent individuals by the whole
group.

Nothing to do with the domestication of one group by another.

~~~
porpoisely
I see that theory about female selection being pushed a lot lately, but it's a
fairly easily debunked theory.

Female selection didn't occur in human society. Females didn't get to choose
who they married. Rather it was the men who decided which females marry which
male.

Also, there is far less diversity in the Y chromosome than the X. The best
possible explanation is during ancient tribal war, the winning side killed all
the males of the losing tribe and bred with the females.

Also, we have evidence that the greatest genetic winners are warriors/leaders
like genghis khan and charlemagne.

Historical, genetic and biological evidence debunks the female selection
theory.

As for the "pruning of violent individuals by the whole group". That too is
nonsense. It is the most violent group who establishes order. Law and order
isn't anything the group decided on. Rather law and order is something a small
group of violent elites forced on the masses.

Think about the US. The group didn't vote on independence. Rather it was a
small group of violent elites. During the revolution, at most 30% of the
colonial population supported independence.

Think about the current world order ( aka international order ). Nobody voted
for it. It was forced on the world by 2 world wars, 1 cold war and 200 million
dead people.

Or look at china. Tens of millions of people died in order for order to be
enforced on that gigantic nation.

The idea that female selection or pruning of violent individuals is how humans
tamed themselves simply isn't true. Also, the idea that humans tamed
themselves is simply a lie as well. We were tamed through law, order and lots
of violence. Also, full bellies and distractions ( bread and circuses )
helped.

~~~
pdpi
I think you missed a very important detail: Everything you wrote talks in
terms of groups. There's a cutoff level of aggression past which individuals
wouldn't be able to function as a group.

Evolution doesn't work in terms of positively selecting the "strong", it works
by selecting out the "weak". In this case, the point isn't that we positively
selected the most peaceful. Instead, we selected out those so violent they
wouldn't even be able to organise into a tribe.

~~~
porpoisely
But "tribalism" predates humans. Living in groups is a trait that humans
inherited, not something we developed.

Now we may have refined it and grown it to form tribe of tribes, but the point
still stands.

When it comes to humans, we have to talk in terms of groups because that's the
human experience. Humans don't exist outside of a group. Humans never have
existed outside of a group. The "group" is what we inherited from our non-
human ancestors.

Also, my point isn't that we selected the most peaceful. It's that female
selection isn't the drive force behind human "evolution" or the human
"taming". Humans were tamed through sheer brutality and concentrated power
along with bread and circuses.

Take away the bread and circuses and loosen the concentration of power and I
doubt we'd be as tame as we are now.

~~~
simonh
Domesticated isn’t the same thing as non-violent or even ‘tame’ as the term is
usually used. It doesn’t even mean civilised. Rottweilers are domesticated. A
small pet dog ate half the face off its owner, while she was alive, in France
when she collapsed at home and it got hungry, yet it was a normal domestic pet
dog.

I would agree that communal group living as seen in many primates is a
precursor to the sort of domestication we’re talking about here. It’s a first
step on a long road.

Yes Genghis Khan was violent and brutal, but he was also an inspiring leader
that built alliances and administered a vast empire. He ate his meals using
utensils, at regular times of the day, was able to be cordial and open minded
about strangers.

He was first and foremost extremely disciplined and self-controlled. He was
able to be taught and trained as a child, learn rules and commands and was
able to control his immediate biological needs and desires especially when
under external discipline.

Even that isn’t the whole story though. Cows and pigs are domesticated and
display all the adaptive characteristics that come with it.

~~~
porpoisely
I didn't say domestication was the same as non-violent or "tame" or civilized.
I didn't even mention the word.

My point is that humans were tamed through brutality and force and bread and
circuses. And just like you little dog, when we run out of bread and circuses
or an authority, we are capable of being violent again.

It seems like you want to disagree with me but everything you wrote agrees
with me so I'm not sure how to respond.

------
c3534l
New? This was part of the philosophy in Fight Club. I remember hearing Chuck
Palahniuk talk about it. Ted Kaczynski (of all people) believed humans had
domesticated ourselves. I'm not sure what to make of an article that boldly
claims "Wrangham grapples fully for the first time" with a theory older than I
am. Certainly the author of the article didn't do his homework. Perhaps in the
book the author acknowledges he didn't come up with the theory - I can't say
without reading it. But clearly someone is grossly misrepresenting the facts
here.

~~~
krustyburger
From TFA: “In fact, Wrangham’s notion of human evolution powered by self-
domestication has an ancient lineage: The basic idea was first proposed by a
disciple of Aristotle’s named Theophrastus and has been debated several times
since the 18th century. This latest version, too, is bound to provoke
controversy, but that’s what bold theorizing is supposed to do.“

~~~
drilldrive
Okay, but the headline does say "bold theory", which is a mischaracterization,
yes?

