Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
You've demonstrated a certain special symbiosis between human and canine populations through history. It seems that just as humans have gotten into feuds and wars between each other, so have some human and canine populations fallen out at various levels. Maybe, when humans are hunters, canine friends, domesticated dogs, might help a lot. When humans aren't hunting as much as a main source of food, canine's become pets and monsters , dogs and werewolves; or dogs become food. For one thing, we might not worry about being too vulgar materialistic in hypothesizing about the causes of the changes in the symbiosis. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
On 4/16/10, CeJ wrote: Well, same genus (smile). They can't interbreed, which defines a species. Actually you could cross a toy dog with a wolf and get viable offspring. CB: Yes, you are correct. Evidently, doesn't have to be a toy dog. By the way, the test of intra-species is _fertile_ offspring, but evidently dog-wolf hybrid offspring are fertile. (Horse-donkey offspring are viable mules, but I think mules are not fertile). Wolf-dog hybrid Main article: Wolf-dog hybrid The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated form of the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus lupus), and therefore belongs to the same species as other wolves such as the Dingo (Canis lupus dingo). Therefore crosses between these sub-species are unremarkable, and not a hybridization in the same sense as an interbreeding between different species of Canidae. People wanting to improve domestic dogs or create an exotic pet may breed domestic dogs to wolves. Grey wolves have been crossed with dogs that have a wolf-like appearance, such as Siberian Huskies, and Alaskan Malamutes. The breeding of wolf-dog crosses is controversial, with opponents purporting that it produces an animal unfit as a domestic pet. There are a number of established wolfdog breeds in development. The first generation crosses (one wolf parent, one dog parent) are generally back crossed to domestic dogs to maintain a domestic temperament and consistent conformation. First generation wolf-dog crosses are popular in the USA, but retain many wolf-like traits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid ^ But there is the physical difficulties of them having intercourse. And domesticated dogs' offspring don't make good nurturing fathers, a socialized trait that wolves, coyotes and dingoes have. So there are more considerations than genomes and chromosome counts when we talk about inter-breeding (or intra-breeding). You could say just as the wheat genome is really the combined genome of 6 grasses and the wolf genome actually comprises wolf-coyote-dingo-domesticated dog, with a few exceptions. So as some have pointed out that is what makes the eastcoast US 'coy-dog' problematic. However, I think it is possible in the case of some sort of coyote-wolf-dog mix taking over new territory, considering how quickly dogs that go feral can form cooperative packs and how dingoes were domesticated dogs but are now more like wolves and coyotes. CB: Here's some more on what you discuss http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid Genetic considerations Many members of the dog family can interbreed to produce fertile offspring. Molecular analysis indicates 4 divisions of canids: Wolf-like canids including the domestic dog, gray wolf, coyote, indian wolf, and the jackals The South American canids Old and New World red-foxlike canids, for example, red foxes and kit foxes Monotypic species, for example, bat-eared fox and raccoon dog The wolf (including the dingo and domestic dog), coyote, and jackal, all have 78 chromosomes arranged in 39 pairs. This allows them to hybridise freely (barring size or behavioural constraints) and produce fertile offspring. The wolf, coyote, and golden jackal diverged around 3 to 4 million years ago. Other members of the dog family diverged 7 to 10 million years ago and are less closely related and cannot hybridise with the wolf-like canids: the yellow Jackal has 74 chromosomes, the red fox has 38 chromosomes, the raccoon dog has 42 chromosomes, and the Fennec fox has 64 chromosomes. Although the African Wild Dog has 78 chromosomes, it is considered distinct enough to be placed in its own genus. I don't think gnats are. I think the birds that come in to feed on a lot of the nuisance insects on large herbivores is, whatever the technical term, not contentious. The birds know the big juicy bugs will be near the herds. The animals know the birds will bring some relief. CB: Well , you know the general term for inter-species cooperation is symbiosis. There is quite a bit of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis Symbiosis Clownfish amid sea anemone tentaclesThe term symbiosis (from the Greek: σύν syn with; and βίωσις biosis living) commonly describes close and often long-term interactions between different biological species. The term was first used in 1879 by the German mycologist Heinrich Anton de Bary, who defined it as the living together of unlike organisms.[1][2] The definition of symbiosis is in flux, and the term has been applied to a wide range of biological interactions. The symbiotic relationship may be categorized as mutualistic, commensal, or parasitic in nature.[3][4] Others define it more narrowly, as only those relationships from which both organisms benefit, in which case it would be synonymous with mutualism.[1][5][6] Symbiotic relationships include those associations in which one organism lives on another (ectosymbiosis, such as mistletoe), or where one partner lives inside the other
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
Name highly intelligent social species that organize as groups and cooperate to protect three successive generations in extended families and clans (one key aspect being nurturing fathers in addition to nurturing mothers). Humans and wolves come to mind. But isn't even more fascinating that these two species should be so intimately involved with each other since the start of 'human civilization'? The wolf becomes the enemy of humans once humans are with wolf-dogs. The wolf represents a social top-of-the-food chain cooperative hunter who is still in the niche we have aimed to monopolize for ourselves (throwing the scraps to our wolf-dogs) but stands off and away from human civilization. Regardless of chromosomes and theories of co-evolution, it's hard to argue against the profundity of human-animal social cooperation in the case of these species: wolf-dogs (we become transgenerational hunters, manipulators and masters of huge herds of herbivores), the 'house' cat (we can store huge amounts of grain, at least in dry climates like Egypt, Mesopotamia), and the horse (look how quickly the Mongols and the Lakota Sioux organized themselves once they had the horses). How can you care what your ancestors knew and wanted to pass on to you if you don't give a toss about your own grandparents? Wolves and humans do. In areas of Central Asia, there is still this stand-off between humans and wolves. Wolf packs know not to prey on the humans' herds (managed with wolf-dogs). Central Asians do not attempt to hunt down wolves in order to eliminate them from their herding/grazing territory. The only wolf that preys on humans' herds is the occasional 'lone wolf' that can not join a pack or form a new one with a mate. This lone wolf will be hunted down and killed. One method is to use trained eagles who literally trail the lone wolf from the air until it is exhausted and then they kill it. I wonder if this is one of the reasons why the eagle became such a revered animal among North American tribes (I don't know enough about animal husbandry amongst these peoples, but the Incans were great domesticators of herbivores). I am also thinking that the ancients had hunches about social human-wolf origins. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_children_in_mythology_and_fiction In mythology and ancient literature Enkidu, raised by unspecified beasts, becomes the friend of the hero Gilgamesh. (see also Epic of Gilgamesh) The brothers Romulus and Remus, raised by a wolf, become the founders of Rome. In Turkic mythology, the female wolf Asena finds an injured child following a devastating battle and nurses him back to health. He subsequently impregnates her, and she gives birth to ten half-wolf, half-human boys. Of these, Ashina becomes their leader and founder of the clan that ruled the Göktürks and other Turkic nomadic empires.[2][3] The legend has parallels with folktales of other Turkic peoples, for instance, the Uyghurs. In Ibn Tufail's Hayy ibn Yaqdhan, Hayy is raised by a gazelle on a desert island and becomes an autodidactic philosopher. In Ibn al-Nafis' Theologus Autodidactus, Kamil is also raised by animals on a deserted island, and becomes an autodidactic scientist and theologian. [edit] In modern prose An early modern example of a feral child comes from Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book. His protagonist, Mowgli, is raised by wolves and becomes the ruler of the jungle. Tarzan, raised by apes, has become an iconic hero of novels, comic strips, and motion pictures. Peter Pan, created by J. M. Barrie, is a boy who fled to the magical Neverland and refused to grow up. Shasta of the Wolves (1919) by Olaf Baker, in which a Native American boy is raised by a wolfpack in the Pacific Northwest. Jungle Born (1924) by John Eyton, in which a boy raised by apes in northern India inadvertently saves a teenage girl from her abusive father. The theme of young adolescent runaways seeking shelter with wild animals and learning their ways is seen in novels such as the Newbery Medal-winning novel Julie of the Wolves by Jean Craighead George. Jane Yolen's Passager (1996), the first of the Young Merlin trilogy of short novels, depicts a slightly more realistic view of such childhood. Abandoned in a Welsh forest at the age of seven years, the boy who will become Merlin lives in the forest for a year nearly as well as its natives, until a falconer who is used to domesticating animals captures him and begins the long and difficult task of educating him in human behavior. In Karen Hesse's The Music of Dolphins, a young girl called Mila is found after having been raised by dolphins for over a decade. In the book, Mila is taken to a clinic with other undomesticated human young, none of whom adapt to main-stream humanity as easily as she does. At the end of the book, Mila returns to the dolphin pod, showing her rejection of human society. In the series starting with Through Wolf's Eyes by author Jane Lindskold, a young girl's family
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
And here we see the co-evolution of gesturing. Humans have gestures, wolves have gestures, but wolves do not understand human gestures. However, dogs do. The example of the dingo is most illuminating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo#Social_behavior Other forms of communication During observations, growling made up 65% of the observed vocalizations. It was always used in an agonistic context, as well as for dominance and reactively as a defence sound. Similar to many other domestic dogs, a reactive usage of defensive growling could only be observed rarely or not at all. Growling very often occurs in combination with other sounds, and was observed almost exclusively in swooshing noises (similar to barking). Mix-sounds, mostly growl-mixes, are mostly emitted in an agonistic context.[15] During observations in Germany, there was a sound found among Australian dingoes which the observers called Schrappen. It was only observed in an agonistic context, mostly as a defence against obtrusive pups or for defending resources. It was described as a bite intention, where the receiver is never touched or hurt. Only a silent, but significant, clashing of the teeth could be heard.[15] Aside from vocal communication, dingoes communicate like all domestic dogs via scent marking specific objects (e.g. spinifex) or places (waters, trails, hunting grounds, etc.) using chemical signals from their urine, feces, and scent glands. Males scent-mark more frequently than females, especially during the mating season. They also scent-rub whereby a dog rolls on its neck, shoulders, or back on something that is usually associated with food or the scent markings of other dogs.[4] Unlike wolves, dingoes can react to social cues and gestures from humans. [ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
This is an absolutely fascinating page about wolves and other wolf-like canines. What strikes me most when reading it, is that the sheer utter success of the wolves and coyotes in being top-predator in all the places that humans eventually got to. It also shows me I know very little about wolves, but they are a fascinating group of beings to co-evolve with. It seems most likely that the coy-dogs of E. US are not coyote-dog mixes but red wolf-dog mixes, although the coyote is hybridizing with red wolves. I like the story of a coyote who made a point with a dog owner: he attacked the guys shepherd and didn't kill him, but left him 'emasculated'. http://hal_macgregor.tripod.com/kennel/wolves.html CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
Tie these two sets of information together, and we might be able to theorize some plausible scenarios for Neanderthal extinction. When you look at Neanderthal vs. Cro Magnon, you have to ask why in particular Cro Magnon survives and carries on the human line, but Neanderthals go extinct. One expert on Neanderthals and Cro Magnons argues that Cro Magnons mastered fires, burnt woodlands (hunting in which Neanderthals were better at) which created at least pockets of plains, which were better for herds of animals to be hunted (and then later managed and hunted, and then later domesticated). This seems plausible because we know that MesoAmericans and AmerIndians did this--creating areas for larger buffalo populations. They later got the horse when the Spaniards brought them, so before this they would have had to hunt buffalos on foot with dogs. Another point: burning woodlands drives the wolves off the land (even if they adapt to prairie they lose their social cohesiveness and live in smaller numbers) but perhaps helps turn them into dogs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal Additionally, Neanderthals evidently had little long-term planning when securing food. French caves show almost no salmon bones during Neanderthal occupancy but large numbers during Cro-Magnon occupancy. In contrast, Cro-Magnons planned for salmon runs months ahead of time, getting enough people together at just the right time and place to catch a lot of fish. Neanderthals appear to have had little to no social organization beyond the immediate family unit. Why Neanderthal psychology was different from the modern humans that they coexisted with for millennia is not known.[36] Due to the paucity of symbolism that Neanderthal artifacts show, Neanderthal language probably did not deal much with a verbal future tense, again restricting Neanderthal exploitation of resources. Cro-Magnon people had a much better standard of living than the hardscrabble existence available to Neanderthals. With better language skills and bigger social groups, a better psychological repertoire, and better planning, Cro-Magnon people, living alongside the Neanderthals on the same land, outclassed them in terms of life span, population, available spare time (as shown by Cro-Magnon art), physical health and lower rate of injury, infant mortality, comfort, quality of life, and food procurement. The advantages held by Cro-Magnon people let them by this time to thrive in worse climatic conditions than their Neanderthal counterparts. As weather worsened about 30,000 years ago, Jordan notes it would have taken only one or two thousand years of inferior Neanderthal skills to cause them to go extinct, in light of better Cro-Magnon performance in all these areas.[36] About 55,000 years ago, the weather began to fluctuate wildly from extreme cold conditions to mild cold and back in a matter of a few decades. Neanderthal bodies were well suited for survival in cold climate- their barrel chests and stocky limbs stored body heat better than the Cro-Magnons. However the rapid fluctuations of weather caused ecological changes that the Neanderthals could not adapt to. The weather changes were so rapid that within a lifetime the plants and animals that one had grown up would be replaced by completely different plants and animals. Neanderthal's ambush techniques would have failed as grasslands replaced trees. A large number of Neanderthals would have died during these fluctuations which maximized about 30,000 years ago. [102] Studies on Neanderthal body structures have shown than they needed more energy to survive than the Cro-Magnon man. Their energy needs were up to 350 calories more per day compared to the Cro-Magnon man. When food became scarce this calorie for survival difference played a major role in Neanderthal extinction. [102] Jordan states the Chatelperronian tool tradition suggests Neanderthals were making some attempts at advancement, as Chatelperronian tools are only associated with Neanderthal remains. It appears this tradition was connected to social contact with Cro-Magnons of some sort. There were some items of personal decoration found at these sites, but these are inferior to contemporary Cro-Magnon items of personal decoration and arguably were made more by imitation than by a spirit of original creativity. At the same time, Neanderthal stone tools were sometimes finished well enough to show some aesthetic sense.[36] As Jordan notes: A natural sympathy for the underdog and the disadvantaged lends a sad poignancy to the fate of the Neanderthal folk, however it came about.[3 http://www.swampfox.demon.co.uk/utlah/Articles/origins1.html Paxton then takes this theory another step forward. By using carbon dating and other anthropological techniques it is known that mankind itself was undergoing a radical evolutionary change during the same period that dogs were being domesticated. We now know that there were actually two separate bipedal ape species
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
On 4/14/10, Carrol Cox cb...@ilstu.edu wrote: I like a speculation by the aughor of The Monkey in the Mirror (I forget his name just now) as to the origin of language. First, he assumes (which seems right to me) that the cpacity for language was a spandrel, not a trait in itself seleced for. Then he tells the story of a tropp of monkeys who lived by a beach, most of their food was sandy. Some infants begin washing it in the surf, and after a time the whole monkey tribe was washing their food. It was a pure invention rather than an evolved trait, and it was an invention of the young. Then he notes that Neanderthals and humans shared the earth for about 60k years, but suddenly in Europe, over a 5k period, the Neanderthals disappeared 40k years ago: at the same time that symbolic as well as playful cave paintings appeared. His sdpeculation: language was invented by children; probably invented several times in different places before at some point it caught on among adults, at which point it would have become species-wide almost instantly. The idea of language as an invention emerging from play (which is a kind of ritual) makes a lot of sense. For the most part language would have been no selective advantage, and perhaps a handicap, for ealry paleolithic life. They only needed signals, not symbols. (We are still apt to use signals rather than symbols or discourse in emergency situations.) And there have been reports of children ignored by the adults developing their own language among themselves: it's a real possibility. Carrol ^^^ CB: My speculative story is that language and symboling was invented by mothers to communicate with their children, toys and such. On Carrol's discussion of the relationship of language to human adaptation and natural selective advantage, I'd say that language , culture and symbolling were _the_ major adaptive advantage for the human species _especially_ in its earliest years. Language may have arisen as a spandrel, but it very early on became selected for, i.e. gave enormous adaptive advantage over those species in a similar niche who did not have language. On the idea that the early humans only needed signs and in emergencies, their behavior in non-emergency and pre-emergency situations are just as important to adaptation and selective advantage as behavior in emergencies. Emergencies would be largely avoiding falling prey to predators. But in the role of predator-hunter and food gatherer, hunter-gatherer-forager, planning is critical, not reaction to ermergencies. And language would give great advantage in planning. Overall, all human labor including in that of the earliest humans is enhanced enormously by its _social_ nature. Language, myths, stories about ancestors hunting and gathering expands this social nature back generations. A hunting and gathering group of humans has its ancestors hunting and gathering with them because of language, myth, kinship systems, and this makes it highly social. The great sociality is an enormous adaptive advantage compared to species that do not have this sociality. The great enhancement of sociality that language and culture give bestows and enormous adaptive advantage on humans, from the beginning of the species. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
I wrote:However, as the canine research and speculation gets at: apes are pretty much socially selfish and have no extended social sense. Moreover, their grasp of meaningful gesture is less than canines. This could be a weakness in the argument if it could be shown that great apes do organize socially to the extent that wolf packs. Now the thing to remember about a wolf pack is that not only does it take in a considerable number of wolves, it doesn't necessarily just include close family, and perhaps more importantly, it organizes in order to hunt and manipulate large herds of animals for future hunts. I do not think there is anything comparable in the great apes. Certainly not orangutans. The meat-eating chimps supplement their diet, hunt monkeys in small groups, and do not take the meat back to the larger group. The isolated, vegetarian mountain gorillas look to be the most socially organized, but I'm not an expert on great apes. So perhaps another key shift here is how our homonid ancestors out of Africa became omnivores who tended more towards carnivore. It would be ironic that dogs helped us to become carnivores (which we now imitate by mass animal husbandry, culminating in the corporate burgers people eat everyday). While one of the ultimate carnivores, little desert cats, helped us to become grain eaters. Now there is a connection between the two in modern day life because our mass animal husbandry relies on mass production of grain (100% all-American CORNFED beef), and we re-pay our debt to the two species by feeding them unhealthy corn-based dry foods. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
A couple more things about wolves, coyotes and dingoes. The wolf pack in the wild tends to be an extended family group, but it is also important to remember it is across several generations. Second, a new pack of any of these species is formed between unrelated animals, most usually a male and female progenitor hooking up and starting. I think it is also possible that packs can fragment and the new groups disperse. While evolutionists have argued that one way the Eurasian gray wolf has survived the depredations of humans is by morphing into the domesticated dog, the related coyote (a new world evolutionary development) tends to thrive where the wolf has been extirpated. A complication on this is that in the areas that are well-inhabited by humans, coy-dogs are also part of the mix. And the dingoes of Australia are the descendants of domesticated dogs (when domesticated dogs were wolf- or coyote- like hunting, herding, guarding, fighting companions to humans) are now threatened by inter-breeding with escaped domesticated dogs of Australia, but I would bet the greater threat is simply human incroachment and predation. As for the sort of evolutionary pressure humans can exert on such species, it can happen quickly and profoundly. In E. Russia where families keep foxes in order to kill them for the fur and sell it for cash, a pattern emerged: many families would adopt a favorite fox kit because it was the cutest of the bunch. With the breeding of such 'cute' foxes, in several generations a new 'type' of fox emerged, one that looked much more like the human 'archetype' for 'dog'! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo#Social_behavior Social behavior A pair of dingoes Although dingoes are usually seen alone (especially in areas where they are persecuted), most belong to a social group whose members meet from time to time and are permanently together during the mating season in order to breed and raise pups. Dingoes are generally highly social animals and form, where possible, stable packs with clearly defined territories, which only rarely overlap with the territories of neighbouring packs. Intruders are mostly killed. These packs as a rule consist of 3–12 individuals (mostly the alpha-pair, as well as the current litter and the previous year's litter), who occupy a territory throughout the whole year. However, there are regional variants which show the flexible social structure of the dingo. Apparently, specialization on bigger prey boosts social behaviour and the formation of bigger groups. During times of drought, packs in Australia fragment and the mortality rate of all the members, regardless of social status, is very high.[8] Packs have different (but not completely separate) hierarchies for males and females, and the ranking order is mostly established through ritualized aggression, especially among males. Overawing and agonistic behaviour occurs only in a reduced state among Australian dingoes. Serious fights could only be observed rarely and under extreme circumstances. Dogs of higher rank show this behaviour from time to time, to confirm their status, while those of lower rank are more prone to show conflict-preventive behaviour.[15] Bigger packs are often splintered into sub-groups of flexible size. Additionally, lone individuals can occur in already occupied areas and can have loose contact with the groups, including participation in foraging for food. Desert areas have smaller groups of dingoes with a more loose territorial behaviour and sharing of the water sites.[31] On Fraser Island, dingoes had pack sizes of two to nine dogs with overlapping territories. However, they had a very high rate of infanticide, probably due to the high density of the island's dingo-population when compared to the size of the island and prey population.[27] Four dingoes on a research station in Germany Territory size and individual areas change over time depending on the availability of prey, but are not connected to pack size. Wild dogs only rarely move outside of their territories. The areas of individuals can overlap. When territories of neighbouring packs overlap, the packs tend to avoid contact. How big the territory and home range of dogs are depends for the most part on the availability of prey. Home ranges are generally stable, but can change over time due to outside circumstances or changes in social organization. Individuals who start to detach themselves from the pack have bigger home ranges at first before they finally disperse.[8] Territories around human dominated areas tend to be smaller and contain a relatively higher number of dingoes due to the better availability of food. According to studies in Queensland, the local wild dogs in urban areas have smaller territories of occasionally only two to three square-kilometers in diameter. There, the existence of a territory of a single dingo could be proven, which only consisted of a small patch of bush near the fringe of a primary school in the heart
[Marxism-Thaxis] Wolves were the first communists, or why canines taught hominids how to be social
If our predecessors developed full-blown spoken language (from gesture to speech) while 'domesticating' dogs (from wolves), perhaps we need to reconsider the possibilties for co-evolution, with one result being full-blown language for humans. Consider that wolves have a more complex social structure than the great apes, and they understand human gesturing better than great apes do. Something has been going on here. Our destiny was to become post-modern humankind, and the canines became post-modern pets (and escaped wolf extinction). http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/s/275/Science/Coevolution03.pdf excerpts follow: Lupification of Canids When we talk about our own primate descent, about the hominization of Australopithecines, we are easily led to believe that our ancestors had nothing better to do than to leave their beastly existence behind and let those not worthy of becoming “humans” die out (Neanderthals, bushmen, or the like). In spite of accepting the new creed of Darwinian natural selection , we find comfort in our cherished belief to be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth, and subdue it… to have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. In other words, instead of seeing ourselves as part of the complex system of nature, we continue to pretend to be the very crown of creation. If wolves could dig up the dens of their ancestors in Europe, Asia, and North America, sniffing at the old bones of their dead and the bones left of their meals, what would they find? How would wolves view the lupification of their canid ancestors? --- Only during the last few thousand years did humans propel themselves in mass to the top of the food pyramid, displacing the canid pack hunters. -- In a fair comparison, Neanderthals were superior to wolves only in (1) having greater cognitive ability and foresight (reflected especially in their scouting and scavenging skills), (2) seeing better at longer distances (having an eye level twice that of wolves, able to cover four times an area in the steppe), and (3) being able to hit a distant target. The latter is especially significant in dealing with herds of ungulates, which tend not to run away from every little disturbance, but approach a serious predator with curiosity: --- Wolfkind Today Once a few Neanderthals had learned to live with wolves and adopt the pack algorithm (going beyond the close ties of kinship, learning to cooperate closely, and sharing risks) many alternative ways to make a living became available. Within this process of coevolution, technology transfer and diversification began to thrive. Humans became better gatherers, better hunters, more successful fishermen, gardeners, astronauts, you name it. Wolves became hunting companions, guards, sled pulls, beasts of burden, baby substitutes, toys, food, human substitutes in experiments, and the first “astronauts” to circle our planet. Today, man sits atop the food pyramid throughout the entire world. Reindeer are mostly out of sight, and of all the non-human mammalian species that roamed Eurasia 1 Ma BP, wolves were the most successful in increasing their numbers as dogs, that is, presumably followed by the aurochs -- Wolves meeting humans in a phase of the latter’s apprenticeship in wolf pastoralism and, in a subsequent process of coevolution, wolves becoming dogs and early humans becoming modern man, is a good alternative hypothesis to the current theories of domestication with man conquering beasts, including wolves, through cognitive superiority and to the bootstrapping theory of hominization with man domesticating himself (e.g., BUDIANSKY’s idea that wolves weaseled their way into our hearts as scavengers). --- As noted above, humankind separated from chimpanzee- like tree-dwelling and fruit-eating ancestors in Africa around 6 Ma BP and moved as true humans (Homo erectus) into the open savanna. In the absence of fruit trees, early humans turned into omnivorous gatherers and scavengers. Thanks to their superior brain power, they learned to discriminate among a multitude of resources, to avoid peril, e.g., by carrying a big stick and speaking softly (at least, at first) and to bluff the fierce predators into deserting their quarry. As cunning scavengers, they moved into the plains of Eurasia during the mild interglacials of the Ice Age, culminating in the successful Neanderthal of Europe and adjoining Asia. Meanwhile, around 150 ka BP the tribe of the legendary African Eve had emerged, and her daughters entered the Neanderthal domain. At this point, a strange coincidence occurred: at some time during the last ice age, our ancestors teamed up with pastoralist wolves (Figure 6). First, some humans adopted the wolves’ life style as herd followers and herders of reindeer, horses, and other hoofed animals. Wolves and humans had found their match, and “dogs” diversified and moved into other human
