A new model suggests dogs may have self-domesticated, drawn to human settlements by access to discarded food scraps. This theory proposes that bolder, less aggressive wolves were more likely to approach humans and scavenge, gaining a selective advantage. Over generations, this preference for readily available "snacks" from human waste piles, along with reduced fear of humans, could have gradually led to the evolution of the domesticated dog. The model focuses on how food availability influenced wolf behavior and ultimately drove the domestication process without direct human intervention in early stages.
The concept of the "alpha wolf" – a dominant individual who violently forces their way to the top of a pack – is a misconception stemming from studies of unrelated, captive wolves. Natural wolf packs, observed in the wild, actually function more like families, with the "alpha" pair simply being the breeding parents. These parents guide the pack through experience and seniority, not brute force. The original captive wolf research, which popularized the alpha myth, created an artificial environment of stress and competition, leading to behaviors not representative of wild wolf dynamics. This flawed model has not only misrepresented wolf behavior but also influenced theories of dog training and human social structures, promoting harmful dominance-based approaches.
HN users generally agree with the article's premise that the "alpha wolf" concept, based on observations of captive, unrelated wolves, is a flawed model for wild wolf pack dynamics, which are more family-oriented. Several commenters point out that the original researcher, David Mech, has himself publicly disavowed the alpha model. Some discuss the pervasiveness of the myth in popular culture and business, lamenting its use to justify domineering behavior. Others extend the discussion to the validity of applying animal behavior models to human social structures, and the dangers of anthropomorphism. A few commenters offer anecdotal evidence supporting the family-based pack structure, and one highlights the importance of female wolves in the pack.
Summary of Comments ( 30 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43168534
Hacker News users discussed the "self-domestication" hypothesis, with some skeptical of the model's simplicity and the assumption that wolves were initially aggressive scavengers. Several commenters highlighted the importance of interspecies communication, specifically wolves' ability to read human cues, as crucial to the domestication process. Others pointed out the potential for symbiotic relationships beyond mere scavenging, suggesting wolves might have offered protection or assisted in hunting. The idea of "survival of the friendliest," not just the fittest, also emerged as a key element in the discussion. Some users also drew parallels to other animals exhibiting similar behaviors, such as cats and foxes, furthering the discussion on the broader implications of self-domestication. A few commenters mentioned the known genetic differences between domesticated dogs and wolves related to starch digestion, supporting the article's premise.
The Hacker News post titled "Dogs may have domesticated themselves because they liked snacks, model suggests" has generated several comments discussing the article's premise and offering alternative perspectives on dog domestication.
Several commenters express skepticism about the "self-domestication" hypothesis. One commenter argues that the availability of human-generated waste wouldn't necessarily select for tameness, pointing out that other scavengers like rats and foxes haven't been domesticated despite access to similar resources. They suggest that active human selection was crucial for the emergence of dog-like traits. Another commenter echoes this sentiment, emphasizing the importance of intentional human intervention, possibly for practical purposes like guarding or assistance with hunting.
One commenter proposes an alternative theory involving wolves with a less pronounced flight response gradually integrating themselves into human settlements, benefiting from both food scraps and reduced competition from more skittish wolves. This commenter points out that modern feral dogs often display a fear of humans, suggesting that tameness isn't an inherent trait.
The idea of human intentionality is further explored by a commenter who suggests humans might have actively selected for specific traits like retrieving, even before fully domesticating dogs. This commenter uses the example of modern hunters utilizing semi-wild dogs to illustrate this point.
Another line of discussion focuses on the genetic and behavioral differences between dogs and wolves. One commenter highlights the specific genetic changes in dogs related to starch digestion, suggesting a crucial adaptation for thriving on human-provided food. This commenter argues that these changes point towards a more complex interplay of factors beyond simple scavenging.
There's also a brief discussion about the "camp dog" theory, which posits that tamer wolves would have been more likely to linger around human campsites, gaining access to food scraps and potentially forming early bonds with humans. One commenter links to a relevant study exploring the genetics of early dog domestication, supporting this theory.
Finally, some comments offer humorous or anecdotal observations. One commenter jokes about the universal appeal of snacks, while another shares a personal anecdote about a friendly fox. These comments, while not directly related to the scientific discussion, add a touch of levity to the overall conversation.
In summary, the comments on Hacker News present a range of perspectives on dog domestication, challenging the article's "snack-driven self-domestication" theory and highlighting the potential role of human selection, genetic adaptations, and a complex interplay of environmental and behavioral factors.