[hchasestevens]

> "Domestication" is just a word for a natural evolutionary processes in a symbiotic system. The concept that "domestication" is like, actually a thing apart from evolution is a vastly more difficult idea to parse than it appears on it's face.

In mammals, there is a well-established "domestication syndrome" with a specific proposed underlying mechanism and associated symptoms, including many observed in humans in comparison with other hominids (smaller jaws/muzzles, smaller teeth, smaller brain, greater docility). See https://www.genetics.org/content/197/3/795#skip-link for more information.

[scoofy]

The concept that some animals are able to be domesticated, generally, while other's are not, lends itself to the idea that drift toward docile qualities is probably working in the domesticator's favor, and is not an inherent quality of domestication as a concept.

The idea that we have an idea of a thing we can readily point at, does not mean that thing is the driving force behind it. It's just a post hoc argument. We can't domesticate zebras, we can domesticate horses. The idea that 'domestication' is a force, rather than a result of evolutionary pressure of a symbiotic relationship shows that the domestication can't be the driving force. It's just evolution.

I'm not arguing the concept that domestication syndrome doesn't exist. I obviously defer to these experts, I'm just arguing that the concept that free, independent humans 'domesticate themselves' is effectively nonsensical on it's face, as domestication, as such, requires symbiosis and controlled breeding, and is simply not possible for many species.