site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31290 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Breaking being used by me as a synonym for taming

Yes, I know. The point is that taming is not domestication. Taming is done to an individual animal. Domestication is done to a species. The fact that one can tame an individual animal says nothing about whether one can, through artificial selection, engineer an animal with naturally tame traits.

Ok? Basically every-time we try breeding naturally tame traits these days the experiments show that the only real limit is them actually breeding enough and within our patience for trying.

engineer an animal with naturally tame traits.

The definition you gave earlier yourself says nothing about tameness, only about human interest, and another person already showed you that we did change zebras from their wild variant.

The definition you gave earlier yourself says nothing about tameness,

I was specifically responding to the following statement by anti_dan: "One of the main points of a domestication program is to breed tamer traits while not breeding wilder, more rambunctious individuals."

another person already showed you that we did change zebras from their wild variant.

Which person was that?

I was specifically responding to the following statement by anti_dan: "One of the main points of a domestication program is to breed tamer traits while not breeding wilder, more rambunctious individuals."

Well, it seems like the correct response was to point out that even breeding a more aggressive variant still counts as domestication, if this is what you wanted to accomplish.

Which person was that?

Esperanza

Well, it seems like the correct response was to point out that even breeding a more aggressive variant still counts as domestication, if this is what you wanted to accomplish.

Why would I say that, when my point was that his statement, "Zebras can be trained to be tame" says nothing about whether zebras can be domesticated?

Esperanza

? Esperanza makes an unsupported claim that "Zebras have been modified by being bred in captivity," and then goes on to conflate taming with domestication. His one concrete ostensible example, Lord Rothschild, is specifically mentioned by Diamond on page 171 of my edition, as an example of what domestication is not.

Why would I say that, when my point was that his statement, "Zebras can be trained to be tame" says nothing about whether zebras can be bred to be tame.

Because the response I suggested makes the same point without contradicting the definition of domesticability you cited, which is what your response did.

? Esperanza makes an unsupported claim that "Zebras have been modified by being bred in captivity," and then goes on to conflate taming with domestication.

The part that says the ones we have larger and smaller captively bread zebras does not conflate the two, and fulfills the criteria from your definition. The lack of support is a valid argument, and maybe @Esperanza can elaborate and provide sources. But keep in mind under these criteria, the claim that the captive zebras are the same as the wild ones is also unsourced, despite the amount of ink spilled saying "no one domsesticated zebras".

His one concrete ostensible example, Lord Rothschild, is specifically mentioned by Diamond on page 171 of my edition, as an example of what domestication is not.

He didn't cite is as an example of domesticability, it was a tangent.

Because the response I suggested makes the same point without contradicting the definition of domesticability you cited, which is what your response did.

? I really don't understand why you think that. I linked to a definitiin which says it is "the process of hereditary reorganization of wild animals and plants into domestic and cultivated forms according to the interests of people. In its strictest sense, it refers to the initial stage of human mastery of wild animals and plants. The fundamental distinction of domesticated animals and plants from their wild ancestors is that they are created by human labour to meet specific requirements or whims..." I elsewhere quoted this definition by Diamond: "domesticated animal is defined as an animal selectively bred in captivity and thereby modified from its wild ancestors, for use by humans who control the animal's breeding and food supply."

There is nothing contradictory about accepting that tameness is one of the "interests" or "specific requirements" or "modif[ications]" that humans might select for in a particular species.

The part that says the ones we have larger and smaller captively bread zebras does not conflate the two, and fulfills the criteria from your definition. The lack of support is a valid argument, and maybe @Esperanza can elaborate and provide sources. But keep in mind under these criteria, the claim that the captive zebras are the same as the wild ones is also unsourced,

Note that I referenced two articles re the guy mentioned who raises zebras in Utah or thereabouts, both of which referred to them as being the same as wild ones. Obviously reporters often get things wrong, but that is not "unsourced." In contrast, Esperanza seems to be making things up. I just looked at several zebra selling websites, and none make that claim. Note also that 1) there are larger and smaller species of zebra; and 2) Esperanza's claim isn't even about domestication, which involves changes at the species level, rather than merely repeatedly having your largest stallion and mare have sex, then selling the foals. If you are not cross breeding the foals over generations, you are not engaging in artificial selection.

He didn't cite is as an example of domesticability, it was a tangent

Not how I read it.

Btw, Esperanza says "Obviously, their breeding is controlled by humans, " but perhaps not. This place says: "Most adult female zebras we sell are exposed to males and usually pregnant."

There is nothing contradictory about accepting that tameness is one of the "interests" or "specific requirements" or "modif[ications]" that humans might select for in a particular species.

But you didn't say it was "one of" when responding to him, you made it's sound like it's only requirement.

By the way, I wanted to come back to my earlier point about "if it didn't happen, it's only because we didn't want it to". Do you still believe this is in any way an unreasonable statement, given that literally any feature we pick to change on whim will be enough to meet your criterion?

Note that I referenced two articles re the guy mentioned who raises zebras in Utah or thereabouts, both of which referred to them as being the same as wild ones. Obviously reporters often get things wrong

Sorry, there's been too much posted here for me to keep up, so I missed the articles you're talking about. Can you link them again? In any case it's not even about reporters getting it wrong, this has Menken's Bathtub written all over it, I doubt anyone checked if the zebras we've been keeping for the last 100-200 years exhibit any changes from the wild ones.

Esperanza's claim isn't even about domestication, which involves changes at the species level, rather than merely repeatedly having your largest stallion and mare have sex, then selling the foals. If you are not cross breeding the foals over generations, you are not engaging in artificial selection.

But it's a collective process. If you are having your largest stallion and mare have sex, than selling the foals, and everybody else who owns zebras is doing the same, and has been doing the same for generations, you are engaging in artificial selection.

Btw, Esperanza says "Obviously, their breeding is controlled by humans, " but perhaps not. This place says: "Most adult female zebras we sell are exposed to males and usually pregnant."

Huh? That doesn't prove anything either way.

But you didn't say it was "one of" when responding to him, you made it's sound like it's only requirement.

No, I didn't, because he brought it up. And it doesn’t matter what trait he mentioned, because my point was about the logic of his argument, not the specific content: he erroneously equated breeding with domestication.

By the way, I wanted to come back to my earlier point about "if it didn't happen, it's only because we didn't want it to". Do you still believe this is in any way an unreasonable statement

It is a statement devoid of supporting evidence.

I doubt anyone checked if the zebras we've been keeping for the last 100-200 years exhibit any changes from the wild ones.

Perhaps, but the absence of evidence is hardly convincing evidence that it happened.

But it's a collective process. If you are having your largest stallion and mare have sex, than selling the foals, and everybody else who owns zebras is doing the same, and has been doing the same for generations, you are engaging in artificial selection.

Yes, but it is incumbent upon you to show that that has happened.

Huh? That doesn't prove anything either way.

It indicates that that organization, at least, is not controlling the breeding of their zebras.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats