Upon learning the strange history of baboons herding goats in Nambia, this relationship began to make some sense to me:
- Scarleth White
Who can even miss the close bond between humans and dogs? But how did it come about? How over time was the bond able to overcome a variety of health risks posed to humans and also the considerable cost again posed to humans of maintaining an animal that’s not consumed?
The leading evolutionary explanation for this close bond is purely utilitarian: humans introduced dogs into their homes because the animal could detect possible danger before the human could see or hear it. Dogs were an alarm system. Their barking not only alerted its owner that someone (a stranger, a foe) was approaching the home, but also informed the stranger/foe that those in the home were aware of their presence. This practical use bonded the animals.
Though there must be some truth to this theory, it only explains a little of what is going on: humans want an alarm system, and dogs will provide it for shelter and food. But we know this does not at exhaust the deep relationship between the animals. The theory explains a very weak abstraction. (And there is no encounter, no bond, no relationship that does not involve abstraction.)
The theory I prefer is this: The bond between the two animals has more to do with (at least on the human side) an excess or abundance or overflow of that which makes humans the most successful primate: our sociality. What dogs are receiving (or benefiting from) is an overflow of the care, concern, other-regarding emotions, and technologies for reading mood, feelings, intent (Theory of Mind) that makes huge human organizations and large-scale cooperation possible. Dogs luxuriate in our innate socialism. (Capitalists exploit it.)
Now, about those goat-herding baboons in Namibia. I first learned about this practice in the book Baboon Metaphysics: The Evolution of a Social Mind. In order to understand the substance of baboon sociality, the scientists, Dorothy L. Cheney, Robert M. Seyfarth, tell the story of a baboon named Ahla. It lived in Nambia, and what was most curious about its gift for herding is that it not only knew each goat individually but also each goat’s relationship with other goats. If, say, a baby goat got lost, Ahla would take it back to its concerned or confused mother. The goats were constantly getting into a mess; the baboon was constantly putting all to rights. The baboon would also groom the goats.
The reason why the baboon was very good at recognizing the relationships of the goats is because it came from a type of society that very much depended on the recognition of status and station for the maintenance of a rigidly hierarchical social order. In baboon society, it is important to know your rank and those who are in, below, and above that rank. That is the cement of their society. Also, because making and strengthening bonds of friendship is crucial to a baboon’s success, it must spend a good amount of energy grooming other baboons.
The goats, which were getting groomed, herded, and kept in order, were benefiting from a surplus of baboon sociality. Similarly, dogs and other pets benefit from an overflow of human sociality.
Dogs themselves are very social and heirarchal animals, so the relationship goes both ways.
Baboon Metaphysics is one book I think I’ll never read. Those are two of my least favorite subjects, ever.
yawn.
don’t forget that dogs (originally wolves) were excellent hunting companions for early man.
also, it is human nature (I would say animal, but, like humans, it’s not always the case…) to nurture what we find cute or perceive as weaker and to develop dependence relationships with those creatures.
there are some interesting theories about coevolution (vs. domestication):
http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/s/275/Science/…
most breeds have very specific jobs attached to them as well.
Interesting post. The latest thinking on the domestication of wolves, ca. 10,000 years ago in around what is now Manchuria, is that wolves domesticated themselves. By living on the perimeter of human society, those dogs that could tolerate humans had access to food scraps, and perhaps some protection in that other predators tend to stay clear of humans, and selecting for human-tolerant traits over time resulted in a symbiotic relationship where wolves/dogs and humans cooperated on security and hunting. The dog does not merely serve the human, but the human also serves the dog because the two species have complementary but different strengths. Since both human and canine societies are social and hierarchical, as #3 points out, humans and dogs are unusually well-adapted to life together.
Puppy!
What do you mean…an animal that’s not consumed?
In Korea, we frequently enjoy shish-ka-bow-wow!
Baboons and metaphysics are two of my favorite subjects.
Think about the benefits plasticity of compassion has given humanity. Dogs and cats are accidentally benefiting from the adaptations that allows us to help strangers and care for other people’s babies or hunt in cooperation with a sexual rival.
6 is right. Natural selection benefited some wolves who had the genes for “not running away from humans.” That’s it really. Phrases like “an overflow of human sociality” doesn’t translate into evolutionary or biological mechanisms.
You know there is this ongoing experiment with foxes, right? Scientists in England are attempting to repeat the dog’s heritage with foxes. With each generation they pick the foxes who let humans approach and pet them without freaking out. In just a few generations they got docile housecat-like behaviors in their baby foxes. After a few more generations they got animals that were very affectionate and dog-like. So those approach/avoid genes are there just waiting for evolution to need them for new circumstances.
I read the book. It is very astute and descriptive. Beautiful to read actually. It’s just that the behaviors you refer to have another explanation.
Previous comments miss the point. Yes, evolution created wolves that could tolerate humans, but it did not create humans that could tolerate dogs. Take any child from, say, the canineless tobriand islanders, raise her in a dog loving culture, and she will be as likely to love a dog as you or I. The same is not true of a wolf cub. Charles hypothesis addresses this strange human plasticity, not the wolf’s genetic determinism. You all should add some cognitive anthro to your evolutionary psychology readings.