Experiment conducted by the University of Barcelona to demonstrate the hypothesis of self-domestication.[1]


Self-domestication is a scientific hypothesis that suggests that, similar to domesticated animals, there has been a process of artificial selection among members of the human species conducted by humans themselves.[2] In this way, during the process of hominization, a preference for individuals with collaborative and social behaviors would have been shown to optimize the benefit of the entire group: docility, language, and emotional intelligence would have been enhanced during this process of artificial selection. The hypothesis is raised that this is what differentiated Homo sapiens from Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus.[3][4]

Origin and status of the hypothesis

In general, domesticated animals possess common characteristics that differentiate them from their non-domesticated counterparts (for example, in the case of Canis familiaris compared to their relatives, Canis lupus, among many other cases): they tend to be more docile and playful, exhibit less aggressive behavior, and show marked neoteny, often resulting in a smaller body, a slightly smaller brain and skull, as well as shorter teeth and snout.[5]

One of the first to scientifically observe that humans present similar traits was the naturalist, anthropologist, and physician Johann Friedrich Blumenbach around 1800.[6] The author of the thesis "De generis humani varietate nativa" ('On the natural variations in the human lineage') consequently proposed the hypothesis that humans could have been domesticated.

A few years later, Charles Darwin addressed the topic using the theory of evolution, which already considered the process of artificial selection in animals. Unable to explain the concept of human domestication from an exclusively scientific perspective (the question of who domesticated humans could only be answered in religious or theistic terms), he eventually dismissed the hypothesis.[5]

However, the studies of Dimitri Beliayev in the 20th century were important for the proposal: research on the silver fox demonstrated that in the process of animal domestication, simultaneous changes occurred in behavior (lower levels of adrenaline were observed) and in coat color (alterations in pigmentation): adrenaline could share a biochemical pathway with melanin, a pathway that would be altered during the process of artificial selection.[7]

In 2014, scientists Adam Wilkins (from Humboldt University, Berlin), Richard Wrangham (from Harvard University, Massachusetts), and Tecumseh Fitch (from the University of Vienna) proposed that the common origin of these changes lay in neural crest cells, exclusive stem cells of vertebrates that migrate to different parts of the body during the embryonic phase, giving rise to the adrenal glands (responsible for managing the fear and stress response through adrenaline production), melanocytes (responsible for producing skin or coat melanin), and jaws simultaneously. The deficit of these cells would explain the common characteristics of all domesticated animals: tameness, cranial and mandibular reduction, and alterations in pigmentation.[8]

Of the three members of the research team, it was primatologist Richard Wrangham who translated these results to humans, asserting that humans have "domesticated" themselves through a process of self-selection (a proposal he would elaborate in "The Goodness Paradox: The Strange Relationship Between Virtue and Violence in Human Evolution").

In July 2019, a team from the Institute of Marine Sciences of Barcelona described, through the methylation of certain genes in DNA, the epigenetic and genetic changes through which neural crest cells were reduced.[9] Subsequently, another research team from the University of Barcelona discovered that the BAZ1B gene controls the behavior of neural crest cells. Comparing with the Neanderthal genome, BAZ1B is also related to genes that have many mutations not present in the homologous genes of our past hominini.[1] Cedric Boeckx, one of the researchers in this study, states:

"We believe this means that the genetic network of BAZ1B is an important reason why our face is different compared to other already extinct ancestors, like the Neanderthals [...]. In broad terms, it gives us, for the first time, experimental validation of the autodomestication hypothesis based on the neural crest."[10]

Hominids

Clark & Henneberg argue that during the earliest stages of human evolution a more paedomorphic skull arose through self-domestication.[11][12] This assertion is based upon a comparison of the skull of Ardipithecus and chimpanzees of various ages. It was found that Ardipithecus clustered with the infant and juvenile species. The consequent lack of a pubertal growth spurt in males of the species and the consequent growth of aggressive canine armoury was taken as evidence that Ardipithecus evolved its paedomorphic skull through self domestication. As the authors state, comparing the species with bonobos:

"Of course A. ramidus differs significantly from bonobos, bonobos having retained a functional canine honing complex. However, the fact that A. ramidus shares with bonobos reduced sexual dimorphism, and a more paedomorphic form relative to chimpanzees, suggests that the developmental and social adaptations evident in bonobos may be of assistance in future reconstructions of early hominin social and sexual psychology. In fact the trend towards increased maternal care, female mate selection and self-domestication may have been stronger and more refined in A. ramidus than what we see in bonobos."[11]

Further research has confirmed that Ardipithecus possessed paedomorphic cranial base angulation, position of the foramen magnum as well as vocal tract dimensions. This was interpreted as not only evidence of a change in social behavior but also a potentially early emergence of hominid vocal capability. If this thesis is correct then not only human social behavior but also language ability originally evolved through paedomorphic skull morphogenesis via the process of self-domestication.[12]

The most comprehensive case for human self-domestication has been proposed for the changes that account for the much later transition from robust humans such as Neanderthals or Denisovans to anatomically modern humans. Occurring between 40,000 and 25,000 years ago, this rapid neotenization has been explained as the result of cultural selection of mating partners[13] on the basis of variables lacking evolutionary benefits, such as perceived attractiveness, facial symmetry, youth, specific body ratios, skin tone or hair, none of which play any role in any other animal species. This unintentional auto-domestication, coinciding with the introduction of imagery of female sexuality, occurred simultaneously in four continents then occupied by hominins. It led to rapid changes typical for domestication, such as in cranial morphology, skeletal architecture, reduction in brain volume, to playful and exploratory behavior, and the establishment of thousands of deleterious conditions, syndromes, disorders and illnesses presumed absent in robust humans.[14]

Of course, these specific views are very clearly based on multi-regionalist perspectives of human evolution which claim modern human populations evolved from relevant archaics present in each world region, as demonstrated in robust skeletal fossils. Such views are largely disproven by genetic evidence supporting the Out of Africa hypothesis with minor inter-breeding and genetic introgression. Despite this, however, human self-domestication entirely within Africa, say, during transition from earlier hominins, especially H. heidelbergensis to H. sapiens remains an open possibility.[15] This would mean archaics in each region (e.g., neanderthals, denisovans) were largely replaced by self-domesticated H. sapiens as they spread around the globe. This possibility suggests self-domestication played a role in the success of H. sapiens, and the extinction of other lineages.

The idea of self-domestication was used by early Social Darwinism which, according to psychiatrist Martin Brüne in an article "On human self-domestication",[16] developed from the idea that humans could "perfect" themselves biologically. The idea of self-domestication is also related to the concept of sociodicy.

Modern humans

Physical anatomy

Based on the dating of the fossil record, archaeologists have concluded that self-domestication likely occurred during the Pleistocene, over 300,000 years ago. Using the fossil record to compare Homo sapiens to pre-sapiens ancestors, archaeologists observed many of the same telling phenotypic characteristics that emerge as a consequence of self-domestication in animals. These features include diminished sexual dimorphism, smaller tooth size, reduction of the cranium, and smaller body size. H. sapiens fossils also demonstrated the flattening of brow-ridge projection and shortening of faces.[17]

Reduced aggression Reduced cranium and skull White patches Floppy ears Flattened facial projection Small teeth Juvenility Curly Tails
Cats Y Y Y N Y N N
Dogs Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Bonobos Y Y Y N Y Y Y NA
Marmosets Y NA Y N NA NA NA NA
Humans Y Y N N Y Y Y NA

Reactive aggression

Richard Wrangham further built upon this body of research, addressing how bonobos and chimpanzees could elucidate development of aggression in humans. Academics have raised concerns with inconsistencies with the self-domestication hypothesis, pointing out that it isn't logical that humans could potentially be domesticated given the profundity of violent acts for which they are responsible. Reconciling this paradox, Wrangham posited that self-domestication is the outcome of two different kinds of aggression: proactive and reactive aggression.[18]

Proactive aggression, which is commonly observed in chimpanzees, is defined as an attack that was planned, motivated by achieving an end goal. Generally, humans demonstrate lower aggression within groups. Reactive aggression, much more closely associated with anger, is characterized as an immediate response to a threat—the human equivalent being "bar fights". Aligned with the behavior of self-domesticated bonobos, humans do not have a high propensity for reactive aggression. This lends further evidence to supporting the self-domestication hypothesis, of which reduced reactive aggression is a central trait.[18][19]

Population density hypothesis

The population density hypothesis attempts to explain the decreased reactive aggression that is observed in modern humans. During periods of high population density, higher tolerance of associates may be favored due to an increased reliance upon social networks for reliable access to otherwise limited, scarce resources like food. H. sapiens began to exhibit this higher degree of social tolerance approximately 300,000 years ago, which—if this hypothesis upholds—would be associated with a higher population size. However, recent genetic data has currently put this hypothesis to rest, as H. sapiens actually underwent a population decline about 200,000 years ago.[17]

Language-based conspiracy

The language-based conspiracy provides a convincing argument—and is currently the best-supported theory—explaining why reactive aggression was selected against in modern humans, thereby resulting in self-domestication. H. sapiens are theorized to have developed an elegant propensity for language that surpassed its predecessors, including H. neanderthalensis. Enhanced linguistic ability would have allowed for greater suppression and control over a power-hungry member of early hunter-gatherer societies. Those who attempted to achieve dominance over others would be subject to capital punishment, which was facilitated by shared intentionality from others that was easily communicated through language. Language allowed subordinates to collaborate, coordinating plans to dampen the attempt at dominance by the instigator. Over time, this resulted in the selection against reactive aggression.[17]

Theoretical criticism

The self-domestication hypothesis has been met with some degree of criticism. Some researchers have argued that the human brain is peramorphic, instead of paedomorphic. Wrangham puts forth that these arguments do not address the evolution of Homo sapiens from their most recent ancestor, instead focusing too heavily on a direct contrast between apes and humans.[18]

See also

References

  1. 1 2 Zanella, Matteo; Vitriolo, Alessandro; Andirko, Alejandro; Martins, Pedro Tiago; Sturm, Stefanie; O’Rourke, Thomas; Laugsch, Magdalena; Malerba, Natascia; Skaros, Adrianos; Trattaro, Sebastiano; Germain, Pierre-Luc; Mihailovic, Marija; Merla, Giuseppe; Rada-Iglesias, Alvaro; Boeckx, Cedric (2019-12-06). "Dosage analysis of the 7q11.23 Williams region identifies BAZ1B as a major human gene patterning the modern human face and underlying self-domestication". Science Advances. 5 (12). eaaw7908. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaw7908. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 6892627. PMID 31840056.
  2. ↑ Theofanopoulou, Constantina; Gastaldon, Simone; O’Rourke, Thomas; Samuels, Bridget D.; Messner, Angela; Martins, Pedro Tiago; Delogu, Francesco; Alamri, Saleh; Boeckx, Cedric (2017-10-18). "Self-domestication in Homo sapiens: Insights from comparative genomics". PLOS ONE. 12 (10): e0185306. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1285306T. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0185306. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 5646786. PMID 29045412.
  3. ↑ Shilton, D; Breski, M; Dor, D; Jablonka, E (February 14, 2020). "Human Social Evolution: Self-Domestication or Self-Control?". Frontiers in Psychology. 11: 134. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00134. PMC 7033472. PMID 32116937.
  4. ↑ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acOZT240bTA&ab_channel=UniversityofCaliforniaTelevision%28UCTV%29 Harvard Prof Richard Wrangham
  5. 1 2 Sauer, Hanno (2023). La invención del bien y del mal. Paidós. ISBN 9788449340963.
  6. ↑ Hawks, John (2019). "The Goodness Paradox" Review: The Benefits of Good Breeding (book review)" (Wall Street Journal ed.).
  7. ↑ Goldman, Jason (6 September 2010). "Man's new best friend? A forgotten Russian experiment in fox domestication". Scientific American. Retrieved 23 May 2014.
  8. ↑ Wilkins, Adam S; Wrangham, Richard W; Fitch, W Tecumseh (2014-07-01). "The "Domestication Syndrome" in Mammals: A Unified Explanation Based on Neural Crest Cell Behavior and Genetics". Genetics. 197 (3): 795–808. doi:10.1534/genetics.114.165423. ISSN 1943-2631. PMC 4096361. PMID 25024034.
  9. ↑ Anastasiadi, Dafni; Piferrer, Francesc (2019-10-01). Wittkopp, Patricia (ed.). "Epimutations in Developmental Genes Underlie the Onset of Domestication in Farmed European Sea Bass". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 36 (10): 2252–2264. doi:10.1093/molbev/msz153. ISSN 0737-4038. PMC 6759067. PMID 31289822.
  10. ↑ "Universidad de Barcelona". Primera demostración experimental de la hipótesis de la autodomesticación del ser humano. 5 December 2019.
  11. 1 2 Clark, Gary; Henneberg, Maciej (2015). "The life history of Ardipithecus ramidus: A heterochronic model of sexual and social maturation". Anthropological Review. 78 (2): 109–132. doi:10.1515/anre-2015-0009.
  12. 1 2 Clark, Gary; Henneberg, Maciej (2017). "Ardipithecus ramidus and the evolution of language and singing: An early origin for hominin vocal capability". HOMO: Journal of Comparative Human Biology. 68 (2): 101–121. doi:10.1016/j.jchb.2017.03.001. PMID 28363458.
  13. ↑ Bednarik, Robert G. (2008). "The Domestication of Humans". Anthropologie. 46 (1): 1-17.
  14. ↑ Bednarik, Robert G. (2011). The Human Condition. Springer, New York, pp. 127-141. ISBN 978-1-4419-9352-6.
  15. ↑ Wrangham, Richard W. (2021). "Targeted conspiratorial killing, human self-domestication and the evolution of groupishness". Evolutionary Human Sciences. 3: e26. doi:10.1017/ehs.2021.20. ISSN 2513-843X. PMC 10427284. PMID 37588548. S2CID 233029730.
  16. ↑ Brüne, Martin (2007). "On human self-domestication, psychiatry, and eugenics". Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine. 2: 21. doi:10.1186/1747-5341-2-21. PMC 2082022. PMID 17919321.
  17. 1 2 3 Wrangham, R. W. (2019). Hypotheses for the Evolution of Reduced Reactive Aggression in the Context of Human Self-Domestication. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1914.
  18. 1 2 3 Wrangham, R. W. (2018). Two types of aggression in human evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 115(2), 245-253.
  19. ↑ Steele, T. E., and Weaver, T. D. (2014). Comment on Cieri et al. Craniofacial feminization, social tolerance, and the origins of behavioral modernity. Curr. Anthropol. 55, 434–435. : doi: 10.1086/677209

Further reading

  • Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods, "Survival of the Friendliest: Natural selection for hypersocial traits enabled Earth's apex species to best Neandertals and other competitors", Scientific American, vol. 323, no. 2 (August 2020), pp. 58–63.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.