|
|
|
|
|
|
by WalterBright
1109 days ago
|
|
|
Yes, I did read his book, and know about his argument about domesticated animals. That lack didn't prevent the Aztecs and Mayans from building an empire of stone buildings. They did have moose and deer and llamas and bears and goats and bison. I don't know if there's any proof they can't be domesticated given enough generations, time and patience. Wolves and foxes can be domesticated. The Finns domesticated reindeer. |
|
|
Lack of plough animals doesn't extinguish the human creative spirit, it just slows it down a lot.
It is curious why bison were not domesticated. I did a bit of research and could not find a clear reason (some suggestions that maybe Aurochs lived in forests and smaller herds, and that may have made them easier to domesticate... but that seems weak).
I'm wondering how much is due to what I'd call the Harari perspective, in Homo Deus - that Eurasians also invented the "god-centric worldview package" that shifted the view of the world from a more animistic perspective (where all beings share the world and so treating animals in the absolutely horrific ways that domestication and agriculture requires is just unthinkable, since they are seen as other beings sharing the world with us) to the "gods and humans" perspective (where god created humanity, and then every other being is just subservient and lacks a soul and therefore can be exploited, murdered, treated like goods, etc).
Mesoamerican religions, despite all the human sacrifice, did see animals and plants as intrinsically valuable and spiritually significant. Native Americans in the North definitely did that too (and they had more exposure to bisons). That would perhaps have led them not to seek to domesticate animals.
It is curious (to me) that no culture emerged that even tried, though (that culture would likely have outcompeted everyone else).