same with russian fox fur breeders. i don't remember the numbers, but after a surprisingly small number of generations the foxes turned into cat-like pets.
Yes, that's a quite famous experiment, and still ongoing. Similar effects of "domestication syndrome" have recently been reported in wild urban foxes and raccoons.
Not in the literal sense (which would semantically impossible), but we have domesticated ourselves with the advent of farming and the domestication of crop plants. We fundamentally changed our own lifestyle into an agricultural one, the same we changed lifestyle of several large mammal species to co-exist with us in that agricultural lifestyle. So perhaps in some sense, maybe we actually did literally domesticated ourselves.
The markers of domestication in modern humans long predate the farming.
'Human' was the first animal available for domestication.
There is a distinction between the domestication as set of changes in the organism and the 'applied' domestication in farming.
In the applied sense, the humans on the top of the hierarchy do actually farm the humans below them.
> Not in the literal sense (which would semantically impossible)
Why is it impossible the humans are not domesticated? Are you making a point about language?
I think this is certainly true. People in cities, where there are high amounts of people around act differently when they are in a small village or in nature with fewer or no people around.
It is now. OTOH I have read that an estimated 1/4 of male chimpanzees die at the hands of other chimps (whether murder or war). So it’s not implausible.
The question wasn't changing the murder rate now, but changing "the population over a few centuries". If it doesn't change the population genetics significantly it won't do that.