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.
If 1% of men are potential murderers, and we execute 10% of them in each generation, it will have huge a impact on the murder rate over a few centuries, even though not a lot of people got executed, and the overall genetics of the population hasn't changed much.
Well, no, that presumes "murderosity" is due to rare genes concentrated in murderers, not unfortunate combinations of genes widely spread in the population. Experience with "disease genes" has been they mostly of the latter type, with each gene having a minor effect.