If there's a range of "how aggressive a bear can be", and it's mostly driven by genetics, and aggression is heavily selected against in the environment? Then you can get a considerable reduction in aggression in the span of as little as a few generations. Bear generation time is what, 5 years? They coexisted with humans for a long time now.
Now, traits with weaker genetic components (i.e. if bear aggression is only 50% genetic) can take much longer. Even more so for traits with low variance, or highly complex traits and behaviors. But evolution isn't always slow. Certain changes can happen quickly - about as quickly as you can apply the selection pressure.
Maybe it's just that many of the large aggressive bears living near villages have just been shot or scared away, but the genetics is unchanged and the offspring of large aggressive bears currently living away from villages will have no aversion to trying their luck in the village ?
They also refuse to eat in the trash bins of anybody that drink Cappuccino after 01:00pm in a sign of integration.
TechnicalVault•1mo ago
Funny thing is something similar occurs in lab mice. Where a technician is selecting a mouse for cull the more aggressive mice are more likely to be the ones selected. Problem mice who kill their littermates can ruin experiments.
attila-lendvai•1mo ago
pfdietz•1mo ago
tokai•1mo ago
nkrisc•1mo ago
antihipocrat•1mo ago
lisper•1mo ago
mjanx123•1mo ago
verisimi•1mo ago
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.
BurningFrog•1mo ago
startupsfail•1mo ago
Earw0rm•1mo ago
pfdietz•1mo ago
BurningFrog•1mo ago
pfdietz•1mo ago
BurningFrog•1mo ago
pfdietz•1mo ago
BurningFrog•1mo ago
devilbunny•1mo ago
dyauspitr•1mo ago
jojobas•1mo ago
rendaw•1mo ago
0_____0•1mo ago
asdff•1mo ago
My best guess is that the short snout trait is in linkage with something else that is actually what is being selected upon. At least for racoons.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/raccoons-are-show...
raverbashing•1mo ago
setopt•1mo ago
andai•1mo ago
Something something autodomestication...
lotsofpulp•1mo ago
lm28469•1mo ago
The guy who kills a family for fun is more aggressive than the guy who execute him. I'm not even sure how you could get to any other conclusion
lotsofpulp•1mo ago
Edit: I think "most aggressive and independently-minded individuals" needs to be defined further, because, obviously, a human without a tribe isn't going to survive long, but also no tribe wants an unpredictable wildcard. So one can be aggressive, with long term strategic thinking, but also not impulsive so as to become persona non grata.
An aggressive, long term thinking individual (or group) can cull other "aggressive and independently-minded individuals" so they don't develop into threats.
lm28469•1mo ago
Quite literally not... "executioner: an official who effects a sentence of capital punishment on a condemned person". An executioner is someone who is legally allowed to give death as a consequence of a judicial decision, not simply someone who kills.
Words have meaning an homicide isn't a murder, a murder isn't an execution, &c.
Ray20•1mo ago
lotsofpulp•1mo ago
Even in warring countries, or countries without much rule of law, death rates (from all causes) is ~1.1%. Let's say good data is not available, and the real figure is double or triple that number.
An annual death rate of 2% just from executions would be in a society with a super aggressive dictator (or faction, I guess).
For more context, annual WW2 death rates over 5 or 6 years were not as high as 2% per year. Only Poland seems to have been higher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
II2II•1mo ago
HPsquared•1mo ago