Abstract
The hypothesis that anatomically modern homo sapiens could have undergone changes akin to those observed in domesticated animals has been contemplated in the biological sciences for at least 150 years. The idea had already plagued philosophers such as Rousseau, who considered the civilisation of man as going against human nature, and eventually "sparked over" to the medical sciences in the late 19th and early 20th century. At that time, human "self-domestication" appealed to psychiatry, because it served as a causal explanation for the alleged degeneration of the "erbgut" (genetic material) of entire populations and the presumed increase of mental disorders.Consequently, Social Darwinists emphasised preventing procreation by people of "lower genetic value" and positively selecting favourable traits in others. Both tendencies culminated in euthanasia and breeding programs ("Lebensborn") during the Nazi regime in Germany. Whether or not domestication actually plays a role in some anatomical changes since the late Pleistocene period is, from a biological standpoint, contentious, and the currently resurrected debate depends, in part, on the definitional criteria applied.However, the example of human self-domestication may illustrate that scientific ideas, especially when dealing with human biology, are prone to misuse, particularly if "is" is confused with "ought", i.e., if moral principles are deduced from biological facts. Although such naturalistic fallacies appear to be banned, modern genetics may, at least in theory, pose similar ethical problems to medicine, including psychiatry. In times during which studies into the genetics of psychiatric disorders are scientifically more valued than studies into environmental causation of disorders (which is currently the case), the prospects of genetic therapy may be tempting to alter the human genome in patients, probably at costs that no-one can foresee.In the case of "self-domestication", it is proposed that human characteristics resembling domesticated traits in animals should be labelled "domestication-like", or better, objectively described as genuine adaptations to sedentism.
Highlights
The term "domestication" refers to a goal-directed process through which humans have changed physical features of plants and animals by replacing natural through artificial selection to adapt these species to specific human needs
Even though there is more evidence against than in favour of human self-domestication, at least with respect to brain size, early scientists from Darwin's times on were fascinated with questions of potential biological consequences of modern civilisation, i.e. partial abandonment of natural selection, for physical and mental well-being
In the case of self-domestication, the unfortunate connection between biological science and deduced moral claims was fuelled by a lack of agreement over the question how to deal with naturalistic fallacies, or unwillingness to consider the existence of a naturalistic fallacy for reasons that may have been associated with political opportunism or perhaps firm conviction of some leading scientists in the need for eugenic measures
Summary
The term "domestication" refers to a goal-directed process through which humans have changed physical features of plants and animals by replacing natural through artificial selection to adapt these species to specific human needs. Darwin did not hold a clear position concerning the possibility that domestication could have taken place in homo sapiens, he pointed to the fact that no scientific proof in favour of such a hypothesis existed, due to a lack of goal-directedness or conscious selection of traits He made clear that humans might share some characteristics typical of domesticated animals such as increased fertility. In a paper published in 1910 in the Archiv für Rassen- und Gesellschaftsbiologie (Archives of Racial and Societal Biology), which was one of the leading journals in the field of genetics and eugenics, and of which Rüdin was co-editor-in-chief, he reasoned that the medical care http://www.peh-med.com/content/2/1/21 for the insane was a distortion of the natural laws of the survival of the fittest and that medicine would be obliged to clean the genetic pool of the Volk in order to prevent ongoing degeneration [24] He deplored "alcoholics are forced to go through a cure in order to extend their lives. The neoteny hypotheses were entirely disentangled from the concept of degeneration, and, beyond doubt, none of the authors has drawn the slightest moral conclusions from their scientific considerations or confused "is" with "ought"
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
