Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-13-2018, 07:33 PM
 
Location: 912 feet above sea level
2,264 posts, read 1,471,411 times
Reputation: 12668

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Never read the book but once again I propose that "domesticated animals" is not a cause of disease, it had nothing to do with it. It's simply a commonality for the cause - urbanization and the resultant overcrowding and pollution that results when people live in such close quarters. Spread worldwide likewise has nothing to do with domestic animals, but by the development of global transportation and settlement as most of these are transmitted by humans. Look at the common diseases and the origination and spread:
Bubonic plague - fleas that lived on black rats.
Thyphus - transmitted through lice
Syphillus - sexually transmitted
Smallpox - origin unknown. Possibly from rats in Asia or Africa. Transmitted via human contact.
Malaria - transmitted via mosquitoes
TB - unknown, transmitted by humans when they cough, etc.
Measles - same as above

Indeed the urban dwelling Europeans and Asians built up an immunity. However you mention Africa, in contrast it was the Europeans that fell to disease when trying to explore and settle.
Yes.

It does.

This is well established.

Aside from the fact that agriculture - which includes animal domestication - allows for human population densities sufficient to support the evolution of virulent pathogens (which otherwise burn out quickly in the small groupings of hunter-gatherers), domestication entails sustained close contact between humans and their domesticated animals. This allows continued opportunity for a particular pathogen to 'jump' from non-human animal to human.

This usually requires a mutation in the pathogen, one that finds itself suited to Homo sapiens as a host. Of course, this 'jump' was possible before agriculture. However, the contact between human and non-human animal was exponentially greater post-development of agriculture, which is why genetic dating of pathogens tends to only go back as far as the advent of agriculture.

This paper, co-written by Jared Diamond (of Guns, Germs and Steel) is a good starting point:
http://www.jareddiamond.org/Jared_Di...ond%202007.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-13-2018, 08:14 PM
 
14,988 posts, read 23,795,156 times
Reputation: 26478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulsker 1856 View Post
Yes.

It does.

This is well established.

Aside from the fact that agriculture - which includes animal domestication - allows for human population densities sufficient to support the evolution of virulent pathogens (which otherwise burn out quickly in the small groupings of hunter-gatherers), domestication entails sustained close contact between humans and their domesticated animals. This allows continued opportunity for a particular pathogen to 'jump' from non-human animal to human.

This usually requires a mutation in the pathogen, one that finds itself suited to Homo sapiens as a host. Of course, this 'jump' was possible before agriculture. However, the contact between human and non-human animal was exponentially greater post-development of agriculture, which is why genetic dating of pathogens tends to only go back as far as the advent of agriculture.

This paper, co-written by Jared Diamond (of Guns, Germs and Steel) is a good starting point:
http://www.jareddiamond.org/Jared_Di...ond%202007.pdf
Then I amend my statement. Domestic animals pathogens, as well as wild animals like primates, are responsible for the first stages of transformation into the long evolved path of desieses. I stand corrected (at least partially, see last paragraph). However it does not change my conclusion which is also supported by your article, a quote of which is below:
"However, the most important infectious diseases of modern food-producing human populations also include diseases that could have emerged only within the past 11,000 years, following the rise of agriculture1,2. We infer this because, as discussed below, these diseases can only be sustained in large dense human populations that did not exist anywhere in the world before agriculture." If you go into later stages you will see that pathogens developed from animal to human transfer, over to human to human transfer, over a course of thousands of years.

Thus I submit that my conclusion on my last sentence is absolutely correct - old world desieses prospered, and immunity developed, due to the population density and the urbanization in the old world. Indeed a trait of large urban centers is the need to feed the population and thus agriculture which includes animal domestication, but overcrowding which resulted in human to human infection in the later stages of desease development let it flourish.

Also. You should take care and read the article better (as I did). This is not a black and white issue of blaming ONLY domestic animals, of note is this paragraph of the origination from wild animals (the rats and vermin as I mentioned in a previous thread, which again then I submit was a correct conclusion) and unknown sources: "Current information suggests that 8 of the 15 temperate diseases probably or possibly reached humans from domestic animals (diphtheria, influenza A, measles, mumps, pertussis, rotavirus, smallpox, tuberculosis); three more probably reached us from apes (hepatitis B) or rodents (plague, typhus); and the other four (rubella, syphilis, tetanus, typhoid) came from still-unknown sources (see Supplementary Note S6)." So blame Elsie the cow and her ancestors only a little over 50% of the time.

Last edited by Dd714; 07-13-2018 at 08:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2018, 06:48 AM
 
4,344 posts, read 2,772,085 times
Reputation: 5814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Could you elaborate on the bolded?

The fact that maize exists at all is the result of selection and hybridizing over thousands of years. It started out as a simple grass.
https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/corn/
The Pilgrims reported that Indians fertilized corn by putting a dead fish under a seed when planting. This lagged European agricultural practices by several centuries.

Corn is one of the most genetically malleable of all vegetable plants. It's development of the last 200 years is remarkable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2018, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
2,827 posts, read 2,125,399 times
Reputation: 2990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan View Post
The Pilgrims reported that Indians fertilized corn by putting a dead fish under a seed when planting. This lagged European agricultural practices by several centuries.

Corn is one of the most genetically malleable of all vegetable plants. It's development of the last 200 years is remarkable.
Before industrial fertilizers were invented in the 20th century I doubt Europeans peasants were doing anything better. In fact Indians were doing things like planting nitrogen fixing beans along with corn which made the soil productive longer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2018, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Seattle WA, USA
5,689 posts, read 4,864,010 times
Reputation: 4890
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkwensky View Post
Before industrial fertilizers were invented in the 20th century I doubt Europeans peasants were doing anything better. In fact Indians were doing things like planting nitrogen fixing beans along with corn which made the soil productive longer.
Also the corn stalk would act as a trellis for the beans to vine around and then around the corn + beans would be grown squash, which with it's prickly leaves would act as deterrent so deers would stop eating the crops. This style of farming is much better for the soil and more productive than monoculture plantations, the only draw back for multicultural plantations is that harvesting on an industrial scale is much more difficult.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2018, 10:50 AM
 
Location: crafton pa
977 posts, read 562,304 times
Reputation: 1224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Then I amend my statement. Domestic animals pathogens, as well as wild animals like primates, are responsible for the first stages of transformation into the long evolved path of desieses. I stand corrected (at least partially, see last paragraph). However it does not change my conclusion which is also supported by your article, a quote of which is below:
"However, the most important infectious diseases of modern food-producing human populations also include diseases that could have emerged only within the past 11,000 years, following the rise of agriculture1,2. We infer this because, as discussed below, these diseases can only be sustained in large dense human populations that did not exist anywhere in the world before agriculture." If you go into later stages you will see that pathogens developed from animal to human transfer, over to human to human transfer, over a course of thousands of years.

Thus I submit that my conclusion on my last sentence is absolutely correct - old world desieses prospered, and immunity developed, due to the population density and the urbanization in the old world. Indeed a trait of large urban centers is the need to feed the population and thus agriculture which includes animal domestication, but overcrowding which resulted in human to human infection in the later stages of desease development let it flourish.

Also. You should take care and read the article better (as I did). This is not a black and white issue of blaming ONLY domestic animals, of note is this paragraph of the origination from wild animals (the rats and vermin as I mentioned in a previous thread, which again then I submit was a correct conclusion) and unknown sources: "Current information suggests that 8 of the 15 temperate diseases probably or possibly reached humans from domestic animals (diphtheria, influenza A, measles, mumps, pertussis, rotavirus, smallpox, tuberculosis); three more probably reached us from apes (hepatitis B) or rodents (plague, typhus); and the other four (rubella, syphilis, tetanus, typhoid) came from still-unknown sources (see Supplementary Note S6)." So blame Elsie the cow and her ancestors only a little over 50% of the time.
While it is undoubtedly true that diseases passed from domesticated animals to humans, that fact and your point are certainly not mutually exclusive. The domestication of animals did lead to diseases in humans, but at the same time it certainly allowed denser human populations. Those denser human populations obviously would promote the spread of diseases once they mutated into human-infecting forms, so this is a case where both of these factors played a significant role.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2019, 05:34 PM
 
Location: Carlton North, Victoria, Australia
110 posts, read 129,537 times
Reputation: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
However you mention Africa, in contrast it was the Europeans that fell to disease when trying to explore and settle.
Several crucial differences between Africa and the Western Hemisphere:
  1. Humans originated in Africa but have been in the Western Hemisphere for only a percent or so of their evolutionary history
  2. During humans’ evolution in Africa – even before agriculture emerged – they were as Jared Diamond himself notes – exposed to infectious tropical diseases (of which yellow fever was and is most important) from nonhuman primates and perhaps rodents
  3. Africa – although its mammals were without exception undomesticable due to nasty disposition or slow growth rates – does favour dense hierarchical communities in contrast to the naturally egalitarian Western Hemisphere
Thus, even without a solitary native domesticable mammal, sub-Saharan Africans (although only those originating north of the equator) did gain from infectious diseases. Also, because sub-Saharan Africa lies vastly less distant from domesticable mammals than does the Western Hemisphere, Eurasian cows and sheep reached sub-Saharan Africa in the pre-Columbian era and had the same effect as they would in the post-Columbian Western Hemisphere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2019, 01:15 PM
 
1 posts, read 610 times
Reputation: 10
Default More than one domesticable mammal native to Africa

Quote:
Originally Posted by mianfei View Post
Africa – although its mammals were without exception undomesticable due to nasty disposition or slow growth rates – does favour dense hierarchical communities in contrast to the naturally egalitarian Western Hemisphere[/list]Thus, even without a solitary native domesticable mammal, sub-Saharan Africans (although only those originating north of the equator) did gain from infectious diseases.


There was at least one native domesticable mammal in southern and eastern Africa. According to Wikipedia:

" The common eland [a type of antelope] is used by humans for leather, meat, and rich, nutritious milk, and has been domesticated in many areas. It is native to Angola, Botswana, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe but is no longer present in Burundi."

Also, there is no need to restrict ourselves to sub-saharan Africa, it is all one continent. 5000 years and before, well before humans already knew about animal domestication, there was no Sahara desert, it was lush greenland, rich waterways, and full of animals and human habitation. Wild aurochs lived all over North Africa then, so Africans would have plenty of chance to herd/transport them farther south.

These are two animal examples, there may be many more. Goats and sheep could also have been brought to Africa from West Asia soon after domestication there thousands of years before there was a Sahara Desert. In any case, later on, didn't people and animals regularly cross the desert? The Nile runs through the desert, but humans figured out other migratory pathways.

Last edited by omegan; 02-20-2019 at 01:20 PM.. Reason: omitted tags
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2022, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Carlton North, Victoria, Australia
110 posts, read 129,537 times
Reputation: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
TB - unknown, transmitted by humans when they cough, etc.
Measles - same as above
Recent research suggests tuberculosis originated from goats in the very early statute of domestication, or from cows. It’s ability to spread to other social animals of any type, though, is so powerful that it is believed seals — of all things — transmitted tuberculosis from Africa to South America long before human contact.

Measles clearly evolved from cattle, like so many crowd diseases.

Polio is a disease whose origins I have long been curious about ever since reading Guns, Germs and Steel. Polio is never mentioned in that book, but according to Wikipedia, polio had a history of thousands — possibly as many as ten thousand — as an endemic disease in hotter parts of the Old World before it became an epidemic disease after the Industrial Revolution. Polio, I discovered while writing this, is like yellow fever in originating from social Old World monkeys in pre-agricultural times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Indeed the urban dwelling Europeans and Asians built up an immunity. However you mention Africa, in contrast it was the Europeans that fell to disease when trying to explore and settle.
The lack of domestic mammals in Africa was not due to pervasive egalitarian social structures as in the Americas outside the Andes, but because analogues of domesticated Eurasian mammals —the zebra, warthog, bushpig and most infamously the African buffalo (probably the most dangerous land animal in the world bar none) — were so vicious they proved impossible to tame or breed to have a pleasant disposition.

In the Americas, egalitarianism in native animals stands so pervasive as to eliminate the potential for sourcing crowd diseases even from the few species not too egalitarian to domesticate. Muscovy ducks, turkeys and llamas all live in very small groups and are far less willing to tolerate contact with humans that almost all Eurasian domestic animals. Native animal egalitarianism thus meant that the most densely populated agricultural communities in the Americas were free even of endemic infectious diseases. Contrariwise, in Africa social, even hierarchical, mammals and birds are common and could source (endemic) infectious diseases — yellow fever and polio being the most important — without being domesticated and probably without even being tamed or kept as pets. That these endemic diseases had evolved for so long probably made it much tougher for Eurasian peoples to develop resistance to them as Africans had been developing for thousands or even tens of thousands of years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top