The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication

by Stephen Budiansky

Animal rights extremists argue that eating meat is murder and that pets are slaves. This compelling reappraisal of the human-animal bond, however, shows that domestication of animals is not an act of exploitation but a brilliantly successful evolutionary strategy that has benefited humans and animals alike.

“Budiansky’s slim, elegant discourse is a persuasive counterweight to the pastoral delusions of sentimentalists intent on seeing humans as malevolently at odds with the noble animal kingdom .” ―Manuela Hoelterhoff, Wall Street Journal

“Forcefully argued and eloquent.”―Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, New York Times

“A subtle look at the mysteries of evolution and a stinging response to animal-rights extremists. . . . Ambrosia for anyone―whether in agreement with Budiansky or not―who appreciates the beauty of an argument that combines careful scholarship with common sense.”― Kirkus Reviews

“Budiansky argues his thesis clearly and cogently.”― Daily Telegraph

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Animals, Nature, History, Food

216 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1992

About the author

Historian and journalist Stephen Budiansky is the author of twelve books about military history, science, and nature.

His latest book is The Bloody Shirt: Terror After Appomattox, which chronicles the struggles of five courageous men in the post-Civil War South as they battled a rising tide of terrorist violence aimed at usurping the newly won rights of the freedmen.

Reviews

[Boria Sax · Rating 3 out of 5]

Budiansky argues that what we sometimes call "civilization" is a commensal arrangement among several animals including wolves, sheep, and cattle. It was not created by, and does not necessarily center upon, human beings. Animals in the wild tend to be highly specialized, fierce, and independent, for example, eagles and lions. Those that are "domesticated" become increasingly docile, playful, and dependent on one another. That state is achieved largely through what he calls "neoteny," whereby they are selected for what had previously been juvenile traits, which enable them to enter new partnerships with different species. Budiansky brilliantly articulates a relatively novel perspective on human history, which will have many philosophical implications. His book is somewhat flawed by his dismissive attitude toward alternative views, which he rejects as uninformed or sentimental.

[Donna Huber · Rating 4 out of 5]

Domesticate animals - human domination or natural symbiotic relationship. Budiansky explores the possibility that domestication is a naturally occurring adaptation, instead of an enslavement by humans.

[Miriam Bibby · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can't believe it's taken me this long to get round to reading Stephen Budiansky. In exoneration, I usually have lots of academic books to read and areas that I have to research, and so those books tend to get priority. At the same time as buying this, I also bought his book on Walsingham and will certainly, after reading this, be buying his books on horses. Basically, over the past 10 years or so I've come to have views that parallel many of his ideas on farming and farm animals, so it was interesting to read the research behind his reasoning and arguments. Some things have changed since the book was first written - a lot can change in 20 years. Two things in particular have certainly changed for me in that time - one relates to dominance theories in training horses (positive reinforcement is happily gaining in popularity) and the other is the antiquity of domesticated horses and, in particular, the evidence at Dereivka which is quoted in the edition that I bought. That is now known to be a later intrusion and so is no longer valid with relation to early domesticated horses, but that wasn't known at the time of first publication. Otherwise, a good read.

[Brian Griffith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Budiansky defends animal husbandry from critics who would invalidate it, and this drives him to consider the whole history of human-animal relations. Drawing on evidence from all over the ancient world, he tries to comprehend the whole evolutionary arc of mutual domestication between humans and others. How were humans and animals drawn to each other? What mutual benefits did they find from co-dependency? How did farming civilizations become like multi-species super-organisms? What's in it for the animals? The book opens up a vast discussion on the potential for mutual benefit between species, and I'm very curious about that.

[Geordie · Rating 3 out of 5]

oh yes they did too choose to be domesticated - I cannot believe you think that it was just us acting by fiat, I mean come on the whole thing was very mutual. No way you can look at your cat the same way after reading this book - splitters!

[Kristien · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although I do not agree with all of his conclusions this is certainly worth a read...

[Stephen Palmer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Highly readable and thought provoking.

[Ellen F · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication..." and so much more. Analysis of why animals chose to live near or with humans is robust and persuasive. The author also takes aim at animal rights activists, vegetarians, etc. He does not pull any punches!

Still, I don't have to agree with all his conclusions to conclude this is a thought-provoking, well-written book.

[Sean Brady · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not one for my vegan friends. Author's theory is similar to Michael Pollan's theory in Omnivore's Dilemna that wild animals decided to be domesticated, taken care of etc. in exchange for their freedom. I forget if Pollan thought it was a conscious choice on the part of the animals. In this book, author states it was a gradual process, over many generations, and involved first the animals would come and visit (to get food) and the tame ones would eventually stick around with humans, have offspring would be even more tame and neotenized. So, voila, back in the day, the freedom of animals was given up. In exchange for trading in their freedom to humans, humans would make a lot of them and take care of them. The humans would get horsepower, meat, etc. in exchange.

This part sounds reasonable. Book starts out making sense. But, then he goes into a bunch of thought experiments which I think are inaccurate. He thinks that folks think farmers/ranchers are evil because they abuse animals; he counter argues that farmers/ranchers don't abuse with no proof. Just takes what he believes is general wisdom and counters that it is not fair or true and doesn't back it with any facts.

He does argue that we have lost touch with nature. We don't see the reality of nature and life and death in the animal kingdom. He has a point there. But, then somehow he glamorizes the spirituality of hunting with a couple of cute anecdotes.

Some good ideas. Interesting theory about how animal husbrandry began. But, then the wheels start spinning off when he tries to reverse some ideas of the animal rights thinking by just rambling.

Full disclosure: Yes, I am vegan. But, I do try to explore alternative ideas.

[Marcelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

Budiansky's argument is that domestication occured as a natural, symbiotic process because neotony (juveline traits) were favored by early domesticating humans and that this all happened because glaciers forced everyone to live in closer proximity with one another. Read it if you want to hear a theory about domestication, but personally I don't buy HOW he draws his conclusions. I gave this two stars because I think he makes some pretty big illogical leaps in getting form point A to B. FYI, his bias is that he raises sheep on a farm and writes from a journalistic background.

[Angela · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I was trying to populate this Goodreads site, I took a few moments to try to recollect the books I read for college classes. I was a zoology major, so few works of literature really stuck out. This book, however, left a lasting impression. Budiansky provides a whole different perspective on why domestication of animals may be the most ethical thing humans have done. I'm not sure I agree with him, but it's a thoughtful, accessible argument.