# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Background

The nature versus nurture debate is about which part of a person is more important-their inherited qualities, which includes genes, or their personal experiences and the way they were brought up. For years, scientists have tried to find out what causes people to have different personalities, behaviors, and characteristics.

Scientific Approach

The nature versus nurture debate poses a very complicated scientific question: how do scientists figure out which one plays a greater role in the development of a person? Many scientists study twins that have separated at birth to answer this research question. Scientists use twins because they have identical genes, so it makes it easier to observe the effect of a person's environment. Do you think twins raised in different homes will grow up to have the same personalities? Q1

The Nurture Side

The view that humans acquire all or almost all of their behavioral traits from "nurture" was termed tabula rasa, Latin for "blank slate," by philosopher John Locke. This idea proposes that humans develop only from environmental influences. One example of a person's trait that is completely determined by their environment is native language. Studies show that children, regardless of where they're born, can learn any language with equal facility.[1]

The term "nurture" has historically been defined as the care given to children by the parents, with the mother playing an important role. Now, this term is regarded by some as the environmental (non-genetic) factor of a person's environment. This new definition of "nurture" has been expanded to include, not just a person's family upbringing, but also everything else they experience in daily life including advertisements, media, education, peer influences, and home environments. Q2

The Nature Side

Some scientists have concluded that a person's nature-meaning the traits they got from their parents-have more power in determining a person's identity than how they are nurtured, or raised. Inherited traits are traits that are developed before birth.

Some genetic traits are highly heritable,[2] such as eye color. Some disorders or diseases are also heritable. However, environments are still influential in how that disease affects a person's life; for example, people who are born with a disease may live a long time depending on how they are cared for. There are also some non-genetic factors that are highly heritable. For example, a wealth and social status are two non-genetic factors that are generally passed down from family.

Conclusions

Some people criticize the whole concept of "nature versus nurture." They claim that it is an overly simple way to think about a person's identity. Perhaps the answer is not as simple. Are there other factors beyond genes and environment that make us who we are? Q3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CommonLit | The Nature vs. Nurture Debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are people the way that they are because of their genes (nature), or because of how they were brought up (nurture)? If two people are brought up in the same home environment, will they be the same? For years, scientists have been debating the answer to this question.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kids.Net.Au - Encyclopedia > Nature versus nurture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids.Net.Au - Encyclopedia > Nature versus nurture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genes and the environment influence each other to create unique individuals through complex interactions. Thanks for watching! Leave feedback below!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The nature vs. nurture debate is the scientific, cultural, and philosophical debate about whether human culture, behavior, and personality are caused primarily by nature or nurture.

Nature is often defined in this debate as genetic or hormone-based behaviors, traits, and dispositions, while nurture is most commonly defined as environment, culture, and experience.

History of the Nature vs. Nurture Debate

The nature vs. nurture debate is an ongoing one. The modern debate often centers around the effect genes have on human disposition as opposed to the influences that early environment and development might have. As culture changes, so have popular understandings of this debate. In the 1960s, for example, psychologists-and pop culture in general-were heavily influenced by the theories of behaviorism. This theory led to the widespread belief that human personality is primarily influenced by experience and training. It was during this time that researcher John Money attempted to demonstrate that gender was a product of early conditioning by raising a boy, whose circumcision was botched, as a girl. His experiment seemed successful in the beginning but ultimately was a failure.

In recent years, the nature side of the debate has gained more attention, with headlines trumpeting newly discovered genes for virtually every behavior. Evolutionary psychology and sociobiology are two branches of science that attempt to demonstrate the evolutionary roots of human behavior. Books authored by scientists in these fields are extremely popular. However, critics still emphasize the important role of early childhood environment, development, and cultural influences. Many have argued that sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are deterministic pseudosciences.

Twin and Identical Twin Studies

Several studies done on twins separated shortly after birth reveal that genetics do play a significant role in the development of certain personality characteristics, sexual orientation, and religiosity. The bond between identical twins was also suggested to be genetic by these studies, as 80% of identical twins reported that they felt closer to their twin than they did to their closest friends, despite having just met their twin.

One study also suggested that genetics play a significant role in the development of personality: Environment had little effect on personality when twins were raised together, though it did have an effect when they were raised apart.

How Nature Affects Mental Health

While nature, or genetics, has been proven to be an important factor in the development of some mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia, bipolar, and major depression, the development of mental illness is not entirely genetic. Nature, or genetics and disposition, has been proven to be an important factor in the development of some mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia, bipolar, and major depression. Bipolar, for example, is four to six times more likely to develop when there is a family history of the condition. However, although the importance of genetic factors cannot be denied, the development of mental illness is not entirely genetic. For example, identical twins share their genes, yet if one twin develops schizophrenia, research shows the other twin only has a 50% chance of also developing the condition. This indicates that nature, while it plays an important part, is not the only contributing factor.

Another area where researchers may place more emphasis on nature than on nurture is that of addictions. Research indicates that alcohol addiction, for example, can recur in families and that certain genes may influence how alcohol tastes and the way it affects the body.

How Nurture Affects Mental Health

Certain genetic factors may create a predisposition for a particular illness, but the probability that a person develops that illness depends in part on environment (nurture). When a genetic variant indicates the possibility of developing a mental illness, this information can be used to direct positive (nurturing) behavior in such a way that the condition may not develop or may develop with less severity.

James Fallon, a neuroscientist who discovered that he had the brain of a psychopath, has stated that he believes growing up in a nurturing and loving environment helped him become a successful adult and may have been effective at preventing him from fully developing traits of psychopathy. Similarly, the basis for addiction is not thought to be entirely genetic by most researchers. Environmental aspects, such as the habits of parents, friends, or a partner, might also be significant factors contributing to the development of an addiction. A genetic predisposition to alcohol addiction may be far more significant if one is routinely exposed to binge drinking or other forms of alcohol abuse and comes to view this as normal alcohol use.

Researchers at the University of Liverpool recently found that while a family history of mental health conditions was the second strongest predictor of mental illness, the strongest predictor was in fact life events and experiences, such as childhood bullying, abuse, or other trauma. This supports the idea that nurture plays significant role in the development of mental health issues.

Nature vs. Nurture in Therapy

In the mental health field, some therapeutic treatments and approaches may be nature-based or nurture-based, depending on which paradigm to which they adhere. For example, an extremely nature-based approach might seek to address mental health on a biological or genetic level, while a nurture-based approach could be more likely to address a person's learned beliefs and behaviors. Most approaches borrow from both nature and nurture-based philosophies, and many seek to address the interaction between nature and nurture.

For example, using medication to treat a mental health issue may be a primarily nature-based approach, while behavioral therapy, which stems from behaviorist psychology, addresses a person's upbringing and conditioning and takes a nurture-based point of view. Meanwhile, therapies based in cognitive psychology may be more likely to address the effects of both nature and nurture.

It is possible to find a therapist who takes a more nature or nurture-based approach to treatment. However, many therapists today consider multiple factors, including how the nature and nurture work together, during a session.

How Nature and Nurture Interact

Many scientists eschew the nature vs. nurture debate by emphasizing "nature x nurture." In this schema, nature and nurture are inseparable. Some genes, for example, cannot be activated without certain environmental inputs. The development of vision is a prime example of this. People cannot develop normal sight without exposure to visual stimuli.

Similarly, some environmental inputs may be undermined by some genes. For example, some lifelong smokers may never experience smoking-related illnesses, and this may be due at least in part to their genes. Environmental toxins may alter the expression of some genes, and genes for many behaviors presumed to have a genetic basis have not been discovered.

Developmental systems theory, among other theories, presents an alternative to this debate that does not require scientists to advocate either for nature or nurture.
References:

1. Agin, D. P. (2010). More than genes: What science can tell us about toxic chemicals, development, and the risk to our children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2. Alcoholism Nature vs. Nurture. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.dualdiagnosis.org/alcohol-addiction/nature-vs-nurture.

3. Facts about Bipolar Disorder. (n.d.). Retrieved May 12, 2015, from http://adamhscc.org/en-US/facts-bipolar.asp.

4. Iliades, C. (2013, February 7). Mental Illness May Be In Your Genes. Retrieved from http://www.everydayhealth.com/depression/mental-iillness-may-be-in-your-genes-1751.aspx.

5. Lewis, T. (2014, August 11). Twins Separated at Birth Reveal Staggering Influence of Genetics. Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html.

6. Ohikuare, J. (2014, January 21). Life as a Nonviolent Psychopath. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/life-as-a-nonviolent-psychopath/282271.

7. Moore, D. S. (2003). The dependent gene: The fallacy of nature vs. nurture. New York, NY: Henry Holt.

8. Putt, G. (2013, October 20). Nurture Over Nature: Mental Illness and Traumatic Life Events. Retrieved from http://www.decodedscience.com/nurture-nature-mental-illness-traumatic-life-events/3836.

Last Updated: 09-28-2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nature vs. Nurture Debate - GoodTherapy.org Therapy Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The nature vs. nurture debate is the scientific, cultural, and philosophical debate about whether human culture, behavior, and personality are caused primarily by nature or nurture. Nature is often defined in this debate as genetic or hormone-based behaviors, traits, and dispositions, while nurture is most commonly defined as environment, culture, and experience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kids.Net.Au - Dictionary > Definition: survival of the fittest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids.Net.Au - Dictionary > Definition: survival of the fittest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
australian broadcasting corporation (tv network)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A short animation explaining the environmental concept of "survival of the fittest" and the process of species extinction. Originally produced for the Ingenious CD-Rom project. (c) Australian Broadcasting Corporation http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/10/06/4095322.htm

# data[].attributes.headline
What Does 'Survival of the fittest' really mean...

# data[].attributes.subject
What Does 'Survival of the fittest' really mean...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Charles Darwin was coming up with the Theory of Evolution, he had to find a mechanism that drove evolution. Many other scientists, such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, had already described the change in species over time, but they didn't offer explanations as to how it occurred. Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace independently came up with the idea of natural selection to fill that void.

Natural Selection vs. 'Survival of the Fittest'

Natural selection is the idea that species that acquire adaptations favorable for their environment will pass those adaptations to their offspring. Eventually, only individuals with those favorable adaptations will survive, which is how the species changes over time or evolves through speciation.

In the 1800s, after Darwin first published his book "On the Origin of Species," British economist Herbert Spencer used the term "survival of the fittest" in relation to Darwin's idea of natural selection as he compared Darwin's theory to an economic principle in one of his books. This interpretation of natural selection caught on, and Darwin used the phrase in a later edition of "On the Origin of Species." Darwin used the term as it was meant regarding natural selection. Nowadays, however, the term is often misunderstood when used in place of natural selection.

Public Misconception of 'Fittest'

Members of the public might be able to describe natural selection as survival of the fittest. Pressed for further explanation of the term, however, most answer incorrectly. Someone not familiar with what natural selection really is might take "fittest" to mean the best physical specimen of the species and that only those in the best shape and best health will survive in nature.

That isn't always the case. Individuals that survive aren't always the strongest, fastest, or smartest. By that definition, then, survival of the fittest might not be the best way to describe natural selection as it applies to evolution. Darwin didn't mean it in those terms when he used it in his republished book. He intended "fittest" to mean the members of the species best suited for the immediate environment, the basis of the idea of natural selection.

Favorable and Unfavorable Traits

Since an individual needs the most favorable traits to survive in the environment, it follows that individuals with favorable adaptations will live long enough to pass their genes to their offspring. Those lacking the favorable traits-the "unfit"-most likely won't live long enough to pass down their unfavorable traits, and eventually, those traits will be bred out of the population.

The unfavorable traits might take many generations to decline in numbers and longer to disappear from the gene pool. This is evident in humans with the genes of fatal diseases; their genes are still in the gene pool even though conditions are unfavorable for their survival.

Remedying the Misunderstanding

Now that this idea is stuck in our lexicon, there isn't much that can be done to help others understand the actual meaning of the phrase beyond explaining the intended definition of the word "fittest" and the context in which it was said. An alternative could be to avoid using the phrase altogether when discussing the Theory of Evolution or natural selection.

It's acceptable for a person to use the term "survival of the fittest" if he or she understands the scientific definition. However, casual use of the phrase by someone without knowledge of natural selection can be misleading. Students who are first learning about evolution and natural selection should avoid using the term until they have a deeper knowledge of the subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest Mean the Same Thing?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Charles Darwin was coming up with the Theory of Evolution, he had to find a mechanism that drove evolution. Many other scientists, such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, had already described the change in species over time, but they didn't offer explanations as to how it occurred.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Can dogs possess virtue? Diana Schaub reads Gary Borjesson's Willing Dogs and Reluctant Masters, a philosophical account of canine freedom and obedience - and an argument for the virtues that we can learn by becoming good masters to our dogs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to legend, the city of Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus, two twin boys who were born to a princess and abandoned in the wilderness as infants. The pair would have died if not for the kindness of a she-wolf and a woodpecker, which suckled and fed the boys until a shepherd adopted them. The story of Romulus and Remus's youth is most likely a myth, but history abounds with tales of kids who spent their early years in confinement or alone in the forest, often emerging with little knowledge of language or social cues. From a wild boy kept as a pet in King George's court to an Indian who was supposedly raised by wolves, learn the puzzling and often tragic stories of six famous feral children.

One of the earliest English-language accounts of a feral child concerns "John of Liège," a boy who supposedly spent most of his youth in isolation in the Belgian wilderness. According to a 1644 account by Sir Kenelm Digby, John first fled to the woods at the age of 5 to escape enemy soldiers during a religious war. But while his family and the rest of his village returned to their homes after the danger had passed, young John was too terrified to come out of hiding. He struck off alone into the depths of the forest, where he survived for 16 years on roots and wild berries. John finally returned to society at age 21, when he was caught trying to steal food from a local farm. By then, he was reportedly "naked and all overgrown with hair," and had "quite forgotten the use of all language." Most astonishing of all, his years in the bush had led him to develop a dog-like sense of smell, allowing him to sniff out food from great distances. According to Digby, John eventually began talking again, but his heightened senses dulled once he was back in civilization.

In the summer of 1725, a naked and mute adolescent boy was found living alone in the woods of northern Germany. The child was brought before the British King George I, who took a liking to him and had him shipped to his court. Christened "Peter," the boy soon became the toast of London, and he was regularly trotted out as a party favor to entertain royal guests. Nobles were fascinated by the "Wild Boy's" habit of scurrying about on all fours, and they laughed at his disregard for table manners and his penchant for picking pockets and trying to kiss ladies of the court. Attempts to civilize Peter failed-he never learned to speak and preferred to sleep on the floor-so he was eventually sent to the countryside, where he lived until his death in 1785. By then, Peter had inspired comment and speculation from the likes of Daniel Defoe and Jonathan Swift, but the full story of how he came to live in the woods has never been revealed. Some researchers have since argued that he may have first been abandoned because he suffered from Pitt-Hopkins syndrome, a rare neurological disorder characterized by learning disabilities and an inability to develop speech.

Marie-Angélique Memmie Le Blanc

In 1731, the French village of Songy was stunned by sightings of a wild young woman armed with a wooden club. This "Savage Girl of Champagne" was clad in animal skins and a tattered dress, and appeared to be anywhere from 10 to 18 years old, depending on the source. She was also astonishingly strong for her size, and had once even killed a local guard dog with her club. When villagers finally lured the young woman out of the trees, they were amazed to discover that she spoke only in animalistic whoops and squeaks and preferred to eat raw meat, often skinning and biting into the carcass of a fresh kill on the spot. In time, the girl learned to speak French and grew more civilized, and she was later baptized under the name Marie-Angélique Memmie Le Blanc and sent to live in a convent. Further details about her background would not emerge until 1765, when she told an interviewer that she had escaped to the forest after being kidnapped and brought to Europe as a slave. Many of Memmie's contemporaries believed she was originally an Eskimo, but recent research suggests she was most likely a Meskwaki Indian born in what is now Wisconsin.

The mysterious story of "Victor" began in 1800, when a boy around 12 years old was found wandering in the woods near Aveyron, France. The wild child was naked and mute, and an abundance of scars seemed to indicate that he had been exposed to the elements since a very young age. He refused to be washed or touched, ignored human contact and often exploded in violent outbursts. Years of isolation had also led him to develop a remarkable form of selective hearing. The boy might ignore the sound of a pistol fired behind his head, but would perk up immediately at the cracking of a walnut, one of his favorite foods. French officials deemed the child an imbecile, but a consultant to a school for the deaf named Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard believed that it was possible to teach him language. Itard worked with the boy, whom he named "Victor," for several years, and eventually got him to bathe, wear clothes and even show signs of empathy. Language, however, proved to be permanently beyond the boy's grasp. While Itard taught Victor to understand basic spoken questions and commands, the foundling died at the age of 40 having never uttered a complete sentence.

On May 26, 1828, a teenaged boy appeared in Nuremberg, Germany, with a seemingly unbelievable story. Identifying himself as "Kaspar Hauser," the youth said he had spent the previous 13 years confined to a small room, his only companions a few wooden toys and a mysterious man that appeared each day to bring him food and water. He carried with him two cryptic notes, which claimed he had come into his captor's care as a child and had never been allowed to leave the house, but was now being released to pursue a military career. Hauser's macabre tale quickly catapulted him to instant fame across Europe. Many marveled at the foundling's peculiarities-he supposedly possessed remarkable night vision and often fell into a stupor when presented with new experiences-but others suspected his story might be a hoax. The boy had learned language and writing too easily, they argued, and his complexion was not pale enough for someone who had spent most of his life in darkness. The situation only grew more bizarre in 1833, when Hauser died from a mysterious, possibly self-inflicted stab wound. Dozens of wild theories have since been proposed about his origins, including that he was actually a royal who was confined as part of a conspiracy to prevent him from taking the throne. To this day, however, it is unclear whether Kaspar Hauser was a real life "wild child" or merely a skilled con man.

Often known as the "Wolf Boy," Dina Sanichar was first discovered in 1867, after a band of hunters spied what they initially thought was a wild animal sleeping in the mouth of a cave in Bulandshahr district, India. When the men finally smoked the creature out its hiding place, they were astonished to find it was actually a boy of around 6 years old. The child appeared to have been living in the wilderness for most of his life, and had allegedly survived by scampering on all fours with a pack of wolves. The hunters brought the boy to the Sikandra Mission Orphanage in Agra, where he was taken in and named Dina Sanichar. Missionaries spent the next several years trying to rehabilitate the "Wolf Boy," but years in the wild had taken their toll. Sanichar never learned to talk before his death in 1895, and he preferred to gnaw on bones and dine on raw animal meat rather than cooked food. Some have since suggested that his story may have inspired the feral boy character "Mowgli" in Rudyard Kipling's "Jungle Book" stories.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to legend, the city of Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus, two twin boys who were born to a princess and abandoned in the wilderness as infants. The pair would have died if not for the kindness of a she-wolf and a woodpecker, which suckled and fed the boys until a shepherd adopted them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"...And when he came to the place where the wild things are they roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teeth and rolled their terrible eyes and showed their terrible claws till Max said "BE STILL!" and tamed them with the magic trick of staring into all their yellow eyes without blinking once and they were frightened and called him the most wild thing of all and made him king of all wild things."
--- Maurice Sendak, Where the Wild Things Are

"Feral" means wild or existing in a natural state. Feral children are those who have been abandoned or lost in the wilderness and have spent a significant amount of their formative years there. These child have lived without any direct human contact and often with the aid of wild animals who have adopted them into their groups. Though there are many legends of feral children, only a few cases have been documented and verified (see links below). Over the centuries, stories of feral children have intrigued many people - especially scientists and educators - for possible clues as to the effect of socialization on language and communication skills, learned aspects of human behavior and development and the true nature of humans. Studies of feral children have led to new methods for teaching children with learning disabilities, and indirectly to the development of Braille and sign language.

Feral children are NOT the same as autistic children - both of these conditions are due to aberrations of the normal biological developmental process. Children with these conditions are usually fully socialized to the limits of their capabilities. On the other hand, feral children may exhibit the usual range of biological developmental potential, but fail to develop normal human communication skills as a result of growing up in social isolation without proper models. Such skills are dependent upon continuous hearing, observation, mimicking and reinforcement to develop properly. Therefore, it is not surprising that feral children do not acquire these skills and rather that they may acquire those of their adoptive animal families during these critical socialization years (see stories in links about children raised with dogs, apes, wolves). This is due to the inherent plasticity of the nervous system in which, though many aspects of our sensory and motor systems are "hard-wired," others (such as language and communication) are more dependent on postnatal experience and the specific environment that infants are born into to finish development and acquire the specific skills and behaviors necessary to survive and compete in that environment. Depending on the age at which they are removed from human contact and the age at which they are retrieved, feral children may not ever be able to develop normal communication patterns because of the window in early childhood when the nervous system is primed for acquiring language and communication skills.

The films selected here all depict children who have been socially isolated from an early age. They make a fair attempt at the shock and revulsion with which these socially isolated individuals regard their "rescuers" and attempts to be incorporated into an unfamiliar culture. Where the fictional films ( The Jungle Book and Greystoke) miss the mark is that by all accounts, individuals rescued from such circumstances are never able to acquire the facility with language, social customs or even human understanding that their characters show (Mowgli in Jungle Book, Tarzan in Greystoke). Though virtually socially isolate, Nell's ( Nell) limited and distorted acquisition of these skills may be due to shared isolation with her mother, whose stroke-induced speech order and extreme fear of outside contact shaped Nell's linguistic and social development. The Wild Child is based on a true story and has a more believable outcome (i.e., extremely limited acquisition of language, communication and behavioral skills even after extensive instruction. Where the fictional accounts seem to outshine the nonfictional ONE, is in allowing the main characters their freedom in deciding where to live their lives - in the edenic wild settings in which they were accepted and grew up or in the complex, unaccepting, unforgiving often crueller and more barbarous culture into which they are thrust. Perhaps not surprising, they all chose to stay in Eden.

Themes that merit exploration in these films include those of human vs. animal attributes, wild and natural vs. manmade and unnatural, civilized vs. barbaric, noble vs. barbaric. Look at how contradictory concepts are merged, such as nobility, interspecies acceptance among wild animals and barbarity, nonacceptance of their own kind among certain humans.

Questions to consider while viewing these films:

At what age were the feral children separated from human contact?

During their social isolation, who (or what) did these children spend their formative years with? Did they develop "normal" human behaviors and language? If not, what or whom did they pattern their language and behavior after?

How were these characters reintroduced to human contact? Were they happy to be rescued? Was this an easy transition for them? Did they ever fit in totally? Did they ever wish to be back in their previous wild setting?

What did they gain from human contact? What did they lose? Did THEY feel they were better off for regaining human contact? Do YOU feel they were better off? Explain your answers.

Does "wild" equate with "barbaric"? How about "civilized" with "noble"? Who were the barbaric characters and which side(s) (wild or civilized) were they on? Who were the noble characters and which side(s) were they on?

What does it mean to be human? Do you consider the feral characters to be human? Did other characters in the films question their human-ness? Explain your answers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Neuroscience for Kids - Neuroscience Movies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"...And when he came to the place where the wild things are they roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teeth and rolled their terrible eyes and showed their terrible claws till Max said "BE STILL!"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Domestication is the process of adapting wild plants and animals for human use. Domestic species are raised for food, work, clothing, medicine, and many other uses. Domesticated plants and animals must be raised and cared for by humans. Domesticated species are not wild.

Plant Domestication
People first domesticated plants about 10,000 years ago, between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia (which includes the modern countries of Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria). People collected and planted the seeds of wild plants. They made sure the plants had as much water as they needed to grow, and planted them in areas with the right amount of sun. Weeks or months later, when the plants blossomed, people harvested the food crops.

The first domesticated plants in Mesopotamia were wheat (Triticum aestivum), barley ( Hordeum vulgare), lentils ( Lens culinaris or Lens esculenta), and types of peas. People in other parts of the world, including eastern Asia, parts of Africa, and parts of North and South America, also domesticated plants. Other plants that were cultivated by early civilizations included rice ( Oryza sativa in Asia) and potatoes ( Solanum tuberosumin South America).

Plants have not only been domesticated for food. Cotton plants were domesticated for fiber, which is used in cloth. Some flowers, such as tulips, were domesticated for ornamental, or decorative, reasons.

Animal Domestication
About the same time they domesticated plants, people in Mesopotamia began to tame animals for meat, milk, and hides. Hides, or the skins of animals, were used for clothing, storage, and to build tent shelters.

Goats were probably the first animals to be domesticated, followed closely by sheep ( Ovis aries). In Southeast Asia, chickens (Gallus domesticus)also were domesticated about 10,000 years ago. Later, people began domesticating larger animals, such as oxen ( Bos taurus) or horses ( Equus ferus caballus), for plowing and transportation. These are known as beasts of burden.

Domesticating animals can be difficult work. The easiest animals to domesticate are herbivores that graze on vegetation, because they are easiest to feed: They do not need humans to kill other animals to feed them, or to grow special crops. Cows, for instance, are easily domesticated. Herbivores that eat grains are more difficult to domesticate than herbivores that graze because grains are valuable and also need to be domesticated. Chickens are herbivores that eat seeds and grain.

Some animals domesticated for one purpose no longer serve that purpose. Some dogs ( Canis lupus familiaris) were domesticated to assist people in hunting, for instance. There are hundreds of domestic dog species today. Many of them are still excellent hunters, but most are pets.

Throughout history, people have bred domesticated animals to promote certain traits. Domestic animals are chosen for their ability to breed in captivity and for their calm temperament. Their ability to resist disease and survive in difficult climates is also valuable.

Over time, these traits make domestic animals different from their wild ancestors. Dogs were probably domesticated from gray wolves ( Canis lupus).

Domesticated animals can look very different from their wild ancestors. For example, early wild chickens weighed about 0.9 kilograms (two pounds). But over thousands of years of domestication, they have been bred to be larger. Larger chickens yield more meat. Today, domestic chickens weigh as much as 7.7 kilograms (17 pounds). Wild chickens only hatched a small number of eggs once a year, while domestic chickens commonly lay 200 or more eggs each year.

Effects on Humans
Domestication marked a major turning point for humans: the beginning of an agricultural way of life and more sedentary communities. Humans no longer had to wander to hunt animals and gather plants for food.

It's improtant to understand, however, that while hunter gatherers did not grow crops they tended plants in allotted areas. Once grown, the plant could then be collected as food.

Agriculture-the cultivating of domestic plants-allowed fewer people to provide food for the community. The stability that came with regular, predictable food production led to increased population density. The world's first villages and cities were built near flooplains where fields of domesticated plants could be grown more easily.

Plant domestication also led to advances in tool production. The earliest farming tools were hand tools made from stone. People later developed metal farming tools, and eventually used plows pulled by domesticated animals to work fields.

Fast Fact

Dogs and Wolves
Though today's dogs were likely domesticated from gray wolves, they are now a distinct species. Dogs' scientific name is canis lupus familiaris, while the scientific name for gray wolves is canis lupus.

Fast Fact

Wild Horses
The process of domestication continues. Cowboys and other horse experts train horses ( Equus ferus caballus). Sometimes, this is called "breaking" a horse. Training a horse to allow a saddle and rider requires an enormous amount of physical work, training, and patience. Horses that are born on ranches or in stables still need to be trained, although training a young horse is easier than domesticating a horse caught in the wild.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Illustrators

Mary Crooks, National Geographic Society

Editors

Jeannie Evers, Emdash Editing, Emdash Editing

Producer

National Geographic Society

other

Last Updated

October 19, 2023

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

Media

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service.

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Domestication is the process of adapting wild plants and animals for human use

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A brief description of Indentured Servants as discussed in American History.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Indentured servants first arrived in America in the decade following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607.

The idea of indentured servitude was born of a need for cheap labor. The earliest settlers soon realized that they had lots of land to care for, but no one to care for it. With passage to the Colonies expensive for all but the wealthy, the Virginia Company developed the system of indentured servitude to attract workers. Indentured servants became vital to the colonial economy.

The timing of the Virginia colony was ideal. The Thirty Year's War had left Europe's economy depressed, and many skilled and unskilled laborers were without work. A new life in the New World offered a glimmer of hope; this explains how one-half to two-thirds of the immigrants who came to the American colonies arrived as indentured servants.

Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. While the life of an indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn't slavery. There were laws that protected some of their rights. But their life was not an easy one, and the punishments meted out to people who wronged were harsher than those for non-servants. An indentured servant's contract could be extended as punishment for breaking a law, such as running away, or in the case of female servants, becoming pregnant.

For those that survived the work and received their freedom package, many historians argue that they were better off than those new immigrants who came freely to the country. Their contract may have included at least 25 acres of land, a year's worth of corn, arms, a cow and new clothes. Some servants did rise to become part of the colonial elite, but for the majority of indentured servants that survived the treacherous journey by sea and the harsh conditions of life in the New World, satisfaction was a modest life as a freeman in a burgeoning colonial economy.

In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed - in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 -and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land. The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude. Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to racial slavery had begun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Indentured Servants In The U.S. | History Detectives | PBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Indentured servants first arrived in America in the decade following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607. The idea of indentured servitude was born of a need for cheap labor. The earliest settlers soon realized that they had lots of land to care for, but no one to care for it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some years ago I found myself at dinner with a small group of people. We had a pleasant time, but soon enough, someone brought up my "weird" opinions. I explained that I was an advocate for freedom and opposed restrictions on it.

A spirited debate followed, of course, and at one point I said something about disliking servitude. In response, one of the people at the table - a medical professional - asked:
"What's so bad about servitude?"
At first I was shocked, because I had never heard anyone say such a thing. I'm an American boy, after all, and I grew up surrounded by at least an implied demand for freedom.

But once past that, I realized I didn't have an answer to the question. I had always taken it as a given that servitude was bad - not only from what I had heard and read, but from what I knew in my bones. I dug within myself for a serious response to the question, but I came up dry. I had no answer to give.

I continued the conversation as best I could, and perhaps I did some small amount of good. But, as I drove home, I realized that I had a problem. This man asked a simple and essential question, and I didn't have an answer to it.

The Answer That Should Have Worked, But Didn't

Needless to say, I did eventually come up with an obvious answer: Being in servitude means that other people control your life, and they can lead you into disaster at any time, purposefully or not.

I saw the man again not too long afterwards and brought up our initial conversation. I gave him my answer to that first question. His response?

"I'm doing okay."

In other words, he didn't care. Now that really bothered me.

By all outward appearances, he was in control and successful. But, aside from work-related activities, he avoided almost every subject I brought up. He didn't want to explore any new thought, had no measurable curiosity, and was threatened by the very idea of freedom.

Why?

The answer, it turned out, was a simple one: This man liked the idea of other people running his life for him. That way, nothing would ever be his fault, and if things went badly, there would always be someone to blame.

No doubt you run into such people all the time - your friends, family and coworkers. To put it another way, my doctor friend didn't really appreciate life itself. He grudgingly exerted himself in his medical trade, but wanted no further responsibility. He was happy to remain as minimally conscious as possible.

Now, I don't want to pick on the fellow too much, but he makes a good example.

People have a tendency to hide behind masks. In this man's case, the mask was "doctor." There's nothing wrong with being a doctor, of course, but to limit ourselves to a single role in life - even a good one - is a big mistake. We are vibrant, creative creatures by nature. You can see this in small children, who simply throw themselves into whatever subject interests them and expect to discover the truth of it. That's our nature too, regardless of how badly it's been beaten out of us over the years.

Freedom and Life

The feeling of zero restraint is exhilarating. And it's wonderful to feel your natural preference to do good, separate from the fear of punishment. But even so, what's really important about freedom is that it allows life to flourish.

In other words, freedom is a means, not an end.

It allows life to expand and to express itself. Again, the example of the child: He or she naturally wants to explore, to know, to see, to learn... to live, as opposed to merely existing.

Freedom allows life to operate. Servitude, on the other hand, limits life to narrow channels.

The truth is that people lose their love for liberty when they lose their love for life. For this man, following rules that others set made sense - it's a safe position. But once there, he'll never really grow again, and he will be cut off from a lifetime of discovery and satisfaction.

What's bad about servitude is that it prevents us from living.

Bad News, Good News

The bad news you already know: To one extent or another, we've all let our love of life dim and have taken 'safe' positions. We live in a tough world after all.

The good news, however, is that we can regain what we've lost merely by changing our minds. As Earl Nightingale was famous for saying:
We become what we think about.
To repair ourselves requires that we think about these things - to notice when we begin playing a role, to act on curiosity when we feel it, to stop defending our previous choices, to expect surprises and opportunities.

Try it. You'll like it.

Paul Rosenberg
FreemansPerspective.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom and Servitude: Could You Have Answered This Question?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some years ago I found myself at dinner with a small group of people. We had a pleasant time, but soon enough, someone brought up my "weird" opinions. I explained that I was an advocate for freedom and opposed restrictions on it. A spirited debate followed, of course, and at one point I said something about disliking servitude.