ITT: Prove Jared Diamond wrong in a picture

Because it would make their lives easier and facilitate more developments?

Thank you, Lao Yang

>because hurf durp im fucking retarded
Listen what pre history civilization do you know of that wanted to facilitate more development? There is none. The indo europeans who might've domesticated the horse cared about meat first. Food sustenance. Making their life easier.
Try harder
Oh also for the first pic
news.vice.com/story/one-of-the-most-repeated-facts-about-deforestation-in-haiti-is-a-lie

Thank you, Lao Yang

thank you, industrious lao tang

oh SHIT not lao tang! i fucked up now
I's be sorry lao yang, please bless me with your gravel

>However, Zebras are notoriously hard to deal with, so taming or domesticate them would be difficult and not worth doing unless you had some kind of payoff.
I thought the point was that their spine wasn't ridiculously over-sturdy like a horses, so they couldn't be used for mounts without basically killing them in very short order?

>implying he's right

Thank you, Lao Yang

Is Lao Yang his actual name or his nickname?
It's common practice to call guys "Lao" (Old) in Chinese. In this case he would be Ol' Yang, like Ol' Joe.

>However, Zebras are notoriously hard to deal with
yes, because they weren't domesticated yet. Do you think the ancestors of domestic horses were enthusiastic about having people sitting on their back?

>Of course this doesn't happen if you're a dumb African and you give up after you fail a couple of times because you're genetically lazy.
They domesticated cattle, unlike Europeans who domesticated fucking rabbits and maybe dogs

The aurochs (/ˈɔːrɒks/ or /ˈaʊrɒks/; pl. aurochs, or rarely aurochsen, aurochses), also urus, ure (Bos primigenius), is an extinct type of large wild cattle that inhabited Europe, Asia, and North Africa. It is the ancestor of domestic cattle. The species survived in Europe until the last recorded aurochs died in the Jaktorów Forest, Poland in 1627.

During the Neolithic Revolution, which occurred during the early Holocene, at least two aurochs domestication events occurred: one related to the Indian subspecies, leading to zebu cattle, and the other one related to the Eurasian subspecies, leading to taurine cattle.

What you quoted says nothing about aurochs being domesticated in Europe. I am starting to believe people here read on a 4th grave level unable to even understand their owns posts.

It says that it was domesticated twice, once in India and once in Eurasia. Not in Africa, as you claimed. That's all I wanted to show. Looks like your comprehension is pretty shit.

You can't domesticate even tame animals if you can't get them to multiply in captivity. Africans have tamed cheetahs, and there are even tame cheetahs aroung nowadays, but you won't see domesticated cheetahs because they don't breed in captivity, they need much free range to court each other. Likewise, while zebras could be tamed, they couldn't be made to breed. And zebras are comparatively weak compared to horses, they aren't as good burden animals. And no, horses didn't bulk up because smart steppe people realized that potential (that could only be achieved hundreds of years down the road), they just bred larger and larger horses for meat, until, by accident, they had an horse strong enough for labour. Africans had better sources of meat, pretty much everyone in the world had, that's why the only guys that domesticated horses, ever, were stinky, nomadic, illiterate, steppe savages.

Aurochs were recorded as being relatively docile, surprisingly easy to tame. There is some hints that there might be a third source for cattle in North Africa.

>Do you think the ancestors of domestic horses were enthusiastic about having people sitting on their back?
They couldn't be riden at all. A human would break it's back. They weren't domesticated for ridding at all. They were domesticated because they were easy to control in the first place and steppe people didn't have better sources of meat.

JARED BTFO

Yes you could, just not the same way as modern horses. Riders would sit much more forward, almost directly above the front legs and hug the horse instead of sitting upright on the back.

Those horses hadn't co-evolved with Humans. Zebras had and knew what danger humans possessed. It isn't a coincidence that the Megafauna was less affected in Africa than in many other places.

READ THE POST YOU ARE RESPONDING TOO.

Horses and zebras were both hard to deal with, but one was actually worth domesticating because it was a good source of meat during winter. Riding came later.

>news.vice.com/story/one-of-the-most-repeated-facts-about-deforestation-in-haiti-is-a-lie
That's interesting. Reminds me of something similar in Ethiopia, which is usually claimed to be undergoing enormous deforestation; academia.edu/22891250/Desertification_Northern_Ethiopia_re-photographed_after_140_years

...

>Those horses hadn't co-evolved with Humans. Zebras had and knew what danger humans possessed. It isn't a coincidence that the Megafauna was less affected in Africa than in many other places.

Exactly.

However there is next to no archaeological evidence to support 'blitzkrieg', colloquial name for Australian Aboriginal driven megafauna extinction, unlike in North America.

Because in Australia the fauna blitzkrieg you