A new definition could just muddy things, Gering notes. “If we suddenly reclassify ‘domestic’ such that bed bugs are considered domestic, then all of this existing literature becomes very confusing.”
A domestic world
It is possible that no definition will satisfy everyone. “Nature is wet, and squiggly, and doesn’t easily fit into boxes,” Driscoll says. But the debate highlights just how much of a role humans play in the lives of other organisms on this planet.
“As a simple definition, I think that’s fine,” Bogaard says. But it begs an important question, she notes: What is a human-associated niche? A house, yes. A farmer’s field, yes. But if animals that thrive on our trash are “domestic” because they are in a human-altered niche, she notes, what about ecosystems altered by human-caused climate change? If we continue as we have, after all, soon all animals that thrive will be doing so under human effects.
Schell also has questions about how far a human niche can go. He notes that many organisms are doing well in Chernobyl, where humans no longer set foot, but which is, without question, very human-affected. “The wolves are adapting in that environment,” he says. “Would we call them domesticated? They’re alive. They’re thriving.”
Under this definition, that is something scientists would have to face, Lord agrees. “Continued human encroachment on less disturbed environments could lead to a future dominated by domestic species,” she explains. Not only that, as we tear down natural environments, species “currently capable of surviving outside human-dominated areas might lose their natural habitats. Consequently, they would become reliant on human-created environments.” They would die—or they would evolve and become domestic.
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
