The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Choose Domestication [Hardcover]

Stephen Budiansky (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: February 1992

A reevaluation of human beings' relationship to animals analyzes the emotional debate over animals' rights and humans' ethical responsibilities, discussing how humans and animals were linked at the end of the Ice Age. 25,000 first printing. $25,000 ad/promo.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Angered by the animal rights movement, the author, assistant managing editor of U.S. News & World Report , attempts to demonstrate that domestication of animals is a natural product of evolution rather than a human invention. Drawing on recent scientific research, he expounds the theory that since the end of the Ice Age domesticated animals, as well as mice, rats and other such creatures have been biologically motivated to throw their lot in with humans for food and protection. Therefore, when we catch a house mouse and release it in the woods or stop a farmer from docking the tail of a lamb, we arrogantly interfere with a complex evolutionary process. He claims that an understanding of the true nature of domestication should make us take our obligation to animals more seriously, but he doesn't explain how. This biased book offers little for readers genuinely concerned about humans' capacity to destroy nature. It does, however, provide plenty of ammunition for those who seek to discredit animal rights advocates in particular and the environmental movement in general. Illustrations not seen by PW.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

Budiansky, a well-known science writer, presents a new perspective on the animal rights debate. He counters the arguments of the animal activists with his theory that domestication of animals is a function of evolution rather than an invention of human convenience. Environmental changes, specifically the Ice Age, necessitated a cooperative relationship between animals and humans; without this cooperation some species would have been unable to survive. Budiansky finds the social structure of animals remarkably similar to our own, and we seem to share a mutual understanding with our domesticated animals. The list of references is substantial and current. This unique title will appeal to readers who see human attitudes toward animals as a factor in the study of sociology, anthropology, or philosophy. Recommended for academic and large public library collections.
- Debo rah Emerson, Monroe Community Coll. Lib., Rochester, N.Y.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 190 pages
• Publisher: William Morrow & Co; 1st edition (February 1992)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0688096107
• ISBN-13: 978-0688096106
• Product Dimensions: 8.3 x 5.7 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,612,738 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Stephen Budiansky is a writer, historian, and journalist, the author of 14 books about military and intelligence history, science, and the natural world. He is a former editor and writer at U.S. News & World Report and The Atlantic and the former Washington Editor of the scientific journal Nature. He lives on a small farm in northern Virginia.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Not mere gibberish!, September 14, 2009

By 

Andrew Fildes (Melbourne, Australia) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Choose Domestication (Hardcover)

I was stimulated to write this review by the ill conceived rant of the first comment. It is neither 'propaganda' nor based in science. Good grief. This is an invitation to think differently about our relationship with species that have allowed themselves to be domesticated or have become our fellow travellers (i.e. 'vermin')
I read it some years ago and found it to be critical to my own thinking. It does not contradict the idea of animal rights at all except in the knee-jerk thinking of the profoundly illogical. It simply makes a cogent argument that such animals have done very well indeed out of the arrangement - not as individuals of course but as a species. It invites thinking about the broad picture rather than fastening on small, cute and fluffy creatures and their fates. (Has anyone EVER given money to save an endangered slug?)
An individual domestic animal may be poorly treated or meet an unpleasant fate but that is an entirely separate argument - and one that Budiansky's other books on dogs, etc. would suggest he finds also offensive.
The conventional social arguments about eating meat are thin in the extreme - few of the proponents of animal rights have actually read philosophers such as Peter Singer and base their views on very poor thinking. Budiansky brings some clarity of thought to this area of discourse.

3 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Udder Nonsense, February 27, 2005

By 

Rick Bogle (Madison, WI United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Choose Domestication (Hardcover)

The Covenant of the Wild is an example of anti-animal rights propaganda masquerading as science. For readers with an interest in this genre, it is worth reading.

Readers with a limited knowledge of natural history or who are unused to careful critical thinking will likely come away with a gross misunderstanding of the history of domestication and a biased view of the animal rights and the environmental movements. It is unclear whether Budiansky sets out to deceive his audience or is just poorly informed.

There is good evidence in the psychology literature that one's early childhood experiences can have a lasting effect on one's outlook. Budiansky explains that he was raised without exposure to animals. This might explain his bias and his projection that no one knows the source of meat or how animals behave other than farmers or hunters. He now feels, after moving to a farm and raising sheep, that he is an expert on animal behavior and animals' desires.

In the preface to the 1999 paperback edition, Budiansky writes:

"...we are the only species capable of conceiving of the pain and suffering of another; ... we are the only species capable of understanding the consequences of our actions or our inaction."

Writers in this genre uniformly struggle to name the characteristics that somehow set us apart from other animals and give us a right to hurt them. Budiansky's claim is illustrative of the scientific illiteracy, or selective consideration of evidence that afflicts writers in this area. The premier example of members of other species being aware of, being concerned with, and acting to protect others may the 1964 paper published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, "`Altruistic' Behavior in Rhesus Monkeys." Budiansky must be unaware of the research in this area.

Budiansky sprinkles similar ignorant claims throughout his text. He revisits the claim that monkeys were necessary to the development of the polio vaccine but doesn't mention the fact that in 1984, Albert Sabin, who developed the oral polio vaccine, swore under oath to the U.S. House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs that "the work on [polio] prevention was long delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys."

Overall, even if one discounts his factual errors as simple ignorance, his argument that domestic animals were, in some twisted sense, willing participants in our early domestication of them is poorly argued and fraught with internal inconsistency and contradiction. I'm amazed that such gibberish came from the pen of a past editor at the journal Nature, but maybe this helps explain the journal's unwillingness to examine the ethical implications of our discoveries about other animals' minds and emotions.

For anyone other than a student of the anti-animal propaganda, or someone seeking to salve his or her own dislike of progressive views, this book will largely be a waste of time.

3 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Thought provoking contribution to a contentious issue., February 26, 1998

By A Customer

This review is from: The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Choose Domestication (Hardcover)

Budiansky, standing nearly alone among the many works on the ethics of human to animal relationships, sees domestication not as an unnatural evil, forced upon animals, to our benefit and their detriment. In a refreshing view of the world he does not apologize for domestication, but attempts to show that it is neither unnatural, forced, nor lacking in benefits for non-human animals. Furthermore, he calls into question many of the fundamental world views held by popular authors who hold that domestication is morally wrong. Budiansky may not have everything right, but this book is a much needed perspective in the debate of animal rights and human welfare. I strongly recommend it.