EVEN to their biggest fans, dogs can seem ridiculously lacking in survival skills. Rufus takes off at full pelt after a squirrel with an expression of great determination, only to reach a nearby tree long after the squirrel has scampered to safety. Bella barks ferociously at a metal statue of an elk. Poppy stalks a wind-blown paper bag down the pavement. Dickens refuses to go outside to urinate because it is raining. Jethro runs home with his tail between his legs when he encounters a wild animal nearby.
Such anecdotes are a common source of amusement at dog parks, on social media and in dog-related conversations. But behind the laughter lurks an serious scientific question: if humans were to suddenly disappear from the scene, could dogs survive? After at least 14,000 years of domestication, could this species we have co-evolved with cope without provisions of food, care and regular cuddles?
Intrigued by this question, we have explored it as a thought experiment in our upcoming book, . Using evolutionary theory and the growing body of research on free-ranging dogs, we imagine a post-human future for pooches. We try to work out what they would look like; how they might forage, reproduce and raise young; the nature of their social lives; and the cognitive and emotional skills they would need to successfully navigate a world in which they must compete, cooperate and coexist with other animals. Where we wound up surprised us. Not only did it highlight the immense flexibility of our canine friends, it also revealed some important lessons about how humans can improve the lot of dogs while we are still here.
Advertisement
Dogs are among the most successful species of mammal on the planet. A billion or so of them inhabit every corner of the globe, living in all sorts of places, from homes and urban metropolises to deserts, rainforests and high Tibetan plateaus. When asked to imagine a dog, most people in the UK and US will picture a pet on a leash, chasing a ball in a park or gobbling a bowl of food. In fact, only a small minority of the world’s dogs live as companion animals, whereas between 80 and 85 per cent live independently as feral, village, street or community dogs.
What allows dogs to thrive in such diverse ecological niches is the fact that, like all canids, they are versatile and opportunistic. They retain many of the traits and behaviours of their wild relatives, such as wolves, coyotes and jackals, with whom they can still interbreed. Pet dogs may not be raised in a way that cultivates these skills. However, as a species, dogs haven’t “forgotten” how to forage, hunt, procreate, raise offspring, get along in groups and defend themselves and their homes. This adaptability means that dogs are likely to survive and even flourish in a post-human world.
Nevertheless, the transition years after humans disappeared would be difficult. Meeting the demands associated with an abrupt loss of human support would require behavioural, neural, anatomical and physiological adaptations – and a healthy dose of luck. The geographical distribution of dogs would shift. Even free-ranging dogs currently tend to live in close proximity to humans but, with people out of the picture, dogs would be forced to inhabit other ecosystems. There would probably be significant die-offs during the first few years. But evolution would adapt dogs to their new life because the individuals best able to meet diverse, novel challenges would have the highest odds of surviving and passing on their genes. As a result, subsequent generations would be genetically fitter and more able to learn survival skills for themselves and from other dogs.
Compelling as the idea might be, dogs wouldn’t “de-domesticate” and go back to being wolves. One way to conceptualise their possible evolutionary trajectories is through focusing on what biologists call life history strategies. The goal here is to understand how organisms evolve to balance the competing energetic costs of survival, growth and reproduction. Taking this approach with post-human dog evolution raises key questions, including which life history strategies would converge with those of other canids; how different variables, such as body size and feeding behaviour, would mesh; and how long it might take for evolutionary changes in form and behaviour to occur.
The most immediate and significant challenge faced by post-human dogs would be acquiring food. Nearly all dogs, even those that don’t receive direct human support, depend to some extent on human food subsidies, which is a fancy way of saying that they eat our rubbish, waste (yes, our faeces) and handouts. Dogs are highly adaptable dietary generalists, so they could survive on a wide range of foods, from plants, berries and insects to small mammals and birds – and perhaps even some larger prey. Post-human dogs would eat whatever they could get their paws on.
“Mixing of breeds would result in dogs looking much like today’s feral dogs”
Different feeding strategies would evolve over time depending on their ecological niche, local food availability and competition with other animals. Their diet would be constrained by their physical capabilities and, in turn, influence how they evolved over time. Eventually, different populations might even become distinct species, using different feeding strategies to fill a range of ecological niches.
Physical change would be rapid once human-directed artificial selection was replaced by natural selection. Humans have bred dogs to take a vast range of forms and sizes – this would change. First to go would be maladaptive traits, such as extremely foreshortened snouts, which can inhibit breathing, and pronounced skin folds, which can harbour disease-causing microbes. Within a few generations, mixing of breeds would probably result in all dogs looking very much like today’s feral dogs: medium sized with pointy ears, longish snouts, straight tails and medium-length, reddish brown fur, which would be thinner or thicker depending on their habitat. However, in the longer term, populations that became isolated either geographically or due to speciation might evolve distinct physical characteristics, shaped by random genetic changes or by adaptation to a specific niche.
The mating and reproductive strategies of post-human dogs wouldn’t need to shift as much as their appearance or feeding ecology. Nevertheless, there could be some changes as natural selection favoured strategies that led to greater breeding success in the absence of humans. These might include more prolonged and ritualised flirting, reverting back to coming into heat once a year as wolves do rather than twice, and greater involvement of mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles and possibly non-family members in the rearing of youngsters.
Teamwork
Many different forms of social organisation could work in a world without humans, including the formation of bonded pairs, small groups and larger packs. However, to succeed, dogs would need to sharpen their social skills, including communicating intentions and resolving conflicts. Like all social animals, dogs are capable of learning from one another, and this would be crucial for survival. Skills developed during puppies’ early socialisation period would be particularly important. The inner lives of post-human dogs would also change as they evolved the cognitive skills and emotional intelligence required to interact with other animals and make them successful members of wild communities.
This may just be a thought experiment, but it can be useful to see dogs as wild animals. Considering them in this way can help us think through how to give them the best possible lives today – especially the companion dogs with whom we share our homes and that may live under surprisingly stressful conditions because they are captive and cannot fulfil their basic needs and drives without our help.
There is already incredible diversity in how dogs make their way in the world and interact with humans. Recognising this can remind us that there is no universal dog. We need to be careful not to make sweeping generalisations about what dogs do or don’t do, or even what is good or bad for them: the focus needs to be on individuals. Still, looking at the behaviour of free-ranging dogs can help us identify how dogs tend to behave when left to their own devices, and so better understand and appreciate the ancient impulses that still lurk in dogs’ brains, influencing what they do and how they feel. Those of us who live with pet dogs should do our best to allow and encourage them to engage in a wide range of typical and dog-appropriate behaviours. We should let them use their senses – such as their incredibly active noses – and socialise with other dogs if they enjoy it, and should also build strong bonds with them that help them develop into the emotionally and socially intelligent beings they naturally are.
Our control over the breeding of pet dogs brings another responsibility. Certain traits make dogs better able to adapt to different conditions and more likely to survive and enjoy life. Others do the opposite. It is hard to think of a scenario, future or present, in which maladaptive traits are good for a dog. We should stop selectively breeding for characteristics that only serve human aesthetic desires, such as extreme size, excessive skin folds, bulging eyes and squished faces.
It isn’t pleasant to imagine a world in which humans don’t exist, but it is an important exercise. When we no longer put ourselves at the centre of the picture, then fruitful thinking can emerge. It helps us shine a light on who dogs are on their own terms and how our relationships with them can best benefit us both. It’s a win-win.
It’s a dog’s life
Dogs co-evolved with humans and would surely face some challenges without us. However, they would also gain a lot physically, psychologically and socially if people were to suddenly disappear.
CONS:
No regular meals or access to human food sources.
Greater risk of disease, injury and predation by other animals.
No veterinary care or drugs for pain or psychological distress.
Loss of comfortable accommodation and human grooming.
Loss of human companionship and mental stimulation.
PROS:
Full control over movement, reproduction and social life.
No experimentation, dog fighting, overfeeding or abuse.
No mutilation, tail docking, debarking or ear cropping.
Greater and more dog-appropriate sensory stimulation.
No selective breeding for debilitating, maladaptive traits.
