Neoteny is 100% a thing and relevant to domestication...

But that's more because childhood is a very very expensive thing biologically that is punished harshly in most environments, but pays off dividends in adulthood.

At a certain point, it's best to never grow out of those conditions.

Domestication is a prerequisite for human civilization (permanent urban centers) which is seemingly a prerequisite for most of our advanced technology, said technology then intensifies neoteny.

You're still viewing it thru the lens of human civilization

The nature of domestication is often misunderstood. Most definitions of the process are anthropocentric and center on human intentionality, which minimizes the role of unconscious selection and also excludes non-human domesticators. An overarching, biologically grounded definition of domestication is discussed, which emphasizes its core nature as a coevolutionary process that arises from a specialized mutualism, in which one species controls the fitness of another in order to gain resources and/or services. This inclusive definition encompasses both human-associated domestication of crop plants and livestock as well as other non-human domesticators, such as insects. It also calls into question the idea that humans are themselves domesticated, given that evolution of human traits did not arise through the control of fitness by another species.

Just a moment...

(www.cell.com)

I think you'd be interested in that article

You're not wrong that a broader view of domestication as any kind of biological mutualism is more broadly correct and useful in many senses.

But... I'm talking about humans.

Such phenotypic similarities may arise from parallel/convergent evolution [71,72], possibly associated with secondary effects of the domestication process (for example, increased population density or sedentism) [68,69] but arguably do not directly spring from the human/crop, human/livestock, and human/pet mutualisms. Those who have remarked on these similarities need to explore other mechanisms to explain these evolutionary convergences.

As I already mentioned, I disagree on the bolded part.

Look at our food system and see what it is currently doing to us.

Even with the definition that 'domestication is naturally arising mutualism, not necessarily an initial intention in mind'... this still fits into it.

We altered our food, it altered us.

If you're less cynical than me, well, it was unintentional that our changes to food would change us, so its unintentional mutualism.

If you are as cynical as me, well then:

Certain extremely powerful groups and people chose to do things like massively subsidize corn, knowingly fallaciously drum up fats as the main risk to general public health, when they actually knew the real problem was certain kinds of sugars, but they buried that research, and now US citizens eat some kind of HFCS in absurd amounts in all kinds of food.

This fucks our endocrine systems and increases neoteny.

Then its... an intentional mutualism, as directed by an elite and powerdul social group of humans toward the plants and the other humans.

Either way... this did all start with humans domesticating plants, whether initially intentionally aiming at this outcome or not.

You larger idea of domestication is valid, but I'm talking about the constrained case of domestication and its effects as they relate to humans.

I find other kinds of interspecies mutualistic relationships fascinating, but I don't think expanding the concept of domestication to be less anthropocentric... somehow negates the application of the term to what it expanded from, and does not disclude.

My understanding is that dogs were domesticated from a now-extinct species that was the common ancestor of dogs and gray wolves, but not descended from them.

Krapolis is a meh show, but I watched it all for Matt Berry and Richard (won't even try to spell, Moss from IT Crowd)...

But their episode on the domestication of wolves was amazing.

Isn't that like exactly how domestication works

For predators generally yes, but for prey not necessarily

pretty sure if you stop providing grass for the horses, they'd leave too (or at least try to)

I'm not sure that's accurate. They'd leave if they have no access to grass, but you don't have to actively give it to them for them to stay.

yeah but I meant in both cases, they stay for the food

I got that, but I don't think it's true. Humans don't provide them with food (except during winter, but that's also more recent), we prevent escape. Otherwise why are pens necessary? We'd just pile up food, and the animals would keep coming back.

Inversely, it feels almost instinctive for humans to offer treats to animals they meet. Despite science being clear it’s a bad thing to do, it’s really hard to convince people not to feed wildlife for example.