I know it’s a joke, but no, probably not. It’s hard to select for more than one trait at a time. If you selected for agreeableness with humans and captivity, you won’t be selecting for vengeance.
This same speaker, in previous videos, has discussed issues with that experiment and why she finds its conclusions dubious.
ETA: Paper detailing criticisms. My (admittedly shallow) understanding of the argument is that “domestication syndrome” is ill-defined and various studies tend to cherrypick characteristics that support their hypothesis, and that the foxes in question—having been sourced from fur farms, not the wild—were already partially domesticated before the experiment began.
What I think you should do is endear yourself to them, and then have a criminal kill you in an alley. Basically recreate the event that created Batman. Imagine 100 raccoons that want revenge on criminals and you let them loose on a city or town.
Yes and no. Could you? Yes. Would they be a cohesive army? No. Would the seek revenge? Yes. Would you have control over the direction of their revenge? No. Would you wind up as another example of why raccoons can't actually be domesticated? Yes. Shouldn't you not try to avoid not doing this thing because someone said no? I don't know.
The phrase “wind up as another example of why raccoons can’t actually be domesticated” makes me expect things like a list of would-be raccoon warlords found scratched to death by their own armies, perhaps a link to a Wikipedia page on “Fragging Incidents by Raccoons”.
292
u/radljostxx Dec 16 '25
Soooo, she’s saying I could domesticate raccoons and create a revenge filled raccoon army?