Domesticated animals have been around for tends of millions of years. Many ant species look after aphids in exchange for sugary secretions from their six-legged flocks. Human domestication of selected species certainly assured their survival to a far greater degree than remaining in the wild would have.
Even species that are raised for meat and hides rather than for companionship benefit in the evolutionary sense: most of the females live to reproduce and the overall populations are considerable. The down side is their complete dependency on humans. A toy poodle seldom survives long in the wild, neither does a farm-raised hen. Moreover, other species and humans as well often find feral lifeforms to be a nuisance. Forced to create a new biological niche for themselves, they have no choice but to intrude on the established populations.
Humans have long tried to domesticate other humans. Sometimes the control is almost total (North Korea), at other times bread and circuses or dole/welfare payments were provided in exchange for votes. Individuals from a single dependent generation could transition back into independence, but after several generations of welfare culture, the results appear to resemble feral rather than wild (independent) specimens. Completely dependent people lose the ability to think or to show initiative for lack of need. The inefficiency of the welfare bureaucracy may have been a saving factor that required some ability just to navigate the system. A more perfect system of distributing resources for nothing will likely produce even less capable and more perpetually dependent clients. Would increasing numbers in themselves indicate evolutionary success of those people who succeed in becoming domesticated by others? They are generally safe from the cannibal pot, and even from such tasks as conscription as their labor becomes closer to worthless.