Slashdot Mirror
Study: Chimpanzees Have Evolved To Kill Each Other
sciencehabit writes A major new study of warfare in chimpanzees finds that lethal aggression can be evolutionarily beneficial in that species, rewarding the winners with food, mates, and the opportunity to pass along their genes. The findings run contrary to recent claims that chimps fight only if they are stressed by the impact of nearby human activity—and could help explain the origins of human conflict as well.
Most animals fight for mates. The only reason they don't kill each other is it's tougher for them to be lethal about it. But if a moose could head-butt another moose into oblivion to win a mate, I've no doubt it would do it.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
What a load of PC "humans are the only baddies in the world" bollocks.
Chimpanzees have a well documented history of intra-group hierarchical violence, violence against females and extra-group murdering raids. This is nothing new. Anthropologists have known this stuff for decades.
This is a case where new science seems to confirm the common sense that old science was questioning. Of course chimps evolved to fight. They fight for the same reasons human tribes fight - competition for resources (including breeding females as a resource).
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Chimpanzees live in well-defined colonies, and groups of males patrol the borders of each colony's territory. This is where violent conflicts are known to arise, particularly if a patrol encounters a single chimp from a neighbouring community - but never before has this much data on the lethality of those interactions been combined in a single study.
But that's 72 ugly virgins
Table-ized A.I.
I for one think she's cute.
It does. My conflicts mostly arise when I am stressed by the impact of nearby chimp activity.
...we'll read about chimp politicians
Table-ized A.I.
So what does this say about humans?
Should be studying bonobo behavior more than we study chmpanzees?
They are the personification of "make love not war" after all.
Yes, studying chimpanzee behaviour clearly provides a link to human behaviour... NOT!
Huh. So, they're more like humans than we first thought.
You see this from the anti-hunting and lunatic PETA crowd. "Humans are the only species that kill for pleasure or kill for reasons other than survival". Bill Maher (PETA member) said it several times last season of his Real Time show. Yet everything from orca whales to monkeys to domestic cats kills for reasons other than day-to-day survival.
They kill for fun, for the adrenaline rush, for sport, for territory, and sometimes simply out of instinct or curiosity. Cats leave trophies on their owners' back porches. They'll kill birds and mice and even bats and then leave the dead body for their owner to find. Killer whales just slaughter packs of seals for fun. Often times just killing them and not even eating them. Some animals are so naturally deadly like sharks that they cannot help killing something by simply "test" biting an animal to see if its good food. A shark bites a human but realizes the flesh is poor and there are too many bones, so it backs off for good, yet the human is dead because half his stomach and leg were chewed off entirely by the shark.
i'll take you all on goddamit. ac gon' be swimmin in wimin
Lions and wolves will fight and kill each other. One argument I've seen is that they are at the top of the food chain so there is no other animal out there to keep their numbers in check.
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/science/22chimp.html
I would like to hear somebody explain logically why they think the behavior of other modern non-human species provides more insight into human behavior, than simply studying human behavior directly.
It's not just chimps and humans. Think hen-picking. Or think of ant guards standing guard outside a nest, they will kill any workers infected with deadly fungus then carry the body out to the graveyard where they then commit suicide. Nature has her ways. i would not be surprised if this behavior is noted in the plant kingdom as well. Then there is the Gaia hypothesis in which we could expect this "balancing" even on planetary scale.
I would like to hear somebody explain logically why they think the behavior of other modern non-human species provides more insight into human behavior, than simply studying human behavior directly.
Its just a convenient method to debunk the idea that killing outside of hunting is unnatural.
First, it is the "origin," not now. It gives us a what-if on human behavior.
Second, they can watch chimps do things to each other that would be considered an ethical violation if a study let humans act in a similar way.
Third, humans have been studied a lot, you have to be quite creative to get another ounce out of what is already in the literature. Chimps, not studied as much, so there are more opportunities to learn stuff.
... and cast weapons made of metal from molds that they manufactured themselves, just so they can kill more effectively.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I would like to hear somebody explain logically why they think the behavior of other modern non-human species provides more insight into human behavior, than simply studying human behavior directly.
Because it gives insight about early human behavior. If violence is an innate part of chimps behavior that means violence was part of our direct ancestors behavior as well and can help to explain conflicts between racial groups, religious groups, ethnic groups, etc. Basically, it helps us understand the roots of our "we vs. they" mentality.
But seriously, primate research is worthwhile on it's own. You can't directly prove connections between us and them; but that is not unlike a huge amount of science which relies upon observation, statistics and expert judgement calls. When they act similar that can be a clue or merely a coincidence but it warrants further investigation. It's a technique that allows for faster probing of the problem space. BESIDES, if you think that observing chimps influences their behavior (as the "skeptics" denier fanatics always claim) just imagine trying to study humans! Humans are way more difficult to study without influencing their behavior thereby tainting the study.
The biological connection is obvious; any "insights" they do in the research with a biological connection become useful even if at 1st they seem unjustified. The work can be applied in new ways later on if one proves there is no connection.
As far as pure human nature study by primate research; well, that is based upon theories which may or may not be proven some day in the future. You have the classic old Feud work on "base desires" which think about the primitive instinctive aspects behind the manifestations; his work in this area is the basis for modern propaganda (WW1 and really big after the Nazis used it so well. Today, it controls most consumers.) Following that success, one could approach further from that perspective - making our relation to primates and their more primitive state ideal.
Ultimately, I think most the work in the area ends up with the search for biological parallels between us. Say that HATE is really just a manifestation of FEAR; can you ever prove such a thing? nope. not in a hard science way; it's all subjective. But if you can study primates you might find more concrete proof with them on a biological level. A Turing machine is a lame computer nothing like your CPU but it's useful to prove things (the difference being that you can concretely prove the CPU is equivalent to the Turing machine and you can't with a chimp since they evolved differently even if they are nearly the same DNA.)
As far as evolutionary pressures-- the best theory for human brains was we already made it to the top of the food chain being as primitive as chimps and what made the apes of the plains smart was that they had to war against each other for resources. Just like humans have always done; my tribe and me against you and your tribe. Given how we are the most evolved distance running animals on earth, territorial borders are meaningless. Your group isn't going to give up after running down a lion to exhaustion for 20miles simply because you ended out of your usual turf.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Duh. They just proved tha sex leads to procreation.
They are all now in the NRA
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
So around 6000 years ago? Only we don't call those mammals chimps, but they are very, very closely related.
Because when you try to study a human in it's natural habitat, they act as if they're being studied, whereas animals continue to be themselves in that same scenario. Although I don't think that animal behavior actually explains human behavior.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
You can control variables of a study better with a simpler or more controllable model organism. Also many studies would be deemed unethical to be performed with humans.
Not with monkey hands, but I'm sure the NRA can come up with a triggering mechanism they can use.
Gee, I wonder where they learned the behavior from.... humans, perhaps?
In evolution, winners win!
The world is now a more enlightened place.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
I see it in everyone. I see geeks that only really want to be geeks because it gives them the bananas to woo female mates, and because they look unattractive.
Apes like Balmer only pretend to be geeks in this manner.
If you are ugly, you move to deceptive strategies.
It's a sad world that rewards this reverse darwinism.
If one can study less complex parts, it is easier to isolate variables and gain fundamental understanding. The assumption in this case that chimpanzees are "less complex" might be true, due to less of the social constructions the human mind enables.
We often study simplified models to gain understanding of a greater whole.
What we all have in common is the urge to survive.
Some have done things of low moral value and in order to justify it prefer to think there is no such thing as moral and ethics. That would lessen what they did, or still do.
When we have given up on everything else the last thing left is the desire to be right in our decisions and actions. If we loose that all is apparently lost. So we dream up all sorts of reasons to be right (and winning).
No, they need to come up with a triggering mechanism for grizzly paws. After all, don't we have a second amendment right to armed bears?
Granted, I might need to reread that section a bit.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Oh, way ta go ya' dope, now they'll know they have been infiltrated by the democrats.
Come on, are you one of those special people that can talk to animals or something? You think you know why another species kills by watching some video? There are an infinite number of reasons why (sport being a possibility) but please don't act like you know what was going on in some cat's head when they leave you a 'trophy'. Maybe your cat is bringing food back to the alpha (you). Maybe the killer whales are clearing territory. You have no clue, I know that.
Most animals fight for mates. The only reason they don't kill each other is it's tougher for them to be lethal about it. But if a moose could head-butt another moose into oblivion to win a mate, I've no doubt it would do it.
I think this is not correct. Many species show a strong ability to cooperate, and it's virtually certain that other species have "empathy."
In the book Sex and War by Malcolm Potts and Thomas Hayden, it's pointed out that precisely two species share unique traits of group violence that aren't seen in other mammels: chimps and humans. The is in stark contrast with bonnobos, for instance, which tend to show far less violence as a component of sex and far more mutual gratification. I think the idea that nature is inherently violent and that ethics and morality should be ignored when we talk about evolution is more telling of human bias than actual observation.
"Let the bears pay the bear tax. I'll pay the Homer tax."
I know it's not really related, but it's the first thing that came to mind when thinking about bears and laws.
Humans have a hard time being objective about themselves.
Pure humans, ie black people, tend to be more tribal. Me against my brother, my brother and me against my neighbor, my neighbor and me against the next street, ect ect.
Diluted/impure humans, those with neanderthal or ape creature dna, are more communistic, less alpha-bro.
I've got no doubt that the vast majority of people are only motivated by the worst possible reasons for their behavior. And if in the end humans are only going to be content with subjugation and ultimate control, then I really can't see anything but a global nuclear war, or a similar event where we get too much power and abuse it to no end, which results in the obliteration of the human race. If people are too hateful, lazy, or ignorant to understand that fighting over resources is the worst possible reason to go to war then we really don't have anything going for us.
This.
Kythe
If and only if said species is closely related. Socially motivated animal behaviorists have made claims about birds and then extrapolated them to humans. Very bogus.
That was the politically correct but baseless agenda pushed by some people. All real research over the years has shown that protecting their turf is an innate behavior, same as many other animals.
Completely depends on the animal being studied. Many animals behave very differently if they know humans are watching.
"Ape don't kill ape" - Caesar 2014
Completely depends on the animal being studied. Many animals behave very differently if they know humans are watching.
Very true. However animals do not have the ability to go beyond their own nature. I mean to say, regardless of how happy your dog is to see you, it will not stop it from licking it's ass when need-be. Whereas humans will generally not even pick their nose in front of others.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others).
Casteism
Because identification of behavior similar to that observed in human behaviorial patterns in a species closely related to humans makes it worth asking if the shared traits may derive from our common ancestors as opposed to being something that arose specifically and uniquely in the human species.
It may have arisin independently of course, and it's an interesting challenge to determine how to test whether that is the case. In this case though, it may be more instructive to look at game theory and the simulations of competing individual agents - I suspect these individual-competitive behavior patterns are common themes in any survival situations, although where cooporative and competitive behaviors manifest is likely to vary depending on both circumstance and random factors...
I would like to hear somebody explain logically why they think the behavior of other modern non-human species provides more insight into human behavior, than simply studying human behavior directly.
Because the ones performing the study can not shut their mouths and open their minds while observing other humans.
The reason why they can not do this is because of what they might out about their own selves.
Because the people who would listen to the scientist performing the work do not want to hear what the scientist may say.
The reason they do not want to hear what the scientist has to say is because they do not want to find out about their own selves.
Essentially, there is a scary dark entity inside of all of us. We would be shocked, shocked I say, to find out that we could revel in killing and sex (amongst other things) indiscriminately.
Very few people want to look in a mirror and see their own soul laid bare.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Not with monkey hands, but I'm sure the NRA can come up with a triggering mechanism they can use.
Monkeys do have opposable thumbs. Chimpanze hands would work just fine. Many modern guns can be configured for different size hands.
But don't give them ideas they don't already have. It could be dangerous... 8-P