Chimp-on-chimp murder. Humans are not the only violent species.

We primates are just violent!



It turns out that chimpanzees commit murder too.  It's about competition.  "the new study suggest that chimpanzee homicide - which previous research has estimated to occur at a similar rate to that seen in hunter-gatherer human societies - goes up and down as a simple consequence of competition for resources."

Is that chimpanzee "homicide" or "chimpicide"? 


It's interesting that bonobos are much nicer.  I guess they are more in the "make love not war" category.


I think a lot about human violence.  Understanding the root causes of violence, I can only hope that such understanding would lead to less violence.  If our evolutionary cousins commit murder in competition for resources, they sound a lot like us.  The more of us, the tighter the resources, the more violence.  So....   population management yet again seems essential.

Views: 324

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

A bonobo. That's my new computer. Oh, sorry. It's a Lenovo. IBM Lenovo.

Getting serious now on murderous chimps, they go nuts sometimes and kill a victim at random and even eat the meat. Normally they are vegetarian. This is not something that happens every day and it's not fully understood. This study may be much newer than what I had read previously, and competition for resources might be a plausible explanation. This would only leave open the idea of why they sometimes become canibalistic.

Yes, I posted a study earlier that showed that chimps have similar murder rates to hunter-gatherer societies.  But they have hundreds of times more nonlethal attacks, compared to hunter-gatherers. 

Chimps are dangerous animals.  But especially dangerous to people, because we want to treat them like other people and trust them like people.  People have chimps as pets and live with them for years and think of them as charming quasi-people.  Then one day the chimp is in a bad mood and bites their nose off. 

I suppose I am supposed to be surprised at the new study, and that they found that similar species have similar behavior, but I am not. It seems more interesting to me that it took this long to conclude something fairly obvious.

I see primate murder (killing one's own species) as a manifestation of primate flexibility. 

The same thing that made humans so wonderful, our incredible flexibility of thought and action, also helped make us capable of mass murder. 

Other mammals murder their own kind much less, but they also have more rigid patterns of behavior.

Primates are also very flexible in matters of sex.  People have had sex with everything you could conceivably have sex with.  Apes make sexual advances to people. 

I would have to agree.

I forget the title, but there's an old horny teen movie where Rob Lowe plays the bad guy, and he wasn't quite fast enough resisting the ape's advances.

Uh, no, he was walking kind of funny afterward.

Average? Probably not. But:

Warning: Steel yourself and try not to retch or lose all hope for humanity, if such a thing is possible. It is an article, but not one for the faint of heart or weak of stomach.

Gotta love those "make love, not war" Bonobos!   I've often wished Homo sapiens would emulate them more.

Me too.
Hmm, this brings too mind too many questions. Does this mean that humans are underlyingly evil and we have make a special effort to make ourselves behave well or people underlying lay good until religion comes along and makes do bad things or are people born neutral? I mean does each person think he/she is the only good person while everybody else is bad? Do all chimpanzees try to hurt other chimpanzees or just some of them? Do the chimpanzees that attack other chimpanzees just randomly pick the first chimpanzee they see or is there only a certain age group or other subset of chimpanzees that are selected? Do the attacking chimpanzees just hurt any random part of their victim's bodies or are there specific body parts that are selected for mutilation? If you caught one chimpanzee in the middle of an attack, would the attacker continue the attack or would it drop what he/she was doing and come after YOU? Are the attackers males, females, or both, or which percent of the time is the attacker male / female? I know moyls (jewish ritual male sexual assaulters) used to always be men and the mother is not supposed to see it done but the reformed jewish community might let a woman be a moyl. There are prisons for women. So it is not like all men are evil and all women are good.

I think you are over-thinking it. We are born with just a set of basic needs, and little understanding of how to fulfill them. Hungry? Cry and receive food. Lonely? Cry and receive companionship. Ailing? Cry and receive comfort and aid. From there we grow little by little, our understanding grows a little, we are programmed a little. THIS is right, THAT is wrong, THAT is good, THIS is bad... We continue learning how we should form our moral framework, but it is still dependent on that set of basic needs. R, U, K, and Y must be fulfilled before people will provide food, companionship, or comfort.

As the requirements, moral and otherwise, grow in response to our understanding and personal responsibility; we are, to some extent, programmed. It is not something nefariously done, but it can have nefarious results. Teach a child by letting him watch you hit people, and he will most likely do the same, no? Nature vs Nurture is a great debate in psychology, but not quite so complex in terms of philosophy. Nature is our basic needs and abilities, Nurture is how we are programmed to use Natures abilities to satisfy its needs.

I simply think the idea of being born "good" or "evil" is a misnomer, we are all just born, everything else comes after THAT.


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service