Religions > Atheism > Machiavellian Chimpanzees & Rousseauian Bonobos - Chimps Are From Mars Bonobos From Venus?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Immortalist" |
| Date: |
26 Dec 2006 12:57:57 PM |
| Object: |
Machiavellian Chimpanzees & Rousseauian Bonobos - Chimps Are From Mars Bonobos From Venus? |
When people do evil things,
such as when they commit genocides
in Bosnia or Rwanda, we call
them "animals."
If people do altruistic things,
such as when they save another's
life or give generously to the poor,
we attribute this to our noble human
morality. We call them "humane."
Both sides of human nature, however, are tied to our biology. This
theme of the duality of human nature, hovering between beast and angel,
is brought home in Our Inner Ape by looking at our two closest animal
relatives, the chimpanzee and the bonobo. The chimpanzee has a
reputation as murderous and power-hungry, whereas the bonobo, the
hippie of the primate world, seems to prefer to "make love - not war."
Both apes are equally close to us on the primate family tree, but
comparisons with chimpanzees have thus far dominated the media and
literature. This is because until recently little was known about the
bonobo. The bonobo's female dominance, cooperative nature, and use of
sex to restore peace poses a challenge to certain male-biased
theoriesthat equate humanity's aggressiveness with progress.
Over the last few decades, biologists have popularized the image of
humans as driven by "selfish genes," doing only what is good for
themselves. This message fit the Reagan-Thatcher Zeitgeist of greed as
the foundation of the free-market system. Well before Enron and the
spate of corporate scandals, however, Western cultures have been
placing increasing emphasis on moral responsibility and community.
http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/OurInnerApe/
Primatologist de Waal thinks human behavior cannot be fully explained
by selfish genes and Darwinian competition. Drawing on his own primate
research on chimpanzees and bonobos-our closest animal relatives-he
shows how much we can learn from them about ourselves: our qualities of
"fellow feeling and empathy" as well as our power-obsessed, violent
side.
We are "bipolar apes," as much
like bonobos as like chimps.
Chimps are known for their
viciousness and "red in tooth
and claw" social politics,
But Bonobos offer a radically
different social model, one of
peace and hedonistic orgies;
http://www.amazon.com/Our-Inner-Ape-Frans-Waal/dp/1573223123
Our closest genetic cousins, the apes, are capable of great empathy but
also of violent, ruthless killing.
Frans de Waal, a prominent primatologist, compares our social behavior
with that of two species of apes: chimpanzees and bonobos (which look
like smaller, more upright chimps). Despite their physical
similarities, the two species behave very differently.
Bonobos live in a relatively
peaceful matriarchy; when conflicts
do arise, instead of fighting they
often use sexual activity to resolve
them, defusing the aggression with
friendly physical contact. Like
hippies, they make love, not war.
Chimp society, however, is a
male-dominated hierarchy based
on power. Unlike the gentle bonobos,
who seldom kill, chimps will hunt
for meat and even kill members
of rival groups.
....de Waal suggests that the two species represent sides of our own
nature. We have "not one but two inner apes," he writes, speculating
that humans may act like a hybrid of bonobos and chimps...
NYTimes;
http://tinyurl.com/ydu6jv
Audio Interview
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4949445
http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html
http://www.bookslut.com/features/2005_11_007099.php
Machiavellianism is primarily the term some social and personality
psychologists use to describe a person's tendency to deceive and
manipulate others for personal gain.
Rousseau saw a fundamental divide between society and human nature.
Rousseau contended that man was good by nature, a "noble savage" when
in the state of nature (the state of all the "other animals", and the
condition humankind was in before the creation of civilization and
society), but is corrupted by society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau
Sorry if this showed up twice, I forgot that talk.origins is moderated
for favorable opinions.
.
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Machiavellian Chimpanzees & Rousseauian Bonobos - Chimps Are From Mars Bonobos From Venus? |
26 Dec 2006 04:25:43 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
<snip>
Over the last few decades, biologists have popularized the image of
humans as driven by "selfish genes," doing only what is good for
themselves.
I suggest you actually read "The Selfish Gene", because this is a
common misunderstanding of the concept. The phrase "selfish gene" puts
the emphasis on "gene", not "selfish". It indicates that genes are the
unit of selection, not individual organisms, and not populations of
organisms.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Machiavellian Chimpanzees & Rousseauian Bonobos - Chimps Are From Mars Bonobos From Venus? |
27 Dec 2006 12:12:58 PM |
|
|
Chris Johnson wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
<snip>
Over the last few decades, biologists have popularized the image of
humans as driven by "selfish genes," doing only what is good for
themselves.
I suggest you actually read "The Selfish Gene", because this is a
common misunderstanding of the concept. The phrase "selfish gene" puts
the emphasis on "gene", not "selfish". It indicates that genes are the
unit of selection, not individual organisms, and not populations of
organisms.
I have read that book many times since the very year it cam out and I
love that book but I am curious as to what would make you propose
otherwise. I presented some information about a group of theories, as
this gene theory is a theory. Some researchers think that selection
works at all three of those levels at once. For instance the population
theory claims there are "some" nerve cells, who's assembly was directed
by particular genes, that exist or were selected for because they were
not selfish but promoted helping others.
It sounds like your defensive, must be that you percieve some theory as
being weak. I am not saying that. The author doesn't claim that either.
He is just saying that there may be more to it than just selfishness or
the level of selection at the genes.
It is humerous to see this part of evolutionary theory get slapped
around a little bit. If chimps and bonobos are our closest relatives,
what determines that we are more like chimps than bonobos? Even though
most of these theories probably have some truth also there is this male
bias in science, look at medicine and how now they are just learning
about female diseases. Unless you think all scientists in the past have
been completely neutral.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Eston Smith Jr" |
|
| Title: Re: Machiavellian Chimpanzees & Rousseauian Bonobos - Chimps Are From Mars Bonobos From Venus? |
27 Dec 2006 01:44:13 PM |
|
|
I think that, in humans, instincts are much less important than in
other animals. Thus humans have the ability to choose to be more like
bonobos or more like chimps.
There were some utopian communities in the 1800's that tried common
ownership of property and sharing of spouses. Those communities mostly
failed. (Although the Oneida Community spawned a successful cutlery
company.) The early settlers of Virginia, Massachusetts, and Australia
all tried a form of communism (communal farming) and nearly starved to
death before they reverted to a system of private property. But a
similar system seems to be working in Israeli kibbutzes (but without
the promiscuity of Oneida - kibbutz residents tend to not be sexually
attracted to people they've grown up with).
On the other hand, communism is the norm within most families.
Before he wrote about the "invisible hand" of self-interest in Wealth
of Nations, Adam Smith wrote about the "invisible hand" of empathy in
Theory of Moral Sentiments.
I think that, as society progesses, individuals have more and more
freedom to enter into more and more diverse forms of relationships with
other individuals, forming a diversity of sub-societies within the
general society of freedom.
Immortalist wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
<snip>
Over the last few decades, biologists have popularized the image of
humans as driven by "selfish genes," doing only what is good for
themselves.
I suggest you actually read "The Selfish Gene", because this is a
common misunderstanding of the concept. The phrase "selfish gene" puts
the emphasis on "gene", not "selfish". It indicates that genes are the
unit of selection, not individual organisms, and not populations of
organisms.
I have read that book many times since the very year it cam out and I
love that book but I am curious as to what would make you propose
otherwise. I presented some information about a group of theories, as
this gene theory is a theory. Some researchers think that selection
works at all three of those levels at once. For instance the population
theory claims there are "some" nerve cells, who's assembly was directed
by particular genes, that exist or were selected for because they were
not selfish but promoted helping others.
It sounds like your defensive, must be that you percieve some theory as
being weak. I am not saying that. The author doesn't claim that either.
He is just saying that there may be more to it than just selfishness or
the level of selection at the genes.
It is humerous to see this part of evolutionary theory get slapped
around a little bit. If chimps and bonobos are our closest relatives,
what determines that we are more like chimps than bonobos? Even though
most of these theories probably have some truth also there is this male
bias in science, look at medicine and how now they are just learning
about female diseases. Unless you think all scientists in the past have
been completely neutral.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Machiavellian Chimpanzees & Rousseauian Bonobos - Chimps Are From Mars Bonobos From Venus? |
27 Dec 2006 02:24:40 PM |
|
|
Ray Eston Smith Jr wrote:
I think that, in humans, instincts are much less important than in
other animals. Thus humans have the ability to choose to be more like
bonobos or more like chimps.
I can agree with that but can disagree also. We may depend more upon
instincts than other animals. We may have more of them and we may have
a wider range of ways we can "accent" our instincts at critical stages
and remain so accentted for the entire life span generally.
We can probably make instincts very weak or very strong, depending upon
the environmental need while the individual is around puberty and
before.
I think instincts are more important the more complex the social
behavior. Think of the theory of language aquisition;
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/73d37dd9e76547f0/c983937729d43250?#c983937729d43250
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.philosophy.misc/msg/138841eac85e261d
There were some utopian communities in the 1800's that tried common
ownership of property and sharing of spouses. Those communities mostly
failed. (Although the Oneida Community spawned a successful cutlery
company.) The early settlers of Virginia, Massachusetts, and Australia
all tried a form of communism (communal farming) and nearly starved to
death before they reverted to a system of private property. But a
similar system seems to be working in Israeli kibbutzes (but without
the promiscuity of Oneida - kibbutz residents tend to not be sexually
attracted to people they've grown up with).
I agree and it shows greater probability for the theory that our
instincts are imprinted at critical stages of development. Those your
around the first six years are associated with disgust when sex is
thought about, on average that is.
On Human Nature - Edward O. Wilson 1978
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/
Incest taboos are among the universals of human social behavior. The
avoidance of sexual intercourse between brothers and sisters and
between parents and their offspring is everywhere achieved by cultural
sanctions. But at least in the case of the brother-sister taboo, there
exists a far deeper, less rational form of enforcement: a sexual
aversion automatically develops between persons who have lived together
when one or all grew to the age of six. Studies in Israeli kibbutzim,
the most thorough of which was conducted by Joseph Shepher of the
University of Haifa, have shown that the aversion among people of the
same age is not dependent on an actual blood relationship. Among 2,769
marriages recorded, none was between members of the same kibbutz peer
group who had been together since birth. There was not even a single
recorded instance of heterosexual activity, despite the fact that the
kibbutzim adults were not opposed to it. Where incest of any form does
occur at low frequencies in less closed societies, it is ordinarily a
source of shame and recrimination. In general, mother-son intercourse
is the most offensive, brother-sister intercourse somewhat less and
father-daughter intercourse the least offensive. But all forms are
usually proscribed. In the United States at the present time, one of
the forms of pornography considered most shocking is the depiction of
intercourse between fathers and their immature daughters.
....Even with identical education for men and women and equal access to
all professions, men are likely to maintain disproportionate
representation in political life, business, and science. Many would
fail to participate fully in the equally important, formative aspects
of child rearing. The result might be legitimately viewed as
restrictive on the complete emotional development of individuals. Just
such a divergence and restriction has occurred in the Israeli
kibbutzim, which represent one of the most powerful experiments in
egalitarianism conducted in modern times.
From the time of the greatest upsurge of the kibbutz movement, in the
1940s and 1950s, its leaders promoted a policy of complete sexual
equality, of encouraging women to enter roles previously reserved for
men. In the early years it almost worked. The first generation of women
were ideologically committed, and they shifted in large numbers to
politics, management, and labor. But they and their daughters have
regressed somewhat toward traditional roles, despite being trained from
birth in the new culture. Furthermore, the daughters have gone further
than the mothers. They now demand and receive a longer period of time
each day with their children, time significantly entitled "the hour of
love." Some of the most gifted have resisted recruitment into the
higher levels of commercial and political leadership, so that the
representation in these roles is far below that enjoyed by the same
generation of men. It has been argued that this reversion merely
represents the influence of the strong patriarchal tradition that
persists in the remainder of Israeli society, even though the role
division is now greater inside the kibbutzim than outside. The Israeli
experience shows how difficult it is to predict the consequences and
assess the meaning of changes in behavior based on either heredity or
ideology.
....There is a cost, which no one can yet measure, awaiting the society
that moves either from juridical equality of opportunity between the
sexes to a statistical equality of their performance in the
professions, or back toward deliberate sexual discrimination. Another
unknown cost awaits the society that decides to reorganize itself into
smoothly functioning nuclear families, or to abolish families in favor
of communal kibbutzim. There is still another cost - and some of our
members are already paying it in personal suffering - for the society
that insists on conformity to a particular range of heterosexual
practices. We believe that cultures can be rationally designed. We can
teach and reward and coerce. But in so doing we must also consider the
price of each culture, measured in the time and energy required for
training and enforcement and in the less tangible currency of human
happiness that must be spent to circumvent our innate predispositions
On Human Nature - Edward O. Wilson 1978
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/
On the other hand, communism is the norm within most families.
In the same book Wilson talks about hard-core and soft-core altruism.
The first probably associated with that incest imprint complex and the
second the "accenting" of our drive to truck and barter and trade in
social relationships.
Before he wrote about the "invisible hand" of self-interest in Wealth
of Nations, Adam Smith wrote about the "invisible hand" of empathy in
Theory of Moral Sentiments.
I think that, as society progesses, individuals have more and more
freedom to enter into more and more diverse forms of relationships with
other individuals, forming a diversity of sub-societies within the
general society of freedom.
You mean in genetic evolution or cultural evolution?
It has been noted that when certain primates learned to swim out
further into the water as a culturally passed on trait through
learning, all subsequent members of those local groups began swimming
out further than other primate groups and altered their entire future
history since any mutations and crossovers that favored swimming were
favored by this rudimentary culture and these abilities.
In this way cultural domestication was incorperated into genetic
structure by selection of particular individuals who could traverse
this culturally impose bottleneck of artificial selections. Think of
the power of animal domestication in Dogs and how their ancestor looks
like an wild wolf. We had an large hand in that and many aspects of our
own self.
So it seems that morals and religious experience are side effects of
"built" in sensitivity to domesticating influences culturally imosed
and genetically changed toward again E.O. Wilson likes to call it
gene-culture coevolution.
mort here google saith reanimater can't post no mo on deys budget
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Machiavellian Chimpanzees & Rousseauian Bonobos - Chimps Are From Mars Bonobos From Venus? |
27 Dec 2006 04:33:12 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
<snip>
Over the last few decades, biologists have popularized the image of
humans as driven by "selfish genes," doing only what is good for
themselves.
I suggest you actually read "The Selfish Gene", because this is a
common misunderstanding of the concept. The phrase "selfish gene" puts
the emphasis on "gene", not "selfish". It indicates that genes are the
unit of selection, not individual organisms, and not populations of
organisms.
I have read that book many times since the very year it cam out and I
love that book but I am curious as to what would make you propose
otherwise.
The claim that humans are "doing only what is good for themselves"
would indicate you did not understand the idea. On re-reading, it is
possible you were speaking of the genes, not humans, and if this is the
case, I apologize for my unnecessary criticism.
I presented some information about a group of theories, as
this gene theory is a theory. Some researchers think that selection
works at all three of those levels at once. For instance the population
theory claims there are "some" nerve cells, who's assembly was directed
by particular genes, that exist or were selected for because they were
not selfish but promoted helping others.
This is explicable via the selfish gene theory, if it can be shown that
helping others increases the probability that the "helper's" genes
survive.
It sounds like your defensive, must be that you percieve some theory as
being weak.
I wasn't being defensive at all, merely pointing out what I perceived
to be a misrepresentation of the idea of selfish genes.
I am not saying that. The author doesn't claim that either.
He is just saying that there may be more to it than just selfishness or
the level of selection at the genes.
Very well.
It is humerous to see this part of evolutionary theory get slapped
around a little bit. If chimps and bonobos are our closest relatives,
what determines that we are more like chimps than bonobos?
There could be any number of things. Perhaps our common ancestors with
chimps were more recent than those with bonobos. Perhaps it was the
other way around, but humans lived in conditions that selected for more
chimp-like qualities. Perhaps it was just a quirk of chance.
But the only slapping I saw of the selfish gene view of evolution is
what I thought was a misrepresentation of it.
Even though
most of these theories probably have some truth also there is this male
bias in science, look at medicine and how now they are just learning
about female diseases. Unless you think all scientists in the past have
been completely neutral.
I do not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Eston Smith Jr" |
|
| Title: Re: Machiavellian Chimpanzees & Rousseauian Bonobos - Chimps Are From Mars Bonobos From Venus? |
26 Dec 2006 01:10:39 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
snip
Over the last few decades, biologists have popularized the image of
humans as driven by "selfish genes," doing only what is good for
themselves. This message fit the Reagan-Thatcher Zeitgeist of greed as
the foundation of the free-market system. snip
I believe that the market system really is based on selfishness. If
humans had been more like bonobos we probably would have had no wars,
so human progress would have been steadier, but slower because of the
absence of the property instinct. But eventually some great
bonobo-human philosopher would have discovered the usefulness of
selfishness as a foundation for his new invention, the market system.
Thereafter, bonobo-human children would be trained in selfishness, and
from then on bonobo-human progress would be much more rapid than our
own war-ravaged destiny.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ohsojourner" |
|
| Title: Re: Machiavellian Chimpanzees & Rousseauian Bonobos - Chimps Are From Mars Bonobos From Venus? |
26 Dec 2006 04:43:17 PM |
|
|
Ray Eston Smith Jr wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
snip
Over the last few decades, biologists have popularized the image of
humans as driven by "selfish genes," doing only what is good for
themselves. This message fit the Reagan-Thatcher Zeitgeist of greed as
the foundation of the free-market system. snip
I believe that the market system really is based on selfishness. If
humans had been more like bonobos we probably would have had no wars,
so human progress would have been steadier, but slower because of the
absence of the property instinct. But eventually some great
bonobo-human philosopher would have discovered the usefulness of
selfishness as a foundation for his new invention, the market system.
Thereafter, bonobo-human children would be trained in selfishness, and
from then on bonobo-human progress would be much more rapid than our
own war-ravaged destiny.
Bonobos evolved that way because they live in a primate paradise with
food easily available all around. They have no competitors for the
food, and thus, lost much of their aggressive natures (although they do
still show territorial behaviors, according to new research).
More importantly (and this is my theory), since female bonobos allow
sex even when they are not in heat, the males remain placated and do
not need to compete with each other for access to females. Common
chimpanzees, on the other hand, only mate when a female comes into
heat. This more limited opportunity creates competition among the
males; probably often the case where the most aggressive males fight
off competitors and thus get to pass on their "more aggressive" genes.
Furthermore, common chimpanzees live in the same habitat as gorillas
and other competitors for food, which makes food more difficult to
obtain than in the bonobo's environment. So, it probably wouldn't do
them as much good if they weren't as aggressive.
What this implies is that resource availability influences selfishness
and aggression. Humans happen to require even more resources than apes
to maintain their lifestyles.
Footnote: One of Newt Gingrich's favorite books was De Waal's
"Chimpanzee Politics" WRT common chimpanzees and made the book
recommended reading for all Republicans. (true story).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Machiavellian Chimpanzees & Rousseauian Bonobos - Chimps Are From Mars Bonobos From Venus? |
27 Dec 2006 11:58:06 AM |
|
|
Ohsojourner wrote:
Ray Eston Smith Jr wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
snip
Over the last few decades, biologists have popularized the image of
humans as driven by "selfish genes," doing only what is good for
themselves. This message fit the Reagan-Thatcher Zeitgeist of greed as
the foundation of the free-market system. snip
I believe that the market system really is based on selfishness. If
humans had been more like bonobos we probably would have had no wars,
so human progress would have been steadier, but slower because of the
absence of the property instinct. But eventually some great
bonobo-human philosopher would have discovered the usefulness of
selfishness as a foundation for his new invention, the market system.
Thereafter, bonobo-human children would be trained in selfishness, and
from then on bonobo-human progress would be much more rapid than our
own war-ravaged destiny.
Bonobos evolved that way because they live in a primate paradise with
food easily available all around. They have no competitors for the
food, and thus, lost much of their aggressive natures (although they do
still show territorial behaviors, according to new research).
Evolved from what, a default natural state set in stone? Or was that
state evolved into? All your saying is that these creatures could
evolve in different directions and I don't think the author would
disagree with you. Obviously you want to be on one side of this debate
and that is not my wish. These two species are our closest relatives
genetically.
More importantly (and this is my theory), since female bonobos allow
sex even when they are not in heat, the males remain placated and do
not need to compete with each other for access to females. Common
chimpanzees, on the other hand, only mate when a female comes into
heat. This more limited opportunity creates competition among the
males; probably often the case where the most aggressive males fight
off competitors and thus get to pass on their "more aggressive" genes.
Furthermore, common chimpanzees live in the same habitat as gorillas
and other competitors for food, which makes food more difficult to
obtain than in the bonobo's environment. So, it probably wouldn't do
them as much good if they weren't as aggressive.
At least you said something about theories. These are all good theories
actually or they wouldn't even be noticed. Again all your saying is
that animals enter a niche and individual most capable of dealing with
it may be better at living there and reproducing and increasing their
gene frequencies.
What this implies is that resource availability influences selfishness
and aggression. Humans happen to require even more resources than apes
to maintain their lifestyles.
Footnote: One of Newt Gingrich's favorite books was De Waal's
"Chimpanzee Politics" WRT common chimpanzees and made the book
recommended reading for all Republicans. (true story).
Is this the appeal to authority fallacy or the appeal to the populace
fallacy I can't tell. I do not believe that Newt is an authority on
Chimps vs Bonobos. But people use many theories as means to the ends of
their other philosophies, should we then kill all evidence that might
be used by your political oponents. If so your way off topic here loc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ohsojourner" |
|
| Title: Re: Machiavellian Chimpanzees & Rousseauian Bonobos - Chimps Are From Mars Bonobos From Venus? |
10 Jan 2007 04:19:39 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
Ohsojourner wrote:
Ray Eston Smith Jr wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
snip
Over the last few decades, biologists have popularized the image of
humans as driven by "selfish genes," doing only what is good for
themselves. This message fit the Reagan-Thatcher Zeitgeist of greed as
the foundation of the free-market system. snip
I believe that the market system really is based on selfishness. If
humans had been more like bonobos we probably would have had no wars,
so human progress would have been steadier, but slower because of the
absence of the property instinct. But eventually some great
bonobo-human philosopher would have discovered the usefulness of
selfishness as a foundation for his new invention, the market system.
Thereafter, bonobo-human children would be trained in selfishness, and
from then on bonobo-human progress would be much more rapid than our
own war-ravaged destiny.
Bonobos evolved that way because they live in a primate paradise with
food easily available all around. They have no competitors for the
food, and thus, lost much of their aggressive natures (although they do
still show territorial behaviors, according to new research).
Evolved from what, a default natural state set in stone? Or was that
state evolved into?
Since time does not stand still, and evolution implies ongoing changes
over time, there is no such thing as a "default state".
All your saying is that these creatures could
evolve in different directions and I don't think the author would
disagree with you.
Yes, I'm saying that they could evolve in different directions if their
environment changed. Environment and resource availability is one of
the forces that influence evolutionary direction.
Obviously you want to be on one side of this debate
and that is not my wish. These two species are our closest relatives
genetically.
I was expanding on the previous statement about the market system WRT
comparison to environmental resource availability. The level of
resources and competition influenced behavior in the two species to the
point where it influenced their inherent behaviors. Comparing chimps
to humans in such a context is also a bit tricky since chimps cannot
manipulate and control their environment the way humans can. OTOH
humans have an aggressive, selfish streak in us precisely because
historically, it's always been more work to procure survival resources
for ourselves. So having an aggressive, selfish side probably helped
our species evolve to the point where we're at today.
I see what you're trying to say, and it's a nice little warm n' fuzzy
New Age sentiment, but in order for the human species to become more
peaceful and cooperative as a species, we would have to find ways to
make living really easy and eliminate all elements that are dangerous
to mankind (including more aggressive humans). For what it's worth,
bonobos are rather delicate in comparison to their more aggressive
relatives and probably wouldn't stand up to more aggressive species.
That's why they live in little isolated pockets deep in the forests
instead of having become a dominant worldwide species.
More importantly (and this is my theory), since female bonobos allow
sex even when they are not in heat, the males remain placated and do
not need to compete with each other for access to females. Common
chimpanzees, on the other hand, only mate when a female comes into
heat. This more limited opportunity creates competition among the
males; probably often the case where the most aggressive males fight
off competitors and thus get to pass on their "more aggressive" genes.
Furthermore, common chimpanzees live in the same habitat as gorillas
and other competitors for food, which makes food more difficult to
obtain than in the bonobo's environment. So, it probably wouldn't do
them as much good if they weren't as aggressive.
At least you said something about theories. These are all good theories
actually or they wouldn't even be noticed. Again all your saying is
that animals enter a niche and individual most capable of dealing with
it may be better at living there and reproducing and increasing their
gene frequencies.
What this implies is that resource availability influences selfishness
and aggression. Humans happen to require even more resources than apes
to maintain their lifestyles.
Footnote: One of Newt Gingrich's favorite books was De Waal's
"Chimpanzee Politics" WRT common chimpanzees and made the book
recommended reading for all Republicans. (true story).
Is this the appeal to authority fallacy or the appeal to the populace
fallacy I can't tell. I do not believe that Newt is an authority on
Chimps vs Bonobos. But people use many theories as means to the ends of
their other philosophies, should we then kill all evidence that might
be used by your political oponents. If so your way off topic here loc.
Uh, no -- you totally missed the implied irony there. Republicans such
as Newt Gingrich have been described as "Machiavellian"... therefore it
is only fitting that they be fascinated by the "politics" of the common
chimpanzee.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Eston Smith Jr" |
|
| Title: Re: Machiavellian Chimpanzees & Rousseauian Bonobos - Chimps Are From Mars Bonobos From Venus? |
27 Dec 2006 01:22:41 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
snip
I do not believe that Newt is an authority on
Chimps vs Bonobos.
I've heard that Newt's expertise is in giraffes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ohsojourner" |
|
| Title: Re: Machiavellian Chimpanzees & Rousseauian Bonobos - Chimps Are From Mars Bonobos From Venus? |
26 Dec 2006 04:43:39 PM |
|
|
Ray Eston Smith Jr wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
snip
Over the last few decades, biologists have popularized the image of
humans as driven by "selfish genes," doing only what is good for
themselves. This message fit the Reagan-Thatcher Zeitgeist of greed as
the foundation of the free-market system. snip
I believe that the market system really is based on selfishness. If
humans had been more like bonobos we probably would have had no wars,
so human progress would have been steadier, but slower because of the
absence of the property instinct. But eventually some great
bonobo-human philosopher would have discovered the usefulness of
selfishness as a foundation for his new invention, the market system.
Thereafter, bonobo-human children would be trained in selfishness, and
from then on bonobo-human progress would be much more rapid than our
own war-ravaged destiny.
Bonobos evolved that way because they live in a primate paradise with
food easily available all around. They have no competitors for the
food, and thus, lost much of their aggressive natures (although they do
still show territorial behaviors, according to new research).
More importantly (and this is my theory), since female bonobos allow
sex even when they are not in heat, the males remain placated and do
not need to compete with each other for access to females. Common
chimpanzees, on the other hand, only mate when a female comes into
heat. This more limited opportunity creates competition among the
males; probably often the case where the most aggressive males fight
off competitors and thus get to pass on their "more aggressive" genes.
Furthermore, common chimpanzees live in the same habitat as gorillas
and other competitors for food, which makes food more difficult to
obtain than in the bonobo's environment. So, it probably wouldn't do
them as much good if they weren't as aggressive.
What this implies is that resource availability influences selfishness
and aggression. Humans happen to require even more resources than apes
to maintain their lifestyles.
Footnote: One of Newt Gingrich's favorite books was De Waal's
"Chimpanzee Politics" WRT common chimpanzees and made the book
recommended reading for all Republicans. (true story).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Machiavellian Chimpanzees & Rousseauian Bonobos - Chimps Are From Mars Bonobos From Venus? |
26 Dec 2006 01:13:22 PM |
|
|
Ray Eston Smith Jr wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
snip
Over the last few decades, biologists have popularized the image of
humans as driven by "selfish genes," doing only what is good for
themselves. This message fit the Reagan-Thatcher Zeitgeist of greed as
the foundation of the free-market system. snip
I believe that the market system really is based on selfishness. If
humans had been more like bonobos we probably would have had no wars,
so human progress would have been steadier, but slower because of the
absence of the property instinct. But eventually some great
bonobo-human philosopher would have discovered the usefulness of
selfishness as a foundation for his new invention, the market system.
Thereafter, bonobo-human children would be trained in selfishness, and
from then on bonobo-human progress would be much more rapid than our
own war-ravaged destiny.
The author argues that we are a mixture of both and that logical
inconsistancies arise when we claim we are more one or the other.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Machiavellian Chimpanzees & Rousseauian Bonobos - Chimps Are From Mars Bonobos From Venus? |
11 Jan 2007 08:02:55 AM |
|
|
This sounds like Liebinz's hopeless assertion that things are as good
as they ever can be.
Ray Eston Smith Jr wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
snip
Over the last few decades, biologists have popularized the image of
humans as driven by "selfish genes," doing only what is good for
themselves. This message fit the Reagan-Thatcher Zeitgeist of greed as
the foundation of the free-market system. snip
I believe that the market system really is based on selfishness. If
humans had been more like bonobos we probably would have had no wars,
so human progress would have been steadier, but slower because of the
absence of the property instinct. But eventually some great
bonobo-human philosopher would have discovered the usefulness of
selfishness as a foundation for his new invention, the market system.
Thereafter, bonobo-human children would be trained in selfishness, and
from then on bonobo-human progress would be much more rapid than our
own war-ravaged destiny.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
