Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chimpanzees in Uganda locked in eight-year 'civil war', say researchers

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 308 posts

Re: Chimpanzees in Uganda locked in eight-year 'civil war', say researchers

#61

Post by bit-anarchist »

throwi790 wrote: post #51
mike_hearn wrote: post #46

> If chimpanzees - one of the species closest to humans genetically - could do so without human constructs of religion, ethnicity and political beliefs, then "relational dynamics may play a larger causal role in human conflict than often assumed", they added. That's a weird thing to say. Studies of primitive tribes showed decades ago that they only seem to fight each other for a handful of reasons. Religion, ethnicit…

No religion other than Christianity and Islam fought for a man made religion. They haven't slowed down after wiping out thousands of cultures and tribes

That's a pretty strong statement. You know the saying: strong statements require equally strong evidence.

Re: Chimpanzees in Uganda locked in eight-year 'civil war', say researchers

#62

Post by gopher_space »

towledev wrote: post #59
stuxnet79 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For those of us who are unlikely to make time to watch a 4-part documentary, are there any particular lessons about social/political dynamics that you learned that stuck out to you or felt particularly prescient? I watched the entire 4-part documentary and loved it. In general the series gives you a raw look into the a-b-c's of primate politics. Chimps just like us and the rest of our ape cousins are preoccupied wi…

Was the fruit tree important for its fruit? Surely there are other fruit sources, no?

A clear demonstration of the value of knowledge.

Re: Chimpanzees in Uganda locked in eight-year 'civil war', say researchers

#63

Post by picsao »

OgsyedIE wrote: post #32

The primatologist Richard Wrangam once advanced the theory that tribe vs. tribe conspecific homicides - what he called coalitionary killing - are an evolved trait that was selected for in primates by some kind of pro-homicide selection pressures in the ancestral environment (where homicide reliably grants an advantage to the expected relative gene frequency of the perpetrator's genes). I haven't kept up with biology…

[dead]

Re: Chimpanzees in Uganda locked in eight-year 'civil war', say researchers

#64

Post by bluegatty »

londons_explore wrote: post #38
OgsyedIE wrote: post #32

The primatologist Richard Wrangam once advanced the theory that tribe vs. tribe conspecific homicides - what he called coalitionary killing - are an evolved trait that was selected for in primates by some kind of pro-homicide selection pressures in the ancestral environment (where homicide reliably grants an advantage to the expected relative gene frequency of the perpetrator's genes). I haven't kept up with biology…

It seems obvious to me - it's the combination of two ideas: 1. When competing for resources, killing your neighbour frees up resources, which you can take. Most species of animal and even plants do this to some extent. 2. By collaborating in a group, you can achieve more than individuals acting alone. This is the idea behind teams, companies, countries, etc. Combine the two ideas, and you get war.

Yes, but war is worse for all parties generally.

Lions murdering prey to eat is a stable equilibrium.

Primates fighting each other is not.

Murdering for acquisition of a resource is short term advantage.

We are strongly, strongly evolutionary oriented away from 'murder' - it's the original sin. It's not something we even argue over. Murder = Bad. No disagreement across cultures. Murder = social cheating. No disagreement there either.

Or put another way - the 'self' can gain advantage with murder, but the group and species probably will pay for it long term.

I wonder if there are just things that species really have to learn over and over, particularly things like 'active deconfliction' etc..

Re: Chimpanzees in Uganda locked in eight-year 'civil war', say researchers

#65

Post by neom »

harimau777 wrote: post #45
neom wrote: post #6

Here is the paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adz4944 - it's interesting. I noticed there was a respiratory epidemic that killed 25 chimps naturally quickly, one would imagine that would have quite a societal destabilizing impact?

I wonder if chimps are sophisticated enough to believe in omens? Perhaps they saw the sudden deaths are some sort of sign that the established structure was weak or immoral.

I could imagine if you where friends with someone and a bunch of their friends suddenly and mysteriously died, personally, I wouldn't kill that friend, but I might call the cops.

Re: Chimpanzees in Uganda locked in eight-year 'civil war', say researchers

#66

Post by mothballed »

bluegatty wrote: post #64
londons_explore wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems obvious to me - it's the combination of two ideas: 1. When competing for resources, killing your neighbour frees up resources, which you can take. Most species of animal and even plants do this to some extent. 2. By collaborating in a group, you can achieve more than individuals acting alone. This is the idea behind teams, companies, countries, etc. Combine the two ideas, and you get war.

Yes, but war is worse for all parties generally. Lions murdering prey to eat is a stable equilibrium. Primates fighting each other is not. Murdering for acquisition of a resource is short term advantage. We are strongly, strongly evolutionary oriented away from 'murder' - it's the original sin. It's not something we even argue over. Murder = Bad. No disagreement across cultures. Murder = social cheating. No disagreem…

It might also depend on mating dynamics. If females mostly prefer to all mate within the top few percent of males in a community, there might not be much to lose if some of the lower status males of them take their chances going on a war party to conquer/steal some females.

Re: Chimpanzees in Uganda locked in eight-year 'civil war', say researchers

#67

Post by bee_rider »

ccozan wrote: post #44
stuxnet79 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For those of us who are unlikely to make time to watch a 4-part documentary, are there any particular lessons about social/political dynamics that you learned that stuck out to you or felt particularly prescient? I watched the entire 4-part documentary and loved it. In general the series gives you a raw look into the a-b-c's of primate politics. Chimps just like us and the rest of our ape cousins are preoccupied wi…

To be honest, we are fighting now over a 30kms wide strait ... also critical in a certain policitcal survival of sorts.

In the chimps’ defense, they don’t have the technical ability to make the fruit tree obsolete, or tactical framework to identify it as a chokepoint.

Re: Chimpanzees in Uganda locked in eight-year 'civil war', say researchers

#68

Post by actionfromafar »

mothballed wrote: post #66
bluegatty wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but war is worse for all parties generally. Lions murdering prey to eat is a stable equilibrium. Primates fighting each other is not. Murdering for acquisition of a resource is short term advantage. We are strongly, strongly evolutionary oriented away from 'murder' - it's the original sin. It's not something we even argue over. Murder = Bad. No disagreement across cultures. Murder = social cheating. No disagreem…

It might also depend on mating dynamics. If females mostly prefer to all mate within the top few percent of males in a community, there might not be much to lose if some of the lower status males of them take their chances going on a war party to conquer/steal some females.

I think that’s too narrow. You can also advance your genes by helping your sisters or other close relatives have offspring.

Re: Chimpanzees in Uganda locked in eight-year 'civil war', say researchers

#70

Post by mothballed »

actionfromafar wrote: post #68
mothballed wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might also depend on mating dynamics. If females mostly prefer to all mate within the top few percent of males in a community, there might not be much to lose if some of the lower status males of them take their chances going on a war party to conquer/steal some females.

I think that’s too narrow. You can also advance your genes by helping your sisters or other close relatives have offspring.

Sure but you can advance your genes even more by taking a woman for yourself. And if there are already enough other males to ensure the survival of the females and children then it might be worth some of the males going to war to get some females.

At some point the marginal utility of warring is better for both the individual and the group than the marginal utility of yet another non-reproducing male hanging around "helping" out their kin while eating the resources.

Post reply on HN