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

121–130 of 308 posts

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

#121

Post by dlcarrier »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #99
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…

I’m trying to find the source, but I remember a primatologist claiming that humans and chimpanzees are the only two species that embark on genocide. Not being satisfied with simply defeating the enemy, but actively hunting them down to ensure they can’t harm you again. In other words, precluding retreat. (Which creates its own game-theoretical backlash: never retreat.)

It's really common.

In species where a prominent male has a harem of multiple females. This usually involves killing not only rival males, but all of their offspring too. Here's a Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)

In species which keep territories, animals will kill rivals of the same species, but because it's not targeted it's not genocidal, unless the species eusocial, in which case it can result in massive genocidal wars, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_ants

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

#122

Post by bad_username »

hn_acc1 wrote: post #91

So wait - after a respiratory virus, let's call it SARS-C, that killed > 10% (25/200 = 12.5%) of their population, they split into two major groups that are now at each other's throats, when before they had a generally-ok alliance / relationship? Where have I seen this before.. Think.. Think..

No, the outright political warfare in the US you are alluding to began much earlier than 2020. Things were getting quite ulhealthy already back in 2015/2016, probably even earlier. The "black swan" for this deep division was (I believe) not the epidemic, but the proliferation of the smartphone and social media, and the earlier transitioning of traditional news to infotainment format.

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

#123

Post by bjourne »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #100
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…

You're confusing interpersonal murder with tribal conflict. Personal murder is tightly controlled now . But this is a fairly recent development. In many periods it was tolerated under various forms, including slavery, blood feud, honour killings, and state-sanctioned murder as punishment, or political process. It's only in the last few centuries that it's been prohibited, and the prohibition in practice is still part…

You are juxtaposing murder with killing. Every culture has a strong taboo against unlawful killing, i.e., murder. What counts as murder has changed, but the taboo against murder itself has not.

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

#124

Post by dlcarrier »

nradov wrote: post #115
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m trying to find the source, but I remember a primatologist claiming that humans and chimpanzees are the only two species that embark on genocide. Not being satisfied with simply defeating the enemy, but actively hunting them down to ensure they can’t harm you again. In other words, precluding retreat. (Which creates its own game-theoretical backlash: never retreat.)

Evidence is limited but orcas might also do that to great white sharks. The orcas seem to sometimes work together to exterminate sharks from an area in a way that goes beyond just hunting them for food.

Killing off another species isn't that much like genocide, which involves killing off a rival genetic line of the same species, but orcas do that too: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29559642/

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

#125

Post by bryanrasmussen »

ozim wrote: post #106
Sharlin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely not obvious, given that many, many gregarious species may certainly have inter-group clashes and skirmishes at territory boundaries but no full-scale war. Animals in general avoid violence between conspecifics, for the obvious reason that it's rarely worth the risk of being hurt unless you're very sure you're going to win. Dying for your group is something you almost never see outside eusocial species…

dying in your prime reproductive age! I guess dying because you think you’re going to impress’s a mate and stay alive is quite common.

>I guess dying because you think you’re going to impress’s a mate and stay alive is quite common.

based on my memory of readings in the matter I don't think so, most animal species "impress a mate" is either

1. do mating ritual better than others

2. actually directly compete with rival who has mate to win mate.

In the second more rare scenario the actually directly compete with rival tends to be very ritualized, and thus when you lose you don't actually get significantly hurt.

In the ritualized combat for mates some species have evolved to points in which accidents become a major problem, for example Stags locking antlers in combat for does.

Obviously this is a scenario where you want to impress and stay alive but it doesn't work out, but it is relatively rare in the species that has evolved antlers to the point where it happens, and it is rare for species to have similar problems, generally the one who loses these competitions does not die, they just assume a lower status.

So all that said the human tactic of Bob, hold my beer while I impress Cindy by riding this croc, is a pretty rare tactic for getting a mate.

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

#126

Post by Quarrelsome »

I thought the general premise is that humans can't form social groups bigger than around ~200. Which scans for me personally, its a struggle to maintain so many relationships. At which point group dynamics break down and factions begin to form. We have mental tech to try to minimise these issues, like nationalism or identity politics. We back these through cultural expression like dress, language, writing, the printing press, radio or the internet today.

Personally I feel like the effects of counter-culture are understated in humanity because I think it might drive a lot of human behaviour and its a natural outcome when a grouping grows beyond people's ability to maintain it. Counter-culture also offers a solid explanation for human insanity such as anti-vax which imho makes much more sense couched as:

"I hate that guy and that guy is keen on getting vaccinated, so fuck vaccinations, they're awful".

I would imagine one could find similar outcomes as this study of chimps, in human groupings too, albeit such experimentation would be unethical. Which is why I imagine it will eventually become a reality show someday: Lets play 400 friends or 200 enemies! Day 4: lets reduce the available food by 50% and see what happens... etc, etc.

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

#127

Post by Sharlin »

ozim wrote: post #106
Sharlin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely not obvious, given that many, many gregarious species may certainly have inter-group clashes and skirmishes at territory boundaries but no full-scale war. Animals in general avoid violence between conspecifics, for the obvious reason that it's rarely worth the risk of being hurt unless you're very sure you're going to win. Dying for your group is something you almost never see outside eusocial species…

dying in your prime reproductive age! I guess dying because you think you’re going to impress’s a mate and stay alive is quite common.

On the contrary, that's very uniquely and peculiarly human stupidity, possibly caused by the fact that our brains take so long to fully mature. In other species, competing for mates (just like territory) is typically highly ritualized exactly because getting seriously hurt is the opposite of adaptive.

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

#128

Post by JumpCrisscross »

dlcarrier wrote: post #121
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m trying to find the source, but I remember a primatologist claiming that humans and chimpanzees are the only two species that embark on genocide. Not being satisfied with simply defeating the enemy, but actively hunting them down to ensure they can’t harm you again. In other words, precluding retreat. (Which creates its own game-theoretical backlash: never retreat.)

It's really common. In species where a prominent male has a harem of multiple females. This usually involves killing not only rival males, but all of their offspring too. Here's a Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology) In species which keep territories, animals will kill rivals of the same species, but because it's not targeted it's not genocidal, unless the species eusocial,…

> usually involves killing not only rival males, but all of their offspring too

I think the distinction is between killing a line and killing a tribe. But granted, that’s valid.

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

#130

Post by emilsedgh »

bad_username wrote: post #122
hn_acc1 wrote: post #91

So wait - after a respiratory virus, let's call it SARS-C, that killed > 10% (25/200 = 12.5%) of their population, they split into two major groups that are now at each other's throats, when before they had a generally-ok alliance / relationship? Where have I seen this before.. Think.. Think..

No, the outright political warfare in the US you are alluding to began much earlier than 2020. Things were getting quite ulhealthy already back in 2015/2016, probably even earlier. The "black swan" for this deep division was (I believe) not the epidemic, but the proliferation of the smartphone and social media, and the earlier transitioning of traditional news to infotainment format.

I'd attribute it to 2008 financial collapse, and in general, the pressure put on the middle class that began a decade earlier.

And I genuinely believe blaming things on social media and news is just a diversion so we wouldn't look at the main issue.

Post reply on HN