Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other

Jun 21, 2010
Common chimpanzee in the Leipzig Zoo. Image credit: Thomas Lersch, via Wikipedia.

Bands of chimpanzees violently kill individuals from neighboring groups in order to expand their own territory, according to a 10-year study of a chimp community in Uganda that provides the first definitive evidence for this long-suspected function of this behavior.

University of Michigan primate behavioral ecologist John Mitani's findings are published in the June 22 issue of Current Biology.

During a decade of study, the researchers witnessed 18 fatal attacks and found signs of three others perpetrated by members of a large community of about 150 chimps at Ngogo, Kibale National Park.

Then in the summer of 2009, the Ngogo chimpanzees began to use the area where two-thirds of these events occurred, expanding their territory by 22 percent. They traveled, socialized and fed on their favorite fruits in the new region.

"When they started to move into this area, it didn't take much time to realize that they had killed a lot of other chimpanzees there," Mitani said. "Our observations help to resolve long-standing questions about the function of lethal intergroup aggression in chimpanzees."

Mitani is the James N. Spuhler Collegiate Professor in the Department of Anthropology. His co-authors are David Watts, an anthropology professor at Yale University, and Sylvia Amsler, a lecturer in anthropology at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Amsler worked on this project as a graduate student at U-M.

Chimpanzees (along with bonobos) are humans' closest living relatives. Anthropologists have long known that they kill their neighbors, and they suspected that they did so to seize their land.

"Although some previous observations appear to support that hypothesis, until now, we have lacked clear-cut evidence," Mitani said.

The bouts occurred when the primates were on routine, stealth "boundary patrols" into neighboring territory. Amsler, who conducted field work on this project described one of the attacks she witnessed far to the northwest of the Ngogo territory. She and a colleague were following 27 adult and adolescent males and one adult female.

"They had been on patrol outside of their territory for more than two hours when they surprised a small group of females from the community to the northwest," Amsler said. "Almost immediately upon making contact, the adult males in the patrol party began attacking the unknown females, two of whom were carrying dependent infants."

The Ngogo patrollers seized and killed one of the infants fairly quickly. They fought for 30 minutes to wrestle the other from its mother, but unsuccessfully. The Ngogo chimpanzees then rested for an hour, holding the female and her infant captive. Then they resumed their attack.

"Though they were never successful in grabbing the infant from its mother, the infant was obviously very badly injured, and we don't believe it could have survived," Amsler said.

In most of the attacks in this study, chimpanzee infants were killed. Mitani believes this might be because infants are easier targets than adult chimpanzees.

Scientists are still not sure if the chimpanzees' ultimate motive is resources or mates. They haven't ruled out the possibility that the attacks could attract new females to the Ngogo community.

Mitani says these findings disprove suggestions that the aggression is due to human intervention. Lethal attacks were first described by renowned primatologist Jane Goodall who, along with other human observers, used food to gain the chimps' trust. Some researchers posited that feeding the animals might have affected their behavior. The Michigan researchers didn't use food.

He cautions against drawing any connections to human warfare and suggests instead that the findings could speak to the origins of teamwork.

"Warfare in the human sense occurs for lots of different reasons," Mitani said. "I'm just not convinced we're talking about the same thing.

"What we've done at the end of our paper is to turn the issue on its head by suggesting our results might provide some insight into why we as a species are so unusually cooperative. The lethal intergroup aggression that we have witnessed is cooperative in nature, insofar as it involves coalitions of males attacking others. In the process, our chimpanzees have acquired more land and resources that are then redistributed to others in the group."

The paper is titled "Lethal intergroup aggression leads to territorial expansion in wild chimpanzees." The research is funded by the Detroit Zoological Institute, the Little Rock Zoo, the L.S.B. Leakey Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the National Science Foundation, the University of Michigan, the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, and Yale University.

Explore further: Danish museum discovers unique gift from Charles Darwin

More information: Amsler et al.: “Lethal intergroup aggression leads to territorial expansion in wild chimpanzees.” Publishing in Current Biology 20, 12, June 22, 2010. www.current-biology.com

Related Stories

Chimps: More males means boundary fights

Oct 18, 2005

University of Michigan scientists say the biggest predictor of territorial boundary patrols among wild chimpanzees is the number of males in the group.

Gesturing observed in wild chimpanzees

Mar 22, 2006

It was once thought only humans gestured to direct another person's attention, but such "referential" gesturing has now been observed in wild chimpanzees.

Study: Chimps don't care about friends

Oct 26, 2005

University of California-Los Angeles scientists say helping others is apparently a uniquely human habit -- or, at least, not a habit shared by chimpanzees.

Chimpanzees use sex tools

May 05, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Many animals are known to use tools, but chimpanzees (our closest living relatives) show the most varied and complex use of tools, and the males in one group of chimps have even been observed ...

Survey: People know much about chimps

Dec 11, 2007

A Humane Society of the United States survey determined that people know more than they thought about chimpanzees, including the fact they are endangered.

Recommended for you

Danish museum discovers unique gift from Charles Darwin

Aug 29, 2014

The Natural History Museum of Denmark recently discovered a unique gift from one of the greatest-ever scientists. In 1854, Charles Darwin – father of the theory of evolution – sent a gift to his Danish ...

Top ten reptiles and amphibians benefitting from zoos

Aug 29, 2014

A frog that does not croak, the largest living lizard, and a tortoise that can live up to 100 years are just some of the species staving off extinction thanks to the help of zoos, according to a new report.

User comments : 68

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2010
"The take-home is clear and simple," said John Mitani of the University of Michigan. "Chimpanzees kill each other. They kill their neighbors. Up until now, we have not known why. Our observations indicate that they do so to expand their territories at the expense of their victims."
They attack neighbors who are intent upon doing the same thing to them. Chimps initially establish territory they can reasonably sustain, and which they need for its resources. As their bands grow they need more territory, and so do their neighbors. Conflict begins when resources are threatened.

Chimps, as well as humans, know that attack is the best defence. If conflict is inevitable then the best strategy is to attack the enemy when you are ready and he is not.

Angriff ist die beste Verteidigung.
blyster
Jun 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
And they say we don't have a common ancestor. LOL at creationism.
otto1923
not rated yet Jun 21, 2010
More human like than we realized.
We are more Animal than we were ever led to believe. We were made in gods image, right? This to conceal our husbandry throughout history.
jselin
5 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2010
I hate to say it but this sounds identical to gang activity...
92ef55af
Jun 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2010
I hate humans. Can you all kill yourselves?


You go first, I promise we'll follow.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2010
I hate to say it but this sounds identical to gang activity...

I'd say it sounds identical to global politics.
jselin
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
I hate to say it but this sounds identical to gang activity...

I'd say it sounds identical to global politics.

Agreed in general but the description of the chimps out on patrol and killing the rival "gang" members when they see them is literally identical.
pierluigi_rotundo
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
I think that is the big difference between humans and animals

Thx
Pierluigi Rotundo
marjon
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Caesar said ape doesn't kill ape. "Damn them all to hell!"
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2010
Caesar said ape doesn't kill ape. "Damn them all to hell!"
"Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!"
Djincs
not rated yet Jun 21, 2010
yes we are really the same, our basics instincts are not different from this to animals, if we think we deserv to think ourselfe for somethink more developed creature it will be good not to listen to this animal instinkts and to stop the agression and the violence, in the nature they have their purpose and sence, but in our society they dont, so they are useless.....
dtxx
1 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2010
It must suck returning to camp with nothing but a mangled baby and a black eye. How did the other chimps not hear anything for over an hour?
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2010
yes we are really the same, our basics instincts are not different from this to animals, if we think we deserv to think ourselfe for somethink more developed creature it will be good not to listen to this animal instinkts and to stop the agression and the violence, in the nature they have their purpose and sence, but in our society they dont, so they are useless.....
Conflict over resources is driven by population growth. 'A species will produce more offspring than can be expected to survive to maturity.' In nature, an equilibrium is reached between growth and attrition. Among humans, many attritive factors have been mitigated but human repro rates remain the same.

Result- conflict, violence, war, revolution are INEVITABLE. Humans can negotiate delays, but that only makes eventual conflict WORSE.

Solution- they can accept Reality, embrace Inevitability, and begin to decide how best the can Manage it. This Conclusion was reached a few millenia ago; Empire is the Result.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Empire exists. There is simply no other reasonable explanation for the survival of the human race, the vast civilization it has developed, and its continued opportunity for growth.
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2010
I hate to say it but this sounds identical to gang activity...

I'd say it sounds identical to global politics.

Agreed in general but the description of the chimps out on patrol and killing the rival "gang" members when they see them is literally identical.
'Gangs' are just another name for tribes, extended families. There is nothing unique about a gang as you understand it. By definition they see those around them as just a little less human than they are. This is the very beginning of speciation, the 'urge to diverge'.

One component of a cohesive political unit is the ability to expand this identity artificially over ever larger regions and peoples. Religion is an essential factor in this ability.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2010
Yeah, it's that tribal thing again, be it humans or the other great apes. Tribal rules differ from individual rules and are more ruthless, because over time that has proven to be the best thing for the tribe.

Technological advances will alter this heuristic, however, in that ever smaller tribes are able to inflict ever greater harm on the opposition.

Why anyone thinks we're not just another primate is beyond me.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2010
Is it correct to say that chimps have "paws"? Or, did Chuck Heston do a faux paw?
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Is it correct to say that chimps have "paws"? Or, did Chuck Heston do a faux paw?
HukHuk
zslewis91
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
They attack neighbors who are intent upon doing the same thing to them. Chimps initially establish territory they can reasonably sustain,

Angriff ist die beste Verteidigung.

you sir..are no expert, your crude and faulse logic means nothing here, not a thing. all you "know it alls" should get into the fields of study,,,,,publish papers and so on...stop presenting your opinons as facts. for they are not
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
How do you know they're not? You got something specific you don't agree with (along with some reasons) of are you just attacking me for my supposed lack of credentials?

And by 'here' you mean the place where you haven't been to very often, and don't know very much about, and certainly don't own?
Djincs
5 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2010
Conflict over resources is driven by population growth. 'A species will produce more offspring than can be expected to survive to maturity.' In nature, an equilibrium is reached between growth and attrition. Among humans, many attritive factors have been mitigated but human repro rates remain the same.

I am talking about societies where there is no some big populational growth, you said it youirself that this is the problem, when there is no such thing why to fight each other?And the populational growth is something that can be controlled, China is doing well for now, we are not so different from animals but still we are enough humans to cope with the problems in other ways....
Djincs
4 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2010
but actually this no fighting thing is against nature in other way, mistaces in the human DNA occur constantly, and if there is no mecanism for this mistakes not to be passed in the next generation our genome is f*cked up, people will have more and more illneses with time(now there are lots of mistaces which doesnt kill you but still we should get rid of them).This is the purpous of this fighting thing and in nature it is important, still we have the tehnology to cleen up the mistakes without fighting!!the bad thing is that lots of people are against this in vitro thing, and they thing that probability when a child is consieved is job of god...yeahh i am shure each time when i flip a coint god deside what to be!!!
92ef55af
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2010
"I hate humans. Can you all kill yourselves? "

"You go first, I promise we'll follow."

Done!

Now it is your turn.
92ef55af
1 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2010
Rectification: only the americans need to kill themselves.
probes
Jun 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2010
Rectification: only the americans need to kill themselves.

Right, because with no one tending our farmland the rest of you will starve to death all on your own. Don't worry, the GPS system will be completely out of sync in about 15 minutes so all that lovely technology you have will be worth nothing as well. Your economy will cease to be because, well, we buy everything.

In short, I laugh at you, heartily. Lose the concept of nationalism and grow up, one race, one society.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2010
grow up, one race, one society
Without castes, please.
probes
1 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2010
These chimps are highly intelligent, they don't need GPS. Heck, they can build their own VASIMR engines in 3.7 hours.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2010
I am talking about societies where there is no some big populational growth, you said it youirself that this is the problem, when there is no such thing why to fight each other?And the populational growth is something that can be controlled, China is doing well for now
China over the years has aborted close to 1/3 the size of their present population. This in addition to their birth limit laws, the resulting female infanticide, and aggressive family planning efforts.

Link to the most important site on the Internet:
http://www.johnst...dex.html
-where you can get an idea of the breathtaking scope of this Campaign, enabled mostly by the destruction of the obsolete cultures throughout the world which would have prevented it.

This, I would argue, is the most significant result of the world wars, which makes one wonder if this was the fundamental reason for their breadth and depth.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2010
Adolescents are the pioneers, the odd generation out, the ones typically urged to move on when a tribe reaches capacity. This they will do enthusiastically, seeking out new niches when the one they were raised in is obviously filled.

Cities are intrinsically unnatural environments where any adolescent group would want to develop it's own niche; either by leaving, or if this is not seen as possible, by carving out a new one for themselves where they are. As HYC pointed out above, they will have their own laws and will tend to feed on the outsiders around them.

Take heed! It is our childrens main purpose in life to replace us. Rette sich wer kann.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2010
China over the years has aborted close to 1/3 the size of their present population.

Fine example of atheist technocracy!
ralph_wiggum
Jun 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2010
China over the years has aborted close to 1/3 the size of their present population.

Fine example of atheist technocracy!

Because China just screams technologically advanced to you, doesn't it.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2010
Here is a page from Johnstons Archive which is even more telling:
http://www.johnst...4pd.html
-Note that China aborts roughly 31% of all new pregnancies, near the top of this list. Conclusion- China is gradually being allowed out from under Communist martial law because the ancient, repro-based cultures which would have prevented this sort of pop control have finally, after 100s of years of drugs, war, revolution, disease, and famine, been destroyed.

Note also that social and economic stability directly correlates with the % of abortions. Stability decreases as we travel down the list... and the countries which currently experience the most poverty, violence, and war are those which are not on the list at all.

We can hope for another solution; we can wish, we can pray as Djincs points out. But THIS is the only solution we currently have available, for the problem which presents itself NOW, until we can somehow alter human biology itself.
Wayfarer
5 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2010
Its interesting how the males seem to concentrate on killing the infants,this puts me in mind of how adult male lions will kill cubs when trying to take over a pride.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2010
Its interesting how the males seem to concentrate on killing the infants,this puts me in mind of how adult male lions will kill cubs when trying to take over a pride.
Gorillas also:
http://books.goog...Q6AEwBw#
-Although I recall an incident of cannibalism of a newborn by dominant females.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2010
Its interesting how the males seem to concentrate on killing the infants,this puts me in mind of how adult male lions will kill cubs when trying to take over a pride.

Actually most social mammals will do this. It appears to be yet another part of our shared lineage.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2010
Its interesting how the males seem to concentrate on killing the infants,this puts me in mind of how adult male lions will kill cubs when trying to take over a pride.

Actually most social mammals will do this. It appears to be yet another part of our shared lineage.
Yeah, in old Jerusalem they would toss them into a ravine called Gehenna, saying 'Let Moloch have them'. Gehenna became a name for hell.
http://en.wikiped.../Gehenna
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2010
In old ireland they would drop them off at the local orphanage to similar effect. Native americans, pagan europeans, many cultures practiced this form of pop control in lieu of natural attrition. Xians would demand they grow up to die on the battlefield.

-Of course its wrong. Of course its miserable. But its always been a part of the human condition. Today we do it prenatally. There will be a better solution- people who fully accept western culture learn to substitute other pursuits for raising large families. But presently this only works in conjunction with an aggressive family planning effort which includes abortion, which the Johnstons archive figures clearly demonstrate.

Our biology will have to change in fundamental ways- the urge to reproduce, the intellect to plan for the future and live within our means, the requirement that no child be subjected to damage either before or after birth and so have the chance to grow up happy and healthy and thereby end the cycle.
ralph_wiggum
5 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2010
Impromptu poll of Physorg's moderating efforts...

My post that read "I love the smell of bananas in the morning" (with apologies to "Apocalypse Now") got deleted by the moderator for being "OFF TOPIC", while a gem like "Rectification: only the americans need to kill themselves" was preserved for posterity.

Please rate this a 1 if I'm being a crybaby or a 5 if the moderator should be more consistent in his/her efforts.

P.S. Moderator, please don't ban me, I love Physorg :)
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2010
Our biology will have to change in fundamental ways- the urge to reproduce, the intellect to plan for the future and live within our means, the requirement that no child be subjected to damage either before or after birth and so have the chance to grow up happy and healthy and thereby end the cycle.
The problem here is that without legal restrictions akin to China, or a genocidal event, those of lower ethical imperative outbreed those who would be rational and reasoned in how to accomplish this. It is a problem that social evolution won't readily solve.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2010
those of lower ethical imperative outbreed
Of course you don't want to denounce all families with more than two children as having "lower ethical imperatives".
those who would be rational and reasoned in how to accomplish this. It is a problem that social evolution won't readily solve.
There is an easy solution which will be difficult to establish. The function of reproduction has to be separated from the function of raising. Raising children will be a function for certified parents only. Biological parentship has to be replaced by qualified parentship. This agenda will solve a lot of problems.
otto1923
not rated yet Jun 22, 2010
There is an easy solution which will be difficult to establish. The function of reproduction has to be separated from the function of raising. Raising children will be a function for certified parents only. Biological parentship has to be replaced by qualified parentship. This agenda will solve a lot of problems.
Wow. Sounds pretty draconian for you. This is being gradually instituted in a variety of ways; initially with primary schools, then by mandatory education for adolescents, more recently by the fracturing of the family unit and the encouragement of women to fulfill themselves through extended educations and careers. Any children they can manage to bear end up in daycare.

Parenting is the only profession, arguably the most important one, which does not require any special qualification or education. People used to grow up in large extended families, and received lots of on-the-job experience. Those situations occur now in western cultures largely in the school system.
otto1923
not rated yet Jun 22, 2010
There also needs to be ways of protecting children in the womb from damage due to poor nutrition, drugs, alcohol, and tobacco use, etc. People would have to be qualified to bear children, and women would need to be monitored via remote realtime diagnostics. As soon as anything damaging is detected the woman would need to be incarcerated until her child is brought to term.

Draconian you say? Any woman who would insist on the kind of freedom which would enable her to damage another human being for life, should not be allowed to bear children. Period. We accept this kind of restriction routinely among adults, less so between child and parent, and rarely if at all between a mother and their unborn child.

We will soon have the technology to make monitoring possible. All we will need are the laws to enforce it and the resolve to see it done.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2010
Of course you don't want to denounce all families with more than two children as having "lower ethical imperatives".
Not by any means, I figured that post would be misconstrued and I'd have to answer it.
There is an easy solution which will be difficult to establish. The function of reproduction has to be separated from the function of raising. Raising children will be a function for certified parents only. Biological parentship has to be replaced by qualified parentship. This agenda will solve a lot of problems.
Well that steps back into my statement of Chinese style legal restriction.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2010
Please rate this a 1 if I'm being a crybaby or a 5 if the moderator should be more consistent in his/her efforts.


That was OFF TOPIC. So off with your head.

So is this post.

Whereas the Imoderators are never off topic since they NEVER explain just what amazingly bizarre excuse for logic caused them to act as they do.

Heck they don't even try to make sense.

My best guess is that one idiot with a Phd. wanders around and rolls a 20 sided die. Posts that make their saving throw are retained. Despite the claims on the site that they are British they act just as rational as the guys at a Dungeons and Beavers get together at Cal Tech. Thus I suspect that they really aren't British.

They definitely are neither consistent nor rational.

Even some my complaints about the lousy way they handle things stay and others disappear.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2010
Even some my complaints about the lousy way they handle things stay and others disappear.
I'd be happy enough if they could simply address the rampant sockpuppetry of Alizee and clan, or maybe jsut abolish the YEC posts so I don't have to re-explain free market failure, abiogenesis, and evolution over and over and over.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2010
I have the impression that Alizee The Multi-Named Crank has been banned a few times. Can't think of another reason for no longer posting, after all this time, as Alizee.

I don't mind the YEC posts IF the poster wants to engage in REAL debate. Hit and run posts like Mabarker and some others engage in are intellectually dishonest and cowardly which annoys me. Constant evasion like Marjon does has reached the point that I wouldn't mind seeing him go away.

An honest debate with him would be a vast improvement.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2010
An honest debate with him would be a vast improvement.
You can't have an honest debate with a YEC. By the very nature of their argument they must be dishonest either intellectually, or overtly.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2010
Maybe you can't but I can and have. Not all YECs are aggressively ignorant. Many are just plain ignorant, never having been exposed to the truth.

Ignorance is curable.

I am not claiming that I have made realists out of believers. However I have convinced at least a few that maybe they don't know everything because the Bible told them so.

Patience and self-control are needed to get anywhere in such a discussion. Even with that far more scarper off then actually begin to think.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2010
Maybe you can't but I can and have. Not all YECs are aggressively ignorant. Many are just plain ignorant, never having been exposed to the truth.
Unfortunately the only ones I've spoken with are willfully ignorant, or make utterly insane statements, akin to kevinrtrs, a common poster here.
Au-Pu
not rated yet Jun 26, 2010
The lead in said that chimps killed other chimps "violently".
Did they really expect them to kill them any other way?
The word "Violently" was superfluous.
Incidentally, how did the foregoing posts drift so far from the topic?
Should there not be some relevance?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2010
Perhaps the method of killing is a bit more savage then the author expected. Limb from limb for instance.

Or maybe it was authorial overkill with extreme prejudice.

Should there not be some relevance?


You aren't from around here are you?

Ethelred
otto1923
not rated yet Jun 26, 2010
Unfortunately the only ones I've spoken with are willfully ignorant, or make utterly insane statements, akin to kevinrtrs, a common poster here.
They have to be willing to lose. I think the stakes are too high.
The lead in said that chimps killed other chimps "violently".
Did they really expect them to kill them any other way?
Kosher?
Djincs
not rated yet Jun 27, 2010
The strange thing here is how the chimps manage to exchange genetic material between the different groups. Whit all that agresion and killing it is hard work, yet a mecanism should exist, this thing is important.
For a male chimp to join a foreign group it will be inpossible.A fimale to flip it is more possible but still it will be hard.
They havent the rape instinct like humans do(I think).
the only possibility is if fimale meet male from different groups, if they are alone they could turn the aggresion into something more creative....
otto1923
2.5 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2010
They havent the rape instinct like humans do(I think).
The 'rape' instinct... females who lose the protection of their males have little choice, do they? Probably glad to be favored by more capable males.

Male chimps will attack their enemys camp, kill or drive off the males, and take the females. Just like Joshua.

"having meanwhile driven away the two other Kahama males and, with threats, forced the young Kahama female to join their party."

"The assault on Madam Bee, incidentally, was watched by the adolescent Goblin and four Kasekela females, including Little Bee, who had become associated with Kasekela by then. Four months after Madam Bee was killed, her younger daughter, Honey flee, also transferred to Kasekela.

Horrifying as these events were, the most difficult aspect to accept was not the physical unpleasantness but the fact that the attackers knew their victims so well. They had been close companions before the community split."
otto1923
not rated yet Jun 27, 2010
Link for above exerpts:
http://www.washin...ales.htm
Riff
2.5 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2010
More 'pointing out the obvious' reporting. Its cause they are close to human.
otto1923
not rated yet Jun 28, 2010
@frajo
What, exactly, do you dislike about the above post? I thought I was being accurate in responding to djinn's question with a factual reference. Did you visit the source? Did you understand I was talking about chimps and not humans (except mostly)? Really, your silent derision is maddening. This is after all a discussion forum. Debate me! Respond in words- I know you know some-
Ethelred
not rated yet Jun 28, 2010
I don't understand his giving you a 1 either. Maybe he is just pissed at you and doesn't care what you wrote. So I gave you a four and am not sure it shouldn't have been a five.

Ethelred
otto1923
not rated yet Jun 28, 2010
I don't understand his giving you a 1 either. Maybe he is just pissed at you and doesn't care what you wrote. So I gave you a four and am not sure it shouldn't have been a five.

Ethelred
You're most gracious. That article I found was really sad- chimps are beasts- I don't quite understand how bonobos can survive in their own habitat without being just as vicious. I think the researchers must be missing things.
Ethelred
not rated yet Jun 28, 2010
For a male chimp to join a foreign group it will be inpossible.A fimale to flip it is more possible but still it will be hard.


Not hard for the females. Chimp bands are made up of brothers but NOT sisters. The females leave the band they were born in to join others.

Ethelred
probes
not rated yet Jun 28, 2010
Heck these chimps are so intelligent they don't even try to make VASIMR engines in 2.8 seconds.
frajo
not rated yet Jun 28, 2010
females who lose the protection of their males have little choice, do they? Probably glad to be favored by more capable males.
"Probably glad"? Maybe my comprehension of the English language is insufficient, but I'm reading here that somebody tries to scorn victims.
While I accept that certain people are fascinated by violence I never tolerate the turning of fascination into worshipping violence by enjoying violence. Scorning victims is a symptom of enjoying violence.
I don't understand his giving you a 1 either. Maybe he is just pissed at you and doesn't care what you wrote.
Otto1923 knows quite well that this is not the case.
Ethelred
not rated yet Jun 28, 2010
There was no scorning of victims in Otto's post. He seemed rather disgusted by the whole situation. Which I suspect is a bit atypical of Pan Troglodyte as it is atypical of Homo Sapien. But similar things have happened with humans.

Keep in mind that the adult female chimp is not surrounded by sisters and therefor any alliances are based on need, not family as the case for the males.

Ethelred
frajo
not rated yet Jun 28, 2010
There was no scorning of victims in Otto's post.
Ok, help me in understanding English: What's the suitable word for attributing a feeling of "gladness" to a victim? What's the English word for "cynism"?
Keep in mind that the adult female chimp is not surrounded by sisters and therefor any alliances are based on need, not family as the case for the males.
You want to say that they are able to feel "gladness", but not able to feel "sorrow" and "fear"?
otto1923
not rated yet Jun 28, 2010
Gladness is having all the males in your troop killed, not having any males left to help you defend yourself, and finding another group of males willing to take you in.

Females of many species (including ours) will induce competition to discern which males are more worthy contributers to the next generation. I suppose finding out would make females 'glad' and also imbue them with a certain sense of detachment and aloofness.

Frajo discerns otto to be a barbarian, only because he is willing to acknowledge that barbarity can be as useful as it is inevitable.

What would you do frajo if your children were starving or your back was against the wall? Fight like a barbarian, I wager.
You want to say that they are able to feel "gladness", but not able to feel "sorrow" and "fear"?
Can you see how your emotions cloud your cognition? If you had read the article you would have discerned much sorrow and fear, and pragmatism, in the lives of those chimps.
otto1923
not rated yet Jun 28, 2010
But similar things have happened with humans.
Yes, in biker films... scorn for the losers, the female joins the winner gang. Can you imagine a million years of raid and counter-raid... victory going usually to those clever enough to outwit their opponents and take their females, able to strategize, anticipate, communicate and organize tribal war better than the losers, and pass those intellectual abilities on to the next generation.

Its no wonder humans are naturally born prematurely, painfully, their heads continuing to grow after birth... The human brain is far too large, too delicate, to energy-hungry to be considered 'natural'. A million years of forced evolution fueled by competition among equals. No wonder its so popular today.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jun 29, 2010
What's the suitable word for attributing a feeling of "gladness" to a victim?
Otto is not responsible for the emotions of victims. Haven't you heard of Stockholm Syndrome?

http://en.wikiped...syndrome

You want to say that they are able to feel "gladness", but not able to feel "sorrow" and "fear"?
Excuse me but just where the hell did I say anything like that? You seem to have personal issues on this that is causing you to impugn motives that you don't like for the writings of me and Otto.

Ethelred
otto1923
not rated yet Jun 29, 2010
Right, stockholm syndrome... and this has so obviously been the norm throughout history and prehistory, that how can we really call it a 'syndrome' except to vilify it like we do so many natural animalistic behaviors which nevertheless, in the context of modern society, are so obviously reprehensible? We must be shamed.

We are being DOMESTICATED, our animal natures being deliberately bred out of us, a concerted effort which has spanned millenia.

Who or what could be capable of such an enduring Campaign? Certainly not GOD, as had always been assumed; though its religions have until recently been our primary Shepherds.

We know now Providence cannot be the hand of god, and yet Providence persists. We can watch it at Work.