Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday September 20 2014, @09:05AM   Printer-friendly

The BBC is reporting that a major study suggests that killing among chimpanzees results from normal competition, not human interference.

An international study co-written by more than 30 scientists and using data gathered from approximately 426 combined years of observation spanning 18 different chimp communities shows murder rates in different chimp communities not increased by human activity, but instead reflect the numerical make-up of the local population.

When the scientists compared the figures across chimpanzee research sites, they found that the level of human interference (e.g. whether the chimps had been fed, or their habitat restricted) had little effect on the number of killings.

Instead, it was basic characteristics of each community that made the biggest difference: the number of males within it, and the overall population density of the area.

These parameters link the violence to natural selection: killing competitors improves a male chimp's access to resources like food and territory - and crucially, it will happen more frequently when there is greater competition from neighbouring groups, and when the males can patrol in large numbers, with less risk to their own survival.

But rather than having deep implications for human nature, the authors of the new study suggest that chimpanzee homicide — which previous research has estimated to occur at a similar rate to that seen in hunter-gatherer human societies — goes up and down as a simple consequence of competition for resources.

The full finding of the study are available from nature.com [Paywall].

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @11:53AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @11:53AM (#95815)

    If the left-leaning scientists were wrong about this, and blaming humans for something we have no influence on, then maybe a lot of their other claims are wrong, too.

    Take global warming, for example. Just like in this case, maybe humans don't actually have any involvement at all, and it's just a natural phenomenon well beyond our control and influence. That might not be politically correct to admit, of course, but it may very well be the reality.

    • (Score: 2) by mtrycz on Saturday September 20 2014, @12:24PM

      by mtrycz (60) on Saturday September 20 2014, @12:24PM (#95819)

      Hey troll, I'll I'm sorry but you're a little bit late on the global warming issue: the warming is a verifiable fact, and the mechanics of the warming are quite well understood. Some 97% of papers written on the issue in the last 20 years agree that warming is human induced.

      The issue I'm having with the title and TFS, and obviously the BBC article is the word "murder" (can't reach the article, but its title talks about "lethal aggresion"). Humans can commit , animals don't. It's a quite humane trait to antropomorphize things, and quite understandable, and the study has merit, but if you approach the issue with such a mindset, it won't work well (I don't know the mindset of the researchers, tho). [wikipedia.org]

      Killer hornets kill bees, it's not murder (should be genocide in TFA's point of view)
      Ants kill ants, it's not murder either ("Ants wage civil war at their neighbouring tribe")
      and so on, and so forth.

      tl;dr: the title is sensationalist.

      --
      In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
      • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @12:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @12:43PM (#95824)

        Please refrain from petty name calling. Just because the GP expresses an idea that you don't like it does not mean that you should engage in childishness like you just did. This isn't reddit. And if there is 3% uncertainty, to use your numbers, then clearly further investigation is needed to explain that inconsistency. The GP could very well be right, you know. Maybe that 3% is naturally occurring. That would in fact prove wrong those scientists who claim that global warming is caused by humans, because some of it clearly would be natural in origin.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @01:06PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @01:06PM (#95836)

          The GP is a troll or trying to troll with the off-topic global warming issue. Also, politicizing the topic.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @01:29PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @01:29PM (#95843)

            I don't think it's off topic. Part of this discussion is about the quality of the science that's being performed now, versus in the past. Clearly some bad science was performed if the conclusions that were reached in the past in this chimp case are not supported by the evidence that's now available. That's the thing about science, it is necessary to go back and continually be revising and reviewing theories as more evidence becomes available. It's good that it was done in this case, and that earlier commenter is perfectly correct to suggest that it should be done in other cases, too, including investigation about climate change. It's never "trolling" when somebody encourages the review of scientific material involving doubt. It's just good science.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @03:11PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @03:11PM (#95868)

              > It's never "trolling" when somebody encourages the review of scientific material involving doubt,

              By that criteria nearly anything is on topic because the essence of science is doubt.
              You just happen to agree with the troll is all.

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @12:48PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @12:48PM (#95826)

        What about when a police officer has to defend himself with deadly force after a physical attack from a violent man who had just brutally assaulted a convenience store clerk?

        Do you consider that to be "murder"? Or do you consider it to be equivalent to an ant killing another ant in order to save its own life?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @12:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @12:58PM (#95832)

          The officer had ZERO knowledge that the man robbed the store. This has been proven and repeated over and over again but cool-aid drinkers such as yourself seem to have selective hearing.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @01:02PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @01:02PM (#95834)

            Ants have tiny little brains, you can't expect them to understand everything.

            • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Saturday September 20 2014, @09:07PM

              by SlimmPickens (1056) on Saturday September 20 2014, @09:07PM (#95993)

              Ants have tiny little brains,

              They're quite large if you consider all those chemicals they leave all over the ground to be neurotransmitters

          • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @01:19PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @01:19PM (#95840)

            You're right, that gives credence to the claim that the officer was acting in self defense after being physically attacked.

            Here's what we know:

            1) The individual who got shot had a history of acting aggressively and violently. There is ample and indisputable video evidence proving this, taken minutes before the incident.

            2) The police officer did not realize that he was dealing with somebody so dangerous when this officer reasonably requested that the other person walk on the sidewalk instead of walking down the middle of a road disrupting vehicular traffic.

            3) The police officer thus likely did not act in a premeditated manner when applying deadly force.

            4) The deadly force was likely employed only after the man who had assaulted the cashier engaged in similar physically aggressive and harmful behavior against the police officer.

            5) The police officer likely used this deadly force out of self defense, after being physically attacked.

            By your own admission, the evidence you feel so strongly about does vindicate the police officer in this case. All of the evidence suggests he was merely defending himself from a violent physical attack.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @02:21PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @02:21PM (#95854)

              Mr Brown, the murder victim, was found 30 feet from the officer's patrol car and had no power burns or gunshot residue on his body. That means he wasn't close to the officer when he was repeatedly shot while he had his hands up.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @04:11PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @04:11PM (#95885)

              Remove every "knowledge" that has "likely" in it from your list, because "likely" means "we do not know."

              Interestingly those "likely" entries make up the majority of your points.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @12:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @12:59PM (#95833)

      Yea I wholeheartedly agree Chimps are the cause of global warming, whose with me on a Chimp cull?

  • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Saturday September 20 2014, @12:23PM

    by SlimmPickens (1056) on Saturday September 20 2014, @12:23PM (#95818)

    Here's [scientificamerican.com] an article based on a paper from 2012 talking more about why the bonobo's on the other side of the river are 'domesticated', however the proposed reason (also for the chimps agression) is competition for resources.

    • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday September 20 2014, @03:02PM

      by opinionated_science (4031) on Saturday September 20 2014, @03:02PM (#95863)

      Yes, and it explains why we have a more recent ancestor with bonbos (pan paniscus) vs chimps (pan troglydytes). Bonobos are maternal and hence all love and hugging. Hence they live in the trees...

  • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Saturday September 20 2014, @02:10PM

    by rts008 (3001) on Saturday September 20 2014, @02:10PM (#95849)

    Maybe the chimps learned from human encounters. ;-)

    'Monkey see, monkey do, monkey fling poo at you.' [end sarcasm]

    Actually, this and similar studies shine a bright light on human behavior, despite the 'humans are better than animals' crowd. That crowd seems to be forgetting/denying that humans are just another species of animal on this planet, and chimps are cousins on the family tree going way back.

    • (Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday September 20 2014, @07:26PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 20 2014, @07:26PM (#95946) Journal

      And maybe humans learned from animal encounters too. I doubt this is at all a one way street of learning, especially given who is the brightest of the animals.
       
       

      Actually, this and similar studies shine a bright light on human behavior, despite the 'humans are better than animals' crowd.

      And it should. But let's not forget that part of the impetus for this study was the initial assumption that chimpanzees were engaging in destructive behaviors as a result of humans. It was the "humans are worse than animals" crowd that came up with that particular theory.

      • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Saturday September 20 2014, @11:54PM

        by rts008 (3001) on Saturday September 20 2014, @11:54PM (#96059)

        And maybe humans learned from animal encounters too. I doubt this is at all a one way street of learning, especially given who is the brightest of the animals.

        What, my sarcasm hit too close to home? ;-)
        Oh, and that is quite the assumption on the 'given' thing, I don't share your view.(unless you are taliking about lightning bugs being 'bright')

        Nothing is 'given' until there is overwhelming evidence to support it.

        Humans can't even agree on what constitutes intellgence, much less determine intelligence in species that we have not figured out how to communicate with.(the irony)

        But let's not forget that part of the impetus for this study was the initial assumption that chimpanzees were engaging in destructive behaviors as a result of humans. It was the "humans are worse than animals" crowd that came up with that particular theory.

        What's your point?
        I couldn't care less who came up with the theory, or why...I 'forgot' nothing.

        All I care about is that someone came up with a testable theory, some experiments/studies were conducted, and now we have emperical evidence to work with and play with.

        Who came up with the theory in no way changes my statement other than to add another group to the 'forgetting' category, it does not change my point whatsoever.
        We can keep adding groups all month without changing what I said.

        • (Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday September 21 2014, @07:34AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 21 2014, @07:34AM (#96196) Journal

          Nothing is 'given' until there is overwhelming evidence to support it.

          Humans can't even agree on what constitutes intellgence, much less determine intelligence in species that we have not figured out how to communicate with.(the irony)

          I suggest you start by not equating evidence with semantics. Humanity's technological civilization, astounding reproductive success, incomparable ability to modify local climate (via buildings and landscaping) to our needs, and massive infrastructure construction provide the overwhelming evidence of a unique combination of intelligence and ability to manipulate reality. That's true even if we have considerable difficulty coming up with a rigorous and scientifically relevant definition of intelligence.
           
           

          All I care about is that someone came up with a testable theory, some experiments/studies were conducted, and now we have emperical evidence to work with and play with.

          You did mention the "humans are better than animals" crowd. That looks more to me like relevant social commentary than mere impartial discussion of the evidence. In which case, it's quite reasonable to mention the opposing extreme, "humans are worse than animals" who were actually responsible for proposing the model that was rejected by the latest evidence. They would be the most relevant group to add to your "forgetting" category.

      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday September 21 2014, @04:03AM

        by Reziac (2489) on Sunday September 21 2014, @04:03AM (#96142) Homepage

        There was a study a couple years ago (discussed on the green site) where chimps that had never had human contact were observed "going to war". Hmm, maybe they didn't catch it from us after all...

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @04:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @04:14PM (#95887)

    Shouldn't it be panicide?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @06:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @06:22PM (#95912)

    Isn't the distinction of murder that it is *unlawful* premediated killing of someone. I'm pretty sure chimpanzees haven't set up their own legal system overnight.

    Is a lion stalking, killing and eating a gazelle murder? What is the lion likely to get for that? Hanging? Life in imprisonment?

    • (Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday September 20 2014, @07:36PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 20 2014, @07:36PM (#95950) Journal

      Isn't the distinction of murder that it is *unlawful* premediated killing of someone.

      I think the idea here is that if it were a bunch of humans committing the acts in question against another human in a typical human legal system, then would that act be considered murder?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @06:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @06:08PM (#96385)
        Which is why I think those people who want to give animals similar rights as humans are really really stupid.

        We'd be executing or imprisoning predator animals for murdering their prey. If we didn't and it's OK for those animals to murder their prey why can't we have the same rights as them?
  • (Score: 1) by Username on Saturday September 20 2014, @07:05PM

    by Username (4557) on Saturday September 20 2014, @07:05PM (#95938)

    And here I thought we were the root cause of all evil in the world. Who would have thought that animals, other than humans, would compete with each other? How absurd!

  • (Score: 2) by Subsentient on Sunday September 21 2014, @12:33AM

    by Subsentient (1111) on Sunday September 21 2014, @12:33AM (#96076) Homepage Journal

    When humans are NOT responsible for something wrong with the world.

    (no sarcasm, we usually are to blame)

    --
    "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti