[HN Gopher] Chimpanzees in Uganda locked in eight-year 'civil wa...
___________________________________________________________________
Chimpanzees in Uganda locked in eight-year 'civil war', say
researchers
Author : neversaydie
Score : 170 points
Date : 2026-04-10 19:10 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| codevark wrote:
| They've been watching us and what we do to each other.
| crazydoggers wrote:
| We both do it because chimps and humans shared a common
| ancestor only 8 million years ago.
| tuveson wrote:
| No bonobo wars though
| jaeh wrote:
| there for sure are, but they are nsfw and will never be
| aired in a netflix documentation
| Nevermark wrote:
| They use sex as a weapon.
|
| Their wars are legendary. They never give up. Never
| surrender. And the cycle never ends. Children of war.
|
| The end game of "the replacement theory" when everyone
| fully commits.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| 8 million years is a drop on the geological time scale, but
| on a species scale that's an eternity. We went from
| Neanderthals and Denisovans to sapiens in a fraction of that
| time.
| bena wrote:
| That's a bit conceited.
|
| Animals have inner lives as well. They have their own thoughts
| and feelings. And sometimes those feelings are anger and their
| thought is to kick the shit out of those assholes over there.
|
| Fuck man, my cats occasionally scrap with each other. I know
| it's not anything they've learned from the people in my house
| because we don't go full Wrestlemania on each other.
| loganc2342 wrote:
| If anyone is interested in going more in-depth on this, there's a
| four episode documentary series on Netflix called _Chimp Empire_
| [1]. I just saw it last week and it 's fascinating stuff. You get
| to know the individual chimps in-depth (they all have names) and
| get to see conflicts in this "civil war" unfold. Plus I learned a
| lot about social and "political" dynamics among chimps.
|
| [1]: https://www.netflix.com/title/81311783
| culi wrote:
| 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?
| theultdev wrote:
| I'm on the other end. Finally some content to watch before
| bed.
|
| Love quiet documentary type things in that scenario.
|
| Bonus if there's a lot of episodes.
| shimman wrote:
| Might have to do this, better than rewatching the same
| rotation of sitcoms.
| obsidianbases1 wrote:
| Morgan Freeman narrates some good ones on netflix. Works
| better/faster than melatonin
| codersfocus wrote:
| There's a post that says illness killed some important
| leaders (who were friends) on both sides of the camp. Once
| these leaders died, the two groups realized they didn't have
| anything in common with each other so they're fighting.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| Might as well be human.
| stuxnet79 wrote:
| > 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 with hierarchy, status and
| accumulation of resources which guides every single action
| they take from birth until death.
|
| What is different about Chimp Empire is that it is presented
| in a much more compelling way relative to the standard (dry)
| academic literature or popular science texts (i.e. Chimpanzee
| Politics by Frans De Waal).
|
| Even after finishing the documentary I've found myself
| connecting events in the series with current geopolitcal
| issues. One event in the show that stuck out to me was a
| battle between two rival camps over a _single_ fruit tree.
| Gaining control over that tree was a critical factor in
| determining the survival of the two rival groups. To us, post
| neolithic age and industrial revolution, it 's an amusing
| watch. But to chimps, a single fruit tree in their territory
| is _everything_. It is life and death. While there 's a
| difference in scale, the same underlying motivations - in my
| mind - currently explain what is going in the middle east and
| eastern europe.
|
| Also, the documentary is great case study in how, loneliness
| and introversion can be absolutely lethal in the wild. The
| politics in each Chimp community can get quite toxic but
| participation isn't really optional. You either play the game
| or quite literally die.
|
| If you really want a good intellectual exercise, I recommend
| watching Chimp Empire in its entirety and then The Expanse
| right after. Try to tell me they are not the same show :P
| ccozan wrote:
| To be honest, we are fighting now over a 30kms wide strait
| ... also critical in a certain policitcal survival of
| sorts.
| bee_rider wrote:
| 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.
| towledev wrote:
| Was the fruit tree important for its fruit? Surely there
| are other fruit sources, no?
| gopher_space wrote:
| A clear demonstration of the value of knowledge.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| There are far too many documentaries that omit or slant
| information for documentaries as a category to be considered
| informational. Especially ones on Netflix.
| perfmode wrote:
| Loved this series. It was tragic. The cycle of violence,
| trauma, isolation, male performance.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| I haven't seen Chimp Empire, but it reminds me of the story
| of the Baboons where the alpha males died, and the entire
| society changed: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/
| learning/teacher...
|
| (It also features a very amusing photo at the top that makes
| it look like the subject is the biologist Robert Sapolsky.)
| coliveira wrote:
| This is reality TV with animals. Like any reality TV show, the
| events and reactions are manipulated. I wouldn't put any
| credibility on this.
| murm wrote:
| There's also the 1,5h documentary Rise of the Warrior Apes
| which is sort of a "prequel" to Chimp Empire. It was filmed
| over a period of 20 years in the same location and documents
| how the researches originally came upon this unusual chimpanzee
| tribe. The production values are not nearly as polished as in
| Chimp Empire but in my opinion it was still an interesting
| watch if you find this kind of stuff fascinating. The
| researchers themselves talk a lot in this.
| delichon wrote:
| I hope nobody decides to violate the prime directive and take
| sides in the chimp war.
|
| To the extent that they have good memory, they live in a world of
| finite resources, and their behavior was shaped by the forces of
| game theory as applied to tribes, this is more or less
| inevitable. You can read that as defeatism or just math. We can't
| overcome the force of game theory, but we can make it work for us
| by making our transactions increasingly transparent and
| repeatable, so that cooperation is more successful than
| defection.
| perfmode wrote:
| That's one way to look at it. It's fairly common to view nature
| this way. I wonder where it comes from.
|
| I remember the time, in some film I watched, researchers
| intervened to save penguins trapped in a crater. A holy moment
| that was.
| the_af wrote:
| > _To the extent that they have good memory, they live in a
| world of finite resources, and their behavior was shaped by the
| forces of game theory as applied to tribes, this is more or
| less inevitable. You can read that as defeatism or just math.
| We can 't overcome the force of game theory, but we can make it
| work for us by making our transactions increasingly transparent
| and repeatable, so that cooperation is more successful than
| defection._
|
| Note that the conclusions of the paper, while acknowledging the
| problem of access to resources, are different. They also do not
| conclude that this is "more or less inevitable":
|
| > _The lethal aggression that followed the fission at Ngogo
| informs models of intergroup conflict. All observed attacks
| were initiated by the numerically smaller Western group,
| contradicting simple imbalance-of-power models that predict an
| advantage for larger groups. Persistent offensive success by
| Western males suggests that cohesion supported by enduring
| relationships can outweigh numeric disadvantage. Our
| observations are also relevant for predictions from parochial
| altruism. Because cohesion among the Western cluster preceded
| overt hostility, external threats may be unnecessary to foster
| cooperation. Cohesion among members of the wider Ngogo group,
| however, may have weakened when external threats from adjacent
| groups decreased after territorial expansion in 2009._
|
| and
|
| > _This study encourages a reevaluation of current models of
| human collective violence. If chimpanzee groups can polarize,
| split, and engage in lethal aggression without human-type
| cultural markers, then relational dynamics may play a larger
| causal role in human conflict than often assumed. Cultural
| traits remain essential for large-scale cooperation, but many
| conflicts may originate in the breakdown of interpersonal
| relationships rather than in entrenched ethnic or ideological
| divisions. It is tempting to attribute polarization and war
| that occur in humans today to ethnic, religious, or political
| divisions. Focusing entirely on these cultural factors,
| however, overlooks social processes that shape human behavior--
| processes also present in one of our closest animal relatives.
| In some cases, it may be in the small, daily acts of
| reconciliation and reunion between individuals that we find
| opportunities for peace._
|
| Which sounds kinda hopeful!
|
| My own observations is that the preconditions for the split
| that led to open warfare between the two Chimp groups was:
|
| 1. The nonviolent (illness) death of a few key individuals that
| linked both groups, and...
|
| 2. The complete stop of interbreeding. Once the two groups
| stopped interbreeding, the split was finalized and they became
| truly hostile.
|
| Stretching this a bit, it makes me think of those (usually
| white supremacists) who claim "multiculturalism" is to blame
| for all the world's problems, and if only every ethnic or
| religious group stayed in their lane and didn't mix with the
| other, we could all live in peace. But it seems to me the
| lesson from this paper is that this (isolating us in separate
| groups) would make the split complete enough that we would
| decisively start butchering each other.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| I'd suggest reading some David Graeber. Viewing everything
| through the lens of game theory, as if it was some physical
| law, is very much off the mark.
| shimman wrote:
| Great comment. Dawn of Everything changed a lot how I viewed
| early humanity.
| hparadiz wrote:
| Prime directive doesn't apply because they are part of our home
| planet. Our actions or in-actions can improve or worsen their
| living conditions. Their natural world is gone anyway. We've
| changed it already.
| throwaway27448 wrote:
| > We can't overcome the force of game theory
|
| Game theory isn't a force. It's just one way of modeling
| behavior through one sense of rationality, and it rarely maps
| neatly onto actual human behavior.
| neom wrote:
| 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?
| Aboutplants wrote:
| My initial instinct is that they were just reestablishing
| social order among the group after such a dramatic event.
|
| Edit : I just read the paper and the discussion does a good job
| at laying out the entire landscape that contributed to the
| disruption. Pretty fascinating but also totally explainable due
| to the circumstances explained, which in and of itself is
| wildly fascinating!
| the_af wrote:
| I think some of the individuals who died were key in linking
| the two groups (they were "the glue" that prevented
| disruptive aggression), and after they were gone, the split
| cemented and later turned into aggression.
| jandrese wrote:
| Sudden power vacuums are often filled by the most
| opportunistic individuals in human culture. People who are
| frequently more concerned with personal gain over the
| collective well-being of the group. It's why assassinating
| heads of state usually just makes the situation worse.
| cucumber3732842 wrote:
| Plenty of people stepped into power vacuums not to make
| themselves rich but to save their nation Napolean, Tito,
| Cincinnatus, arguably George Washington.
| estearum wrote:
| Right but this is rare enough for "power vacuums" to
| generally be regarded as a bad thing and not a good
| thing.
|
| If they frequently had great people step in, we'd just
| produce them artificially all the time.
| culi wrote:
| Just like in human analyses of geopolitical situations, the
| explanations that rely on broad abstractions of human nature
| or resource competition and paint a teleological narrative
| always end up breaking down when you do a deep dive into the
| history and specific circumstances. When you get into the
| nitty gritty of every unique geopolitical situation it's
| actually much more difficult to pull out a generalizable
| lesson imo. At some point we have to accept that we can't
| cross the same river twice
| harimau777 wrote:
| 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.
| neom wrote:
| 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.
| elcapitan wrote:
| So which side is fighting for our values?
| culi wrote:
| The Western Ngogo are clearly trying to spread the values of
| democracy and equality to the backwards Central Ngogo society
| that also happens to also have resources important to the
| Western Ngogo
|
| Central Ngogo has complained that every time it's tried to
| democratically elect a leader, that leader had been overthrown
| by Western Ngogo--creating an environment that is hostile to
| anyone other than WN having a so-called "democracy". CN has
| also criticized WN as ultimately just being "oligarchy with
| extra steps" and creating an empire that requires the
| subjugation of CN.
| mchaver wrote:
| I am siding with the group that opens bananas from the bottom.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Which side is the bottom?
| Nevermark wrote:
| Hey everyone! I found a sideless one over here! Get 'em!!
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _Which side is the bottom?_
|
| i'll tell you this if it helps, for the cohort he wishes to
| join he meant to say top.
| gostsamo wrote:
| negotiations on petrol rights still ongoing.
| Nevermark wrote:
| That depends on which side of "our values" you are talking
| about.
|
| Are you orange team or green team?
| dyauspitr wrote:
| This got me thinking. Do chimpanzees try and mate with pre
| pubescent young or is that somehow nature gated?
| shevy-java wrote:
| I always wondered when Planet of the Apes would begin. We can see
| it now:
|
| a) Chimpanzees going to war. b) Humans ending humans.
|
| Both is presently in the making, if one looks at the geopolitical
| scale and looks at damage caused by drones; a) is probably not
| yet full scale. Chimpanzees may be better diplomats than humans.
| hmokiguess wrote:
| That's absolutely bananas!
| OgsyedIE wrote:
| 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 for years and don't know what the
| current consensus on the topic is but it's interesting to
| consider if some environments naturally promote the unlucky
| inhabitants to harm each other.
| londons_explore wrote:
| 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.
| Sharlin wrote:
| 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.
| Never mind dying _in your prime reproductive age!_
| bluegatty wrote:
| 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..
| mothballed wrote:
| 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.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| I think that's too narrow. You can also advance your
| genes by helping your sisters or other close relatives
| have offspring.
| mothballed wrote:
| 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.
| dml2135 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| There are plenty of people who advocate for war and
| consider it good, and plenty of disagreements over war.
|
| People are usually in agreement that war / killing is bad
| _when other people do it_ but will find all sorts of ways
| to justify themselves doing it when it is to their
| advantage. This isn 't really contradictory, from an
| evolutionary perspective.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| I would caution against the use of "murder" so loosely.
| Lions don't murder their prey. They kill their prey. Murder
| occurs when one entity with personhood intentional kills
| another entity with personhood, where personhood is rooted
| in the ability to comprehend reality (intellect) and the
| ability to make free choices among comprehended
| alternatives (free choice). "Murder" thus has a moral
| dimension that mere killing does not. Personhood is the
| seat of moral agency; without personhood, murder simply
| cannot take place, only killing, and it is a category error
| to ascribe moral goodness or evil to an act committed by a
| non-person. A spider eating another spider of the same
| species isn't murder; it may very well be the nature of
| that species to function that way.
|
| (Entailed also by personhood is social nature. So,
| murdering another person is bad, because it is opposed to
| the very nature and thus good of the murderer. It's why
| killing in self-defense and the death penalty for murder
| are themselves mere killing, but not murder. Justice is
| served against the injustice of the gravely antisocial.)
|
| From a game theoretic perspective w.r.t. just resources,
| murder does not generally pay especially given the social
| nature of a species given how antithetical it is to the
| social, but even if it does in some constrained sense,
| there is a greater intangible loss for those with
| personhood. Speak to almost anyone who has murdered
| someone. They will tell you that it changes them
| drastically, and not in a good way.
| EA-3167 wrote:
| Murder is a crime, homicide is the act. A lion doesn't
| murder because it isn't capable of breaking human law,
| but it can sure commit a homicide.
| card_zero wrote:
| Not on a gazelle. The great apes are at least hominids,
| so I can't complain about it being called "homicide", but
| a gazelle gets ... bovicide?
| EA-3167 wrote:
| No disagreement across cultures? That's downright funny,
| there isn't even agreement over what counts as murder. Do
| you think a jihadi sawing off a head thinks they're a
| murderer?
|
| Cultures aren't universal, and neither is your particular
| religious tradition.
| krapp wrote:
| >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.
|
| We argue over it all the time by disagreeing on what counts
| as "murder." Taking lives in war? Not murder. Taking
| _civilian_ lives in war? Well the enemy often uses
| civilians as cover, what else can one do? The state takes
| someone 's life? Not murder, just the cost of civil
| society. Abortion? Murder, obviously. Bombing an abortion
| clinic? Not murder, because killing killers in God's name
| is justified.
|
| So what even is "murder?" It isn't simply the taking of a
| human life. It isn't even the taking of an _innocent_ human
| life. It isn 't even the taking of a human life with
| premeditation. Murder is an arbitrary line societies draw
| between the killing they find useful and the killing they
| don't. It's a legal and moral fiction.
|
| I mean, the United States practically murdered _an entire
| continent of civilizations and cultures_ and the only
| people who even care are the descendants of the few Natives
| we missed. How have we paid for that long term? We 're a
| goddamn global hegemon and nuclear superpower that
| threatens to annihilate civilizations just for shits and
| giggles. Murder seems to be working out pretty well for us.
| deepsun wrote:
| Plenty disagreements everywhere. Under (usually fake) ideas
| of not enough resources for everyone, so the strongest must
| survive.
|
| Nazi planned to exterminate several whole ethnicities. If
| you think it was (or is) unversally accepted as "Bad" --
| think again. Most developed countries had Nazi parties,
| including US and Canada. Some sympathize today. Several
| Middle East governments publicly claim that
| murders/rapes/kidnappings of people from another particular
| country is just and honorable, and will be rewarded in
| heavens.
|
| Ancient Spartans (reportedly) killed their own weak
| children. In order to become a citizen every Spartan must
| have killed a man (non-citizen). It was considered good and
| just (by citizens).
|
| In many cultures tribal warfare was paramount, even before
| states (and some remote tribes practice it even today). It
| was considered good and just.
|
| And we honor our veterans, and for a good reason. (Without
| them, we would be captured/killed by other veterans, and
| honor them anyway). Modern civilizational culture is a thin
| patina on top of our primal behavior.
| forshaper wrote:
| In addition to the standard cross-cultural sample, I find
| the Seshat database useful for checking universals.
| https://seshat-db.com/sc/scvars/
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| 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
| partial in many countries. (See also, gun control.)
|
| Tribal murder has been the norm for most of recorded
| history. There are very, very few periods in very, very few
| cultures where there was no tribal/factional murder in
| living memory, and far more where it was an expected
| occurrence.
|
| And technology has always been close by. Throughout
| history, most tech has either been invented for military
| ends or significantly developed and refined for them.
| the_af wrote:
| > _When competing for resources, killing your neighbour frees
| up resources, which you can take_
|
| I don't think it's that straightforward. War is usually
| extremely wasteful for all involved, even the victor. Plus it
| puts the whole group at risk, if it spirals out of control.
| culi wrote:
| Yeah, mycorrhizal fungi, the gut microbiome, lichen, pet
| dogs, etc. Nature is completely brimming with examples of
| cooperation. It seems to me that more often than not,
| teaming up with organisms around you will unlock the
| ability to use more resources you otherwise wouldn't have
| access to. I would guess that this strategy is much more
| generative than attacking your neighbors and therefore
| risking your own health
|
| We could hardly eat a fraction of what we eat today if we
| hadn't teamed up with microbes.
| dontlikeyoueith wrote:
| > 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.
|
| If anything, I'd say plants do it more. Everything in the
| garden is trying to kill everything else.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| 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.)
| semiinfinitely wrote:
| we can send them some of that vim donation money
| mike_hearn wrote:
| _> 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, ethnicity and political beliefs aren't
| among them. Fighting over resources, women and blood feuds are.
|
| Supposedly academic anthropology had difficulties accepting these
| findings, especially the Yamomamo studies by Chagnon where he
| documented them going to war to steal each other's women, as it
| contradicted the popular idea of the noble savage.
| throwi790 wrote:
| 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
| bit-anarchist wrote:
| That's a pretty strong statement. You know the saying: strong
| statements require equally strong evidence.
| jandrese wrote:
| It makes sense. Convincing someone to go kill other people so
| they can take their stuff and rape their women isn't that hard.
| The personal benefit is front and center, it aligns easily with
| human nature.
|
| Convincing someone to go kill other people so you can get their
| stuff is a lot harder. You have to get creative with the
| reasons, and even then you had better be giving those fighters
| their cut unless you've really managed to get them fully
| committed to whatever excuse to made up. It helps a lot if
| there is some kind of wedge issue you can exploit, which is
| where religion and ethnicity come in handy.
| inferniac wrote:
| yeah but some people still think "imagine" is profound and real
| lelanthran wrote:
| But... this isn't exactly news, is it?
|
| We've known for decades that chimpanzees go to war, and during
| that war will happily slaughter each other.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
| the_af wrote:
| > _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, ethnicity and political beliefs
| aren't among them. Fighting over resources, women and blood
| feuds are._
|
| Why is it weird? Religion, ethnicity and political beliefs are
| argued _all the time_ , even here on HN, as the reason for why
| shit happens.
|
| Also, what is a "blood feud" in the primates? Chimps seeking
| revenge for the murder of another Chimp? Why was the first
| Chimp killed then? I think "blood feud" is a good start, but
| why? The paper sort of explores possible reasons.
|
| > _Supposedly academic anthropology had difficulties accepting
| these findings, especially the Yamomamo studies by Chagnon
| where he documented them going to war to steal each other 's
| women, as it contradicted the popular idea of the noble
| savage._
|
| I don't know what you mean, the "noble savage" is a discredited
| racist trope. Chagnon is worth considering but surely you're
| aware of the academic criticism of his work and methods? It
| wasn't because of the "noble savage", that would be a lazy
| dismissal of the criticism. He didn't have the final word on
| the topic.
| card_zero wrote:
| It's probably all about genes: _my genes say I have to kill you
| now because you aren 't spreading my genes._ This might be a
| component of human ethnic violence, but not a strong one, since
| we can think thoughts, such as _that would be a shitty thing to
| do._
| asterix99 wrote:
| The book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors by Carl Sagan is a
| revelation in how close human behaviour is to those of chimps.
|
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61662.Shadows_of_Forgott...
| grg0 wrote:
| Damn, they've been polarized by social media too? Zuckerberg's
| greed knows no limits.
| yeison wrote:
| Sandel said he first noticed them polarising in June 2015.
| croisillon wrote:
| i remember seeing the chimpanzee descend that escalator in
| 2015, back then everyone thought it was hilarious!
| ZeidJ wrote:
| Any founders out there using AI to solve this? ;)
| sho_hn wrote:
| Google tried, but no apes were impressed with nano-scale
| bananas.
| enochthered wrote:
| The apes were so angry about it they claude the researchers
| eyes out.
| laughing_man wrote:
| This doesn't surprise me. We've known for decades that
| chimpanzees groups make war on other chimpanzee groups. Eight
| years is a long time, though.
| the_af wrote:
| I think the novelty here is that this was the _same_ group
| which underwent a schism of sorts, and over the course of
| relatively few years became two completely separate groups
| antagonistic to each other.
|
| edit: I'm rate-limited, so here's my answer to your comment of:
|
| > _I remember watching a nature documentary many years ago with
| exactly that scenario. The original group killed all the
| splitters._
|
| Yeah, you're right. You probably remember this:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
|
| It does seem like a very similar scenario, so now I'm confused.
| laughing_man wrote:
| I remember watching a nature documentary many years ago with
| exactly that scenario. The original group killed all the
| splitters.
| clutter55561 wrote:
| Say that we, primates, have evolved some sort of social structure
| that values and depends on 'us', and antagonises 'others'.
|
| That would explain that sort of behaviour as well as our human
| shenanigans (country/religion/"race"/politics/football team/etc).
|
| Perhaps some groups are biased towards 'us' (i.e. more
| accepting), and other groups are biased towards 'other' (i.e.
| more hostile).
|
| The death of a few key individuals can absolutely remove all the
| commonality between two groups. Seems to have happened with those
| chimpanzees, and happens all the time in human groups.
|
| It is sad though that this is happening, on top of all the shit
| that is going on.
| nutjob2 wrote:
| > If chimpanzees - one of the species closest to humans
| genetically
|
| People seem to talk a lot about chimpanzees and their closeness
| to humans, and comparative behavior, but a lot less is said about
| the other closest species, the bonobo monkey.
|
| Their society is very peaceful and things like infanticide, a
| popular pastime in chimpanzee society, is absent among bonobos.
|
| The most notable trait of bonobos is that everyone has sex with
| every one else, constantly, (almost) regardless of relation,
| gender or age.
|
| You'd think humans could learn much from such a peaceful species,
| but most people don't even know they exist.
| Reason077 wrote:
| > _"Chimpanzees are "very territorial ", and have "hostile
| interactions with those from other groups""_
|
| So just like humans, then.
| hn_acc1 wrote:
| 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..
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-04-10 23:00 UTC)