Discussion

Chimpanzees in Uganda locked in vicious 'civil war', say researchers

codevark: They've been watching us and what we do to each other.

crazydoggers: We both do it because chimps and humans shared a common ancestor only 8 million years ago.

neom: 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?

delichon: 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.

loganc2342: 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

Aboutplants: My initial instinct is that they were just reestablishing social order among the group after such a dramatic event.

culi: 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?

elcapitan: So which side is fighting for our values?

perfmode: 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.

perfmode: Loved this series. It was tragic. The cycle of violence, trauma, isolation, male performance.

codersfocus: 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: Might as well be human.

mchaver: I am siding with the group that opens bananas from the bottom.

pavel_lishin: Which side is the bottom?

Nevermark: Hey everyone! I found a sideless one over here! Get 'em!!

theultdev: 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: Might have to do this, better than rewatching the same rotation of sitcoms.

Nevermark: That depends on which side of "our values" you are talking about.Are you orange team or green team?

jasonwatkinspdx: 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.

lotsofpulp: There are far too many documentaries that omit or slant information for documentaries as a category to be considered informational. Especially ones on Netflix.

semiinfinitely: we can send them some of that vim donation money

OgsyedIE: 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: 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.

stuxnet79: > 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: To be honest, we are fighting now over a 30kms wide strait ... also critical in a certain policitcal survival of sorts.

Sharlin: It's certainly not obvious, given that many, many gregarious species certainly have inter-group conflicts and skirmishes at territory boundaries but no full-scale war. Animals in general avoid overt violence, for the obvious reason that it's rarely worth the risk of being hurt unless you're very sure you're going to win.

fsckboy: >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.

murm: 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.

hparadiz: 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.

asterix99: 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...

jandrese: 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.

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

harimau777: 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.

calmworm: Weak maybe, immoral unlikely.

bluegatty: 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: 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 from an individual viewpoint of the "soldiers" if some of the lower status of them take their chances going on a war party to conquer/steal some women.

neom: 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.

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

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.

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