March 1, 2006
A LITTLE SOMETHING FOR EVERYBODY
Be like the Bonobo (Frans de Waal, National Post, March 1st, 2006)
It's enough to give Charles Darwin a bad name. Any time people or groups are seen to be cruel to one another, commentators chalk it up to "social Darwinism."In fact, evolution teaches creatures a whole range of different behaviours. As a primatologist, I can attest that cruelty is only one of them. As Darwin himself was well aware, many animals rely on each other for survival.[...]
Bonobos are physically as different from chimpanzees as a Concorde is from a Boeing 747. Even chimps would have to admit that the bonobo has more style. Their body is graceful and elegant, with piano-player hands and a relatively small head. Females have breasts, not as prominent as in our species, but definitely A-cup compared to the flat-chests found on other apes. Topping it all off is the bonobo's trademark hairstyle: long black hair neatly parted in the middle.
There is no greater contrast between humankind's two closest relatives than how they behave when tempted by food. When forest chimpanzees are given a pile of bananas, they will fight over it. The males become violent and the females have no choice other than to back off. In bonobos, too, the males are the first to approach a tasty meal. But instead of being aggressive, they hurry and look over their shoulders as they collect as much food as they can. The "weaker sex" then approaches, the group has lots of sex, and everyone happily shares the food. If chimpanzees are from Mars, bonobos are from Venus.[...]
The possibility that empathy is part of our primate heritage ought to make us happy, but we are not in the habit of embracing our nature. When people commit atrocities, we call them "animals," but when they give to the poor, we praise them for being "humane." We like to claim the latter behaviour for ourselves.
It is important to remember that we don't descend from sharks, which fight over every scrap, but from highly social mammals that know trust and loyalty. To be kind and co-operative is not only civilized, it is natural. Let us not forget that whenever we are tempted -- whether as individuals or societies -- to indulge in what is mistakenly called "social Darwinism."
All of which seems to suggest we are descended from close cousins with diametrically opposite, but equally natural, evolved behaviours and that we have unfettered freedom to choose which one to emulate.
Posted by Peter Burnet at March 1, 2006 1:25 PM"It is important to remember that we don't descend from sharks, which fight over every scrap, but from highly social mammals that know trust and loyalty."
Sigh. Humans are not descended from chimps or bonobos. Whatever one thinks of evolution and how it fits into various philosophies, at least get the basics right...
Posted by: b at March 1, 2006 1:43 PMEven if he got the facts right, what possible difference could it make? I mean, we're also descended from single cell organisms, but I'm not planning on adopting asexual reproduction any time soon.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 1, 2006 1:59 PMBonobos are evolutionary failures, on their way to extinction.
Posted by: Timothy at March 1, 2006 2:00 PMDavid: Of course his argument is silly. But getting the facts right on this should be so easy that there's really no excuse for allowing such fundamental mistakes into print.
Posted by: b at March 1, 2006 2:37 PMTimothy:
And, indeed, Bonobos are often eaten by chimps, who are more closely related to humans than to the bonobos. I'm not sure what lesson we're supposed to draw from that...
Posted by: Mike Earl at March 1, 2006 2:47 PMMike:
I'm not sure what lesson we're supposed to draw from that...
That's the neat thing about evolution. You can choose either:
1.The "weaker sex" then approaches, the group has lots of sex, and everyone happily shares the food; or
2. Mmmm...bonobo
Take your time.
Posted by: Peter B at March 1, 2006 2:54 PMOne lesson we can draw from this is to give up on correcting the error which confounds "social Darwinism" with "Darwinism." It's hopeless. They just don't get it.
Posted by: Lou Gots at March 1, 2006 3:12 PMIf I recall correctly people already tried the bonobo lifestyle circa 1969 but they were selected against and replaced by the species known as the yuppie.
It is important to remember that we don't descend from sharks, which fight over every scrap, but from highly social mammals that know trust and loyalty.
Taking evolution for granted, do we even know what was the behavior of our biological ancestors?
Posted by: Shelton at March 1, 2006 3:23 PMJudging from the sales stories I see on the news at Christmas where people are trampled trying to get those $49 DVD players, X-Boxes, etc., I vote for the chimps.
Posted by: Rick T. at March 1, 2006 4:03 PMUh oh. This is a Maureen Dowd hobby horse. And we all know what that means (say it with me now!):
Mo needs a man.
Posted by: Brad S at March 1, 2006 4:04 PM[W]e are descended from close cousins
That explains a lot.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 2, 2006 8:10 AMI think people who like chimps have something wrong with them, seriously, what a pathetic rabble of hairy little sodomist cannibals. They should be shot or, even better, fed to cool animals like sharks.
Posted by: Amos at March 2, 2006 1:16 PMHe doesn't say we're descended from bonobos or chimps. In the previous paragraph, he mentioned our "primate heritage." That's what he's referring to, not the earlier depictions specifically of bonobos or chimps.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at March 2, 2006 1:45 PM