„Schimpansen können ihre Gruppenmitglieder nicht nur am Gesicht, sondern auch an ihrer Kehrseite erkennen: Konfrontiert mit Bildern von Gesicht und Hinterteil vertrauter Artgenossen gelingt es den Affen in den meisten Fällen, beides richtig zuzuordnen, haben die Primatenforscher Frans de Waal und Jennifer Pokorny gezeigt.“
Quelle: Wissenschaft.de; Schimpansen erkennen vertraute Artgenossen am Hinterteil

Es wird tatsächlich immer wahrscheinlicher, dass der nächste Verwandte des Menschen tatsächlich der Schimpanse ist. Denn das eine Fähigkeit, die der Mensch mit Sicherheit mit dieser Affenart teilt.

As Unitarian Universalists, we rally around a religious vision of people connecting with the Sacred in life—of being changed and transformed by this, called into acts of compassion and hope, expanding our circle of concern beyond self-interest so that we can be satisfied with nothing less than peace and justice for all. We rally around this vision of spiritual and ethical interdependency, and here at UUCA, we know that one of the essential ways of living the vision and making it real is being healthy in our relationships together: being mindful of how we communicate with and about others, seeking a peaceful and constructive resolution process when conflicts arise, celebrating the diversity within our community, building the common good. This is what we know, and rally around.  

Yet my question this morning is one of depth. The religious vision I just outlined, and its corresponding commitment to healthy relationships: how deeply rooted is it in our nature? Deep roots, or shallow? Teach a dog to fetch a newspaper, and that resonates with a basic capacity that is already deeply instilled in him—is this what Unitarian Universalism is trying to accomplish in us? Just cultivating and bringing to fuller expression potentials which are already ours in some way? Or, are we more like cats, and a capacity for fetching is just not part of who we are—and yet our religion foolishly persists in teaching us this anyhow?     

Scratch the surface of who we are, and what’s underneath?

It’s a question that has been asked with great intensity, especially since the savagery of World War II—the holocaust, the atom bomb, the willful destruction committed in Europe and Asia by otherwise civilized and scientifically enlightened people. Out of this, a dominant answer that emerged firmly rejected the “onward and upward forever” naïve optimism about human nature that so characterized nineteenth century liberal religion. In the harsh light of Nazi atrocities, or Soviet atrocities, this optimism appeared completely ridiculous. What seemed far more realistic was the grim idea that, deep down, humans are basically violent and amoral. And so, for example, a prominent scientist at the time, Konrad Lorenz, argued that aggression was a pressure within the human psyche that builds relentlessly, completely unrelated to frustrated desires and aims, without understandable and reasonable cause. The inexplicable pressure to destroy is within us, and it just builds and builds over time until it bursts through the thin veneer of human decency which religions and ethical systems like ours try so hard to shore up, but always in vain.

Then there was the thought of science writer Robert Ardrey. His 1961 book African Genesis argued what has since become known as the “killer ape” theory, which is that the ancient ancestors of humans were distinguished from other primate species by their greater aggressiveness, and that’s what drove their evolution, that’s the prime mover behind human development. It’s the famous scene in the classic movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, where a fight breaks out among a group of our ape ancestors, in which one bludgeons another with a zebra femur, and then that ape ancestor flings the femur triumphantly in the air, where, millennia later, it turns into an orbiting spacecraft. This is what the “killer ape” theory means: we’ve gotten to where we are today through genocide. Says Robert Ardrey, “We were born of killer apes, not fallen angels, and the apes were armed killers besides. And so what shall we wonder at? Our murders and massacres and missiles, and our irreconcilable regiments?” This is who we truly are, says Robert Ardrey. Liberal religion tried to throw away the idea of original sin, but secular science revalidated a version of it. Scratch the surface, rub off the thin veneer of religion and ethics and civilization, and we find something horrible which is nothing less than the secret of our success—which makes it even more horrible. (Not one of our favorite things….)

And so where do we go from here, if the horrible vision is true? Another movie scene comes to mind, this time from the classic The African Queen. Surrounded by the jungle, Katherine Hepburn’s character says, “Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.” In others words, work even harder to shore up the thin veneer of civilization, so that the jungle within us—the inexplicable pressure to do violence—is kept bottled up, pushed down. Sing hymns louder, perhaps—meditate more—repeat the Purposes and Principles regularly and often, as well as our Congregational Covenant of Healthy Relationships. Face your fate like a plucky and undaunted Katherine Hepburn, and rise above…

But this only goes so far. Putting on a brave face won’t take away the dread we’ll never be able to stop feeling about ourselves. The sense that there exists a murderous force within us, so alien to all that we hold sacred and holy, so untrue to the teachings of our greatest prophets, like Jesus and the Buddha. So alien to our hopes for peace and justice for all. So irreconcilable with the idea that people have inherent worth and dignity. No inner light within, but inner seething. Therefore we could never truly relax and trust our instincts; there would have to be constant vigilance to make sure that the thin veneer of sanity is maintained. Not freedom, but authoritarianism, would be the better way in religion and in life. Unitarian Universalism, in short, would cease to make any sense. This is what would happen.

All of what I’ve said so far is background for why the question about apes is so crucial, so momentous to our understanding of ourselves. Says Emory University professor Frans de Waal in his fascinating book Our Inner Ape, “If [apes] turn out to be better than brutes—even if only occasionally—the notion of niceness as a human invention begins to wobble. And if true pillars of morality, such as sympathy and intentional altruism can be found in other animals, we will be forced to reject veneer theory altogether.” This is what Franz de Waal says. Take a look at our closest animal kin—great apes like chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas—and see what their lives are really like. Perhaps humans can fool themselves and pull the wool over their eyes, but not apes. They are what they are, without deception, without shame. So put all the theorizing to the side. Put “killer ape” theory to the side, and just look at the evidence from the lives of our closest biological kin, with whom we share more than 97% of our DNA.    

And what do we find? A fine animal gorilla like Koko. A being who truly and deeply gets what we are doing here today. Blessing our animals companions, our pets—and Koko herself would do the same. Bless her beloved All Ball. Bless Smoky. We hold and rub and play with and talk baby talk to our cats and dogs, and so does Koko. “Koko love Ball. Soft good cat cat.” Stricken when All Ball was killed, as we are when our pets die. Sounding out a long series of high pitched hoots. Saying, “Cry, sad, frown.”

Now it is undeniable: when we look at our great ape brothers and sisters, some of the things we find are not nice warm fuzzies. Chimpanzees are notoriously brutal at times, and they are also incorrigibly tribal and xenophobic, fanatically patrolling group borders, viciously charging against strangers, fighting to the death to preserve the group’s territory if necessary. But, this said, the picture grows far more complex once you consider the larger picture: that there is amazing breadth and diversity within our biological family of great apes, and the behavior of chimpanzees cannot possibly represent the final word. Gorillas like Koko shed a very different kind of light on things. And then you have bonobos. Have you ever heard of bonobos? Bonobos make love, not war. Listen to how Frans de Waal compares them to chimpanzees: “One is a gruff-looking, ambitious character with anger-management issues. The other is an egalitarian proponent of a free-spirited lifestyle. [The chimpanzee’s] hierarchical and murderous behavior has inspired the common view of humans as ‘killer apes.’ […] I have witnessed enough bloodshed among chimpanzees to agree that they have a violent streak. But we shouldn’t ignore our other close relative, the bonobo, discovered only last century. Bonobos are a happy-go-lucky bunch with healthy sexual appetites. Peaceful by nature, they belie the notion that ours is a purely bloodthirsty lineage.” That’s what Frans de Waals says. Our human heritage, exemplified in our closest animal relatives, is mixed. Chimpanzees may be tribal and xenophobic, but bonobos, in the best United Nations way, regularly establish peaceful relations with foreigners. Our inner ape is just not one narrow thing, as “killer ape” theory suggests. What’s deep down in human nature is broad: as much love and compassion as it is murder. And our job is to choose wisely, which impulses we draw on.

Consider this story about a bonobo called Kidogo, who suffered from a heart condition. “He was feeble, lacking the normal stamina and self-confidence of a grown male bonobo. When first introduced to the colony at the Milwaukee County Zoo, Kidogo was completely confused by the keepers’ shifting commands inside the unfamiliar building. He failed to understand where to go if people urged him to move from one part of the tunnel system to another. After a while, other bonobos stepped in. They approached Kidogo, took him by the hand, and led him to where the keepers wanted him, thus showing they understood both the keepers’ intentions and Kidogo’s problem. Soon Kidogo began to rely on their help. If he felt lost, he would utter distress calls, and others would quickly come over to calm him and act as a guide.” That’s the story. The strong helping the weak. Genuine sympathy, genuine altruism, found in the sacred depths of nature, right there. Sending a message that our job as humans is not so much to follow Katherine Hepburn’s advice and “rise above” nature as it is to bring into fuller expression certain capacities it has gifted us with. To draw on the positive aspects of our inner ape so as make a better world. Hubert Humphrey once said that “the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.” Now if in bonobo society we have the strong helping the weak, why not in human society, and MORE of it? Why not?

Story after story documents in bonobos—as well as in chimpanzees and gorillas—kindness and empathy, a capacity for peacemaking and reconciliation, creativity, even freedom—this latter part suggested by Koko’s capacity to tells lies and her sense of humor. Blind actors carrying out a pre-set genetic program just can’t do this sort of thing, aren’t capable of the kind of improvisation and imagination that deception and humor require. Story after story opens up our minds to the fact that “our humanness is grounded in social instincts we share with other animals.” Our inner ape is just not a killer ape. Don’t say to me, “scratch an altruist, and watch a hypocrite bleed.” That makes no sense, in light of the facts. Kindness and sympathy and altruism are not veneer-thin but deep. You can’t scratch it away. It is a gift to us from our great ape brothers and sisters. It means we don’t have to be afraid of ourselves. It means we can replace a feeling of dread with a feeling of wonder. It means that to creation, we belong. Unitarian Universalism is real. Our Covenant of Healthy Relationships is realistic. The animals bring us back to our senses. “Fine animal gorilla” teaches us to say—and gives us courage to say—“fine animal human.”  

Rev. Anthony David

August 23, 2008

UUCA

Why is it that we humans are so hung up with morality? No other species is so preoccupied with this notion of morality – or right and wrong. We seem to share a lot with the animal kingdom; our DNA structures bear outrageous similarities, not to mention common instincts and behavior. So what is it that makes us – humans – different, or may I say, special? When we call a man an animal we are not trying to say that animals are bad – but that where he was expected to behave morally, like a man, he failed and behaved like an animal. When we say to the dog, ‘bad dog!’ and he curls his tail and finds a corner to sulk in, realizing he’s made us angry, this is merely us enforcing our moral standards on the dog after hours of what we call training. The dog has to be trained to feel bad (he feels emotion though) – he doesn’t live by those categories in and of himself. Dinesh D’souza in his book, What’s so great about Christianity, quotes primatologist Frans de Waal who says:

“It is hard to believe that animals weigh their own interests against the rights of others, that they develop a vision of the greater good of society, or that they feel lifelong guilt about something that they should not have done.”

Animals don’t sit around and discuss the possibility of a moral state. Likewise with elephants that paint a circle and cycle around it. No other species apart from the human species is able to appreciate art; in the words of the great G.K. Chesterton: “Art”, is indeed, “the signature of man”. Darwinists, promoting atheism, still struggle to give us an explanation for our sense of morality, our origins, our meaning and our destiny. When God breathed into man, he breathed a soul into him - a moral conscience, a creative mind and a desire & longing to seek after Him. C. S. Lewis in his book The Problem of Pain says,

“For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed for ages in this state before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say 'I' and 'me,' which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past. This new consciousness ruled and illuminated the whole organism, flooding every part of it with light, and was not, like ours, limited to a selection of the movements going on in one part of the organism, namely the brain. Man was then all consciousness… but sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods… they wanted some corner in the universe of which they could say to God, “This is our business, not yours.” But there is no such corner. They wanted to be nouns, but they were, and eternally must be, mere adjectives”.

So then, how do we understand morality? It is when we understand right and wrong – when we learn to differentiate between the right and the wrong way to live. Fashioned in God’s image, that image has been marred. We have been created to live in community to reflect how God lives in community – the Trinity. But this, our human community, is also marred. To live in community involves different types of relationships; relationship with our parents and siblings, our friends, our lover, and our God. And wherever relationships are concerned a standard of morality has to come into play to govern our lives. That standard of morality, Jesus says: is to love your neighbor as yourself and to love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and soul. Most religions tell us to love our neighbors. But in order to love our neighbor we need to love ourselves. If we are to take a closer look at ourselves we doubtless discover the unlovable things we protect and hide from others so carefully. In order to truly love ourselves we need someone who is in himself lovable, and Christ, who is love personified, through the cross, has loved us!

-          Bobby Thejus

Well, if you're an atheist then you must naturally find some falsehood in the Christian claim for the existence of their God. You can argue it philosophically or through science. It's really easy to find fallacies and contradictions in their belief on your own, there are so many.

First off you have to know that it is the duty of the person making a claim to prove it, not the person in disbelief. So logically the first argument is there is no evidence of their God.

They make scientific claims that God is the creator of everything in the universe and argue in particular earth's creation. Since referring to the bible as evidence would be a circular argument, they either use the philosophical argument called "the watch maker argument", whose author is William Paley or the psudoscientific of "intelligent design". The" watch maker" is the origin of "intelligent design", a very old argument put to rest long ago disguised as science. He compares the complexity of a watch to that of the universe and thus since a watch has an intelligent maker (humans) so must the universe. Paley's argument was thoroughly put to rest by another philosopher named David Hume, 40 years before Paley even wrote it. Paley's biggest mistake is in the comparison of the two. If comparing two objects, the strength of your argument relies on how similar the two items are, thus this argument is considered very weak. You can obviously notice how disparate the two are. Secondly, he fails to realize that one can obtain similar results from different causes. For example, you can die from a viral infection or in a car crash. Very different causes same result. So there is an obvious error in presuming the universe and a watch have similar causes. This argument is seen in many versions; many replace the watch with paintings of the Mona Lisa or a Coke-Cola can. They will say things like "it's obvious something intelligent created this". However the fundamental errors are the same. This is a very brief summary; you should go more into depth.

Since we live in the age of science and information, the biblical account of creation can be put to shame. Of course, the theory of evolution is the most opposed to by Christians because it is the most threatening to their entire dogma. Not just because it proves the bible is an unreliable source of information and not the word of an all knowing God, but because it supports the idea that we are here without the aid or over sight of a deity. No need for a God to explain our origins. It also takes away from the anthropocentric view of Christian religion. We are not the reason why the universe exists and it does not exist for us. Humans are not any more special in origin than any other animal. We were not created in God's image and frankly there is no heavenly purpose to life other than the one you give yourself, not to mention how impersonal God would be if despite the evidence he existed. It also obliterates their dogma; with out original sin what need for Jesus is there?

Genetic and geographic evidence both support evolution and rebut creation. Different animals fossils are specific to different layers of earth. Each layer of earth is equivalent to a specific time period in earth's history. Humans are found in the upper most layers indicating that they arrived later in earth's history. If the biblical account of creation were to be true, all animals should be found in all the different layers since they were all created relatively simultaneously. Which is why the biblical creation myth does not prove true and is why human remains are not found alongside a dinosaurs'. Genetically we are almost identical to chimpanzees and bonobos. We share 98-99% similar DNA with them, implying we shared a common ancestor. This does not mean we came from monkeys, it means we are evolutionarily related. Just like you and you cousins share a common relative. There is a plethora of evidence sustaining evolution and refuting creation, check them out. Don't be scared by "intelligent arguments", like "there is no instance where genetic information is added to DNA sequence in any natural process", "there aren't any transitional fossils "or "evolution has never been witnessed". These are false, check out www.EvoWiki.com for reference. Most of the time, Christians are ill informed or repeat lies and misconceptions of evolution. Know your shit if you don't want to look stupid and leave Christians with the illusion that truth has triumphed. Remember that the fallacy they live by is: if you can't explain or answer a question, they are right by default. Which is a warped assumption since the burden of proof is on the person making the claim; it's not your burden to prove God doesn't exist. There are stock piles of science that refutes biblical claims.

Thirdly most common argument is that of morality. Where does morality come from? What is moral? Again if you can't answer they assume they are right by default. These philosophical questions were addressed by Plato in his classic work "Euthyphro" (www.wikipedia.com ), where Socrates is famously quoted as asking "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious? Or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" In Greek, piety meant more than just religious devotion; it was more along the lines of justice and morality. The second part of the question is called the "God command theory", implying that an action is deemed moral or virtuous merely because God says so. In which case, any action can be moral regardless if it is unjust and causes undeserved pain and suffering. There is no clear way of defining what is moral if this is the argument made, there is no reference to judge actions by, one is even unable to judge if God is all-good or evil. This way of thinking has been adopted my Islamic terrorist who defend their actions as righteous because God approves it in the Koran. The first half of Socrates question implies that God approves of morality because of its intrinsic virtue, meaning that morality exists independent of God's judgment. This allows us to define morality by use of reason. If this is true, what need for God is there?

A general rule of thumb for knowing what moral is "The Golden Rule", "do onto others as one would have others do onto you". Of course Christians would claim that this is biblical and thus commanded by God. But the Idea transcends religion. In essence this has its origin in empathy, In other words, placing oneself in another person's place. This is not original to Christianity; in fact it's not even original to the human species. Primates such as chimps, gorillas and bonobos have been observed as showing this trait. There is an account in Frans de Waal's book "Our inner ape", where a bonobo rescues a bird that had flown into the wall of his enclosure. The bird was in shock and could not fly. The bonobo gently picks the bird up and climbs to the top of a tree and releases the bird. The bird falls but the bonobo continued to look after the bird, protecting it from a younger curious bonobo until the bird regained its motor skills and flew away.

Another account in his book is that of an 8 Year old gorilla coming to the aid of a 3 year old boy who has fallen into her enclosure and was injured. The gorilla runs to the boys rescue, cradles him in her arms and begins to pat his back; later giving the boy up to Zoo attendants. The truth is empathy is a trait we have inherited from our evolutionary ancestors. We are predisposed to empathetic behavior, but our environment, circumstance, and culture influences are behavior. Also empathy is not an absolute we are also able to be apathetic and cruel. Morality is much more complex of a subject and the Golden rule is much too general to encompass all our social scenarios. This is where philosophy and reason play their part is solving the moral conundrums that plague our world. In all honesty morality is a highly debated subject by philosophers. There are debates such as Utilitarianism versus individual rights. However the ground work has been accomplished through reason not divine intervention.

Last but not least is a classic argument specific to the monotheist Judeo-Christian religions. Their belief is that of God who is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent. There is an obvious discrepancy in this absolutist view of God. We live in a world full of evil, which is defined as undeserved pain and suffering inflicted by other humans as well as natural disasters like famine and volcanoes. If God is all-good then how can he allow evil to exist. Either he is not all good or he is not powerful enough to stop it. It is either one or the other but he logically cannot be both. This concepts brings about questions like "if God is all-powerful could he make a mountain he could not move", if he can't make one he is not all powerful and if he can't move it he is not all powerful. Similar questions can be asked about his "all-knowing" mind.

The truth is Christians rarely come up with original arguments. They repeat the same old mistakes they made in the past. Unlike science that is always expanding its knowledge of our universe, this religion is stagnant and encapsulated in the same old rhetoric and presumptions. Don't be surprised if you find yourself shaking your head, rolling your eyes and yawning in a debate. I call their faith a delusion because they maintain their belief despite of overwhelming evidence and rational ineptitudes of their dogma. They lack the ability to be objective and self-reflective. Reality is relative to what they want it to be and not what it actually is. Some compartmentalize their faith, as I once did; the laws of logical reasoning expire at the gates of their faith.

"Le femmine di scimpanzé si contorcono per osservare attentamente il proprio rigonfiamento genitale rosato che eccita i maschi".

Una delle prove dell'autocoscienza degli scimpanzé citate dal primatologo Frans de Waal nel suo "Naturalmente buoni" (p. 95). Le femmine eseguono l'operazione allo specchio.

What I was triggered by was something de Waal wrote in between making two points about the central mater of moral: Is it ridiculous for animals to have rights? It seems to me that De Waal thinks so, because he started with something of joke in which a Gazelle was suing a leopard for chasing her. Also, he made the point: if it is okay for a fox to eat a rabbit, why should it not be okay for me to eat a rabbitThe afterthought to that would be: if it is okay to eat a rabbit to keep you alive, why would it be wrong to do medical tests on animals to keep you alive? Since I believe that De Waal is a smart man, I think it's safe to conclude that these are thoughts shared by a lot of people, and not just the stupid ones.

I am no attacking people that meat. Nor is my central point here that it would be wrong in all cases to perform medical tests on animals if it will save human lives. I have a opninion on those matters, but I won't bother you with that right now. What I am saying here that even if you are in favor of medicak tests andeven if you truly believe humankind consists of carnivores; that's not an argumant to want to set up legislation for human rights. And the way I see it; it shouldn't have to be all that difficult (De Waal seemed to think it wold even be impossible).

Shouldn't the central point of universal human rights simply be:

And I honoustly do not believe that that's naive. Obviously there will a lot of small matters that lawyers and legal experts need to sort out, but they'll work it out in the end. If we, humans, have such a strong sense of morality, it should have to be that difficult to agree with such a rule of thumb. And if you are absolutely convinced that you have to have your pork sausage, steak or bacon... at least give those animals a happy life.

discusses the ultimatum game @ 27min, the evolution of moral sense/trolley car experiment @ 33min & how hormones affect trust/cooperation @ 43min:

related: shermer speaking about debunking superstitions @ TED & "why people believe weird things about money"

(Agence Science-Presse) – On a coutume de dire que, dans la nature, l’altruisme n’existe pas : un animal n’en aidera pas un autre, sauf si cela lui apporte un avantage immédiat. Eh bien voici que, caméras à l’appui, des chimpanzés en aident d’autres, et aident des humains qu’ils ne connaissent pas, même s’il n’y a aucune récompense à la clef.

Le test que leur ont fait subir, à leur insu, deux anthropologues allemands, consistait par exemple à mettre dans le champ de vision des chimpanzés un « confrère » ou un humain inconnu, qui tentait en vain d’atteindre un bâton. Il s’agissait de savoir si le chimpanzé se détournerait de ses activités du moment, voire s’il franchirait des obstacles.

Dans un autre cas, un animal avait des difficultés à ouvrir une porte —alors qu’un autre animal, celui qui était testé, s’était fait enseigner comment ouvrir la porte en question. Sur les 18 chimpanzés, 12 n’ont pas hésité à aller donner un coup de main!

Bien que les détracteurs puissent alléguer que ces chimpanzés, élevés en partie en captivité, associent tout humain à une récompense -d'où leur intérêt à aller aider- il ne peut en être autant lorsqu’il s’agit d’un de leurs compères.

Incidemment, les mêmes anthropologues, Felix Warneken et ses collègues de l’Institut Max-Planck d’anthropologie de l’évolution, ont également fait « subir » ce test à des bébés humains —avec les mêmes résultats.

Ceci dit, nuance Frans de Waal, de l’Université Emory à Atlanta, les singes peuvent peut-être développer plus spontanément ce genre d’altruisme lorsqu’ils sont en captivité, donc libérés des contraintes quotidiennes de la survie. Mais il ne rejette pas l’hypothèse que l’altruisme puisse effectivement exister dans les communautés de grands singes, comme un genre de trait « naturel » : cela pourrait être une façon de gagner une bonne réputation... et un plus haut statut social!

I have always enjoyed reading the work of Frans de Waal, a primatologist who focuses on the social structure and psychology of apes, particularly the two chimp species, and monkeys. His previous books, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals, The Ape and the Sushi Master: Cultural Reflections of a Primatologist, and Peacemaking among Primates have all entranced me and inspired my reflections on such diverse topics as evolutionary psychology, the origins of political and social structures, and, of course, the evolution of religion.

His recent book, Our Inner Ape, is, in many ways the culmination of his work. He shows a real love for his subjects, particularly the "pygmy chimps", the bonobos. What follows is my impressions of the book and subsequent ruminations, not a full review, but I do recommend you read it.

Take a look!

Humans may have more in common with monkeys, chimpanzees and other non-human primates than they think, according to Frans de Waal, C.H. Candler professor of primate behaviour.

De Waal, whom TIME magazine designated as one of “100 People Who Shape Our World,” described the uncanny similarities between human and ape behavior in the inaugural lecture for Emory Universities Life of the Mind lunchtime lecture series this month.

The lecture, entitled; "Our Inner Ape: What Primate Behavior Teaches Us About Human Nature", heard De Waal speak of the results of new experiments he had carried out, focusing on such shared behaviours as social reciprocity, communication and cultural transmission. De Waal went on to link human social organisation and leadership behaviour, to that of Chimpanzee dominance, comparing behaviours from politicians such as George Bush to our ape cousins!

De Waal's latest research will focus on primate economics, including decision making in work-reward situations, training and testing Chimps cultural teaching abilities, and analysing gestures in complex social situations.

HEADLINES:
[05.10.07] Emory Wheel: De Waal Traces Human Behavior to Apes.

Prendo questa scena da "Peacemaking among primates" (p. 41), un libro del 1989 di Frans de Waal, uno dei maggiori primatologi viventi. E' un episodio di riconciliazione. De Waal ha studiato i conflitti fra le scimmie per anni. Al pari degli esseri umani, le scimmie sono attaccabrighe e violente ma, a litigio concluso, si dimostrano ben disposte a pacificarsi. Scene come quella che avete letto sono frequenti e seguono un copione:

(1) uno dei litiganti offre la pace; negli scimpanzé questo ruolo spetta al soccombente; in altre scimmie, come i bonobo, è il vincitore che fa il primo passo;

(2) l'altro litigante accetta la pace subito;

(3) la pace è celebrata con un contatto dei corpi; per quanto le scimmie in altre circostanze comunichino con gesti ed esclamazioni, la riconciliazione pare richiedere baci, abbracci o sfregamenti, che spesso hanno una coloritura erotica.

Molti studiosi hanno osservato lo stesso copione in altri mammiferi. Le capre si riconciliano con strofinamenti dei musi. Le iene si leccano. I delfini si strusciano uno contro l'altro nell'acqua e si danno certe spinte caratteristiche.

Un marziano in missione di studio sulla Terra ci impiegherebbe poco a scorgere questo copione anche fra gli umani. O meglio, qualche differenza fra noi e gli animali la troverebbe. Intanto, ci manca una regola fissa su chi debba fare il primo passo. Il nostro status sociale, quello dell'avversario, i motivi del litigio, i possibili giudizi della gente e mille altri pensieri ci turbinano nella mente quando dobbiamo decidere se offrire la pace o lasciare che sia l'altro a farlo. Sospetto che alcuni rancori durino in eterno solo perché le parti, nel dubbio, aspettano.

Inoltre, siamo meno formali degli animali. Se avete uno screzio con un amico, un collega, un familiare, spesso il giorno dopo vi rimettete a parlare con questa persona come se nulla fosse. In questo modo, le segnalate che non volete dare peso all'accaduto, o che purtroppo ormai sapete come è fatta e avete rinunciato a prendervela.

Se però il litigio è grosso e si impone un chiarimento, la nostra parentela con le scimmie viene a galla: il marziano ci vedrà stringerci la mano, darci pacche sulle spalle, baciarci, abbracciarci. Non sono cerimonie. Il contatto dei corpi scioglie davvero il rancore. La cosa è solare nella vita di coppia che, agli inizi, è una serie di bisticci e di riconciliazioni a letto. Pian piano poi si scivola nel come se nulla fosse.

Ricapitolando, fra i mammiferi lo schema è: "è successo qualcosa, tocchiamoci". Negli umani c'è solo un pizzico di consapevolezza in più: "abbiamo litigato, ora ti abbraccio".

Una conferma: chi non vuole riconciliarsi rifiuta il contatto. Se cercate di mettergli la mano sul braccio, si irrigidisce o si scosta, quasi aveste cercato di morderlo.

Come vedete, la riconciliazione è un'attività del corpo, ossia è molto diversa da come i moralisti se la immaginano. I moralisti dicono che la riconciliazione è figlia della riflessione morale: dobbiamo comprendere le ragioni dell'altro, meditare sulle nostre colpe, cogliere il valore della concordia, bla blah, bla blah. La natura sapeva che se avesse affidato la riconciliazione alla riflessione morale, di riconciliazione ce ne sarebbe stata poca. Con gli animali non aveva scelta e li ha forniti di istinti. Con gli esseri umani aveva scelta, ma ha preferito andare sul sicuro e riscaldare anche noi con baci ed abbracci.

What do you think this means: De Waal Traces Human Behavior to Apes.

The renowned Yerkes primatologist designed an experiment in which two side-by-side apes were rewarded with the same food after completing the same task. Both animals repeated the task to continue to receive the reward. When one of the apes began to be rewarded for the same task with a better treat, the other animal, observing the unfair treatment, quickly refused to repeat the task, effectively going on strike.

De Waal calls strike behavior an “irrational reaction.”

I have to be honest with you: If I belonged to a labor union, I would be highly offended by this. Said the article:

De Waal, whom TIME magazine designated as one of “100 People Who Shape Our World,” described the uncanny similarities between human and ape behavior in the inaugural lecture of the Life of the Mind lunchtime lecture series on Wednesday.

It is amazing to me that people get paid to a) nominate people like De Waal as 1 of 100 people in a world of several billion who 'shape our world', and b) make 'discoveries' like De Waal made and be nominated as 1 of 100 people out of several billion who 'shape our world.'

If striking is an 'irrational behavior' imagine how irrational it is to go to work on an assembly line. Now that would be a study I would be interested in reading.

To borrow a phrase from R Dawkins, this is all 'very amusing.' And I am sure that Prof. De Waal's will go a long way to improving the relations between striking labor unions and management. All management has to do is give them a better prize and the union worker will stop acting like an ape. Thank you, Professor, for such enlightening research! I nominate you for one of the Ig Nobel's!

jerry

Fonte: Frans de Waal, "Are we in anthropodenial?".

Rational Atheism, An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens By Michael Shermer in Scientific American 09/2007.

"Rational atheism values the truths of science and the power of reason, but the principle of freedom stands above both science and religion."

Bonobos, Left & Right, Primate Politics Heats Up Again as Liberals & Conservatives Spindoctor Science by Frans de Waal, eSkeptic