October 23, 2009

• Which ape is closest to us?

  [JD 2455128.25]

  There is an ongoing debate about whether humans are most closely related to chimpanzees (Pan) or orangutans (Pongo), and if indeed chimpanzees, which one—Pan troglodytes, or Pan paniscus?

  Honestly, who cares? I mean, it’s vaguely interesting to me as a scientist, and I certainly think it’s worth knowing. But the importance of this issue has been greatly exaggerated by attempts to politicize the debate.

  So goes the argument: If we are closest to troglodytes, then we must be basically violent, macho, aggressive; if we are closest to paniscus, we must be basically kind, loving, promiscuous; if we are closest to Pongo, we must be basically social, cultural, technological.

  I for one see all of these things in human beings, and more. But what does it matter which is our closest ancestor? We could be closest to bonobos but have undergone convergent evolution to be more like orangutans. We could be closest to any and yet be completely different from all three.

  Moreover, it isn’t really clear that the two species of chimp are all that different: In captivity, they are peaceful, friendly, promiscuous. In the wild, they are aggressive, violent, territorial. A very convincing article by The Anthropik Network argues that the only reason we think chimps and bonobos are so different is that we don’t often study bonobos in the wild. Humans too are quite violent in the wild; consider Somalia or the tribes of the Amazon. (This seems to be a point the Anthropik Network missed entirely… they
  seem to be advocating a return to more primitive ways of life, claiming they are inherently better—but they just presented compelling evidence that they are far, far worse.)

  As such, the difference in aggression has little to do with a difference in genetics, and everything to do with a difference in environment—it is not chimps who are violent, but the state of nature which is violent! In captivity—i.e. under the protection of civilization and the provision of a steady food supply—chimps, bonobos, orangutans, and humans are all more peaceful, more kind, and more promiscuous. All of the smart great apes try to live this way, but cannot if they are in a state of constant danger.

  If anything, the conclusion to be drawn here is not that we are basically violent or basically loving—it is that we are basically rational, and it’s most rational to be loving when you can and violent when you have to. The political conclusion then is basically what Hobbes said: We need a Leviathan of civilization to protect us from the horrors of nature; in this state, we will all be happier and kinder.

  • 1:11 pm
  • 1 Comment