DOCSLIB.ORG

Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence Pdf, Epub, Ebook

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence Pdf, Epub, Ebook DEMONIC MALES: APES AND THE ORIGINS OF HUMAN VIOLENCE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Richard Wrangham,Dale Peterson | 350 pages | 14 Nov 1997 | HOUGHTON MIFFLIN | 9780395877432 | English | Boston, United States Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence PDF Book Wrangham and Peterson say that after 40 years of gorilla and chimpanzee watching, it is hard not to conclude that human males are but evolutionary heirs of male Small, isolated party-groups of chimpanzees are vulnerable to gang raids by demonic males. Get free access to newly published articles. The reason I gave the book a 2 and not a 1 is because it did have some interesting anecdotes about the great apes, including descriptions of raiding behavior in chimps and rape in orangatans. But that also bring me to another thought, we can defy nature. About Richard W. Return to Book Page. Original Title. Regal also considers the book to be "a broadside against the old utopian dreams of Atlantis, Eden, Elysium, a Golden Age, Romantic paintings, and the late Margaret Mead", which imagined human beings as naturally peaceful. Why is the Bonobo a relatively peaceful animal, while its close relatives Homo Sapiens and Chimpanzees so violent? And it lies, according to the author, in the way bonobo society is organized around female bonding, a response to females defending against male violence, that proved effective. They anthropomorphize behaviors of our great ape brothers and in doing so put human culture onto another species. Patricarchy, he writes, is usually seen as the product of nurture. This is how we survived the loss of the forest and the recurring dry seasons. Views Read Edit View history. One of the most profound impacts a book ever had on me. We and the chimps broke off from a common ancestor about five or six million years ago. In contrast the bonobos are so frequently and openly sexual that genital rubbing is a way of greeting while the father of the little ones could be any one of the males. When it came to gender, the book made me uncomfortable. From imposed sexual aggression to war-like characteristics found in chimpanzees, Wrangham explores the aggressive tendencies found in our distant human relatives to piece together a puzzle of where we come from. Institutional sign in: OpenAthens Shibboleth. Mar 09, Nuno R. Years later, in the Toronto Zoo, I watched an orangutan mother play with her newborn in a way that looked very much like child abuse. Female sexual bonding is so strong that females form a united front against male aggression. Which was something like: the origins of human violence go way deeper than we think, developing even before humans split from our common ancestor with chimps 7MA. Nov 26, Kim Zinkowski rated it liked it. A victim of random violence. The authors present chimp society as extremely patriarchal, in that no adult male chimpanzee is subordinate to any female of any rank. In a brutal, effective, xenophobic way. Sign in to download free article PDFs Sign in to access your subscriptions Sign in to your personal account. Twitter Facebook Email. Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file. Shelves: books-that-talk-to-each-other. Where did this come from and how could this be different? I thought this would be where the authors explained what factors lead to patriarchy versus matriarchy, but this discussion never takes place. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence Writer This Issue. Apr 16, Mario Alberto rated it really liked it. It will keep you interested even if you do not agree with the author's ideas. Forget Rousseau. She confirmed the notion that "nurture far more than nature wrote the human script". The topic of violence, gender, evolution is complex to oversimplify with generalizations. However, these descriptions don't contribute to a very strong thesis. After reading 'Next of Kin' and stumbling upon this book in my recommendations, I was sure that I would love this book, I was wrong. Average rating 4. Its basic question is why humans use violence against each other, and are pretty unique in the animal kingdom in doing so. Download as PDF Printable version. How we are similar, how different. Purchase access Subscribe to the journal. To ask other readers questions about Demonic Males , please sign up. Sign in to customize your interests Sign in to your personal account. Dramatic, vivid, and firmly grounded in meticulous research, this book will change the way you see the world. Only our being ethologists gave us entry into the forbidden world of chimp aggressiveness because the film had been censored to keep public ecological enthusiasm up and running. Where do we come f Richard W. Only with a clear understanding of this characteristic might we perhaps balance our most brutal world and create a harmony which has eluded our species in our idealistic quest for peace in a history which has been steeped in war. They present evidence that most dominant human civilizations have always been likewise behaviorally patriarchal, and that male humans share male chimpanzees' innate propensity for dominance, gratuitous violence, war, rape, and murder. As the San Francisco Chronicle said, it "dares to dig for the roots of a contentious and complicated subject that makes up much of our daily news. They claim that the brain's prefrontal cortex is also a factor, as humans have been shown experimentally to make decisions based both on logic and prefrontal cortex-mediated emotion. He is best known for his work on the evolution of human warfare, described in the book Demonic Males, and on the role of c Richard Wrangham born , PhD, Cambridge University, is Ruth B. The problem is this explanation seems inadequate when dealing with human cultures. Friend Reviews. Read more More Details Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence Reviews The assumption although never stated explicitly is that humans and chimps engage in the same kinds of internecine violence because we share the same evolutionary developmental path. I always like The book is great, but it doesn't hold itself together coherently. Quarterly Review of Biology Preview — Demonic Males by Richard W. Jul 30, Rosey rated it really liked it. Open Preview See a Problem? It calls some ideas 'oversimplification' and sometimes it's true, but the book also seems to slip into oversimplifications a lot. Get A Copy. Also, a line like women are looking for "a man to provide for them" is absurd and I hated seeing it. The BBC crew assured us that adult chimps normally kill their prey before eating it and that these were young chimps training in the art of hunting. We can assume that we have hints of chimpanzee but also some of bonobos. Biology, anthropology, feminism, and the great apes all in one book. The type of violence we see perpetrated by humans against humans started before humans. Where did this come from and how could this be different? Where are we going? He died shortly thereafter. Sign in to save your search Sign in to your personal account. Views Read Edit View history. Why do men kill, rape, and wage war, and what can we do about it? More is not made of the ways human males themselves have used to defuse the concentration of power in "big men" or chieftains, or how two hostile tribes have managed to ritualize the violence between them in order to limit casualties and cause the destruction of both, or even how symbolic activity has produced nearly complete non-violent societies, whether primitive cultures or religiously motivated subgroups with modern society. This book does a decent job arguing that human males are more violent than females and that we share this trait with chimps and bonobos; however these aren't very big claims. It is amazing how similar we are to chimpanzee at our most basic level. In Biology of Reproduction , 55, Nov 30, Romel Mora rated it it was amazing. They make interesting evolutionary arguments for why we became violent at all and the effects of this, but they aren't convincing enough regarding when this transition occurred. Other primates also kill and rape and brutalize. Mar 09, Nuno R. In fact, this book is something of a blatant attempt to make evolutionary psychology palpable to women. Download as PDF Printable version. And this is the greatest shortcoming of an otherwise interesting book. In so doing the authors focus a great deal on other apes, especially chimpanzees. From imposed sexual aggression to war-like characteristics found in chimpanzees, Wrangham explores the aggressive tendencies found in our distant human relatives to piece together a puzzle of where we come from. Create a free personal account to access your subscriptions, sign up for alerts, and more. Only our being ethologists gave us entry into the forbidden world of chimp aggressiveness because the film had been censored to keep public ecological enthusiasm up and running. Aggression is part of our evolutionary journey, and the killing of outsiders is part of that heritage. Dramatic, vivid, and firmly grounded in meticulous research, this book will change the way you see the world. Details if other :. I also remember watching from a shore. Convergent evolution of behavior is so common, you could just as easily imagine that 7MA our ancestors were peaceful and conflict-free like bonobos are today, and then became violent only after our split. If you have no background in anthropology or primatologist the arguments can seem compelling. This is all to the good of course because a thorough going understanding of human nature will lead us all to the inescapable conclusion that blaming one sex for the human problem of violence really misses the profound truth of sexual equality.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Evolution of Homoerotic Behavior in Humans
    The Evolution of Homoerotic Behavior in Humans Frank Muscarella, PhD Barry University ABSTRACT. This paper presents a theoretical model for the evolution of same-sex sexual behavior, or homoerotic behavior, in humans. Con- trary to the traditional study of the topic, the emphasis is on homoerotic behavior itself, irrespective of sexual orientation. It is an inferential mod- el drawn from cross-species evidence, cross-cultural evidence, and cur- rent evolutionary theory. It is posited that humans evolved a disposition for homoerotic behavior because it increased same-sex affiliation among peripheralized hominids and indirectly influenced rates of survival and reproductive success. The implications for the conceptualization of same-sex sexual behavior and future research are indicated. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>] KEYWORDS. Homoerotic behavior, homosexual behavior, evolution- ary psychology, evolution and homosexuality Evolutionary psychology is fascinating new field. The evolutionary model has proven to be rich in heuristic value and has generated a wealth of academic dialogue (Buss, Haselton, Shackelford, Bleske, & Frank Muscarella is Associate Professor of Psychology at Barry University. The author is grateful to Michael R. Cunningham, Douglas J. Garber, James Gregg, Linda M. Peterson, Christopher Starratt, and Lenore T. Szuchman for valu- able comments on the manuscript. Correspondence may be addressed to: Frank Muscarella, Department of Psychology, Barry University, 11300 Northeast Second Avenue, Miami Shores, FL 33161-6695. Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 40(1) 2000 E 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 51 52 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY Wakefield, 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • Equal, Similar, but Different: Convergent Bonobos and Conserved Chimpanzees
    Equal, Similar, but Different: Convergent Bonobos and Conserved Chimpanzees The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Hare, B., and R. W. Wrangham. 2017. Equal, Similar, but Different: Convergent Bonobos and Conserved Chimpanzees. In Chimpanzees and human evolution, ed. M. N. Muller, R. W. Wrangham, & D. R. Pilbeam, 142-173. Cambridge, MA, US: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:42656533 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 Equal, similar but different: convergent bonobos and conserved chimpanzees 7 8 9 10 11 12 Brian Hare1,2 and Richard Wrangham3 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University 20 21 2Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University 22 23 3Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University 24 25 26 27 28 Abstract 29 Humans are lucky to have two closest relatives and not just one. While chimpanzees 30 have been the focus of far more research and are thought to more closely represent 31 our last common ape ancestor, the bonobo will be as important as the chimpanzee 32 in reconstructing our past. Understanding human evolution requires not only 33 knowing what traits are derived but also identifying what process may have shaped 34 these traits as they evolved.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Wranghani and Dale Peterson, from Demonic
    strength and instinct for aggression would gradually come to predominate in the population. Most cultural anthropologists from the 1950s onward rejected the expla- nation of human aggression in terms of instincts, emphasizing instead the social and cultural causes of violence. They pointed out that the amount of aggression tolerated varies widely from one society to another and that individ- uals can become aggressive or peaceful depending on how they are raised. They held up such groups as the Semai of Malaysia (see Robert K. Dentan, The Semai: A Nonviolent People of Malaya [Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 196811) as proof YES: Richard Wranghani and Dale Peterson, from Demonic that culture could create a people who abhorred all forms of aggression and Males: Apes and the Origins or Human Violence (Houghton Mifflin coercion. 'Whatever instinct for aggression humans might have, they argued, Company, 1996) must be very weak indeed. The question behind this issue concerns the nature of human nature. NO: Robert W. Sussman, from "Exploring Our Basic Human Have we a set of innate behavioral predispositions that, when set off by certain Nature," Anthro Notes (Fall 1997) stimuli, are very likely to be expressed? Or, are any such predispositions at best weak tendencies that can be shaped or even negated by cultural conditioning? Many apparently innate behaviors in humans turn out to be highly variable in ISSUE SUMMARY their strength and form. While the sucking instinct of babies operates predict- ably in all newborns, a hypothesized "mothering instinct" seems quite diverse YES: Biological anthropologist Richard Wrangham and science in expression and variable in strength from one woman to another.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes and References
    Notes and References Caveat: The Dangers of Behavioral Biology The contents of this book are known to be dangerous. I do not mean that in the sense that all ideas are potentially dangerous. Specifically, ideas about the biological basis of behavior have encouraged political tendencies and movements later regretted by all decent people and condemned in school histories. Why, then, purvey such ideas? Because some ideas in behavioral biology are true—among them, to the best of my knowledge, the ones in this book—and the truth is essential to wise action. But that does not mean that these ideas cannot be distorted, nor that evil acts cannot arise from them. I doubt, in fact, that what I say can prevent such distortion. Political and social movements arise from worldly causes, and then seize whatever congenial ideas are at hand. Nonethe- less, I am not comfortable in the company of scientists who are content to search for the truth and let the consequences accumulate as they may. I therefore recount here a few pas- sages in the dismal, indeed shameful history of the abuse of behavioral biology, in some of which scientists were willing participants. The first episode is recounted in William Stanton’s The Leopard’s Spots: Scientific Atti- tudes Toward Race in America, 1815–59 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1960). Such names as Samuel George Morton, George Robins Gliddon, and Josiah Clark Nott mean little to present-day students of anthropology, but in the difficult decades between the death of Jeffer- son and the Civil War, they founded the American School of Anthropology.
    [Show full text]
  • National Museulll of Natural History Bulletin for Teachers
    o es National Museulll of Natural History Bulletin for Teachers Vol. 19 No.3 Fall 1997 EXPLORING OUR BASIC HUMAN NATURE ARE HUMANS INHERENTLY VIOLENT? by Robert W. Sussman Are human beings forever doomed to be violent? Is based on new primate research that they assert aggression fixed within our genetic code, an inborn demonstrates the continuity of aggression from our action pattern that threatens to destroy us? Or, as great ape ancestors. The authors argue that 20-25 asked by Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson in years ago most scholars believed human aggression their recent book, Demonic Males: Apes and the was unique. Research at that time had shown great Origins ofHuman Violence, can we get beyond our apes to be basically non-aggressive gentle creatures. genes, beyond our essential "human nature"? Furthermore, the separation of humans from our ape ancestors was thought to have occurred 15-20 Wrangham and Peterson's belief in the importance million years ago (Mya) . Although Raymond Dart, ofviolence in the evolution and nature ofhumans is Sherwood Washburn, Robert Ardrey, E.G. Wilson Inside: "Kennewick Man"; Think Tank Exhibit; Race Relations; Laotian Refugee Women ; New Resources Page 2 Antlll"o Notes and others had argued through much of the 20th intense, male initiated territorial aggression, century that hunting, killing, and extreme aggressive including lethal raiding into neighboring behaviors were biological traits inherited from our com munities in search of vulnerable enemies to earliest hominid hunting ancestors, many anthro­ attack and kill." Wrangham asks: pologists still believed that patterns of aggression were environmentally determined and culturally Does this mean chimpanzees are naturally learned behaviors, not inherited characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • HGSS2 Intro to Evolutionary Psychology
    Chapter 17 Introduction to Evolutionary Psychology 17.1 Introduction Imagine yourself and your partner alone on a camping trip far from civilization. In the middle of a dark night, you see a bright light several hundred meters away. What do you do? You would probably talk with your partner about several different options: (1) staying where you are; (2) walking and introducing yourselves to the unknown campers; (3) waiting until morning and then playing it by ear; or (4) finding a different campsite the next day to be away from other people. You would arrive at some mutual agreement and then execute that action. There is one behavior that neither of you would do—stand upright and without communicating to each other walk in a zombie-like trance toward the light. Now imagine that you and your partner are moths instead of humans. Faced with a bright light on a dark night, both of you would orient and then proceed to the light quite oblivious to the other. There would be no social discourse or give-and-take maneuvering to achieve consensus. There is only a built-in stimulus response connection. So why do humans and moths behave differently? Among the several levels at which this question can be answered is an evolutionary level. Moths have a hardwired response to light because at some point in their evolutionary history moths that oriented and flew toward light reproduced more often than those who did not. We humans followed a different evolutionary path. This example highlights an essential feature of evolutionary psychology—evolution predisposes the members of a species to engage in certain responses and at the same time constrains them from performing other responses.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthro Notes : National Museum of Natural History Bulletin for Teachers
    Arnti Vnlhro Notes National Museum of Natural History Bulletin for Teachers Vol. 19 No. 3 Fall 1997 EXPLORING OUR BASIC HUMAN NATURE ARE HUMANS INHERENTLY VIOLENT? by Robert W. Sussman Are human beings forever doomed to be violent? Is based on new primate research that they assert aggression fixed within our genetic code, an inborn demonstrates the continuity of aggression from our action pattern that threatens to destroy us? Or, as great ape ancestors. The authors argue that 20-25 asked by Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson in years ago most scholars believed human aggression their recent book, Demonic Males: Apes and the was unique. Research at that time had shown great Origins ofHuman Violence, can we get beyond our apes to be basically non-aggressive gentle creatures. genes, beyond our essential "human nature"? Furthermore, the separation of humans from our ape ancestors was thought to have occurred 15-20 Wrangham and Peterson's belief in the importance million years ago (Mya). Although Raymond Dart, of violence in the evolution and nature of humans is Sherwood Washburn, Robert Ardrey, E.O. Wilson Page 2 Anthro Notes and others had argued through much of the 20th intense, male initiated territorial aggression, century that hunting, killing, and extreme aggressive including lethal raiding into neighboring behaviors were biological traits inherited from our communities in search of vulnerable enemies to earliest hominid hunting ancestors, many anthro- attack and kill." Wrangham asks: pologists still believed that patterns of aggression were environmentally determined and culturally Does this mean chimpanzees are naturally learned behaviors, not inherited characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • The Short Legs of Great Apes: Evidence for Aggressive Behavior in Australopiths
    ORIGINAL ARTICLE doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00061.x THE SHORT LEGS OF GREAT APES: EVIDENCE FOR AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IN AUSTRALOPITHS David R. Carrier1 Department of Biology, 201 South Biology Building, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 1E-mail: [email protected] Received October 3, 2006 Accepted November 20, 2006 Early hominins, australopiths, were similar to most large primates in having relatively short hindlimbs for their body size. The short legs of large primates are thought to represent specialization for vertical climbing and quadrupedal stability on branches. Although this may be true, there are reasons to suspect that the evolution of short legs may also represent specialization for physical aggression. Fighting in apes is a behavior in which short legs are expected to improve performance by lowering the center of mass during bipedal stance and by increasing the leverage through which muscle forces can be applied to the ground. Among anthropoid primates, body size sexual dimorphism (SSD) and canine height sexual dimorphism (CSD) are strongly correlated with levels of male–male competition, allowing SSD and CSD to be used as indices of male–male aggression. Here I show that the evolution of hindlimb length in apes is inversely correlated with the evolution of SSD (R2 = 0.683, P-value = 0.006) and the evolution of CSD (R2 = 0.630, P-value = 0.013). In contrast, a significant correlation was not observed for the relationship between the evolution of hindlimb and forelimb lengths. These observations are consistent with the suggestion that selection for fighting performance has maintained relatively short hindlimbs in species of Hominoidea with high levels of male–male competition.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ANIMAL WITHIN Presented at the Philosophical Club of Cleveland April 28, 1998 by Arthur V
    THE ANIMAL WITHIN Presented at the Philosophical Club of Cleveland April 28, 1998 By Arthur V. N. Brooks 1. INTRODUCTION. Tonight I invite you to explore with me a subject which social critic Tom Wolfe has called the "most important news of the end of this century": the discovery that Darwinian concepts of natural selection and human evolution have left us with a kind of universal "genetic hard-wiring" that sheds light on just about everything that matters: romance, love, sex, friendship, enmity, selfishness, self-sacrifice, guilt, social status, ambition, racism, xenophobia, war, deception, self- deception, the unconscious mind, depression, sibling rivalry and parental influence.1 And even losing weight. As William Faulkner has observed: "The past is never dead; it is not even past." While the old argument between nature and nurture still rages, cross- disciplinary work in both the "hard" and "soft" sciences now seems to give "nature" the millennial edge. Having said that, however, it is important to recognize that the choice is much more complex than "nature" or "nurture." The assumed choice between them is a convenient but essentially false dichotomy. The two forces do not operate in isolation from each other and both strongly influence the human condition.2 Nevertheless an understanding of evolutionary pressures can illuminate the kinds of environmental or "cultural" changes that may be required to mediate our biological heritage. The scientists who rescued Darwinian notions from the scrap heap of "Social Darwinism," eugenics and even Nazism are computer savvy intellectuals who, for the last 30 years or so have been establishing a new vision of natural selection under the banner of "Neo-Darwinism." In the process they have overhauled the social sciences and at the same time given us new insights into everyday life.
    [Show full text]
  • Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence Free
    FREE DEMONIC MALES: APES AND THE ORIGINS OF HUMAN VIOLENCE PDF Richard Wrangham,Dale Peterson | 350 pages | 14 Nov 1997 | HOUGHTON MIFFLIN | 9780395877432 | English | Boston, United States Demonic Males - Wikipedia Years ago I could hardly contain my repulsion as I watched a group of chimps eating the guts of a screaming monkey. The film was one of a series of British Broadcasting Corporation nature films being shown at an international ethological conference. Only our being ethologists gave us entry into the forbidden world of chimp aggressiveness because the film had been censored to keep public ecological enthusiasm up and running. Who would support conservation efforts after seeing a scene of such cruelty? The BBC crew assured us that adult chimps normally kill their prey before eating it and that these were young chimps training in the art of hunting. Or maybe they were just playing with their food? Years later, in the Toronto Zoo, I watched an orangutan mother play with her newborn in a way that looked very much like child abuse. I also remember watching from a shore. Brunner D. Coronavirus Resource Center. All Rights Reserved. Twitter Facebook Email. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence Issue. Dani Brunner, PhD. Save Preferences. Privacy Policy Terms of Use. Sign in to access your subscriptions Sign in to your personal account. Institutional sign in: OpenAthens Shibboleth. Create a free personal account to download free article PDFs, sign up for alerts, and more. Purchase access Subscribe to the journal. Sign in to download free article PDFs Sign in to access your subscriptions Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence in to your personal account.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Humans Inherently Killers?
    Global Nonkilling Working Papers ISSN 2077-141X (Print); ISSN 2077-1428 (Online) Are Humans Inherently Killers? A Critique by Robert Sussman and Joshua Marshack Followed by a Response by Richard Wrangham # 1 • 2010 Center for Global Nonkilling Global Nonkilling Working Papers ISSN 2077-141X (Print); ISSN 2077-1428 (Online) Edited by Joám Evans Pim Nonkilling Research Committees (partial list) Douglas P. Fry (Anthropology) Noam Chomsky (Linguistics) Åbo Akademi University Massachusetts Institute of Technology Olivier Urbain (Arts) Ubiratan D’Ambrosio (Mathematics) State University of Campinas Toda Institute Johan Galtung (Economics) Jake Lynch (Media Studies) TRANSCEND University of Sydney Peace University George Psacharopoulos (Education) James W. Prescott (Neuroscience) Institute of Humanistic Science University of Athens Caroline Baillie (Engineering) Jan Narveson (Philosophy) University of Waterloo Queens University James A. Dator (Futures Studies) William V. Smirnov (Political Science) ʻ Russian Academy of Sciences University of Hawai i James Tyner (Geography) Daniel J. Christie (Psychology) Ohio State University Kent State University James A. Mercy (Health) Burton M. Sapin (Security) George Washington University Centers for Disease Control Howard Zinn (History) Kathryn Feltey (Sociology) Boston University, 1922-2010 University of Akron Richard A. Falk (Law) Daniel Smith-Christopher (Spiritual Traditions) Princeton University Loyola Marymount University CREATIVE COMMONS LICENCE Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 You are free to share, copy, distribute and transmit this work* Under the following conditions: Attribution. You must attribute this work in the manner specified by the author/licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Coalitionary Killing
    YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 42:1–30 (1999) Evolution of Coalitionary Killing RICHARD W. WRANGHAM Department of Anthropology, Peabody Museum Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 KEY WORDS chimpanzee; lethal raiding; warfare; assessment ABSTRACT Warfare has traditionally been considered unique to hu- mans. It has, therefore, often been explained as deriving from features that are unique to humans, such as the possession of weapons or the adoption of a patriarchal ideology. Mounting evidence suggests, however, that coalitional killing of adults in neighboring groups also occurs regularly in other species, including wolves and chimpanzees. This implies that selection can favor components of intergroup aggression important to human warfare, including lethal raiding. Here I present the principal adaptive hypothesis for explaining the species distribution of intergroup coalitional killing. This is the ‘‘imbalance- of-power hypothesis,’’ which suggests that coalitional killing is the expression of a drive for dominance over neighbors. Two conditions are proposed to be both necessary and sufficient to account for coalitional killing of neighbors: (1) a state of intergroup hostility; (2) sufficient imbalances of power between parties that one party can attack the other with impunity. Under these conditions, it is suggested, selection favors the tendency to hunt and kill rivals when the costs are sufficiently low. The imbalance-of-power hypothesis has been criticized on a variety of empirical and theoretical grounds which are discussed. To be further tested, studies of the proximate determinants of aggression are needed. However, current evidence supports the hypothesis that selection has favored a hunt-and-kill propensity in chimpanzees and humans, and that coalitional killing has a long history in the evolution of both species.
    [Show full text]