So last night while listening to a friend gripe about the government meddling with the economy I started to wonder why we have governments at all. What drove the transition from dynamic party-gangs of woodland apes to roaming tribes of hunter-gatherers to static monarchistic civilizations to modern nation states?
"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint." That's what Alexander Hamilton said in The Federalist. This suggests that the role of government is essentially a restrictor plate on human behavior, preventing us from treating one another unreasonably or unjustly. Fair enough, but don't we as individuals stand to gain more by doing whatever it takes to obtain an advantage over others? Afterall, natural selection favors the strong. Those with more money, power, influence, or land are the ones who have the best opportunity to pass along their genes, thus obtaining a pseudo-immortality.
Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned from bonobos, a subject of my other recent blog posts. Sexual assault and rape occur within chimpanzee society, however, not among bonobos, a very closely related species. Why? Because if a male bonobo tries to assault a female, the other females come to the rescue and proceed to beat the male silly. (Interestingly, the females form this defensive alliance essentially by performing lesbian sex on one another...) The result is a peaceful society with copious amounts of promiscuous sex. Thus, by establishing rules everyone benefits. The females avoid getting battered, and the males don't have to fight over sex. (They just get in line.)
Ok, so what does this little foray into primate porn mean from a perspective of governments? By subjecting one's self to constraints imposed by society that limit your ability to dominate others, you also protect yourself from reciprical behavior. Groups with a more advanced system of contraints (i.e., rules) would become more productive by allowing its members to work together more effectively, and thereby gain a survival advantage.
If this is true, then there should be come evolutionary pressure towards the ability to function within a set of contraints. Perhaps the legal system serves this role in a way? By executing or imprisoning those individuals who cannot accept the contraints given to them, we selectively breed more desirable individuals. Of course, it's not that simple, but a strangely fascinating idea nonetheless.
Obviously I need to do some more reading on this subject. The next step is to delve into the writings of Thomas Hobbes, a 17th century political philosopher, who apparently describes government as a means to avoid "a war of every man against every man".
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Demonic Males - Part 2
Where we last left off, we began to realize that human violence may have some evolutionary or genetic origin, rather than simply being a product of culture or intelligence. Before we begin drawing too many comparisons between humans and chimpanzees, we need to understand the connection there.
Darwin's treatise on human evolution was published in 1871; however, even prior to this book comparisons were being made between humans and primates. As early as the 4th century B.C., Aristotle noted the similarity in anatomy between humans and Barbary macaques (a type of monkey). Much later, in the mid- to late 1800s after gorillas had been discovered, a gentleman named Thomas Huxley demonstrated that humans and gorillas shared more similarities in their anatomy than either did to any species of monkey.
Side note: If you're anything like me, you may not be entirely clear on the intricacies of the various species of monkeys and apes, so a quick explanation is in order. Monkeys and apes are both "simian primates". Monkeys encompass a large number of species, including such well-known examples as the Rhesus macaque, African green monkey, marmoset, and spider monkey. Apes on the other hand, are a much smaller category composed of the lesser apes and great apes (no, not Grape Ape!). The great apes are the category we're interested in because they include chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, bonobos... and humans. (well, sorta) And incidentally, monkeys and apes really aren't that closely related.
Although anatomical comparisons were able to show a strong relation between humans and apes, a different type of test was necessary to rule out the possibility of evolutionary convergence (i.e., the similarity in anatomical features as a result of common environmental pressures). At the start of the 20th century, George Nuttall provided that test. Through a clever series of experiments involving producing antibodies to the blood of a particular species and then observing its reaction with the blood of another species, he was able to determine the closeness of their relationship. The more closely related a species the more coagulation would be observed because the antibodies recognized proteins and cells in the relative's blood. His experiments clearly showed a strong connection between humans and apes at the biochemical level, which ruled out the possibility of convergence.
It wasn't until later in the 20th century that sufficiently sensitive experiments were developed to begin probing the relationships between the different species of apes. In the 1960s, electrophoresis results showed that the proteins of the three African apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) and humans were more similar to one another than any were to the proteins of the orangutans. Then in 1984 Charles Sibley and Jon Ahlquist measured the melting temperature of DNA duplexes composed of strands from two different species. The more closely related the species, the more similar the DNA, which means a stronger duplex and a higher melting temperature. Two results came from these experiments. First, humans were most closely related to chimpanzees. Second, and a bit more surprising, chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas...
Subsequent DNA-related experiments confirmed these findings and also helped establish the evolutionary timeline. Based on the DNA benchmark, our common ancestor with the chimpanzee lived only about 5 million years ago. (Compare that to the divergence between apes and monkeys about 25 million years ago.) The next chapter of the book looks back at these ancestors and tries to understand why we made the transition from a rainforest ape to a woodlands ape.
We've now seen a variety of data suggesting a strong evolutionary link between humans and the great apes, in particular with chimpanzees. Later on this will provide the foundation for a comparison of behaviors in the various species.
Darwin's treatise on human evolution was published in 1871; however, even prior to this book comparisons were being made between humans and primates. As early as the 4th century B.C., Aristotle noted the similarity in anatomy between humans and Barbary macaques (a type of monkey). Much later, in the mid- to late 1800s after gorillas had been discovered, a gentleman named Thomas Huxley demonstrated that humans and gorillas shared more similarities in their anatomy than either did to any species of monkey.
Side note: If you're anything like me, you may not be entirely clear on the intricacies of the various species of monkeys and apes, so a quick explanation is in order. Monkeys and apes are both "simian primates". Monkeys encompass a large number of species, including such well-known examples as the Rhesus macaque, African green monkey, marmoset, and spider monkey. Apes on the other hand, are a much smaller category composed of the lesser apes and great apes (no, not Grape Ape!). The great apes are the category we're interested in because they include chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, bonobos... and humans. (well, sorta) And incidentally, monkeys and apes really aren't that closely related.
Although anatomical comparisons were able to show a strong relation between humans and apes, a different type of test was necessary to rule out the possibility of evolutionary convergence (i.e., the similarity in anatomical features as a result of common environmental pressures). At the start of the 20th century, George Nuttall provided that test. Through a clever series of experiments involving producing antibodies to the blood of a particular species and then observing its reaction with the blood of another species, he was able to determine the closeness of their relationship. The more closely related a species the more coagulation would be observed because the antibodies recognized proteins and cells in the relative's blood. His experiments clearly showed a strong connection between humans and apes at the biochemical level, which ruled out the possibility of convergence.
It wasn't until later in the 20th century that sufficiently sensitive experiments were developed to begin probing the relationships between the different species of apes. In the 1960s, electrophoresis results showed that the proteins of the three African apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) and humans were more similar to one another than any were to the proteins of the orangutans. Then in 1984 Charles Sibley and Jon Ahlquist measured the melting temperature of DNA duplexes composed of strands from two different species. The more closely related the species, the more similar the DNA, which means a stronger duplex and a higher melting temperature. Two results came from these experiments. First, humans were most closely related to chimpanzees. Second, and a bit more surprising, chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas...
Subsequent DNA-related experiments confirmed these findings and also helped establish the evolutionary timeline. Based on the DNA benchmark, our common ancestor with the chimpanzee lived only about 5 million years ago. (Compare that to the divergence between apes and monkeys about 25 million years ago.) The next chapter of the book looks back at these ancestors and tries to understand why we made the transition from a rainforest ape to a woodlands ape.
We've now seen a variety of data suggesting a strong evolutionary link between humans and the great apes, in particular with chimpanzees. Later on this will provide the foundation for a comparison of behaviors in the various species.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Demonic Males - Part 1
Hmmm.. where to begin? I'm not going to follow the exact structure of the book, but I will try to follow the general pattern for how they breakdown the discussion. That will hopefully keep the logical argumentation intact without turning this into a book report. (Man, I used to hate those things...)
So I don't think it's a great leap for any of us to agree that humanity is a violent species. Whether it's Darfur, Afghanistan, Georgia, downtown Detroit, or the house down the street, we always seem to regress into some form of violence regardless of our environment or upbringing. That violence can manifest itself as spousal or child abuse, sexual assault, rape, murder, war... you get the idea. While some may be inclined to blame video games or guns, sadly the problem is a lot deeper than that. (Believe it or not, people actually killed each other before video games existed!) The book doesn't really delve into that issue, it's just a personal gripe of mine, but the authors do spend some time characterizing the nature of human violence. Let's skip ahead a bit...
According to this book, prior to the 1970s scientists believed human violence was a unique product of our society and culture. This belief was founded on the understanding that other species do not seek out and deliberately kill other members of their own species. Now of course there's plenty of violence among other species, but for the most part it's interspecies (predator/prey) or ends short of death (e.g., mating competitions between adult males that end when one gives up). The key word here is deliberate. At the time, one adult seeking out and deliberately killing another adult of the same species was thought to be a solely human curse.
This all changed in 1974. For the first time human observers witnessed a raid by one group of chimpanzees into neighboring territory. (Background: Chimpanzees live in small dynamic groups somewhat similar to human tribes, each with its own territory.) The 8-member raiding party (7 males and 1 female) stealthily moved through the rival territory until locating a lone member of the other group/tribe. Upon seeing the target, they ambushed him and proceeded to beat him to a point where his death was guaranteed. The raiding party then returned home.
Over the next several years additional raids were conducted leading to complete annihilation of the rival group by 1977. To further complicate matters, the two rival groups had originally been part of a single community that had split in the early 1970s, so the attackers knew their victims quite well and had been close friends prior to the split.
The authors point out that this situation is not unique to these chimpanzees. Similar behavior has been observed among other chimpanzee groups around Africa. So does this intentional killing amongst chimpanzees - our closest living relatives - suggest the violence of humanity may bear some roots in nature and our prehuman past? The authors respond with one of my favorite quotes of the book: "[These observations] made us a little less special"
So I don't think it's a great leap for any of us to agree that humanity is a violent species. Whether it's Darfur, Afghanistan, Georgia, downtown Detroit, or the house down the street, we always seem to regress into some form of violence regardless of our environment or upbringing. That violence can manifest itself as spousal or child abuse, sexual assault, rape, murder, war... you get the idea. While some may be inclined to blame video games or guns, sadly the problem is a lot deeper than that. (Believe it or not, people actually killed each other before video games existed!) The book doesn't really delve into that issue, it's just a personal gripe of mine, but the authors do spend some time characterizing the nature of human violence. Let's skip ahead a bit...
According to this book, prior to the 1970s scientists believed human violence was a unique product of our society and culture. This belief was founded on the understanding that other species do not seek out and deliberately kill other members of their own species. Now of course there's plenty of violence among other species, but for the most part it's interspecies (predator/prey) or ends short of death (e.g., mating competitions between adult males that end when one gives up). The key word here is deliberate. At the time, one adult seeking out and deliberately killing another adult of the same species was thought to be a solely human curse.
This all changed in 1974. For the first time human observers witnessed a raid by one group of chimpanzees into neighboring territory. (Background: Chimpanzees live in small dynamic groups somewhat similar to human tribes, each with its own territory.) The 8-member raiding party (7 males and 1 female) stealthily moved through the rival territory until locating a lone member of the other group/tribe. Upon seeing the target, they ambushed him and proceeded to beat him to a point where his death was guaranteed. The raiding party then returned home.
Over the next several years additional raids were conducted leading to complete annihilation of the rival group by 1977. To further complicate matters, the two rival groups had originally been part of a single community that had split in the early 1970s, so the attackers knew their victims quite well and had been close friends prior to the split.
The authors point out that this situation is not unique to these chimpanzees. Similar behavior has been observed among other chimpanzee groups around Africa. So does this intentional killing amongst chimpanzees - our closest living relatives - suggest the violence of humanity may bear some roots in nature and our prehuman past? The authors respond with one of my favorite quotes of the book: "[These observations] made us a little less special"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
