
Female Chimps Seen Making, Wielding Spears - curtis
http://news.discovery.com/animals/female-chimps-seen-making-wielding-spears-150414.htm
======
qiqing
Excerpt from the article, "The researchers noted that female adult chimps made
and used spears more often than adult males. The males relied more on their
size and strength for hunting. Female chimps are almost always hindered by
infants that ride on their backs or bellies, so spear hunting is far more
effective for them than attempting to chase down prey."

~~~
crimsonalucard
This is similar to how human civilization formed. Areas of plentiful food have
no need for farming or saving up food as wealth thus, it is only in places
where food/resources are less plentiful did technological civilization
develop.

~~~
tomp
Also, I've heard the theory (I don't know if it's true) that while Chinese
invented porcelain and used it for containers (cups, plates, etc), Europeans
never did, and ended up inventing glass instead (and windows, microscopes,
telescopes, ...).

~~~
pjmlp
Telescopes were brought into Europe by Arabs living in what was then Iberia,
Sicily and a few other places.

As well as many farming new technologies like irrigation for example.

~~~
testrun
Not quite - [http://www.space.com/21950-who-invented-the-
telescope.html](http://www.space.com/21950-who-invented-the-telescope.html).

~~~
pjmlp
Ok, it seems I got that wrong.

However I was right remembering that Arabs had something to do with optics, as
the base findings trace back to Ibn al-Haytham (965).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhaze](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhaze)

Also just as general information for anyone curious about it, in the process
I've found out a list of Arab inventions.

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-islamic-
invent...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-islamic-inventors-
changed-the-world-469452.html)

------
gamblorrr
So, might this not indicate that chimps are slowly but surely evolving toward
a higher intellect, as a harsh environment selects against the dumb?

If there were no matriarchs capable of grasping a concept like hunting with
weapons, instead of bare hands, 100 years ago, does that mean that they might
unravel stone sharpening in 500 years?

The idea that human civilization might witness the true, literal evolution and
flourishing of a second earthly intellect in species outside of humans is
really exciting.

Maybe it's not evolution in action. Maybe chimpanzees of today are no smarter
than 100 years ago. Maybe it takes 50 years of trial and error amongst social
groups to learn such a skill, and then retain it across generations by
teaching. Maybe tools like this have been invented and lost many times by
various chimpanzee social groups over the past few centuries.

But it would still be really cool if this were representative of the emergence
of a generation of apes, palpably smarter than those of, say, the 19th
century.

~~~
resdirector
I wonder if humans could, or should, help this evolutionary process along.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
We've probably hindered it multiple times in the past. We weren't the only
apes to master tool making, we were just really good at it and out competed
others that tried filling the same niche.

------
rickdale
I was watching a show about Orangutans recently and one of the things I
thought was interesting was that orangutans in the wild are independent in the
sense that they usually eat by themselves. But when they are put in captivity
and they are around other orangutans they start to learn from each other and
build off of each others concepts. In the wild when alone they stick with what
they know, but when around other orangutans they learn from each other.

Chimps on the other hand eat and do other stuff with each other and are
usually(if not always) part of a group and so they have more complex actions
in nature just from learning from one another, picking up tips and building
upon what they know.

------
tjradcliffe
If you ever want to have real fun, point this out to a doctrinaire feminist
who is heavily invested in the idea that men are more violent than women
because in the primordial landscape men did most of the hunting. I did this to
a freind once, quite innocently, and she ended up so angry she could--in her
own description--barely speak.

There is a whole literature in a particular brand of feminism (mostly
associated with the radicals) that simply takes the association of hunting and
interpersonal violence on faith, whereas in fact we're pretty sure men are
more violent than women because of mate competition. The fact that we observe
hunting behaviour amongst female chimps (who are less violent than male
chimps) and female bonobos (who are far less violent than chimps, and no more
violent than male bonobos, who also hunt) makes it clear that hunting behavior
has nothing much to do with interpersonal violence.

This makes good sense from an evolutionary perpsective: killing a member of
another species is a profoundly different kind of selective event than killing
a member of your own species, particularly in a social primate like proto-
humans where the individual you kill is likely to be closely related to you.
The selective pressures on the two behaviours are almost completely disjoint,
but to believe the feminist myth--or the equally silly pseudo-evolutionary
anti-feminist myths that preceded it--you have to believe they are somehow
related.

~~~
tedks
>There is a whole literature in a particular brand of feminism (mostly
associated with the radicals) that simply takes the association of hunting and
interpersonal violence on faith

This is a straw woman. I cannot think of any radical feminist for whom this is
an important point. (You probably don't mean actually radical feminists, but
just liberals with whom you disagree, but that's another point.)

I think virtually any feminist would say that men are violent because
patriarchal society teaches and programs men to be violent. It teaches boys
that violence is an acceptable way of solving problems, interacting with
others, etc., and even when violence is overtly discouraged (for example, in
schools) it is often covertly encouraged (the pride a father displays in a son
who hits back against a bully, the resulting respect on the schoolyard for
that child, not to even mention video games, movies, and other cultural role
models).

But maybe you've just read different feminists from me. What prominent radical
feminists, or even liberal feminists, hold this viewpoint?

~~~
halfcat
There is a line from a post apocalyptic TV show: _" Ain’t nothing sadder than
an outdoor cat that thinks he’s an indoor cat"_. Why is it considered
"misbehaving" when men don't act like women? We have advanced to a rather
cushy society that allows for this stance to seem reasonable, and when
considered only in this setting, perhaps it is. But the world is not all
roses. Sometimes violence is not only an acceptable way of dealing with a
situation, sometimes it is the only way of dealing with it and achieving a
successful outcome. The bully comes in many forms, and when it's you, or your
family, or your society that peaks the bully's prolonged interest, you only
have one question: Fight, or flight? This decision boils down to whether or
not you stand any chance against the bully. If your child is being stalked by
a street gang, you should probably get in the car, drive 30 hours and
relocate. If your child gets beat up by the school bully every week, then by
all means, get him training on how to throw a punch, and the next time the
bully chooses to bully, your child should break his nose. This sounds harsh,
I'm sure, but my opinion comes from the experience of being in such situations
(mostly as an adult, with non-violent bullies). The bully and I were lucky, as
the bully got bored and moved on. But that experience made it crystal clear
that one of the most horrible crimes anyone can commit is abusing one's power
over another who is not capable of defending themself. We all agree rape is
among the worst crimes a human can commit. It's an extreme case of abuse of
power. Bullying, in whatever form, is abuse of power. I am in full agreement
with Sun Tzu that it's better to avoid a battle if possible, because there is
always a cost. But once you determine a battle is unavoidable, the right thing
to do becomes clear, and in some cases the right thing includes violence.
Luckily, most of us live in good enough circumstances that resorting to
violence is rarely the right choice, but it's foolish to think violence is
never an acceptable way of dealing with problems. Anyone who thinks that
should count themselves lucky that their life experience so far has not
brought them face to face with a real bully who won't go away.

~~~
rquantz
_Why is it considered "misbehaving" when men don't act like women?_

What does it mean to act like a woman? You think you know. Name a behavior, I
guarantee I can name a woman who does not engage in said behavior.

 _But the world is not all roses. Sometimes violence is not only an acceptable
way of dealing with a situation, sometimes it is the only way of dealing with
it and achieving a successful outcome._

But the GP was not talking about the entire world, they were specifically
talking about child bullies.

 _The bully and I were lucky, as the bully got bored and moved on._

And yet the lesson you draw from this experience is that children should be
taught to respond violently to a bully?

~~~
halfcat
> _What does it mean to act like a woman? You think you know. Name a behavior,
> I guarantee I can name a woman who does not engage in said behavior._

There is no set of "woman behaviors". If you want me to make a wild guess at a
sweeping generalization for which there will be endless counter-examples, then
here is my answer: Women in general are more risk-averse than men in general.
This is the most logical explanation I have encountered for why both the
world's leadership and the world's prisons are populated primarily by men.

> _And yet the lesson you draw from this experience is that children should be
> taught to respond violently to a bully?_

Not at all. From my experiences with bullies, the lesson I draw is that
children should be taught that there is a time for violence, and they should
be taught how to decide when it's time to take violent action against a bully.
The mechanics of such an education are certainly non-trivial. If you tell a
5-year-old that "violence is okay", then you have failed. I expect that to
properly educate a child in this area would require most of the childhood and
into early adulthood. So it's not an easy task. If you want to tell your child
that "violence is wrong", as one of those temporary lies that we have to tell
our children because they don't yet have the brain capacity or life experience
to understand the truth, then that's fine. But it seems like we have a
majority of parents who go with the convenient lie and fail to follow up. I
think that if the population were properly educated on this topic, the
overwhelming majority would never encounter a situation over the course of
their entire life where they chose violence.

~~~
rquantz
Ok, next question. What is a woman? This is a serious question.

Here's the thing about your answer to the previous question: if what you mean
when you say "act like a woman" is "cautious," why not just say "why is it
considered misbehaving when men act recklessly?" The answer to that question
would be much more instructive, although also somewhat tautological. You
correctly describe your response as a sweep generalization with endless
counter examples. In other words, wrong.

Gender is a cultural construction. Get that through your skull, and you can
start talking about what you're actually talking about rather than muddying
things up with your prejudices about men and women.

As for teaching about violence, you've made another mistake. Violence is
always an evil. If nothing else, a violent act against an evil person still
brutalizes the actor. The difference between story book morality and the real
world is that real morality often involves choices between multiple evils. If
the evil of not acting violently outweighs the evil of acting violently, then
you must act violently. But it is not a lie to teach children that violence is
always wrong.

 _it seems like we have a majority of parents who go with the convenient lie
and fail to follow up_

Yes, if only parents would stop teaching their children that violence is
wrong, there would be less violence in the world. You realize how rediculous
that assertion is?

~~~
halfcat
> _What is a woman? This is a serious question._

No, it's not. Thanks for the discussion.

~~~
rquantz
You only say that because you didn't give it any real thought. Or because you
realize there's no answer you could give that wouldn't reveal the incoherence
of your previous statements.

------
hyperpallium
\tangents Are these chimps evolving intelligence? What conditions caused
humans to evolve intelligence? Was it a rare, unusual event, or was it
inevitable? I want to guard against the {anthro,ego,geo}centric-like view that
we are the pinnacle of creation.

For our intelligence to evolve, there must have been an advantage to it, each
step of the way, that offset the costs of gestating, growing, training and
fuelling a larger brain. Looking at other animals, especially higher mammals,
greater brain size and intelligence can have survival advantages. Although,
considering the whole of life, most of it is _not_ highly intelligent -
bacteria, insects, fish etc still thrive as the majority.

There's a fascinating speculation applying Moore's law to the increasing
complexity of life (see graph here [http://io9.com/moores-law-predicts-life-
originated-billions-...](http://io9.com/moores-law-predicts-life-originated-
billions-of-years-476129496)). This shows that it takes longer to evolve more
complexity, though not that more complexity is necessarily _better_. I think
it's fair to claim that humans are the most complex animals that have evolved
so far... and that we are the ones to speculate on it because we just happened
to be first (as in the Fermi paradox and fine-tuned universe). Therefore, we
should expect other intelligent life to evolve on earth (perhaps from corvids,
cetaceans - or even arachnids, some having extraordinary brain/body ratios);
but it might take several million years, as that's what it took us. Complexity
takes time.

Another view is that another intelligent species would have been the most
dangerous threat to us possible. Humans certainly seem to have no problem
killing other humans. We may have eradicated neanderthals, and other species
in the human evolutionary line are also curiously missing today. Possibly,
mammoths and mega-fauna were also increasing in intelligence? Perhaps we also
set out to kill the most cunning and therefore most dangerous wild animals in
general? Thus, delaying intelligence in competing species.

------
tsotha
This isn't really news. I remember seeing an article about chimps hunting
bushbabies with spears at least five years ago.

~~~
dalke
Eg, from 2007: [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11234-spearwielding-
ch...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11234-spearwielding-chimps-snack-
on-skewered-bushbabies.html)

~~~
tsotha
Gah. Time keeps speeding up as I get older.

------
Nicholas_C
Fascinating. I wonder if this was learned through invention or through
mimicking humans.

If only we could simulate evolution millions of years and see how chimps
evolve.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Haven't chimps already been evolving in tandem with our last common ancestor
for millions of years? Why should they suddenly fast forward their
evolutionary progress now that we are observing them?

~~~
semi-extrinsic
I've heard (think it was from the BBC Life series) that human evolution has
sacrificed a lot of jaw muscle and other skull-related ruggedness as compared
to monkeys, making room for bigger brains. Since this was obviously not a
worthwile tradeoff for chimps etc. in the past, why should it be now?

~~~
_asummers
My understanding is that this is due to heating food after early humans
learned to control fire. Cooked food is more nutritious, and easier to eat,
and can last longer without spoiling. This leads to the ability to allocate
resources in the body more effectively (to the larger brains, versus muscles
for hunting) and removes the need for extremely powerful jaws.

------
humanarity
For some reason this reminded me of female primates using violence to get male
interest and sex:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82GUjPConiE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82GUjPConiE)

The Bonobo society also exhibits female alphas and uses extensive sexual
activities (including hetero/homo and "group") to maintain social bonds.

However, even despite the apparent "similarities" I question our
anthropomorphic instinct to assign to or infer too much meaning from the
behaviour of our primate genetic relatives.

One reason contributing to that choice is because how humans behave in
societies is shaped by centuries of social, cultural and political discourse
on the ways in which we behave.

------
fredrivett
Am I the only one expecting to see photos rather than '6 Shocking Things About
Chimps'?

------
chisleu
I've read of theories that ancient man's brain development came so quickly
because we learned to throw spears at prey. We nearly doubled our brain size
in a very short time period (anthropologically speaking.)

It was thought that it resulted from developing a sense of lay calculus by
throwing the spears. One anthropologist I heard speak said he thought that
would mean major league pitchers are the pinnacle of human evolution. :)

Of course, that gentleman consumed more psychedelics than anyone I've ever
known, so I'm not so sure.

More to the point, what if this is the beginning of a very fast evolutionary
change?

------
venomsnake
I should start writing the script of "skynet vs the planet of the apes" with
the last day's news.

On a serious note - a recent theory that in a heat sink ocean and energy
source life evolving is inevitable, and we have multiple species able to get
to intelligence ... the fermi paradox becomes more urgent to be solved.

------
vladtaltos
I wonder what would happen if a 'village' of chimps attack humans with spears
:) hellfire ? or automated drone strikes on them ?

~~~
marcosdumay
Guns, probably.

------
pXMzR2A
It's 2015. We have seen again and again the Black Rights Movement, Women's
Rights Movement, various Third Word Rights movements, and the Animal Rights
Movement interrogate and challenge, again and again, the ways in which human
cultures assign value to various categories of living beings.

And here we are, saying

> OMG monkeys using "tools" as defined by humans! Golden ponies and red
> chameleons!!

Get over it already.

