
Chimps beat up, murder and then cannibalise their former tyrant - randomname2
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119677-chimps-beat-up-murder-and-then-cannibalise-their-former-tyrant/
======
HiroshiSan
I find it interesting that when other animals kill, it's just a killing, but
when something resembling humans does the killing it's murdering. Maybe I'm
looking to closely into this.

~~~
flukus
Probably because it's hard to gauge intent from animals and that murder
requires intent. They were intending to violently depose the current ruler,
but did they understand that this would end his life?

------
Nomentatus
"Because Foudouko maintained an alliance with his now-weak partner, he was
ostracised and then ousted by the others."

More likely, the moment his alliance with another chimp of the same generation
was broken, he was a dead chimp walking, no matter what he did.

Of course, if true, the extreme loyalty implied by the quote is very
noteworthy for chimps... but there's no evidence that Foudouko gave up
leadership for the sake of being loyal to a friend: we know what did happened,
not what could have happened. Alliances are critical for leadership for both
ourselves and chimps; and they can't be compelled and don't pop up in day by
mutual contractual agreement. I don't know how likely it was that Foudouko
could have gained the absolute loyalty of one of the next-ranking chimps, but
the authors don't know with certainty, either; they assume that he had another
solid option of just subbing in another chimp and staying king. I'm rather
skeptical of that. We know that Foudouko didn't try to switch allegiances, and
since Foudouko knew the other chimps even better than the researchers did, I'm
going to go with his judgement about how easy it would have been to win them
over. It seems most likely that he bet on his buddy's recovery for lack of a
solid option; chimps have been known to tolerate (and even feed) other
crippled chimps in the wild, so it seems awfully likely that Foudouko
understood wounds and that wounds can be permanent at some level. Note I'm not
arguing that I know what lay behind Foudouko's decision or that of the lower-
ranking chimps, or that Foudouko made the right decision, necessarily; just
arguing against the authors' certainty about what the chimps would have done,
and why; in a counterfactual situation.

Steve Ballmer might be able to relate to this.
[http://www.geekwire.com/2014/ballmer-gates-nadella-vanity-
fa...](http://www.geekwire.com/2014/ballmer-gates-nadella-vanity-fairs-epic-
expose-future-microsoft/)

~~~
tomcam
A brilliantly written, well-reasoned post, but you had me at "dead chimp
walking"

------
tunnuz
I hate to say this but I warned you guys not to put that monolith in the chimp
cage!

