March 13, 2008
An End to War: Some Promises from Primate Studies
n Discover:
Biologist Robert Sapolsky is a leading challenger of what he calls the “urban myth of inevitable aggression.” At his Stanford University office, peering out from a tangle of gray-flecked hair and beard, he tells me that primate studies contradict simple biological theories of male belligerence—for example, those that blame the hormone testosterone. Aggression in primates may actually be the cause of elevated testosterone, rather than vice versa. Moreover, artificially increasing or decreasing testosterone levels within the normal range usually just reinforces previous patterns of aggression rather than dramatically transforming behavior; beta males may still be milquetoasts, and alphas still bullies. “Social conditioning can more than make up for the hormone,” Sapolsky says.
Environmental conditions can also override biology among baboons, who, much like chimpanzees, seem hardwired for aggression. Since early 1978, Sapolsky has traveled to Kenya to spy on baboons, including Forest Troop, a group living near a tourist lodge’s garbage dump. Because they had to fight baboons from another troop over the scraps of food, only the toughest males of Forest Troop frequented the dump. In the mid-1980s, all these males died after contracting tuberculosis from contaminated meat.
The epidemic left Forest Troop with many more females than males, and the remaining males were far less pugnacious. Conflict within the troop dropped dramatically; Sapolsky even observed adult males grooming each other. This, he points out in an article in Foreign Affairs, is “nearly as unprecedented as baboons sprouting wings.” The sea change has persisted through the present, as male adolescents who join the troop adapt to its mores. “Is a world of peacefully coexisting human Forest Troops possible?” Sapolsky asks. “Anyone who says, ‘No, it is beyond our nature,’ knows too little about primates, including ourselves.”
Posted by Robin Varghese at 04:38 PM | Permalink










Comments
I never understand why anyone seems to think that we need examples from other primates to demonstrate that cultures with extremely low levels of violence are possible.
I have not been involved in any episodes of violence for decades (since I was a child) and think it quite likely I'll live out the remaining decades of my life without a single additional violent altercation. In this I am a typical, not atypical, adult male member of my "tribe".
Posted by: Slocum | Mar 14, 2008 7:44:16 AM
Organized war has nothing to do with hormones or male aggression. It is a highly organized political activity designed to increase the power and profits of elites who carefully avoid the actual fighting.
Posted by: Jared | Mar 14, 2008 10:45:19 AM
yes but also I'm willing to bet you are, like me, extremely privileged to live free of most of the worries people fight over? the question is less, is non-violence biologically possible than a question like: are humans (and other apes) tied to social or biological responses to certain environments --fighting over resources, etc--
also I guess just socially I wouldn't mind, in direct response to you, Slocum, asking further about what kinds of violence we could see our peaceful way of life as founded on-- whose pain bears the fruits that we so peacefully eat-- 'cause we could probably work out a factor that means that we ourselves are pretty violent, just pretty far removed from it. like punching people with 2,000 ft sticks.
Posted by: cr | Mar 14, 2008 11:13:01 AM
Just shut the gas pumps off, see how we get along then.
Posted by: eric | Mar 14, 2008 11:27:06 AM
"yes but also I'm willing to bet you are, like me, extremely privileged to live free of most of the worries people fight over? the question is less, is non-violence biologically possible than a question like: are humans (and other apes) tied to social or biological responses to certain environments --fighting over resources, etc--"
I still maintain that ordinary people do not "fight over resources" - they are coerced into fighting for their country's elites. Of course, it is true that it doesn't take much to get ordinary people to sign up for war and sign over their tax money - a fake terrorist incident and mass propaganda will do nicely.
Posted by: Jared | Mar 14, 2008 11:56:04 AM
Might the question not just be "Is war inevitable?" but also "Will there always be something to go to war over?"
Informative article.
Posted by: phish | Mar 14, 2008 12:05:56 PM
"Might the question not just be "Is war inevitable?" but also "Will there always be something to go to war over?" "
This is a good question. I'm glad I found it.
This is interesting, because I've been doing some research on the topic and this Discover article is what sparked the idea. I have researched biological causes of aggression in the brain (the hypothalamus regulates aggression, while the amygdala, a group of neurons deep inside the medial temporal lobes, has been shown to cause aggression when stimulated), when I remembered that I was, duh!, writing a report on the more political causes of war, rather than the reason people fight face to face.
Posted by: Sokama | Mar 24, 2008 7:28:09 PM
Post a comment