Which species of primates do you think is the most aggressiv

[78stonewobble]

Oh, we are apex predators on Earth - there is no doubt. Humanity is the only species that can succesfully hunt down every other species, in every biome. White sharks, orcas, lions, crocodiles, eagles - give us time to make some necessary tools and we will kill them. Even bacteria and viruses are much more specialised and constrained to their chosen prey. Our brains are the only real requirement. Take away lion's claws and fangs, and he's as good as dead. We need only to find a stick and couple of stones to quickly rearm ourselves. Let me repeat: we can kill anything, anytime, anywhere.

Are we most aggressive primates? I think not. Out closest relatives, chimps are capable of similiar level of violence (including infanticide, cannibalism, gang , genocide and other unpleasantness) as we are, but they apparently lack moral and social constraints we developed. Of course it is not so clear cut. Bonobo chimpanzees managed to find other ways to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence - just like we did. They literally live following "Make love, not war" slogan

Which monkey was it that also practice prostitution? Chimps?

[lajoswinkler]

Still sounds like human behaviour. Chimps can be violent, but it is rarely lethal. It happens, but it seems to be somewhat exceptional.

Chimps are way worse. Imagine a 4 year old, physically fit, with huge canines, throwing a tantrum. That's a chimp. Young chimp, adult chimp, doesn't matter. Even disregarding the cultural evolution, humans possess a more developed neocortex. Our nature has made us susceptible to develop morality and actual societies, unlike chimps which live in some kind of proto-tribes. Chimps will never behave if left on their own. Only if you raise them in captivity you can expect some degree of our common sense, but they're like prepubescent humans.

Look at this fellow.

Which monkey was it that also practice prostitution? Chimps?

Chimps aren't monkeys, they're apes. Monkeys are small, they swing in trees and eat berries. Apes like chimps sometimes hunt them down just because they're evil. They will tear you apart if they want. They'll rip your arms, crush and chew your skull.

This is how we began, too. It was actually responsible for the development of high morality and high compassion.

[Scotius]

Evil? Chimpanzees are possessing only rudimentary sentience - are they able to recognise such concepts as 'good' and 'evil'? I sincerely doubt that. And they are not hunting and eating smaller animals because they're "evil" - they are simply supplementing their mostly vegetarian diet with necessary proteins and microelements.

[xcorps]

Chimps can be violent, but it is rarely lethal

.

You should reexamine your preconception. It is faulty. Wild chimpanzees are at least as murderous as humans.

The relationships among three adult male chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) were observed over a period of 6 years. The males were members of a large, mixed colony of chimpanzees at Arnhem Zoo (Netherlands). In spite of several power takeovers and coalition changes among the males, aggression was restrained during most of the period. This article analyzes a dramatic exception, which occurred after months of instability in the coalition network. At night, the alpha male was attacked and fatally injured in the sleeping quarters. The incident is discussed against the background of the complex balance of power among the males, especially the discrepancy between coalitions serving hierarchical status and coalitions serving sexual competition. Quantitative data support most of the hypotheses.

Chimpanzees make lethal coalitionary attacks on members of other groups [1]. This behavior generates considerable attention because it resembles lethal intergroup raiding in humans [2]. Similarities are nevertheless difficult to evaluate because the function of lethal intergroup aggression by chimpanzees remains unclear. One prominent hypothesis suggests that chimpanzees attack neighbors to expand their territories and to gain access to more food [2]. Two cases apparently support this hypothesis, but neither furnishes definitive evidence. Chimpanzees in the Kasekela community at Gombe National Park took over the territory of the neighboring Kahama community after a series of lethal attacks [3]. Understanding these events is complicated because the Kahama community had recently formed by fissioning from the Kasekela group and members of both communities had been provisioned with food. In a second example from the Mahale Mountains, the M group chimpanzees acquired part of the territory of the adjacent K group after all of the adult males in the latter disappeared [4]. Although fatal attacks were suspected from observations of intergroup aggression, they were not witnessed, and as a consequence, this case also fails to furnish conclusive evidence. Here we present data collected over 10 years from an unusually large chimpanzee community at Ngogo, Kibale National Park, Uganda. During this time, we observed the Ngogo chimpanzees kill or fatally wound 18 individuals from other groups; we inferred three additional cases of lethal intergroup aggression based on circumstantial evidence (see Supplemental Information). Most victims were caught in the same region and likely belonged to the same neighboring group. A causal link between lethal intergroup aggression and territorial expansion can be made now that the Ngogo chimpanzees use the area once occupied by some of their victims.

Estimates for average rates of lethal violence for chimpanzees proved to be similar to average rates for subsistence societies of hunter–gatherers and farmers. Second, we compared rates of non-lethal physical aggression for two populations of chimpanzees and one population of recently settled hunter–gatherers. Chimpanzees had rates of aggression between two and three orders of magnitude higher than humans. These preliminary data support Boehm’s hypothesis.

On 5 July 1983, the adult male chimpanzees of M group killed and ate a male newborn infant in Mahale National Park, Western Tanzania. The infant is believed to have been sired by one of the M group males. Intergroup infanticide might result in improving reproductive success by eliminating a future competitor. In the present episode, however, there is a fair possibility that the males fostered the erroneous idea that the infant had been sired by the males of another group because its mother had disappeared from M group for several months before parturition. After the infanticide, the social relationship between the mother and M group chimpanzees became more stable.

Two cases of within-group infanticide and cannibalism were observed among the M Group chimpanzees of the Mahale Mountains, Tanzania. In both cases, victimized infants were male, 5 – 6 months of age, and in good health when killed. Four to five years have passed since the mothers of the victims immigrated into M Group as nulliparous immigrants. In one case the 2nd-ranking male was observed to detach the infant from the mother's belly. Both infants were finally killed by the alpha male after several adult males scrambled for the bodies. There was no evidence that the mothers had mated with males other than those of M Group. Nor was there evidence that the mothers had restrictive mating relationships with some of the M Group adult males. What little evidence is available shows that the mothers had mated mostly with adolescent and other immature males during their conception cycles. However, at least in one case, the mother began to mate more with adult males rather than with immature males after the infanticide. It is proposed that the function of within-group male infanticide can be explained by the male-male competition hypothesis developed for hanuman langurs and other nonhuman primates

[lajoswinkler]

Evil? Chimpanzees are possessing only rudimentary sentience - are they able to recognise such concepts as 'good' and 'evil'? I sincerely doubt that. And they are not hunting and eating smaller animals because they're "evil" - they are simply supplementing their mostly vegetarian diet with necessary proteins and microelements.

They can, but not at our level. Murdering for fun - they do it, too. They do display malice, not just in captivity.

[xcorps]

They do display malice, not just in captivity.

The first quote in the post I made above was about a political assassination that occurred at the Arnhem Zoo in the Netherlands.

[Klingon Admiral]

Evil? Chimpanzees are possessing only rudimentary sentience - are they able to recognise such concepts as 'good' and 'evil'? I sincerely doubt that. And they are not hunting and eating smaller animals because they're "evil" - they are simply supplementing their mostly vegetarian diet with necessary proteins and microelements.

"Good" and "Evil" are nothing more than arbitrary concepts developed in times long past to make the complex, abstract and often self-contradicting nature of existence.

Also, there is one reported instance of chimpanzee populations waging war on each other, with all that entails, probably with a bit of genocide mixed in. Chimpanzees each other (as do dolphins, by the way).

Chimpanzees are jerks. Gorillas, on the other hand, are pretty nice animals.

[rtxoff]

THESE are top of the food chain. NOT us.

http://www.theinkprosblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Tiger-Teeth.jpg

http://www.greenerideal.com/images/stories/2010/06/06-10-apex-predator.jpg

http://ddmu062g7efat.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Spirit-Lion-RayMorris1.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y2IzBU-Oa8E/UI53hQUuNYI/AAAAAAAAFYo/vxFpLdexc6s/s1600/GW+1.jpg

http://aquaviews.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Which-Marine-Animal-is-the-Top-Predator-of-the-Seas.jpg

http://www.factzoo.com/sites/all/img/mammals/feline/black-panther-jaguar.jpg

http://www.weirdexistence.com/img/nature/the-most-dangerous-land-animals/the-most-dangerous-land-animals06.jpg

any one of those above, can, and WILL kill us, HAVE killed us if and WHEN they desire.

This was a long time ago... now WE are the superior predators on this planet. Also while this animals are some of the most deadliest they almost never kill for fun. Their only motive is feeding. Only in rare cases they kill for other motives.

We humans kill for plenty of other reasons. The list is so long that it would fill a whole wall of text.

Seeing how we are continuously destroying our own home, Mother Earth, i would say humans are the most dangerous, agressive and stupid beeings on this planet.

Anyone wanting to blame an animal to be more agressive then us is an hypocrite.

I am not saying that we need to change something about that, but i won't lie to myself about the truth in this.

While beeing agressive is a strong pulse in humans we developed a whole lot of other positive character properties which somehow levels the bad impulses in us but still we have a long way to go to before becoming a species worth to be called advanced.

Right now we are on a course to self-extinction.

[Klingon Admiral]

Right now we are on a course to self-extinction.

Citation needed.

Human population is steadily rising.

[lajoswinkler]

Citation needed.

Human population is steadily rising.

Actually, the growth rate is slowing down. It's resource-dependant, just like with bacteria in a nutrient solution.

[Comrade Jenkens]

Actually, the growth rate is slowing down. It's resource-dependant, just like with bacteria in a nutrient solution.

Its slowing down for other reasons not lack of resources. Those people in more developed countries are the ones with the slow or non existent growth.

[xcorps]

Its slowing down for other reasons not lack of resources. Those people in more developed countries are the ones with the slow or non existent growth.

Yeah. There's some pretty good arguments against resource pressure.

[Pawelk198604]

We are probably agressive because we are at the top of the food chain too. Intelligence is a trait often seen in predators. It is one of the reasons we should be careful with alien life that visits us.

Unless they have suppress their emotions because their are Vulcans

[Seret]

Actually, the growth rate is slowing down. It's resource-dependant, just like with bacteria in a nutrient solution.

It's not resources, it's the Demographic Transition. When a society becomes wealthy enough to provide for its elderly and child mortality drops, choosing have less children becomes a viable strategy.

If anything access to resources causes the growth rate to slow. It's the wealthiest nations that have the lowest growth rates.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Seret

[lajoswinkler]

It's not resources, it's the Demographic Transition. When a society becomes wealthy enough to provide for its elderly and child mortality drops, choosing have less children becomes a viable strategy.

If anything access to resources causes the growth rate to slow. It's the wealthiest nations that have the lowest growth rates.

That is true, but the least developed (average living standard, disregarding the extremely rich few) nations have the highest impact on the total number because they contain the most people. Just look at the people in Asia. Their numbers have increased insanely in the last decades. As far as I know, their growth rate is slowing down simply basically because of lack of resources as one of the most important factors.

Taking wealthy nations into account just corrupts the conclusion. Their reasons for drop is the transition, but poor nations' reasons differ.

[cpast]

Evil? Chimpanzees are possessing only rudimentary sentience - are they able to recognise such concepts as 'good' and 'evil'? I sincerely doubt that. And they are not hunting and eating smaller animals because they're "evil" - they are simply supplementing their mostly vegetarian diet with necessary proteins and microelements.

"Aggressive" might be a better term than "evil". That is, after all, what the topic is about.

[magnemoe]

It's not resources, it's the Demographic Transition. When a society becomes wealthy enough to provide for its elderly and child mortality drops, choosing have less children becomes a viable strategy.

If anything access to resources causes the growth rate to slow. It's the wealthiest nations that have the lowest growth rates.

If you are a dirt farmer its nice to have many kids as they are extra labor who give the family more food and increased security.

(Found this in a moded sims 2 game in an medival setting, the family with lots of kids did far better even if you add the time to raise the kids because you had far more hands to work afterward)

If you are middle class kids are a major expense you are expected to maintain some standard of living after all.

Just living in a city make lost of kids problematic, most people live in cities today.

Resources is not a problem at all the reason raw material prices has gone up the last 15 year is because of China, this has increased prices but also production.

[magnemoe]

That is true, but the least developed (average living standard, disregarding the extremely rich few) nations have the highest impact on the total number because they contain the most people. Just look at the people in Asia. Their numbers have increased insanely in the last decades. As far as I know, their growth rate is slowing down simply basically because of lack of resources as one of the most important factors.

Taking wealthy nations into account just corrupts the conclusion. Their reasons for drop is the transition, but poor nations' reasons differ.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/World_population_%28UN%29.svg/300px-World_population_%28UN%29.svg.png

look at the graphs, dotted line is flatt projection based on current birth values.

the cone is realistic values remember that China has a birth rate is 1.7 who is below replacement population still increases sa the huge generations born from 1950 to 1980 is still alive.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN

also note the falling trends pretty much everywhere, in fact china is dropping the one kid policy, that is why the birth rate is up from 1.6 to 1.7.

If the birth rate is to low you get problem with too many old people and too few workers.

[Kevon87]

My question is: Are chimps and other higher primates even considered predators? As far as I know,they have a primarily herbivoric diet supplemented by small animals (how small depending on the species). If we evolved from something similar, then we essentially evolved from prey animals. Animals that are "natural" predators, such as sharks, big cats, gators and crocs and so forth, haven't had major evolutionary changes in millions of years. Which is why I also don't believe any intelligent species capable of spaceflight will be descended from a "Natural" apex predator. Intelligence is a by-product of change. Sharks are a perfect example. They're basic design (for lack of a better word) has remained unchanged for millions(possibly hundreds of millions) of years. Why? Because they're environment hasn't changed. As a result,their intelligence is very low, relatively speaking. I think it's more likely that an intelligent species will have an evolutionary path similar to ours. Which isn't necessarily a good thing because we are quite aggressive.

Sorry if this is a little off topic.

[Scotius]

Some scientists think that we actually evolved from scavengers, not predators And it makes sense IMO. Our ancestors lived similiar to chimpanzees - eating mostly plants, and supplementing their diet with insects and small animals they managed to hunt down. But when their environment changed to savannas, additional source of very valuable food become available - carrion. Even today african savannas are home to huge herds of herbivores, which regularly die from old age, diseases, fires, floods and of course predator attacks. When a group of early hominids was able to find fresh carcass before regular carrion-eaters arrived, they would get a very nice meal without spending much energy. But it required cooperation, quick reactions and planning. Our ancestors wouldn't be able to defend their find against a pack of hyenas, but they were able to grab whatever parts could be ripped off and carry them to safe place. Free, agile hands certainly helped with such task

[ZedNova]

no. we are decidedly NOT at the top of the food chain. We are deluded into believing that we are the apex predators on this planet, when, we are in fact not. Take away our guns, our knives, and our weapons, we become weak. Take the predators on the African savanna. THEY need no extra weapons to kill. They are BORN predators. Take the sharks and other predators in the oceans, same with them. What nature BUILT INTO THEM is all THEY NEED. No, we are pretenders to that throne. NATURE is the apex predator, we are merely the children with a stick poking the hornets nest.

THESE are top of the food chain. NOT us.

http://www.theinkprosblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Tiger-Teeth.jpg

http://www.greenerideal.com/images/stories/2010/06/06-10-apex-predator.jpg

http://ddmu062g7efat.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Spirit-Lion-RayMorris1.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y2IzBU-Oa8E/UI53hQUuNYI/AAAAAAAAFYo/vxFpLdexc6s/s1600/GW+1.jpg

http://aquaviews.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Which-Marine-Animal-is-the-Top-Predator-of-the-Seas.jpg

http://www.factzoo.com/sites/all/img/mammals/feline/black-panther-jaguar.jpg

http://www.weirdexistence.com/img/nature/the-most-dangerous-land-animals/the-most-dangerous-land-animals06.jpg

any one of those above, can, and WILL kill us, HAVE killed us if and WHEN they desire.

I'm pretty sure we're at the top, we might not be the most powerful physically; but you need to account for intelligence as well.

Just because we don't have claws or sharp teeth, that doesn't exclude us from being predators. Our minds are what make us dangerous.