The most civilized primate? NOT man. MURIQUI MONKEYS (Smithsonian)

Humans Would Be Better Off If They Monkeyed Around Like the Muriquis

When Strier was first getting to know the muriquis, primatology was still largely focused on just a handful of species that had adapted to life on the ground, including baboons, or that had close evolutionary relationships with humans, such as apes.

This emphasis came to shape public perception of primates as essentially aggressive. We picture chest-beating, teeth-flashing dominant male gorillas competing to mate with any female they choose. We picture, as Goodall had witnessed beginning in 1974, chimpanzees invading other territories, biting and beating other chimps to death. Primates, including possibly the most violent one of all—us—seemed to be born ruffians.
...

Strier’s research introduced the world to an alternative primate lifestyle. Female muriquis mate with a lot of males and males don’t often fight. Though bonobos, known for their casual sex, are often called the “hippie” primates, the muriquis in Strier’s study site are equally deserving of that reputation. They are peace-loving and tolerant. Strier also showed that the muriquis turn out to be incredibly cooperative, a characteristic that may be just as important in primate societies as vicious rivalry.

Read more: www.smithsonianmag.com...
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

These guys live in Brazil - and they HELP each other. When passing one another by on a branch to go for legumes there, they stop and give the one they're passing a hug - as if to say "excuse me, sorry."

There are NO ALPHA MALES.

They stay mostly in the treetops, leaping about like Tarzan - but as their habitat shrinks due to deforestation and agriculture, they're running out of room - so they're going to ground - which makes them vulnerable to predators.

The reason? They need more space. So now, preservationists are considering connecting the forested areas with "avenues" of trees, so they don't have to cross the vast expanses of fields where predators can get them.

Man's encroachment on their natural habitat is forcing them to change their behaviors, which is putting them in peril. Stupid, violent, self-absorbed, wasteful, uncooperative humans.

Yeah, these are the "hippie" monkeys...and I'm proud to be a Baby Boomer holdover of the "hippie" days when we wanted peace - we STILL want peace.

These a-hole old farts in Congress and Administration will die out eventually...
thankfully. For my part, I'm not going to weep.

This article is rather lengthy, but fascinating - I urge all of you wondering why war seems perpetual among humans to read it - and start imagining how we can evolve to BE AS CIVILIZED as they are...

Teach our children well - and it can happen.
~wild

reply to post by wildtimes


Maybe one day, we will devolve back to that primative state and care about one another again.

There is more violence in one day in an English hedgerow than all the acts of violence committed by all humans in our history.

Something to think about when considering how peaceful and loving nature is.

reply to post by wildtimes


Sign me up

It's got to be easier and more fun than posting on ATS nowadays

Cody

reply to post by wildtimes


I think the term "civilized" is one of those abstract concepts that could teach us a lot about the difference between ourselves and the world. It seems to me that the human species is attempting to become something other than an organic lifeform. First comes the behavior. Then comes the mentality. Then we'll be able to modify our biology before finally transforming ourselves entirely, becoming a class completely separate from anything on Earth.

And the word "civilized" reflects that in that every time we encounter an instance of "civilization", it's a step away from being an animal and a step toward being something else entirely. Something mechanical, a synergetic system as opposed to primal survivalism. Do you get what I'm trying to say? The more I think about the word "civilized", the more it strikes me as being a rejection of animalism. An evolution of the mind before the evolution of the body. And I think that's what's coming next.

reply to post by Tinkerpeach


Really? Does the hedge row group deploy chemical weapons on vast numbers of innocent residents? Nuclear bombs? Shoot depleted uranium bullets into women and children? Destroy entire habitats????

Give me a break. *shaking my head. We lost the awesome emoticon for that.....*
THUMB DOWN.

reply to post by wildtimes


Actually, in a way, they do. How many ant hills does a skunk take out when he sprays his poisonous gas cloud in defense?

How many ant colonies have gone to war with termite mounds killing hundreds of thousands simply because the termites built to close to the ant's territory?

How many female spiders kill their mates after they get the deed done?

There have actually been cases of rape and necrophilia among penguins.

Are you sure you wouldn't want to revise your post?

reply to post by Tinkerpeach

Are you sure you wouldn't want to revise your post?

YES, I'm sure....and NO, I wouldn't. I understand all about nature, predators, competition, etc. NONE of the hedge residents are spilling oil into the oceans, taking down all the trees, poisoning the world with pesticides, garbage, radioactive materials we don't know what to do about......

yes, I understand violence is part of nature....I understand predation and the 'survival' mode that most species are daily wrapped up in....

but HUMANS have wreaked havoc and mayhem and wreckage and devastation and spilled SO MUCH BLOOD that there is (sorry!) NO COMPARISON!

reply to post by wildtimes


Actually humans are part of nature also.

I know many people don't believe that but it is true. We are nothing more than another species, no more or less violent than others.

As for hurting the earth....well that simply isn't possible. The earth has seen far, far more devastation than anything humans could ever do.

We could set off every nuke we have, dump all the oil into the oceans, and the earth would just shrug it off in a few thousand years.

Humans only hurt themselves by pollution and war.

The earth will be just fine.

reply to post by wildtimes


And there is even a bigger issue, that we are aware of it and the full impact of our actions, something that so far we alone can be in the natural world. That puts us even more on the spot that anything else...

reply to post by Tinkerpeach

Actually humans are part of nature also.

Erm, yes, I know that. Doy. WTH?

The earth will be just fine if we all vanish....and BETTER OFF.....
what is your point, please??? You've caught me in a foul mood, Tinkerpeach, newbie or no. I don't need you to lecture me on nature, humanity, earth balance, etc.

Welcome to ATS, but....
you might want to spend some time getting to know people before you start preaching at us....

reply to post by Panic2k11

we are aware of it and the full impact of our actions, something that so far we alone can be in the natural world. That puts us even more on the spot that anything else...

EXACTLY. We are obliged to be STEWARDS of this planet. It is our home. The rest of nature depends on what WE do.

Yes, Earth will shake us off like a bad case of fleas, or a cancer...
but that does NOT excuse us for the damage, mayhem, and devastation that we cause.
It makes me SICK.

Thanks for posting.

(I hate the new emoticons)

reply to post by wildtimes

Ah, wildtimes, I see it's you with a new avatar. Didn't realise that when I made the decision to respond to your post, but now that I've started, I'll finish.

NONE of the hedge residents are spilling oil into the oceans, taking down all the trees, poisoning the world with pesticides, garbage, radioactive materials we don't know what to do about....

Animals, left unchecked, are just as destructive of the environment as humans are. We can see this in situations where the absence of predators and other natural checks to population growth are absent, and a single species multiplies to the detriment of the environment — Australia furnishes a number of examples, such as rabbits and cane toads. Yes, these species were introduced to Australasia by human beings, but that is incidental. Natural events can produce the same results.

Even under normal conditions many animals are environmentally destructive. Beaver dams, for example, spell disaster to many other species sharing the river and its banks with the beavers.

That 'English hedgerow' example is a little exaggerated, but not much. Fertile real estate is at a premium. Animals and plants wage chemical and physical warfare for territory and resources on a continuous basis. All part of the great struggle to survive and reproduce.

You make the human impact on the environment sound evil and premeditated. I agree that unchecked capitalism and industrialisation are very destructive, but it is not as easy to solve the problems they create as it seems as first glance. The truth is that we are simply another animal species for which the natural checks to population growth have been removed, resulting in the usual environmental damage and destruction.

Of course we must do what we can to avert the looming disaster, but it is not at all certain that we can. Nature, as ever, must take its course.

reply to post by wildtimes


You said that humans need to evolve to be as civilized as that species of monkey so my point was that no we don't as that is not typical of nature.

Nature is violent and harsh and brutal and humans fit in exactly where nature put them. Believe me, once mother earth decides she no longer needs us a simple epidemic will wipe us out and she will replace us with something else.

Nature makes extinct anywhere from 1-150 species every 24 hours depending on whose numbers you want to believe and one day it will be our turn unless we can use our intelligence to get out of that trap. However, claiming that we need to change the nature of human behavior is not only impossible but unnatural.

As George Carlin said, "Maybe the earth just wanted plastic so it made humans."

reply to post by Tinkerpeach


I would appreciate it if you would hold off on "schooling me" until you get to know me better. Please.

I'm not 13, and I know about human nature, and nature in general. I'm not disagreeing with you, please understand that. Just, please, stop lecturing me.

reply to post by wildtimes


I've no desire to lecture you, I am merely responding to the points you bring up.

If you don't like the responses than feel free to give a counter-argument and I will address that on a point-by-point basis.

I would be more than happy to start off a discussion from your point of view since it is a very easy debate to have from your side on the issue of human nature v. environment.

Or would you consider that "schooling you"?

reply to post by Astyanax

You make the human impact on the environment sound evil and premeditated. I agree that unchecked capitalism and industrialisation are very destructive, but it is not as easy to solve the problems they create as it seems as first glance. The truth is that we are simply another animal species for which the natural checks to population growth have been removed, resulting in the usual environmental damage and destruction.

Ah, Astyanax. How gracious of you to reply. .... do you honestly think I am not aware of these things?

Yes, I am aware that humans are a part of nature. My beef is that 'humans' give so little care to the REST of the species on this planet. WE DO NOT HAVE LICENSE TO DO THAT.

The "natural checks to population growth" need to be re-instituted, in my opinion....

The fact that the "usual environmental damage and destruction" is occurring BECAUSE of our activities should not be dismissed as 'well, we are just animals, after all.' Because, WE KNOW BETTER -

The fact that we CAN destroy entire ecosystems, with premeditation, makes all the difference. Us being 'animals' does not excuse the fact that we DO know what is being caused by the recklessness and ignorant activity in which humans engage, and do it anyway;
the greed, and rampant raping of this planet in 'humanity's' hands is NOT excusable.

I have to log off now. Good night, all.

reply to post by wildtimes


Extremely subjective.

When you say, "we know better", who exactly are you referring to?

This is your belief but possibly not mine or the man's down the street. You are assuming that there is a correct thing we should do and an incorrect thing but nowhere has that been established by anyone. Your saying its wrong to destroy an environment because we know better and I say that sometimes we destroy environment precisely because we know better.

If I have to plow under a field to feed my family and make extinct some beetle that lives only in that spot than I have done the correct thing. You seem to be saying you would let your family starve to save the beetle.

While you may not agree with me on that specific example it can be extrapolated into a larger point. Humans were given intelligence to survive and promote their species and we have extended greatly oftentimes at the expense of other species but that is how nature made us.

The example of Beavers was brought up earlier and that is a very good example. They will destroy entire environments to benefit their species and what we are doing is the same thing and natural. There is no such thing as "we should know better."

In your opinion you do not agree with it but others have no such qualms. It would not be prudent of you to assume that everyone in our species should have your beliefs. Does that make them wrong? Does it make you wrong?

Who is to ultimately say?

wildtimes
This emphasis came to shape public perception of primates as essentially aggressive.

I think that is actually projecting human traits onto the primates. Humans tend to project their "animal" nature onto animals all the time.

For example, on my local news station, I was watching some people on a Safari. They had parked their jeep right in the middle of a road that elephants obviously use to get to their water hole.

The elephants took some time to discuss the matter first, and then two of them charged the jeep. They were branded as "Angry elephants!" as if they had just decided to ram the jeep willy-nilly.

reply to post by Tinkerpeach


There are in actuality a multitude of different tiers to humanity, some are not even human or resonate with nature, this would make them un natural and not a part of a natural cycle.
Think about it, what kind of being are you?

You have those deluded animals that occupy a human shell but are far from 'being humane'.
Then you have those animals who are called humane beings for they resonate with humanity and nature, what happened to them? The other kind exterminated their habitats.

You have to be a real fool or a complete troll to say the Earth will be fine from all the garbage 'we' do to it, a real fool.