South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

October 18, 2019, 08:04:12 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Chimpanzee mourns death of infant... or just corpse fascination?

 (Read 7166 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
dannykopping
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


dannykopping
« on: February 01, 2011, 23:49:29 PM »

Here's a story from the Max Planck Institute:

Excerpt from http://www.mpi.nl/news/chimpanzee-mother-mourns-dead-infant
Quote
For the first time, MPI researchers report in detail how a chimpanzee mother responds to the death of her infant. The chimpanzee mother shows behaviours not typically seen directed toward live infants, such as placing her fingers against the neck and laying the infant’s body on the ground to watch it from a distance. The observations of Katherine Cronin and Edwin van Leeuwen provide unique insights into how chimpanzees, one of humans’ closest primate relatives, learn about death. Their commentary appears online this week in the American Journal of Primatology.


After watching the video and reading the article, I couldn't help feel a pang of sympathy for the chimpanzee, apparently mourning the loss of its infant. However, it is interesting to note that we may be importing our own biases onto this event of "primate mourning"; it is one the first observed incidents like this, which makes me immediately skeptical... I would imagine that reactions to death and loss in primate species would have been documented by now - but that is only my assumption looking through ignorant eyes on the topic.

Another possible reading of this situation is the following - primates are usually observed carrying their deceased infants with them for days and weeks - is this an extreme form of inability to let go of one's deceased offspring, or merely protection from scavengers, or something similar?

I put the question out to the better informed - what is your opinion?
Logged
Lilli
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 435



Lelani Stolp
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2011, 11:24:39 AM »

Don't elephants also mourn their dead? Think I read something like that somewhere, once, but could also just be remembering a typical camp-fire story not based on any facts whatsoever.  Undecided Makes more sense to me for animals (specifically mammals) to mourn their dead on some level, because animals can't understand death the same way humans can. Unless one believes that animals are somehow tuned into some kind of 'understanding of the cycle of life' stuff. Humans should be rational enough to know that death is a natural and inevitable end to life. And yet, humans need all this nonsense about after-lives etc to make us feel better when a loved one dies. I get really annoyed when people start rambling "oh it will be all right, she's in a better place now..." I always want to react with something like "yeah, she always did like worms, too bad she is no longer conscious to appreciate the role they play in decomposition...."  Evil
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2011, 12:04:51 PM »

I think consciousness is an evolutionary process and the higher a particular animal is on the "consciousness scale" the more it will be affected by the death of a baby. Hence dolphins seem to crowd around a dead baby for a while, elephants do the same (I have personally witnessed this), but not so for example ducks (on my farm I see this daily). Also I notice that Muscovy ducks are aware of the danger of yellow bill kites snatching their chicks and they tend to hide under bushes etc to avoid attack, a 'consciousness' of pending danger id you like which seems to stem from learning.
Whether animals mourn in the human sense is IMHO a human construct/sentiment and so is 'fascination'; maybe they don't grasp what's the matter with the baby and wait for it to show signs of life, up to the point where instinct kicks in and they move on.
A chimpanzee is high on the consciousness scale I would guess, so it is feasible that it is mourning/sad and even crying.
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2011, 12:09:26 PM »

i had gotten two kittens, who grew up together.  they were inseperable.  the boy disapeared, and i found his body a week later.  the girl, was definately not herself.  she wasnt playing or cuddling.  i daresay, her personality changed, without him around.
from my point of view, they do realise that there is a missing element.  a queen cries for her kittens when they are given homes,  bitches carry puppies around that died.  whether it's out of ignorance, i really cant tell.
isnt the success of the mammal attributed to it's nurturing?  then again, insects are successful too.
Logged
dannykopping
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


dannykopping
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2011, 15:52:16 PM »

Good points everyone!

Anybody know Jane Goodall's number? Haha
I'd love to rack her brains about this one...
Logged
ingwe
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 198



« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2011, 17:17:26 PM »

Good points everyone!

Anybody know Jane Goodall's number? Haha
I'd love to rack her brains about this one...
http://www.janegoodall.co.za/chimpanzee-eden.htm
Try this!
Next time you are in Nelspruit Mbombela a visit is a good way to see how great these animals are.
Logged
dannykopping
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


dannykopping
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2011, 17:47:18 PM »

Fantastic! I will certainly do so if I'm ever that side
Thanks Smiley
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2011, 18:35:23 PM »

isnt the success of the mammal attributed to it's nurturing?  then again, insects are successful too.
Different stategies - while insects generally do not nurture, they make up for their shoddy parenting by churning out far more young than mammals. They rely on the survival of a small fraction of a large number.

Mintaka
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2011, 14:44:38 PM »

Different stategies - while insects generally do not nurture, they make up for their shoddy parenting by churning out far more young than mammals. They rely on the survival of a small fraction of a large number.

Mintaka
Does immorality enhance evolution?
Logged
dannykopping
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


dannykopping
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2011, 16:30:24 PM »

You're imposing an anthropic principle upon primates - there is no such thing as immorality in primates; evolution occurs for the good of the species, never the gene. I would say that whether the primates are "moral" or "immoral" makes no difference - evolution will still occur. If primates develop a sense of empathy (which they have) then it will become beneficial in the sense that it will increase inter-personal relationships and could end up in proliferation. On the other hand, chimps have been known to take other chimps out to the edge of a field, and brutally beat them, rip their genitals off, etc; this could bode well evolutionarily as well - it depends how the dice fall. It's hard to draw a correlation/causation from isolated happenstances.
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2011, 22:05:46 PM »

Does empathy retard evolution?
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2011, 15:24:26 PM »

You're imposing an anthropic principle upon primates - there is no such thing as immorality in primates
I'm not so sure that there ain't. Primates dish out punishment. For example, an annoying youngster may receive a slap from an adult. The rudimentary simian social system is obvious. And what is a social system if not a set of rules - a collection of rights and wrongs? Therefore morality and immorality applies. I'm not saying that we necessarily understand their morality, but we can certainly deduce its existence.
Quote
evolution occurs for the good of the species, never the gene.

Can you please clarify and/or support this statement? Evolution is not generally though to occur for anything in particular. Wink

Mintaka
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2011, 15:44:20 PM »

Different strategies - while insects generally do not nurture, they make up for their shoddy parenting by churning out far more young than mammals. They rely on the survival of a small fraction of a large number.

Mintaka
Does immorality enhance evolution?

Not sure I'm following the question to the tee ... but if the insect's morality requires of her to make lots of young, and she does not, then she is acting immorally (by insect standards), and will probably not see her genes travel far into the future. If the mammal acts immorally by having more offspring than she can nurture, then ditto. They suffer extinction not because there is anything special or sinister about morality per se, but simply because they did not make use of the best procreational strategy for their species at the time.

Mintaka
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2011, 16:26:31 PM »

Not sure I'm following the question to the tee ... but if the insect's morality requires of her to make lots of young, and she does not, then she is acting immorally (by insect standards), and will probably not see her genes travel far into the future. If the mammal acts immorally by having more offspring than she can nurture, then ditto. They suffer extinction not because there is anything special or sinister about morality per se, but simply because they did not make use of the best procreational strategy for their species at the time.

Mintaka
I was thinking along the lines of what humans would regard as moral and the effect thereof upon adaptability.  In the longer term, evolution favours the "most adaptable" rather than the "best adapted".  Having large numbers of offspring of which only a few survive seems to enhance a more adaptable species than pampering all offspring to maturity and parenthood.  Humans find the insect style of procreation reprehensible within their own species because of the high child mortality rate.  Evolution is a cruel proses and altruism might be interfering with it.  It's not a comforting thought....
« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 17:59:44 PM by Hermes » Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3094



« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2011, 16:59:47 PM »

Yeah but what is moral for an insect may not be for a human, since humans have a long procreation cycle that results in a single, or at best 2 or 3, or if you're an utter freak, 8 offspring. Nothing like an insect that lays hundreds or thousands of eggs. In our situation, nurturing offspring is what allows us to survive, physiologically we're unable to follow the strategy of an insect.

Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.599 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 26, 2019, 15:43:26 PM
Privacy Policy