The real deal about bonobos.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Cute animals. We could do something about them being endangered. But not hippy dippy noble savage role models after all.

From The New Yorker (Long - about 15 pages printed)

This article gets seriously into the field work.

Swingers -- Bonobos are celebrated as peace-loving, matriarchal, and sexually liberated. Are they? (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/30/070730fa_fact_parker?printable=true)

...

Hohmann’s first stay at Lomako lasted thirteen months. Halfway through, Barbara Fruth, a German Ph.D. student, flew to join him; they eventually married. (Up until then, “I was not thinking of having a family,” Hohmann said. “I was just doing what I did. I said, ‘I don’t have the time, and who’s crazy enough to join me?’ ”) Hohmann and Fruth flew back and forth between Germany and Lomako, and the bonobos eventually became so habituated that they would sometimes fall asleep in front of their observers. The Max Planck Institute is not a university; it supports an academic life that many professors elsewhere would find enviable—one of long-term funding and no undergraduates. Hohmann was able to publish slowly. Though not immune to the charms of ape-watching, he was at pains to set himself precise research goals. How did bonobos build nests? How did they share food? As one of his colleagues described it, Hohmann wanted to avoid being dirtied by the stain of primatology—a discipline regarded by some in biology as being afflicted by personality cults and overextrapolation. The big bonobo picture might one day emerge, but it would happen only after the rigorous testing of hypotheses in the forest. When a publisher asked Hohmann for a bonobo book, he responded that it was too soon. “Gottfried’s one of those people who don’t want to risk being criticized, so they make absolutely certain that they’ve completely nailed everything down before they publish,” Richard Wrangham told me, with a mixture of respect and impatience.

...

For a purportedly peaceful animal, a bonobo can be surprisingly intemperate. Jeroen Stevens is a young Belgian biologist who has spent thousands of hours studying captive bonobos in European zoos. I met him last year at the Planckendael Zoo, near Antwerp. “I once saw five female bonobos attack a male in Apenheul, in Holland,” he said. “They were gnawing on his toes. I’d already seen bonobos with digits missing, but I’d thought they would have been bitten off like a dog would bite. But they really chew. There was flesh between their teeth. Now, that’s something to counter the idea of”—Stevens used a high, mocking voice—“ ‘Oh, I’m a bonobo, and I love everyone.’ ”

...

Just goes to show it's not just fundies who have funny ideas about evolution.

A good read for the weekend. :cool:

[bjornart]

Unless toe-eating also happens in the wild I'd wait before concluding this isn't what happens to peace-loving apes who're held captive.

[fls]

You may be interested in the latest Skeptic magazine. Frans de Waal pretty thoroughly rebuts that particular New Yorker article.

Linda

[Abdul Alhazred]

You may be interested in the latest Skeptic magazine. Frans de Waal pretty thoroughly rebuts that particular New Yorker article.

Linda

Synopsis and/or link?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've always thought the view of chimpanzees as warlike and male-dominated and bonobos as peaceful and female dominated was too pat. However, I don't think observations of captive behavior is particularly enlightening.

[Bikewer]

In Shadows Of Forgotten Ancestors, Carl Sagan spends a couple of chapters on chimp behavior. Based almost completely on the in-the-wild observations of the researchers, it's fairly obvious that the "regular" chimps differ considerably in behavior from the Bonobos.

There is some disagreement (as I understand) as to whether the Bonobos constitute a separate species, but the behavior is markedly different.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Here's a comment from another forum:

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=442649#post442649



The notion that Bonobos (Pan paniscus) are non-aggressive and settle all disputes with sex is a wild exaggeration. While bonobos do appear to be a lot less overtly aggressive than Common Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and more inclined to use sex as a means of promoting social bonds, the extent to which this is true has been greatly exaggerated in popular accounts.

I don't know exactly why this is true. I suspect it's at least partially because chimpanzees are our closest relatives, and a lot of people find the aggressive, warlike (common chimpanzee bands can and do attack and kill members of other, competing bands; what's more, they organize themselves into "war parties" for that specific purpose and deliberately seek out rival bands with the goal of killing them), and even cannibalistic, on occasion nature of chimpanzees somewhat unappealing. So, people are anxious to believe that some chimpanzees are would much rather make love than war.

I've even read accounts from people who should really know better insisting that Bonobos are more closely related to us than are Common Chimps. That's nonsense; we're equally closely-related to each chimp species.

Even if it were true that we're more closely-related to Bonobos than we are to Common Chimps, would that really tell us anything about human nature? No. Since when have humans been inclined to settle disputes with sex rather than aggression?



Regardless, studies on captive animals should be regarded with a great deal of skepticism, as LadyShea quite correctly points out. "Animals in captivity don't always act the same as those in the wild" is the understatement of the century.

Cheers,

Michael

[Soapy Sam]

The danger of imposing our fashionable cultural ideals on animals in the wild is very real.
Dolphins were warm, gentle and cute till the males were caught indulging in "gang rape" (itself a ludicrous anthropomorphism). Bonobos seemed to take the top spot as "What Humans Ought to Be" for a little while. I've found myself wondering how long it would take for the "Sexy feminist ape" image to prove incomplete. Bonobos do as they must, just like the rest of us apes.

Let's hope they are still around long enough for us to learn what they are really like.

[fls]

Synopsis and/or link?

Mostly that Parker brought no new information to the table and that he seemed to be arguing against strawmen erected about the Bonobo rather than what the scientists have presented. And then he gave an overview of the research and researchers. He implied that shyness in Hohmann and other scientists leads them to ignore sexual behaviour or call it something else (the example he gave was two females rapidly rubbing their vulvas and clitorises together which was characterized as a 'greeting gesture' rather than erotic behaviour).

Linda

[Abdul Alhazred]

There is still a strong tendency to draw moral lessons from the animal kingdom, almost after the manner of a medieval bestiary but with a scientific veneer.

I've certainly been hearing enough of it about bonobos over the years not to dismiss it as a strawman. But that's more educators and journalists not scientists such as Frans de Waal.

[Yoink]

The whole point of the New Yorker article is that the image of the Bonobo as the "peace, love, sex" primate is based on the observation of Bonobos in captivity. In the article he follows one of the (very few) researchers who is trying to study the Bonobos in the wild (he makes the point that research on Bonobos in the wild was curtailed for a very long time because of [human] fighting in their native habitat).

The article's conclusion is that studying Bonobos in the wild is incredibly difficult, that we don't yet really know enough about them to know if the "peace, love, sex" thing is real or not, and that people who seize on that image of the Bonobos are jumping to a conclusion they like, but which isn't clearly supported by good evidence. I'm not sure what there could possibly be to knock in that cautious conclusion.

[fls]

The whole point of the New Yorker article is that the image of the Bonobo as the "peace, love, sex" primate is based on the observation of Bonobos in captivity. In the article he follows one of the (very few) researchers who is trying to study the Bonobos in the wild (he makes the point that research on Bonobos in the wild was curtailed for a very long time because of [human] fighting in their native habitat).

That is one of the impressions that Frans de Waal rebutted in his article. The field research also demonstrates "peace, love, sex", and while it was curtailed for about a decade due to civil war, there was "excellent" field data from before the war.

The article's conclusion is that studying Bonobos in the wild is incredibly difficult, that we don't yet really know enough about them to know if the "peace, love, sex" thing is real or not, and that people who seize on that image of the Bonobos are jumping to a conclusion they like, but which isn't clearly supported by good evidence. I'm not sure what there could possibly be to knock in that cautious conclusion.

I tend to put more weight on the opinion of those with experience and knowledge, than someone who briefly dabbled in the field and has incentive to make the story 'interesting' by introducing controversy.

Linda

[Yoink]

I tend to put more weight on the opinion of those with experience and knowledge, than someone who briefly dabbled in the field and has incentive to make the story 'interesting' by introducing controversy.

What controversy does he introduce? He says that we don't yet know enough. He doesn't say "Bonobos are all evil killer-apes!!!!" The fact that people get so riled up just by someone saying "well, the jury is still out--we need better data" suggests that some people have a little too much invested in a particular image of the Bonobos.

ETA: De Waal, it should also be noted, is one of the main sources of the "hippie chimp" image of the Bonobos--so he has a lot invested in keeping that image alive. Unlike the mere "dabbler" who reports for the New Yorker, De Waal has never actually seen a Bonobo in the wild. Ian Parker was at least willing to undertake that very risky and arduous task.

[fls]

What controversy does he introduce?

That the image of the bonobo is based on observations in captivity and that the image of peace, love and sex is clearly not based on good evidence.

He says that we don't yet know enough. He doesn't say "Bonobos are all evil killer-apes!!!!" The fact that people get so riled up just by someone saying "well, the jury is still out--we need better data" suggests that some people have a little too much invested in a particular image of the Bonobos.

I think if that is all he had said, that no one would get riled-up (if that's what you want to call it). I suspect it was his mischaracterization of what data we have that led to the need for rebuttal.

ETA: De Waal, it should also be noted, is one of the main sources of the "hippie chimp" image of the Bonobos--so he has a lot invested in keeping that image alive. Unlike the mere "dabbler" who reports for the New Yorker, De Waal has never actually seen a Bonobo in the wild. Ian Parker was at least willing to undertake that very risky and arduous task.

Which is probably why de Waal provided an overview from many researchers in his article, rather than a narrow perspective.

Linda

[Yoink]

That the image of the bonobo is based on observations in captivity and that the image of peace, love and sex is clearly not based on good evidence.

So what "good evidence" is it based on? Who has performed long-term observational studies of Bonobos in the wild and corroborated these hypotheses? Who is the Jane Goodall of the Bonobo world? It certainly isn't De Waal; why then are his books so influential?

[fls]

So what "good evidence" is it based on? Who has performed long-term observational studies of Bonobos in the wild and corroborated these hypotheses? Who is the Jane Goodall of the Bonobo world? It certainly isn't De Waal; why then are his books so influential?

He refers to Takayoshi Kano as the field worker with the longest experience with wild bonobos. He also refers to Takeshi Furuichi and Hohmann in the text of the article.

Some references:

Idani, G. (1990). Relations between unit-groups of bonobos at Wamba: Encounters and temporary fusions. African Study Monographs 11: 153-186.

Kano, T. (1992). The Last Ape: Pygmy Chimpanzee Behavior and Ecology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

As to influence, it is probably based on a number of factors. In this situation, which particular pieces of the puzzle de Waal contributed to the primary research is probably less important than his extensive knowledge and experience with respect to apes, abilities as a communicator, leadership positions, etc.

Linda

[Yoink]

He refers to Takayoshi Kano as the field worker with the longest experience with wild bonobos. He also refers to Takeshi Furuichi and Hohmann in the text of the article.

So, all three of them people that Ian Parker extensively reports on in his piece--one of them (Hohmann) being the man he accompanies on his field work (and who is the source of most of the more "sceptical" comments about the popular image of the Bonobos). Yes, I can see how devastating to the objectivity of Parker's reporting this is.

Tell me: have you actually read the Parker piece?

ETA: Parker also notes Hohmann's criticism of Kano's research, that Kano planted sugar cane in order to attract the Bonobos to a static observation area instead of observing them in their own natural habitat. It's pretty clear that providing an abundant food supply to wild animals risks changing their normal behavioral patterns (indeed, it makes it somewhat more like what we find in a zoo). Does De Waal answer this criticism? Was Parker lying about this, or was he misled about it? If not, then we have one problematic body of research on Bonobos in the wild (Kano's--Furuichi worked with Kano) and one which was the basic subject of Parker's article (and the source of nearly all its more "sceptical" claims about Bonobo behavior). So, again, what exactly is there to debunk in Parker's piece?

[fls]

So, all three of them people that Ian Parker extensively reports on in his piece--one of them (Hohmann) being the man he accompanies on his field work (and who is the source of most of the more "sceptical" comments about the popular image of the Bonobos). Yes, I can see how devastating to the objectivity of Parker's reporting this is.

Yes, I realize that he travelled with Hohmann and included discussion of the work of the others (which would support the idea that they are the main workers in the field, I think - I have no independent knowledge of this).

Tell me: have you actually read the Parker piece?

I read it the first time around (i.e. in July/August of 2007), and skimmed it this time. My impression of the article was as you presented earlier, and so I have been responding to your characterizations. Are you saying that you have mischaracterized the article?

ETA: Parker also notes Hohmann's criticism of Kano's research, that Kano planted sugar cane in order to attract the Bonobos to a static observation area instead of observing them in their own natural habitat. It's pretty clear that providing an abundant food supply to wild animals risks changing their normal behavioral patterns (indeed, it makes it somewhat more like what we find in a zoo). Does De Waal answer this criticism? Was Parker lying about this, or was he misled about it? If not, then we have one problematic body of research on Bonobos in the wild (Kano's--Furuichi worked with Kano) and one which was the basic subject of Parker's article (and the source of nearly all its more "sceptical" claims about Bonobo behavior). So, again, what exactly is there to debunk in Parker's piece?

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that those were the only sources of information de Waal used.

The main criticisms were that Parker did not introduce any new information, that Parker criticized the popular image rather than the scientific image (although, to be fair, Parker started with how the image of the bonobo has been used in political skirmishes), that he exaggerated their aggression and downplayed their sexual tendencies by an unbalanced, rather than balanced, presentation of the available information. I suspect that it was the subsequent 'spin' put on Parker's piece by others that spurred de Waal to a response, rather than just the article itself. Although, it also may have been Parker's presentation of de Waal's position - it hardly seems like Parker could have been talking about the same person that wrote the Skeptic article.

He didn't specifically mention the sugar cane, but rather discussed the picture painted from multiple types of information. Do you have references for the idea that providing an abundant food source changes behaviour to the extent you describe?

Linda

[Yoink]

The main criticisms were that Parker did not introduce any new information,
He's a reporter, not a scientist.
that Parker criticized the popular image rather than the scientific image (although, to be fair, Parker started with how the image of the bonobo has been used in political skirmishes),
He's reporting on the "popular image" of the Bonobos and suggesting that the "scientific image" doesn't (yet) fully support it. If De Waal agrees that there is a difference between the "popular image" and the "scientific image" then he agrees with Parker's thesis. If he doesn't agree that there is a difference then this criticism makes no sense.
that he exaggerated their aggression and downplayed their sexual tendencies by an unbalanced, rather than balanced, presentation of the available information.
He quotes from the very sources that, according to you, De Waal instances as the best authorities. He doesn't claim to have done any independent research (he's a reporter, not a scientist), so if De Waal thinks that any of the authorities Parker quotes are wrong his quarrel is with them. Given that De Waal thinks that these people are in fact the leading authorities in the field, however, I'm not sure what quarrel he could have with them. I suspect that it was the subsequent 'spin' put on Parker's piece by others that spurred de Waal to a response, rather than just the article itself. Although, it also may have been Parker's presentation of de Waal's position - it hardly seems like Parker could have been talking about the same person that wrote the Skeptic article.
Well, you're certainly making De Waal sound pretty self-contradictory and confused--but I haven't read this article (do you have a link to it?).

He didn't specifically mention the sugar cane, but rather discussed the picture painted from multiple types of information. Do you have references for the idea that providing an abundant food source changes behaviour to the extent you describe?
Please re-read my post. I didn't say that it does change behavior, I said that it could. We won't know if it changes their behavior until we know how they behave in the wild when they aren't being fed. I.e.--we need further research before we'll really know how Bonobos behave in the wild (Parker's entire point).

As for how feeding wild animals might change their behavior: by reducing competition for scarce resources it could significantly reduce intra-species aggression (thus distorting the record on one of the central questions under debate). Parker also points out that well-fed animals might engage in a much higher incidence of sexual contact than they would otherwise--again, one of the central questions under debate.

Now, obviously this might not be the case--but we won't know that until a more careful researcher (like Hohmann) finally publishes the complete results of his (or her) research, will we?

[fls]

He's a reporter, not a scientist.

I think the point is that his proposed shift in how the bonobo should be viewed was not based on new information (the usual reason for a change in opinion).

He's reporting on the "popular image" of the Bonobos and suggesting that the "scientific image" doesn't (yet) fully support it. If De Waal agrees that there is a difference between the "popular image" and the "scientific image" then he agrees with Parker's thesis. If he doesn't agree that there is a difference then this criticism makes no sense.

I don't think that there is disagreement on whether the popular image is supported by the science. I think you could say that on almost any topic the popular image is different from the scientific image. I think de Waal disagrees with what images are reasonably supported by the science (Parker seems to be suggesting that de Waal's image is not).

He quotes from the very sources that, according to you, De Waal instances as the best authorities. He doesn't claim to have done any independent research (he's a reporter, not a scientist), so if De Waal thinks that any of the authorities Parker quotes are wrong his quarrel is with them. Given that De Waal thinks that these people are in fact the leading authorities in the field, however, I'm not sure what quarrel he could have with them.

I don't think de Waal has an argument with other researchers (beyond the usual scientific discourse). It just doesn't seem that Parker has presented a balanced picture of what conclusions can be drawn from the research.

Well, you're certainly making De Waal sound pretty self-contradictory and confused--but I haven't read this article (do you have a link to it?).

I wasn't expecting to present de Waal's rebuttal, just let it be known there was one. Irrespective of my inadequacies, de Waal's message is well-presented, consistent, coherent, and reasonably nuanced. I looked for something online, but was unable to find anything beyond the table of contents page for the magazine. Doesn't everyone here subscribe to Skeptic. :)

Please re-read my post. I didn't say that it does change behavior, I said that it could. We won't know if it changes their behavior until we know how they behave in the wild when they aren't being fed. I.e.--we need further research before we'll really know how Bonobos behave in the wild (Parker's entire point).

As for how feeding wild animals might change their behavior: by reducing competition for scarce resources it could significantly reduce intra-species aggression (thus distorting the record on one of the central questions under debate). Parker also points out that well-fed animals might engage in a much higher incidence of sexual contact than they would otherwise--again, one of the central questions under debate.

Now, obviously this might not be the case--but we won't know that until a more careful researcher (like Hohmann) finally publishes the complete results of his (or her) research, will we?

As I said earlier, I trust someone with extensive experience and knowledge to more accurately characterize what we can reasonably say we know so far, than a relative newcomer without the relevant background. I'm not arguing that you should have the same perspective, just explaining mine.

Linda

[Yoink]

I think the point is that his proposed shift in how the bonobo should be viewed was not based on new information (the usual reason for a change in opinion).
Here is your fundamental error. he proposes no shift whatsoever. He says "here is the popular image" and "here are some authorities in the field who say that we don't yet know enough to say that the popular image is correct."

As I said earlier, I trust someone with extensive experience and knowledge to more accurately characterize what we can reasonably say we know so far, than a relative newcomer without the relevant background. I'm not arguing that you should have the same perspective, just explaining mine.

It seems to me to be self-evidently true that providing regular, abundant, and static food to an animal that normally forages for its food over a wide territory risks changing that animal's behavior significantly from its normal range. The mere say so of any "expert" that they thought it didn't would be meaningless without actual supporting evidence to back it up. The only meaningful evidence that could be produced would be a study of the animal in the wild. This is the kind of study that Hohmann is doing, and that Parker reported upon. Do you seriously question any part of that? If so, you might want to consider cancelling that subscription to Skeptic magazine:D.

[my_wan]

I've read some limited but specific descriptions that give me the impression they use sex to allay tensions and fears in others group members. It didn't occur to me to presume this meant peaceful under other social and environmental conditions. Just because I will bounce and play tickle games with a toddler or hold the door for someone doesn't mean I will not go off on someone sufficiently out of line. The only thing unique about Bonobos is the extended use of sexual behavior, not exclusive use. It seemed a reasonable hypothosis to me that Bonobos use sex much like we use humor.

[krabapple]

It seems clear too that the conservative right is trying hard to use the New Yorker article as a cudgel to bash their perennial bogeyman: the liberal left.

Really, maybe they should take a cue from the bonobos, and go get laid instead.

[fls]

Here is your fundamental error. he proposes no shift whatsoever. He says "here is the popular image" and "here are some authorities in the field who say that we don't yet know enough to say that the popular image is correct."

I meant to refer more to the discrepancy between what conclusions Parker thinks are supported by research and what conclusions de Waal thinks are supported by research. To quote de Waal, "At issue is what we know."

It seems to me to be self-evidently true that providing regular, abundant, and static food to an animal that normally forages for its food over a wide territory risks changing that animal's behavior significantly from its normal range. The mere say so of any "expert" that they thought it didn't would be meaningless without actual supporting evidence to back it up. The only meaningful evidence that could be produced would be a study of the animal in the wild. This is the kind of study that Hohmann is doing, and that Parker reported upon. Do you seriously question any part of that? If so, you might want to consider cancelling that subscription to Skeptic magazine:D.

I'm not asking you to believe something on someone's sayso without evidence. I'm just saying that while you may be comfortable buying into Parker's characterization of what evidence is present and what is missing, I'm not.

I have no idea whether that makes me a True Skeptic or not, but I'm sure they'll take my money anyway. :)

Linda

[Yoink]

It seems clear too that the conservative right is trying hard to use the New Yorker article as a cudgel to bash their perennial bogeyman: the liberal left.

Really, maybe they should take a cue from the bonobos, and go get laid instead.
As a card-carrying member of the liberal left, I'd really appreciate it if other members of the LL didn't give a perfectly formed cudgel to the "Conservative Right" by acting as if Bonobo behaviour is in *any* way relevant to human politics.

Seriously: if Bonobos in the wild turn out to be violent, agressive ******** does anybody think that this will in some way undermine their belief in gay rights or feminism? If not, why get so deeply invested in a romanticized anthropomorphization of one sub-group of our various primate relatives?

[Yoink]

I'm not asking you to believe something on someone's sayso without evidence. I'm just saying that while you may be comfortable buying into Parker's characterization of what evidence is present and what is missing, I'm not.
I'm pretty comfortable in taking it on trust that he didn't invent out of whole cloth the claim that Kano planted sugar cane to attract the Bonobos. It would be a major journalistic scandal if this were the case (and I'm sure De Waal would have mentioned it in your article).

That planting the sugar cane risks seriously altering the behavior of the Bonobo is simply a logically self-evident consequence; one I'm sure you are just as capable of realizing independently as I am. I'm not sure why you're clinging to the idea that it is some kind of weird esoteric point best left up to the "experts."

[fls]

I'm pretty comfortable in taking it on trust that he didn't invent out of whole cloth the claim that Kano planted sugar cane to attract the Bonobos. It would be a major journalistic scandal if this were the case (and I'm sure De Waal would have mentioned it in your article).

I'm not suggesting he invented that claim. I'm suggesting that the extent to which it invalidates the information and the extent to which we depend upon that information may have been exaggerated.

That planting the sugar cane risks seriously altering the behavior of the Bonobo is simply a logically self-evident consequence; one I'm sure you are just as capable of realizing independently as I am. I'm not sure why you're clinging to the idea that it is some kind of weird esoteric point best left up to the "experts."

I'm not. I'm suggesting that experts tend to have a clearer understanding of the range and variety of available information, how that information converges, threats to validity, etc.

Linda

[fls]

As a card-carrying member of the liberal left, I'd really appreciate it if other members of the LL didn't give a perfectly formed cudgel to the "Conservative Right" by acting as if Bonobo behaviour is in *any* way relevant to human politics.

Seriously: if Bonobos in the wild turn out to be violent, agressive ******** does anybody think that this will in some way undermine their belief in gay rights or feminism? If not, why get so deeply invested in a romanticized anthropomorphization of one sub-group of our various primate relatives?

I'll admit that I have little contact with the liberal left in the US, so I don't think I can answer your question (although the answer would be interesting to me as well). I did recently answer a phone survey where I stated I'd be interested in working for the Democratic Party, though, so presumably I'll get the opportunity to meet this strange animal that others keep referring to. :)

Linda

[Dogdoctor]

Even if it were true that we're more closely-related to Bonobos than we are to Common Chimps, would that really tell us anything about human nature? No. Since when have humans been inclined to settle disputes with sex rather than aggression?

For a while I did this with one particular girlfriend. (She did not resemble a bonobo or a chimp.) I believe it isn't that uncommon between human mates.

[Foster Zygote]

The danger of imposing our fashionable cultural ideals on animals in the wild is very real.
Dolphins were warm, gentle and cute till the males were caught indulging in "gang rape" (itself a ludicrous anthropomorphism). Bonobos seemed to take the top spot as "What Humans Ought to Be" for a little while. I've found myself wondering how long it would take for the "Sexy feminist ape" image to prove incomplete. Bonobos do as they must, just like the rest of us apes.

Let's hope they are still around long enough for us to learn what they are really like.

Adolescent male dolphins have also been discovered to engage in killing harbor porpoises, seemingly for sport. I realize the term "sport" could itself be taken as anthropomorphic, but the dolphins simply kill the porpoises, they do not seem to be preying on them as food.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Adolescent male dolphins have also been discovered to engage in killing harbor porpoises, seemingly for sport. I realize the term "sport" could itself be taken as anthropomorphic, but the dolphins simply kill the porpoises, they do not seem to be preying on them as food.

So they're killing without a porpoise?

(Sorry, couldn't resist:))

[krabapple]

As a card-carrying member of the liberal left, I'd really appreciate it if other members of the LL didn't give a perfectly formed cudgel to the "Conservative Right" by acting as if Bonobo behaviour is in *any* way relevant to human politics.

Seriously: if Bonobos in the wild turn out to be violent, agressive ******** does anybody think that this will in some way undermine their belief in gay rights or feminism? If not, why get so deeply invested in a romanticized anthropomorphization of one sub-group of our various primate relatives?

Because of the 'it ain't natural' tropes of the right, of course.

[krabapple]

Adolescent male dolphins have also been discovered to engage in killing harbor porpoises, seemingly for sport. I realize the term "sport" could itself be taken as anthropomorphic, but the dolphins simply kill the porpoises, they do not seem to be preying on them as food.

animals that seem to kill or hurt 'for fun'

shrikes (though actually it's just feeding behavior)

killer whales (I've seen a video where a pack of them are tossing around the dead..or soon to be dead...seal like it was a hackey sack)

cats (anyone who has a cat is likely to have seen it 'play' with live prey)