Unfortunately our closest living relative on planet earth is the chimpanzee. We share a common ancestry with them, and as we now know chimps are very territorial, aggressive and establish a hierarchy which they can fight for tooth and nail. They can be particularly aggressive to other groups. Genetically we are more closely, not by much, to the bonobos who love to kiss, but as life would have it we share a common ancestor with the chimps.
Yes we share an evolutionary heritage, but modern science has shown robustly that genes do not determine behaviour as such. Genetic determinism remains well-established in the public mind, because it is the most established hard-right propaganda that serves to maintain the toxic status quo that Caitlin challenges.
You’re repeating yourself. Genetic influence, not determinism is what people believe, at least at an individual level, except for those who are childless or have not studied it. On a population level however “determinism” seems more apt. But separation from the influence of environment, is usually impossible. Rare experiments of nature cf. MZ twins separated at birth serve to distinguish to a degree. See gene-environment interaction and epigenetics.
Unfortunately our closest living relative on planet earth is the chimpanzee. We share a common ancestry with them, and as we now know chimps are very territorial, aggressive and establish a hierarchy which they can fight for tooth and nail. They can be particularly aggressive to other groups. Genetically we are more closely, not by much, to the bonobos who love to kiss, but as life would have it we share a common ancestor with the chimps.
Yes we share an evolutionary heritage, but modern science has shown robustly that genes do not determine behaviour as such. Genetic determinism remains well-established in the public mind, because it is the most established hard-right propaganda that serves to maintain the toxic status quo that Caitlin challenges.
You’re repeating yourself. Genetic influence, not determinism is what people believe, at least at an individual level, except for those who are childless or have not studied it. On a population level however “determinism” seems more apt. But separation from the influence of environment, is usually impossible. Rare experiments of nature cf. MZ twins separated at birth serve to distinguish to a degree. See gene-environment interaction and epigenetics.
Yes, precisely. Well said.
The bonobos also like to smear feces and reingest it.
Perhaps trapped in a zoo or some other unnatural environment animals will eat things they normally wouldn't in their natural environment.
True enough.