Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Interesting stuff on this tweet thread, so I thought I'd share.
Man is just another animal (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Captain Dart
- Start date
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
was thinking along these lines the other day.
When you see packs/herds etc of animals attacking packs of the same species and then thinking about how humans seem to be in a perpetual state of war,
When you see packs/herds etc of animals attacking packs of the same species and then thinking about how humans seem to be in a perpetual state of war,
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but chimps aren't forced to watch Strictly Come Dancing or get told off for not putting the bathroom towel straight.
That's one stat I would like to see right there. How many men have killed their wife due to them nagging about keeping the bathroom towel straight and other minimal misdemeanors?
That's one stat I would like to see right there. How many men have killed their wife due to them nagging about keeping the bathroom towel straight and other minimal misdemeanors?
Gazolba
Well-Known Member
It's due to male hormones. Women have a lot less of them than men do.
It's the natural state of men to be agqressive and women to be passive.
Acting differently requires a conscious effort.
That's partly what it means to be civilised, but our natural tendencies are always simmering underneath.
That's the way I see it anyway.
It's the natural state of men to be agqressive and women to be passive.
Acting differently requires a conscious effort.
That's partly what it means to be civilised, but our natural tendencies are always simmering underneath.
That's the way I see it anyway.
Last edited:
How many chimps have killed their partner for nagging about why they haven't brought them bananas or fruits? I bet they have the same problems as we do in their world.
Gazolba
Well-Known Member
Most animals fight for dominance, usually the right to mate with females.
Animals will even kill (or eat) the progeny of rival males.
We humans are similar, but we usually don't go that far.
I've never understood how this fits into Darwin's theory.
Does dominance over rival males really lead to superior offspring?
Over a very long period of time it obviously does. We don't necessarily have to kill our rivals, just be better than them in order to mate - more attractive. In our society being able to support yourself and having enough to support a family plays a role in being atttractive to females. Having money helps and replaces having to use physical stength in some cases. Having a job, house etc. helps making you more attractive, as does having strength, but it is not everything of course. Just got to have something going for you....
tommydazzle
Well-Known Member
It's classic Darwinism. It simply means access to more females and therefore more offspring and therefore more genes in the next generation. It makes sense to kill off the unrelated progeny in order to reset the female's fertility and of course, destroy rival genes. This in turn means larger more successful males will tend to have similar male offspring and perpetuate female offspring impressed by this sort of thing!
This is nature red in tooth and claw but it's a consequence of genetic competition and the animals are 'unaware' of its cruelty. Humans on the other hand are very aware but are the only species that delight in deliberate torture of their own and other species.
