Some look at powerful evidence like this and feel that it somehow denigrates people. We are no longer unique! God’s own creation is no longer at the center of the universe.

I look at this and feel that it uplifts bonobos, at least in my mind. Not that they need my approval. And yet it makes sense to me too. They are primates, and social animals. They clearly have minds and function at a level higher than simple instinct.

Ich bin ein bonobo!

I admit, I wasn’t at all clear. It’s helpful to have that pointed out, so I can clarify.

Actually, I apologize. The misunderstanding is completely mine. As the post is about altruism, I misread your post to be snark, and implying a simplistic interpretation of “selfish,” which has happened a fair bit in connection with that book.

I literally had just had a conversation on Monday night with someone who told me that because we’re not all selfish, clearly that book was wrong. So I admit I read your post from a heavily biased POV. My bad.

I’m still not entirely sure I get your meaning, but I’m going to guess.

What I was commenting on was the section including “everyone from psychologists to economists claims that intentionally helping an unrelated individual at a cost to yourself is uniquely human. Despite Lassie, Flipper, and the other animal heroes, no one has solid evidence that any creature besides humans has altruistic tendencies, hence the word humanitarianism.”

However, my understanding of this question was formed by having read The Selfish Gene in which animal altruism was reportedly well known, widely observed, and considered a problem for Darwinian evolution (as it was then understood) to explain. The entire book is about explaining altruism in evolutionary terms, and showing that it is natural and logical, and therefore likely to be widespread.

My second paragraph linked to another list of examples of reported animal altruism.

So, far from everyone claiming that altruism is uniquely human, the consensus appears to be the opposite. Everyone acknowledges that altruism is, to varying degrees, quite common in the animal kingdom. And given the evolutionary arguments Dawkins sets out, it would be entirely remarkable and a bit suspicious if it really did only apply to humans.

But I was trying to avoid conflict here, and given that I wouldn’t claim to be any sort of an expert on primate psychology, I was leaving the question as open-ended as I could. But I did assume that any biologist would be well aware that The Selfish Gene was a book all about animal altruism, and would understand the point.

However, I see now that it wasn’t clear, and could perhaps be misunderstood as a suggestion that Bonobo’s were not being genuinely altruistic, but selfish. That still doesn’t quite fit, but it’s my best guess.

Does that help at all?

Sorry. Not sure what happened there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

And read the first section: “Selfish” Gene.

It looked to me as if you might be misconstruing the intended meaning.

Yes, that’s the book.

The link didn’t work, so I’m not sure what point you wanted to make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#.22Selfish.22_genes

Just sayin’

I wonder what kind traits you could get if there was cross breading between Bonobos and Chimpanzees. Would you get more male aggression, less female grouping or would more of the Bonobo traits become dominate?