|
Grace Dickinson | May 17th 2010
When Sebastian asked me to write a small piece on conflict resolution in the animal kingdom my first thought was, blimey, that’s going to be a tough one, since there is no conflict resolution in nature, it’s all about conflict prevention. Animals understand that conflict can result in physical injury and physical injury can quickly lead to death via infections or inability to find food or fend for themselves.
Animals know that prevention is better than cure. Red deer stags for example, when fighting for mating rights over a harem of females, only lock antlers and wrestle as a very last resort (the losing animal frequently succumbs to death from exhaustion and or injury)- instead roaring competitions between rivals take place to determine who is the strongest competitor. If the animals are equally matched, then a slow motion waltz occurs, the stags pacing along side each other to gauge the opponents’ size and strength. Ring tailed lemurs have formidable canine teeth but work out their differences with stink fights, dousing their tails with scent from glands in their wrists, and perform tree top tail swinging displays used to waft chemical messages in the direction of their opponent to assert dominance or defend territory.
Gorillas show sexual dimorphism [the sexes are visually distinguishable]- like the red deer, males rely on physical size and strength to keep rival males at bay, win rights over females and thus assure paternity of their offspring, whereas chimpanzees compete in a less obvious way. There is no sexual dimorphism seen in chimps, males and females are similar in body size, and their mating habits are promiscuous. Thus the males attempt to ensure paternity certainty via sperm competition, mating with as many females as often as possible to flood out their rivals attempts.
Conflict prevention isn’t always behavioural however, just look at Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos islands, evolving through natural selection, different shaped beaks designed to specialise in different food stuffs, reducing competition for food and allowing more species to flourish.
Why is there conflict? Anyone who is familiar with Darwin or Dawkins work will understand that it all comes down to sex, procreation, furthering your genetics. What about conflict for food? You need plenty of food to be healthy and strong enough to compete for females, beat disease, escape predators, raise healthy young, and thereby pass on your genes. So what about people? Surely, as “higher organisms” we are above the urges in our nether regions? Apparently not. We all know that women are typically attracted to men who are tall, attractive, fit, and financially endowed. These are things that show they are physically healthy (good genetics) and will also be good providers (to help raise young). This is why men may want to drive flashy cars or wear expensive suits. Most rock stars are male. It’s about attracting females. Just look at the bird world, it’s the males who sing and are brightly coloured. So what about war? Chiefs, presidents, or leaders seeking to take control of other tribes, races, nations, countries! Refer back to our red deer stags, and gorillas. It’s all an exaggerated form of our primeval way of life, an ode to the wild instincts that still course through our veins, that culture or democracy attempt to tame and govern how we should behave. Perhaps in a way, ‘civilisation’ as we know it is a rational attempt at conflict prevention. However it seems that only the animal kingdom is wise enough to specialise in preventing conflict at all costs, rather than struggling to resolve wars and discrepancies that have gone too far. The obvious question that follows is just how different are we from our animal cousins and just how highly have we evolved above the ‘lower’ life forms? I highly recommend ‘Human evolution and behaviour’ by John Cartwright and ‘The red queen’ by Matt Ridley. Very interesting and thought provoking reading!
You may also like:
|
Forum
Comments