Most other animal species, though they consistently participate in violent behavior (such as competition, defense, or hunting) tend to be predictable in their violent tendencies. Animals that do not feel competition or the need to defend will often (though warily) exist within the same area without going out of their way to bother each other. For example, birds of various species will frequently hang out in the same area (such as a pond or wetland) with only occasional tensions fueling.
However, it seems primates (of all kinds) tend to be more erratic, hostile, and willing to go out of their way to pick a fight. In areas with monkeys, for example, monkeys are some of the scariest animals to come in contact with due to their aggression. Humans are similarly naturally inclined to impulsive and aggressive behavior and will often take over large spaces and eliminate other animals, even ones that we are not in competition with. Though this practically makes sense (such as protecting crops/homes or preventing diseases), the scale of the destruction is immense.
If another type of animal were to have human-level intellect, would they still be as erratic and destructive? For example, if an egret wee able to learn as well as humans, would they be even more destructive and look for ways to wipe out all the other shorebirds that cohabit the same area to maximize their food production? Would shy animals like a duiker, even if they were gifted with our intellect, still tend to stay away from other animals and keep to themselves?
This is a very hypothetical situation but I imagine that of all the species to be gifted with our intellectual prowess, primates were a worse option due to their inclination towards greed and impulse.
Submitted August 06, 2023 at 02:17AM by Sharpes_Sword https://ift.tt/c8g3uFb