Awesome. Chimpanzees are our closest living relative, in fact, it is closer to us than it is to the Gorilla.


And it is NOT a Monkey, it is a Great Ape.

THANK YOU!
http://www.videosift.com/video/Why-Dogs-Smile-and-Chimpanzees-Cry

Since you own the nature channel I thought you might be interested in this.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Why-Dogs-Smile-and-Chimpanzees-Cry
It's quite long (about an hour) and this is only part 1, but if you find yourself with some time to kill you may enjoy it.
I'll get part 2 up as soon as I have some room in my queue.

Love the persistence. Thanks. What's wrong with these people?!

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
fuck this...we're doing it again *promote

Tags for this video have been changed from 'evolution, biology, species development' to 'evolution, biology, species development, bonobo, chimpanzee' - edited by jonny

>> ^imstellar28:
1. If you look at the definition of "social" how could social interaction be possible if both parties aren't alive?

As I wrote, that discussion is way beyond the scope of this post. It depends on what you mean by "social interaction". A chess match between Deep Blue and Kasparov comes to mind as a possible counter-example. I'll accept your asseration, though, but want to point out that you are (unnecessarily?) including all living things, not just humans. And I think it confounds other assertions, like the right to property and self-determination. If the point here is to discuss human interaction, then you really don't need to mention "living things" and a definition of social interaction.


2. I am talking in a social context, as I stated several times. Rights mean nothing outside of a social context.

That depends on who you're talking to. I personally don't believe in absolute morality, but some people do. And in their world view, rights do exist outside of human definition.


I am not talking about what is physically possible, I am talking about what is morally possible. You cannot morally (i.e. without violating another's rights) consume food that you do not own.

That assumes ownership of everything. If I walk in a forest, and eat some berries that belong to no one, whose rights have violated?

Also, the very notion of ownership implies the right to own property, which you state is a corollary of the right to life. It cannot simultaneously be a necessary condition and a consequence of the right to life. Which is it?

And this also gets back to the problem of talking about generic social interactions between living things. Clearly a chimpanzee is a member of a social group and has social interactions with others in its own group and members of other groups. But chimpanzees require no concept of ownership to survive, i.e., to exercise their right to life.


3. Self-determination, as defined in wikipedia, is the "as free choice of one’s own acts without external compulsion" which is essentially the same thing as the right to life. Thus, it cannot be a condition for the right to life as they are one in the same. If you think a person forced into slavery has the right to life, you have misunderstood my post.

Apparently so. But you define the right to life in the third paragraph of your post:

This right, the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action, exists only for individuals in a social context--and is what I term "the right to life."

It mentions nothing about self-determination, but then you later state,

for every individual, "the right to life" specifies the freedom to think and act, to pursue one's own ends through voluntary, uncoerced action.

So, you've noted that self-determination is a necessary condition for the right to life (as opposed to part of its definition) without giving any reason. Anyone (or thing) can be coerced into all sorts of actions by others in its social group without impairing its ability to sustain its life.


4. Imagine 5 people are stranded in the desert and steve is the only one who brought water. He has one gallon. Yes, people are compelled to trade with him-but how does that make it involuntary? Steve isn't using physical force, compulsion, or coercion to make them trade with him. You are confusing what compelling means.

He's not using coercion? Are you serious? Trade me your big sun hat for some water, or you're going to die! That's not coercion?? The threat of dying is usually pretty compelling for me. That steve will not be the direct agent of my death is irrelevant - I'm still going to die if I don't give him my hat for some water.

who says humans are the only animals to use tools?

p.s. I think its a chimpanzee; legs are a bit short for it to be a bonobo, otherwise I would have thought it was a bonobo, as they are ridiculously sexual (by our standards).

pretty sure it's a chimpanzee, not a gorilla, but in any case, it's a dupe:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Never-Litter-in-Front-of-a-Monkey

*discard

yes, a dangerous comment to make, especially since i am not able to describe elegantly what i am trying to say in english.
i dont mean animals that eat each other.
look at a flock of hens, even free roaming hens on an ecological farm. look what they for example do to the hen at the bottom of the rank. thats torture.
swans fighting, the winning swan will torture the other one for hours.
horses keeping order of their rank... etc.
the language animals use to talk to each other consists of lots of violence.
i also recently saw a documentary on chimpanzees, one flock fought off some other flock, and then they kept a few young males and practically did some medieval torture on them.. i can find a link.

"Eighteen minutes after launching, the space capsule with ham inside, is bobbing in the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, 420 miles from Cape Canaveral.....although the chimpanzee's actual space flight lasted only eighteen minutes, the capsule overshot its mark, and thus delayed the recovery, and so it is 3 hours before the the chamber, newly spackled with ham's enthusiasm, is gently lowered onto the deck, of the landing ship.."

Congratulations, you beautiful Canadian primate. If I were a gay chimpanzee I'd totally be digging your scene. It's the shades, baby.

Seriously, thanks for bringing a lot of quality here, and not just videos. You've given us a number of great Sift Talk posts and comments, so that all adds up to be being a quality member. Good job, mon ami singe canadien.

both of you, Residue and Crosswords, chimpanzees are apes not monkeys.

Listen arsenault185> We didnt just evolve along with apes and primates. We ARE apes and primates.

Chimpanzees and Gorillas share ancestors, they are two different apes. Humans and Chimps share ancestors, we are two different kinds of ape. We have a very good understanding of this, and the "missing link" myth is a leftover from Darwins days, since then, we have not only found hundreds of "missing links" between ourselves and our ancestors, but we have done something much better: we have discovered, and even mapped, our DNA. Genetics doesnt just prove beyond any doubt that we are related to other apes, it shows exactly HOW we are related to them, we know that chimpanzees are our closest living non-human relative, and our common ancestor lived 6 million years ago, our shared ancestor with gorillas lived 7 million years ago, then Orangutangs at 14 Million years ago...

We separated from..
Gibbons 18 million years ago
old world monkeys>25 million years ago
new world monkeys, 40 million years ago
Tarsiers, 58 million years ago
Lemurs 63 million years ago

Lemurs are our most distant primate relative, but it doesnt stop there..

180 million years ago we share ancestors with every living mammal, 680 million years ago, we separated from jellyfish.., and finally 3.5 billion years ago, our common ancestor with ALL LIVING THINGS lived. we know this because every living animal, insect, fish and plant share the same traces of DNA. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.

"Humans did not evolve from apes; humans and apes evolved from the same ancestor which was some third thing."

Actually people did evolve from apes, just not the apes as we know them today. Meaning we did not come from chimpanzees, gorilla or orangutan. People are still considered apes, as are all members of the Hominoidea family. The ancestors of the homo genus (animals that are considered human) developed from apes (are/were apes). Somewhere way back there, there was some proto-ape from which all apes evolved. Human like things came much much later.

Other than that I agree and understand what you were trying to say, I just felt the need to inform on what I thought might be a misunderstanding.

I don't know why people must correct people with the wrong info. But I registered just to point out:


Pankun, (sometimes spelled pan-kun) is a young chimpanzee in Japan often featured on the NTV television show "Tensai! Shimura Doubutsu-en" ("天才！志村動物園", lit. "Genius! Shimura Zoo")

Per Pankun Wikipedia Page