logo
These Apes Are Matriarchal, but It Doesn't Mean They're Peaceful

These Apes Are Matriarchal, but It Doesn't Mean They're Peaceful

New York Times24-04-2025

Male domination is the natural order of things, some people say. But bonobos, primates with whom we share nearly 99 percent of our DNA, beg to differ.
Bonobos are great apes that live in female-dominated societies, a relative rarity among mammals, especially in species where males are the larger sex. While females are smaller than their male counterparts, they reign supreme in bonobo societies.
Scientists have long wondered how female bonobos maintain their matriarchies. In a study, published Thursday in the journal Communications Biology, researchers who tracked six bonobo communities in the Democratic Republic of Congo over nearly 30 years provided the first evidence-based explanation for how female bonobos gain and sustain dominance over the males within their communities. Females, they found, form coalitions against males to tip the balance of power in their favor.
When a male bonobo steps out of line, nearby females will band together to attack or intimidate him. Males who cower in the face of such conflicts lose social rank, while their female adversaries gain it, affording them better access to food, and mates for their sons.
Bonobos and chimpanzees are our closest living relatives. They were once thought to be a slightly smaller and darker-skinned subspecies of chimpanzee, but scientists determined nearly a century ago that they are separate species. These endangered apes, found only in the Democratic Republic of Congo, are difficult to study in the wild.
To conduct this study, Martin Surbeck, a behavioral ecologist at Harvard University, and other scientists spent thousands of hours trudging through dense jungles.
'You get up around three o'clock in the morning, then walk for an hour or two to find the site where they built their nests the previous night,' Dr. Surbeck said. 'And then you follow the group for the whole day till they make their nests again.'
It's known among primatologists that bonobos make a lot of love in addition to war. They carry out rather heavy petting, make sex toys and engage in homosexual intercourse. With their sexual activity and lower levels of violence compared with chimpanzees, the idea that bonobos are the hippies of the ape world is pervasive.
However, observations by Dr. Surbeck and his team, and those of other researchers, challenge the harmonious stereotyping of these primates. 'Bonobos are not as peaceful as people might think,' said Maud Mouginot, an anthropologist at Boston University who was not involved in the current study.
That includes conflict between the sexes. From 1993 to 2021, the researchers observed 1,786 instances of a male starting beef with a female. Examples included acting aggressively toward a female or her infant, or monopolizing food. In roughly 61 percent of these fights, the female teamed up with other females and emerged victorious.
Such conflicts 'can be very severe,' Dr. Surbeck said. 'On a few occasions, we suspect that the male died as a result of the attack.'
Males have been known to lose fingers and toes in such conflicts. In one unfortunate incident, a male bonobo in the Stuttgart Zoo in Germany had his penis bit in half during a battle with two females. A surgeon was able to sew it back together.
Drawing on all the data they gathered, Dr. Surbeck and his team tested several hypotheses for how females maintain power in bonobo society. After crunching the numbers, the only one the team found evidence to support was one researchers call the 'female coalition hypothesis,' which suggests that females work together to overpower males during conflicts, resulting in higher social ranks for the winning females. The average female bonobo, the researchers found, outranks approximately 70 percent of the males in her community.
Dr. Mouginot said what Dr. Surbeck and his colleagues found affirms what scientists like her have suspected for decades about the source of female power in bonobo society.
'For people who've been in the field with bonobos, it's not that surprising — but it's really nice to have actual quantitative data from different bonobos communities,' she said.
Scientists are just beginning to scratch the surface when it comes to what lessons may be drawn from bonobos, Dr. Surbeck said, so protecting them is important.
'Bonobos are an endangered species,' he said. 'As our closest living relative, they help us look into our past. If we lose them, we lose a mirror for humanity. '
But for him, the study also supports the idea that male dominance is not a biological inevitability.
'While some people might think that patriarchy and male dominance are somehow an evolutionary trait in our species, that's really not the case,' Dr. Surbeck said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Science Badly Needs Defending Right Now. It Doesn't Need Your Belief.
Science Badly Needs Defending Right Now. It Doesn't Need Your Belief.

Yahoo

time13 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Science Badly Needs Defending Right Now. It Doesn't Need Your Belief.

American science appears to be in free fall. Donald Trump is eviscerating research funding, persecuting the universities on whose contributions countless scientific fields depend, and vastly complicating immigration for foreign scholars, even going so far as to 'aggressively revoke' the visas of Chinese students. His administration has threatened to withdraw Columbia University's accreditation and moved to ban Harvard University from enrolling international students. If the United States was once among the best places on earth to do scientific research—home to some of the strongest universities, robust government investment, a spirit of innovation, and an openness to collaboration—scientists are now fleeing our shores in droves for China, Germany, or just about anywhere else. Many who had dreamed of spending at least part of their careers here are choosing not to come. The institutions—from universities to the relevant government agencies—are in disarray. It may take decades for them to recover. Some of this was predictable. Trump has made no secret of his hatred of immigrants, and certain areas of research—from climate change to racial disparities in health care to vaccines—have been stigmatized as 'woke' in MAGA quarters. But it's stunning that priorities like diabetes and pediatric cancer—hardly culture-war land mines—have been equally crushed by Republicans' cost-cutting rampage. How did we get here? 'Trump' is the correct one-word answer, but it's also true that over the last decade and a half, liberal exhortations to 'believe in science' have not helped. The implication is that if you don't believe in it, you're stupid. Trust the experts. Trust Harvard. It should surprise no one that this was not a winning line of 2016, Hillary Clinton declared, 'I believe in science,' when she accepted the nomination at the Democratic National Convention. Of course—ominous narrator voice—we all know the outcome of that election. Nevertheless, the slogan caught fire among liberals, and there quickly followed the 2017 and 2018 Marches for Science, inspired by Trump's attacks on climate policy and climate research. The rallies were well attended and well intended, but, as some scientists feared, to many they came across as 'another attack from a condescending elite' and 'a justification for the idea that science is somehow biased.' But the worst was yet to come. During the pandemic, as many Americans, some conservative, some just politically adrift, grew increasingly and often dangerously suspicious of public health recommendations like vaccination, the liberal shrillness on behalf of science reached unprecedented decibels. Reviving Clinton's smug proclamation of 2016, the even more grating 'We believe in science' often appeared on a sign preceded by the scolding reproach 'In this house.' To this day, you can buy pins, T-shirts, mugs, and keychains asserting the belief. And even more cringe variants exist: for example, a T-shirt that says, 'The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.' More an attitude than an argument, this 'belief in science' claim was snide. It suggested that those on the other side believed in what, witchcraft? Worse, the 'belief' was nearly as impervious to empiricism as its opposition. Few of its loudest adherents would acknowledge nuance or apologize for error, even as it turned out that the disbelieving dummies had at times been correct on some pandemic matters: It was probably never necessary to wear a mask outdoors, schools probably were closed for too long, Covid vaccines may indeed pose some heart risks to young men. These polarized discussions fueled the manifestly unfortunate rise of RFK Jr. and spawned the Make America Healthy Again movement, which has attracted yoga moms and fitness bros alike. Like those who dissented from liberal nostrums during the pandemic, MAHA has been right about some things (microplastics are terrible, our children's mental health is in peril, fluoride in our drinking water has risks as well as benefits) and horribly wrong about others (not vaccinating kids, deliberately allowing bird flu to spread). But the worst thing about 'I believe in science' is its cocky assumption that 'science' can be detached from opinions, interpretations, and, especially, values and politics. That attitude has helped fuel a culture war and left the majority struggling to defend science from the current crew of right-wing wreckers in the White House, who may be wrong about most things but understand that science takes place in an ideological rather than a theological attack on scientists and their institutions is philosophically consistent with his other positions. MAGA hates public goods and collective obligations, as well as foreigners and international cooperation. Without public goods and internationalism, 'science' becomes impossible. The values that MAGA objects to—the grounds on which science is under attack—are precisely the values we must defend. Science requires public money to succeed at scale and is undertaken primarily for the public good. Sure, private companies also do scientific research, but not at the scale that the federal government funds it, and if a private company does something important for society—as Moderna did when it developed Covid vaccines—it's federal government subsidies that make it possible. This system assumes rightly that science benefits all of us. Anyone could need a cure for cancer someday, desire to live in a thriving natural environment, or feel curious about what's going on in outer space. That sense of the public interest is anathema to this White House, which sees little value in the public sector. Trump's worldview is like Margaret Thatcher's—the U.K. prime minister famously said, 'There is no such thing as society'—but his individualism is more extreme because there is no subject more interesting to him, no interest group more pressing, than himself. What good is science to Trump personally? The right also hates science because it requires cooperation across borders. To most effectively advance knowledge and research, individuals from different countries must put their heads together, co-author studies, accept each other's postdoctoral students, visit, immigrate, speak. This sort of exchange makes no sense to MAGA. The assumption of the Trump White House is that people from other countries have nothing to offer us and are, in fact, dangerous to our national security. There's a third, more complicated ideological pillar to Trump's attack on science, and this is anti-elitism. Some science—though hardly the majority—takes place at Ivy League institutions like Harvard. This White House hates such places, not, as it claims, because of 'antisemitism'—MAGA doesn't mind antisemitism and bigotry in other contexts—but because the anti-elitism of attacking the Ivy League always plays well. Selective admissions breed resentment, since most people can't get in. Worse, the Ivies are overwhelmingly dominated by the rich, as extensive studies by The New York Times, Thomas Piketty, and others have found. While the research done by Ivy League scholars is a critical public good, it is also a scandal that institutions more exclusive than most country clubs are allowed to enjoy tax-exempt status and government funding. Those of us to the left of Trump need to welcome a more honest conversation about these institutions. Should they even enjoy nonprofit status? To keep their public funding and tax exemptions, should they have to do more public service? Serve more low-income students, turn their real estate holdings into affordable housing, institute open admissions? Or should they simply be nationalized and run as public institutions? But as usual, the Ivy League is a distraction. Most universities aren't highly selective, many are already public, and most bring substantial economic benefits to their communities. Scientific research is essential to the prosperity of many American cities and towns, where the university is the main employer. College-centered towns are some of the fastest-growing in the United States, and in many places higher education has replaced manufacturing as the industry that brings jobs, money, and vitality. You might say that before this year, science was making America great again. Trump's necrotic attack on all human inquiry imperils all that. What is needed in defense of science is not patronizing assertions of belief but, instead, clear arguments about why we need it. It's odd that the economic rationale is getting short shrift when so many communities depend on STEM and universities. We must also acknowledge that some of the reasons the right hates science are exactly the reasons to defend it. People who don't believe in public goods will not believe in science, but everyone else should. Science saves lives by advancing medicine; millions of Americans know someone whose life or health has been saved by an advance in medical research funded by the federal government. The internationalism of science should also be defended: Bringing the best minds together from around the world is not only crucial for science, it functions as citizen diplomacy, fostering the international understanding and cooperation that is much needed in a world of strife. Harvard University has a P.R. campaign, in defense of itself, making some of these arguments, especially for medical science, but I'm not sure it helps to hear these claims from institutions with so much elitist baggage. Better to hear from Penn State, or the United Auto Workers—full disclosure: my union—which represents not only autoworkers but thousands of scientists, and has been rallying in defense of scientists and science as a good benefiting—and belonging to—the working class. When we fight for science, it's worth going back to the foundations of the value system we are defending. Next month will be the eightieth anniversary of 'Science: The Endless Frontier,' a report made to Franklin Delano Roosevelt by his director for scientific research and development, Vannevar Bush, outlining the critical role that the government should have in the scientific project, and why. In asking for the 1945 report, FDR wrote: 'New frontiers of the mind are before us, and if they are pioneered with the same vision, boldness and drive with which we have waged this war we can create a fuller and more fruitful employment and a fuller and more fruitful life.' That's the kind of energy we need right now.

Good carbs and weight loss in mid-life help when old, doctors say
Good carbs and weight loss in mid-life help when old, doctors say

Yahoo

time4 days ago

  • Yahoo

Good carbs and weight loss in mid-life help when old, doctors say

Curbing or preventing middle-aged spread could be key to avoiding serious medical problems in later life, with the type and quality of carbohydrates consumed during a person's 40s and 50s likely key to healthy ageing. "Sustained weight loss from overweight to healthy weight in mid-life was associated with decreased risk of chronic diseases, including and excluding type 2 diabetes," according to a team of doctors and scientists at the University of Helsinki, University of Turku and University College London. Achieving this weight loss "without surgical or pharmacological interventions" means "long-term health benefits beyond its associations with decreased diabetes risk," said the researchers, whose research covering around 23,100 people was published by the American Medical Association (AMA). The AMA also recently published a study of around 47,000 women done by a team from Tufts University and Harvard University in which the researchers say fibre and carbohydrates are "favorably linked to healthy ageing and other positive health outcomes in older women." "Intakes of total carbohydrates, high-quality carbohydrates from whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and legumes, and total dietary fiber in midlife were linked to 6 to 37% greater likelihood of healthy aging and several areas of positive mental and physical health," they reported. At the same time, intakes of refined carbohydrates from added sugars, refined grain and starchy vegetables are "associated with 13% lower odds of healthy ageing." 'We've all heard that different carbohydrates can affect health differently, whether for weight, energy, or blood sugar levels. But rather than just look at the immediate effects of these macronutrients, we wanted to understand what they might mean for good health 30 years later," said Tufts' Andres Ardisson Korat. "Our results are consistent with other evidence linking consumption of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and legumes with lower risks of chronic diseases, and now we see the association with physical and cognitive function outcomes," said Qi Sun of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Scientists uncover exciting new method to remove dangerous chemicals from the body: 'Feasible, accessible and economical'
Scientists uncover exciting new method to remove dangerous chemicals from the body: 'Feasible, accessible and economical'

Yahoo

time5 days ago

  • Yahoo

Scientists uncover exciting new method to remove dangerous chemicals from the body: 'Feasible, accessible and economical'

In a hopeful breakthrough for public health, researchers found that dietary fiber may help reduce PFAS — toxic "forever chemicals" — from the human body. As reported by The Guardian, the pilot study showed that increased fiber intake can lower levels of two of the most widespread and harmful PFAS: PFOA and PFOS. These pollutants are commonly found in water, food packaging, and household products, and they have been linked to serious health issues, including cancer, birth defects, and kidney disease. PFAS, short for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are called forever chemicals because they don't naturally break down and can remain in the body for decades. The study's authors believe dietary fiber forms a gel in the digestive system that blocks PFAS from being absorbed, allowing them to exit when you go to the bathroom — similar to how fiber helps remove bile acids. Importantly, the study found that both soluble and insoluble fibers were needed, and oat beta-glucan, a common supplement, was mentioned as a helpful source. Timing is also important, as fiber works best when taken with meals, when bile production is highest. While fiber didn't work as well for "short-chain" PFAS (which are excreted more easily through urine), it was highly effective at reducing levels of long-chain types such as PFOA and PFOS — the types most commonly found in people's blood. This method also appears to be a gentler alternative to treatments such as cholestyramine, a cholesterol drug sometimes used to treat PFAS exposure but known to cause uncomfortable digestive issues. By contrast, fiber has a wide range of health benefits and is easy to integrate into your daily routine. This promising discovery joins other innovative solutions such as an LED method used to break down PFAS and ultraviolet purification used to break down PFAS in water. "The key is that this is feasible, accessible and economical," said Boston University's Jennifer Schlezinger, a co-author of the study. She added that early results are "very promising," and a larger study is underway. People online were impressed with the findings. "Wild how something as simple as fiber could help flush out toxic forever chemicals," one person said on Instagram. "The link between fiber intake and reducing 'forever chemicals' is such an important topic. More research like this could shape our understanding of diet and health. Thanks for sharing!" added another. Do you worry about having toxic forever chemicals in your home? Majorly Sometimes Not really I don't know enough about them Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for easy tips to save more and waste less, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store