[enragedcacti]

> Our second closest relative is (afaik, or close enough) Bonobos

They are equally close (tree-wise, percent-wise idk), and they exhibit a radically different and mostly nonviolent matriarchal social hierarchy. Not sure what the takeaway from that should be other than that maybe there shouldn't be a takeaway if our two closest relatives (and each others closest relatives) behave so differently from one another.

[justonenote]

To me it's pretty obvious that we are somewhere in-between the two in temperament, but probably tending quite a bit more toward the chimps. I don't have a peer-reviewed study or empirical proof etc but some things are just staring you in the face. (see: all of history, boxing and MMA and other less violent but still highly competitive sports being popular worldwide)

I mean the interesting question is whether it is necessary, if we were maximally Bonobo would we have built the civilizations and technology we have? Possibly, but it's not beyond the realms of thought that the drive to amass power, to be the alpha or top dog, has driven action and risk taking, low probability paths to outsized gains.

There is a second question about whether we should be more Bonobo like now, but we are what we are and there is 7 billion people on the planet.