Culture is not unique to humans, even though they use this notion to mark themselves out as superior to us, their ape cousins. Culture is the stamp of humanity, they proclaim, animals do not possess it – they have the unfortunate habit of forgetting that they too are animals – and there is no tribe or nation state that does not claim to have one of its own. And yet it seems to me that humans have used culture, rather erroneously, to distance themselves from their biological roots, origins which are undeniable, despite the powers of delusion they possess, not least because there is evidence of distinct cultures within primate communities: chimpanzees in the Gombe use different tools to fish termites from those used by their contemporaries in other parts of the Congo; and then there are the Bili apes of the magic forest, chimpanzees with a taste for big cat flesh rather than mere termites. Though these cultural differences are slight compared with advanced human cultures, they represent differences nevertheless.
It is funny, but humans are sure that, unlike gorillas, they are not biologically and genetically predisposed to behave in the same mindless way day after day – even though my current actions are mindful rather than mindless – and yet it would seem that this is precisely how they do behave most of the time. I am sure that many humans judge gorillas’ lives to be exceedingly dull. I mean, what do we do all day other than munch on bland vegetation, meticulously groom one another, snooze in the warm equatorial sun, and mosey slowly, and perhaps rather aimlessly, from one patch of forest to another. Yet could this not be seen as an apt metaphor for their life – the life of a modern human. Humans have far less control, far less independence of thought than they think they do. Life leads them, even though they do their damnedest to lead it.
It is true that humans have shown throughout their existence that they can overcome their genes: they can commit to celibacy, which is contrary to their biological drive to reproduce; they can commit suicide at the request of religion, or fight in a war on behalf of their country, contrary to their powerful instinct for survival; and they possess high culture, something which we gorillas do not – literature and art are unique to humans, though this is, of course, only because they possess language. And yet gorillas are also capable of great self-sacrifice: a silverback will give his own life in defence of his family.
But it is humans’ powerful need to rise above their ancestors – they possess an almost desperate competitiveness – which gives them a generic chauvinism and arrogance that is hardly appealing. This thought makes me feel threatened, and at this moment I retract my lips and expose my teeth and gums.
Though Homo sapiens and Gorilla beringei share the same biological and psychological processes – both species are inventive and intelligent, both crave bonding and intimacy, the differences between the two are in degree, not kind – it is the former that constantly needs to assert itself on the world and other species.
It saddens me, why humans have such an insatiable appetite for hunting. I know why, of course I do – they are highly predatory, the dominant species. And yet the brutality with which they kill almost belies their intelligence. A human has a large neocortex like a gorilla does, and an even larger frontal lobe. In fact, the human brain is double the size of a gorilla’s of equivalent body size. And so they judge us to be unintelligent: we might be capable of some rational thought, but this ability is very limited when compared to theirs, they conclude. Humans have a standard of intelligence, and seek to apply this cross-species, even though such a means of assessment is likely to produce a false conclusion. And yet this does not matter. For as long as the measurement proves them to be dominant, then they are content.
But sadly, despite their great intelligence, humans are also very destructive and will stop at nothing to protect and fulfil themselves, albeit at the expense of other animals, many of whom, including my species, are now threatened with extinction. If only their virtue were proportionate to their intelligence: their higher level of intentionality, their greater imagination, does not make them nobler, more compassionate.
Humans have performed an infinite number of theory-of-mind tests on gorillas, but do not suppose that we score low on many of them – we demonstrate no more than second- or third-order intentionality – only because we cannot quite see the point of such tests. Unlike them, we are not obsessed with intelligence. We realise it does not bring happiness, and that there are other attributes which are just as, if not more, important. It is also worth noting that we live in a markedly different environment to humans, where physical, rather than mental, prowess is far more important: we are better equipped to survive in the depths of the forest than they are.
The popular belief among humans is that chimpanzees are more intelligent than gorillas, possess greater cognitive machinery: they use many tools; their groups are larger than ours. However, we have less need for tools than they do, principally because we are vegetarian and do not have a penchant for termites. And the size of our groups, well, because we are a sexually dimorphic species – the male twice the size of the female – and are wary of politics, we live in far smaller groups than our ape cousins. Chimpanzees are like humans – competitive and aggressive, ambitious and political beings obsessed with power – and male power politics continues to dominate their societies, rich in machination and provocation, power maintained by the forceful assertion of dominance, violence always implicit, if not explicit, in this assertion. Compared to chimpanzees we gorillas are almost apolitical. But this might explain why humans rate them more intelligent than us: they see themselves so clearly in them. It is as if they are looking in a mirror. We, on the other hand, are rather more transparent and straightforward; our relationships with one another are less complex, and there is perhaps an honesty and purity to them which human and chimpanzee relationships lack.
Human lineage is deeply embedded within the great ape family, specifically the African great ape family. The comparisons between Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes are, indeed, striking. The former shares ninety-nine percent of the latter’s active genetic material – humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than gorillas – and both species are full of anger, always struggling to control this emotion. Both are also strongly territorial and prone to xenophobia, valuing the lives of those within their group more than the lives of those outside it. And both are predisposed to respond favourably to mass indoctrination and harsh authority, though a human’s proclivity to be brainwashed and governed is far greater than a chimp’s. In truth, humans thrive under authoritarian rule and can descend, quite easily, into mass psychopathology, willing to participate in genocide for the benefit of one particular group versus another. This is rather ironic, not least in the context of modern human culture, which celebrates independence of thought. Humans and chimpanzees, it seems, would be wise to look to their bonobo cousin, Pan paniscus, for inspiration, a more egalitarian, free-spirited and peace-loving species, though let me stress not quite as virtuous as humans first thought.
We gorillas are free of illusion, and treat the world as we experience it: in the latter respect we are like children, and in the former like wise old men. If only all humans – not just their children and their old – would follow our example rather than blunder blindly on.
Perhaps this is the species’ undoing, its relentless striving. I run my hand over my brow, open and close my eyes. I am tired, my head hurts. Why cannot humans just see, observe and experience things as they are? It seems they are unable to live wholly in the here and now. We gorillas are better at experiencing the world as it is. To this extent, we are maybe more in touch with reality. Only a handful of humans can live as we do, in the present moment, and they are referred to as ‘enlightened beings’. If only gorillas were referred to with such reverence.
We gorillas are sometimes judged harshly for how we treat one another: silverbacks are prone to occasional displays of violence, crashing through undergrowth and deliberately running down innocent groups of females and young; however, peace is always quickly restored as soon as male honour is satisfied. But we would never display the level of intra species disregard and contempt I see before me now. How poorly this species sometimes cares for its own: it is almost beyond comprehension.
Until humans began to threaten us with extinction our families were reasonably solid and secure. Yes, they were affected by birth and death and occasional migration, but other than these fundamental traits of gorilla existence families remained together, they prevailed. However, now families are driven apart, as we are being, by poachers in search of bushmeat and trophies; guerrillas in search of their next kill; hungry villagers in search of something to eat; and loggers in search of yet more wood.
Before Homo sapiens came we thrived: millions of us inhabited this great frontier forest we live in, that once extended across the whole continent. But the march of loggers from Europe, and now Asia, is relentless, and though local independent loggers are willing to stop, the big international logging companies are not. At the rate they are going we will not have a home soon.
Is it not ironic, in light of this, that humans find it so very difficult to admit that they are driven by power, that power is perhaps their greatest aphrodisiac. Maybe this is because this dominant aspect of their nature conflicts with the principal image they have of themselves as virtuous, benign and egalitarian. If only they would be more honest: for they are also bad, malignant and repressive. And these negative aspects cannot simply be got rid of: for they are as much a part of them as the virtuous ones. Rather, humans would do well to view themselves for what they actually are: highly evolved bipedal apes obsessed with power and sex, and with a dangerous sense of their own importance that ought to be constantly reigned in.
Your subspecies, ‘anatomically modern’ as opposed to ‘archaic’ Homo sapiens, has, in less than two hundred millennia, shown itself to be the most violent, warring and patriarchal species on the planet. My species, conversely, one of the great apes of Africa, has inhabited this earth for some seven million years and has been far less destructive.
Perhaps you are simply unable to contain your violence, unable to master this innate destructive drive inside you: for it offers you a kind of liberation. You were born out of such aggression: migrating out of Africa you swept through Eurasia, murdering all other hominid species including the Neanderthals. In fact, let me be blunt. You have shown yourself to be terribly selfish and malevolent, violent and amoral – to possess little goodness! It seems your biological lot is to seize power by conquering others, even if this means killing your own. You pride yourself on the moral systems you have created, even though these very systems have shown themselves to be desperately flawed, superficial and paradoxical structures. In fact, your morality is little more than a veneer of restraint which lies over your vicious core.
In the last century one hundred and sixty million of you lost your lives to war, genocide and political oppression, human aggressiveness the dominant force. And yet this slaughter was not just confined to your own species: you destroyed others as well. Just as you found ways to mass murder your own, you also developed the means to kill other species, and on an unprecedented scale, to the extent that many of these are now extinct or are close to extinction. And not all these deaths were the result of predation. No, far from it, many of them could have been avoided.
Pan troglodytes possesses a similar murderous nature. When chimpanzees hunt colobus monkeys, first they stalk them; next they run them down; and finally they beat and bite them so viciously, smashing their skulls, that the monkeys either die on the spot or have no chance of survival, particularly when eaten whilst still alive. Chimps also have a taste for human flesh, and have been known to snatch and eat babies. In fact, they, like humans, murder and eat their own kind as well. Brutal violence, it seems, is a strong part of their genetic make-up, just as it is of yours.
In 1980, the males of the Kasekela community of chimpanzees in the Gombe raided the territory of the neighbouring Kahama community: they were punishing these younger males for having lured some of their females away. They went on to conduct a number of raids over a period of months until all six young males were dead, often killing them in brutal ways: they held some down by their arms and legs, and castrated them, squeezing their testes out of their scrotums; with others, they ripped out their tracheas, removed fingernails and drank the blood pouring from the open wounds.
The numerous religions you live by would describe such actions as ‘evil’ – the chimpanzee does not only kill for his survival, but also for his enjoyment – even though you consider such malevolence beyond the realm of all living beings but Homo sapiens, this primate species alone possessing the sufficient intelligence and consciousness to act immorally. And yet perhaps evil is not exclusive to humans. Other species also demonstrate similar pleasure in cruelty. Look at what a leopard does when it catches small prey: it will not kill it immediately, but play with it for some time.
But what makes you humans even more dangerous is your capacity to rationalise such violence, even though violence of any form should never be rationalised, be it in the name of ‘national security’, ‘national interest’ or ‘human progress’. You no longer kill for survival alone.
Would I do that?! Would I rationalise hurting him now, this human boy before me, would I gain satisfaction from torturing him before I finally take my revenge and kill him? No, I would not. I continue to breathe deeply, my lips still compressed, the rage still coursing through my blood, the hair on my sagittal crest still erect, as I stare down at him.
Homo sapiens does not possess the gentleness, the benign nature of my species. It seems to me that Gorilla beringei is born with a greater impulse to care. You assume that we do not possess empathy like you do, but you are wrong! Our empathy extends not only to our own but also to other species. I remember when my father released a male bushbuck caught in a snare: he used his canines to prise the wire from the small antelope’s ankle, careful not to wound him further. He would have died had my father not come to his aid.
And you believe that you are born to become moral, sure that the thousands of years of social evolution you have undergone have made you better at moral decision-making, have made you more morally good. I am not so sure.