Animal fighting

Press, 12 November 1977, Page 15

Animal fighting

Part and parcel of everyday living is that many animals have to fight to survive. Fighting falls into three categories. The first in eludes encounters in which an animal kills another species for food: tb» lion, for example (the pre dator), hunts zebra (it prey). Secondly, there ar< fights where one specie of animal drives off or at tacks another species ii defence of its nest o young. The dive-bombin attacks magpies launc against anyone who dare to approach their nest are well-known examples. Ethologists, or scientist: who study the behaviou of wild animals, refer t< skirmishes which involve two different species a: “interspecific fighting.” Finally, there are fights in which members of the same species engage in combat, that is “intraspecific fighting.” Territorial disputes of animals provide examples of intraspecific combat. About this time of the year we get numerous enquiries at the museum fror- the public, who have seen a somewhat atypical type of intraspecific fighting. They have been nonplussed and concerned about the way in which some birds repeatedly bash themselves against windows. In all probability the reflection is interpreted by the "attacking bird” as a

rival. The vigour of these “fights” is such that the “attacker” may batter itself unconscious, or even o death.

Fights in which the ombatants belong to the .ame species are of immense interest to ethologsts, as they believe that tese encounters provide

duable insight into fightg among humans.

Just as we need an alnabet to construct writen words to communicate ■ffectively, so do we need i lot more information on nans’ fighting behaviour. This is essential if we are o find workable solutions f o the prolems of violence md war. Studies of wild animals have led some ethologists to conclude that social violence and wars are examples of pathological combat — that is forms of behaviour which, rather than facilitate man’s survival, work to his detriment.

The sixty-four-dollar question ethologists are trying to answer is why, while humans frequently kill or maim one another in combat, intraspecific encounters of other wild animals .rarely result in injury or death. Scientists have shown

that animals, in addition to having the instinctive capacity to fight, also have instinctive forms of behaviour which end fighting. The instinctive behaviour which terminates fights (the display of submission or appeasement) is a very effective control; .it protects the

loser from relentless attack by a more dominant rival (see illustration). One of the problems in applying these findings to man is that many researchers today falsely believe that man is biologically defenceless because he has no bodily weapons..

Furthermore, they suggest that because we lack bodily weapons we are not instinctive fighters, and therefore do not have the inbuilt controls of other animals. A majority of investigators therefore suggests that man learns to fight — and that if we are to prevent wars and violence we have to be educated not to fight. As a solution, however, this approach to curbing our aggression has failed dismally — social violence is still a major problem, and there remains the ever lingering threat of war.

A major breakthrough

which has yet to gain wider recognition from researchers is that man. like many other animal species, certainly is armed with effective bodily or anatomical weapons (his teeth, hands, feet) and, like other animals, has the inborn capacity to fight and appease. This practical application of this new interpretation of man’s fighting in today’s context may, to some, seem irrelevant because of man’s advanced technological weaponry. Before we even begin to examine the reasons why human aggression causes so much agony today, however, it is essential that we try to explain the normal function of on fighting. Until we acce the fact that bodily figh ing is inborn in all of us and therefore in its proper context must be healthy functional behaviour, any attempts to reduce the sick fighting of modern man are likely to be stabs in the dark. The solution to violence and wars, will, in all probability, necessitate catastrophic social changes. These changes, however, would be less devastating to the future wellbeing of mankind than a nuclear holocaust, which from an ethologist’s viewpoint is a by-product of (and a unique example of) an instinct — and learning — gone haywire.

Contributed by G. A. TUNNICLIFFE on behalf of the Canterbury Museum.