I love Furuichi's work - there is a textbook he edited with Jo Thompson that has also become my "bible", called "The Bonobos: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation" (published by Springer). I like that it doesn't hold back from admitting to the "incompleteness" of the academic consensus on most topics related to bonobos. Thank you for your recommendation; I hope everybody will find it helpful if they want to read more about bonobos. You also make another great point never to be discouraged when it is difficult to find information on a topic that your heart feels strongly about. Always keep digging for more information!! You can find the textbook I mentioned for free online here: ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/72241/1/133.pdf.pdf

​@@Fregward yeah, I know that book...unfortunately it's too expensive for my wallet😪. Is one of those books I was referring to in my comment. However I think sharing info is great. It was in this way I found out Furuichi and other researches. Waiting for your next video! I saved your work in my playlist. Greetings from Italy.💚🤍❤️

Thank you for this comment - I spent months writing the script for this documentary and learning a lot about colonisation and exploitation that I wasn't even aware of. I've omitted information about the pre-colonial Kingdom of the Kongo (which was also exploitative) and Mobutu's leadership, but I'm writing a new script for a video about this and how it continues to effect the precious Rainforest. Your comment has made me feel like I've achieved what I set out to. Thank you very much ❤️

​@@FregwardWhy can't the Bonobo be of Esau ?

@@guymanges3628 because they aren't human and aren't our ancestors. They're more like our distant cousins

Bonobos aren´t that peaceful. Their hippie image is just myth that people want to hear. But in reality, they are violent both towards bonobos and towards other species such as humans. According to recent studies, male bonobos are in fact more aggressive than chimps. Also, they are much more violent that humans.

Thank you, Sensei - and thank you for supporting everything I've tried to do over the past year. Means so much to me xx

Then you remember that they are fictional characters

Apes together strong.

That is a challenging question - and one that I am still interested in finding the answer to. I would say that we are as fundamentally different to bonobos as bonobos are to chimpanzees; if not, more different. Firstly, I wouldn't say feminism is "dominant" in "our" society, by any means. And "our" society encapsulates all extant human cultures and societies. Bonobos have a far more isolated society - therefore, the cultures between family groups tends to be rather similar. Human beings have grown into an extremely complex species with significant divides between cultures that the West is still attempting to reconcile as they become more aware of things like Indigenous cultures and past prejudice. The short answer to your question in my opinion is "yes" - but I can't be sure. I believe that matriarchy is more desirable than patriarchy because it functions on a basis of love and trust between individuals. Patriarchy relies on power and, above all, the threat of physical harm to lesser individuals - including weaker males who do not fit the norm of society. Patriarchy is a bully while matriarchy is a nurturing mother. In the feminist bonobo society, powerful women lead through their trust-based bonds with other females (I called this "sisterhoods" or outgroup "coalitions" in the documentary). Therefore, the key to survival is not violence, but love. To rise to the top of bonobo society, a female must love and be loved. Perhaps this is possible to do on a large scale for humans, but I'm not 100% sure.

@@Fregward I couldn't agree more. I really like you !

Maybe? Female bonobos form close groups and when a male misbehaves they correct him together. So a closely knitted female group identity would be needed. Or simply the knowledge of violence being always seen and punished and opportunitistic crimes made obsolete. This would be very hard

@@langustajableczna I agree. It would be challenging. For females to successfully lead, there must be a "sisterhood" around them. I mean this is the sense of leadership that is free of male influence. We understand that patriarchy is not just direct control over what women do, but the influence over how women behave based upon the judgement of males. The true extent of patriarchy is complex, influential, and mostly invisible. Even powerful historical matriarchs like Agrippina have had to seize their power by "winning over" the influential males in the society. In my mind, a true matriarchy is different - in a state ruled by women, but independent from male control or influence. This could not be done alone without a sisterhood, as the aggression of males (and the basic nature of their physical strength over women) would prevail in usurping her. You've made some excellent points that I agree with completely. It's definitely a complex issue, and humans are involved in extremely complex and intricate societies that are beyond all of us to understand fully. "Maybe" is definitely an appropriate answer! Thanks for writing.

@@Fregward I think the biggest issue facing bettering us as a species is another mode of thinking a’la bonobo grouping up on an aggressive male and removing the possibility of getting rid of the though itself that proceeds a crime. When I see a weird situation in public I always react and those guys are always shocked and stop. When they harass and scream at a teenage girl they just don’t conceive of a slightest possibility of someone taking issue with that and that’s why it happens. Now if 5 people surrounded him every time he tried to do something like that it just wouldn’t be possible.

Great question. Bonobo groups will never reject anyone, not even a stranger. So without mothers, even though a male bonobo will not rank highly in his group, he can still lead a very normal and fulfilling life (that is ONLY if a surrogate mother has raised him and he has been rehabilitated by the program at Lola ya Bonobo, which is the only place currently rehabilitating wild bonobos). It is normal for male bonobos to lose their mothers to old age before they, themselves, die - at which point they are still accepted in their sub-group and treated with kindness by the females. Hope that helps!

Lola ya Bonobo is doing amazing work contributing to that. Before the founder, Claudine André found ways to ensure orphaned babies survival they were always dying in the zoos. Now they have the chance to be rewilded and enjoy their life to the fullest! Claudine works with local community and gives back to it, not to mention the research she faciliates because of her sanctuary. Incredible woman

@@langustajableczna agreed!

I'm am a woman myself and I would argue that a woman could have been using those spears also. The argument that being bipedal is due to females having to hold their infants makes way less sense. Women have found ways to attach their infants to them for a very long time. Plus non human primates infants are born knowing they have to cling to mom. You can tie an infant to you and have the ability to work. You can't tie a spear to yourself and still be able to use it effectively.

bipedalism is the result of preference of hands over tails. Primates who use tails more don't develop a strong grip and thumbs, and are lighter, the tail is like another limb and is prehensive. Those who prefer to use hands develop them more, have stronger grip and intricate movements with fingers. Those are generally larger and stronger. Both move differently and hand-preferance grants them more bipedal modes of function. Orangutans, bonobos, chimps and gorillas do move upright often. The infant in primates is usually holding onto the mother, she just makes sure it is fine with her hand occasionally. No need to hold it constantly. They do hold it of course, hug and kiss to show affection and bond, I think they do love their young. You can see videos of baby orangutans, who are the most arboreal of apes, clinging onto their mothers while she is moving through the trees. Kind of similar how baby pangolins cling to the moms tail. She often puts the baby on a safe branch while foraging within more dangerous trees and the baby waits. Orangutans take care of their young for so long partially because they have to teach them how to effectively move and make nests in the tree tops and that is a very complicated ability

Hi, where are you from? Can you share your pictures?

I should specify that by "private zoos" I am distinguishing private, public, and non-profit organisations. While many non-profit organisations could be considered "privately-run", such as San Diego Zoo (whose parent organisation, San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, is a private non-profit), I distinguish this as a non-profit, rather than a private zoo. I should've been more clear about this, but I only had a single sentence dedicated to that line in the documentary. By private I am referring to an organisation that is (a) not funded by the government and (b) owned by a single person, family, or corporation. It should also be noted that the land, facilities, and animals at SDZ are all owned by the city, which further distinguishes it from private zoos. I'll address my stance on private zoos now, I suppose - it is an umbrella stance that I take because I do not think the legality of private zoos distinguishes between good and poor treatment of animals in private organisations/collections. I'm sure there are many good private conservancies - but how do we measure good? Having a consistent and enforceable means by which to determine "good" is what I prefer. I believe the highest standards should be upheld for captive populations of bonobos, which is currently being done well with the Ape Taxon Advisory Group in the United States. As far as I am aware, there are no private organisations housing bonobos in the United States, so we do not have any data to determine whether they are "extremely good" (as you have put it) or not. My negative attitude towards private organisations is only really applicable if those organisations actually house the apes (we may have misunderstood each other here). I think accountability is very important - as is consistency. Laws that allow bonobos to be kept in private zoos (which do not have the proper certifications or oversight) risk traumatising the animals for life, or killing them. High standards must be upheld by any organisation that desires to house great apes. And while the AZA in the United States does actually certify a small amount of private zoos, the ones who aren't do so BECAUSE they are uninterested in participating in SSPs (Species Survival Plans - like the Ape TAG) and don't want to be told what to do. We may get caught up in the debate over private vs public, but I think it is much more important to consider the certifications of organisations, which are almost always better for public ones. Also, the likelihood that a privately owned zoo will favour profit over welfare is far greater than with non-profit or government-owned zoos/sanctuaries - this is always a concern of mine, and saying "some" but not all privately owned zoos are ethical (or "extremely good") leaves the welfare of animals up to differences in opinion, especially if these places aren't correctly certified. There is also an ethical issue in my mind that an animal as intelligent as a bonobo can be privately owned by anybody. Another thing I will address is that bonobos going extinct in the wild would constitute a loss of the species in my mind. Bonobos are very difficult to rewild, and with such a small and scattered array of populations across zoos and sanctuaries would absolutely risk both inbreeding and many failed attempts at reintroducing the species to the wild. Furthermore, without wild bonobos (who are very important players in seed-dispersal in the Congo Basin Rainforest), incalculable damage would be done to the longevity of other wild plant and animal life. It is not a far-fetched thought that bonobos will soon be extinct; smaller populations and greater human encroachment almost guarantees unhealthy breeding patters in the wild. Thank you for your kind words, though - I appreciate the nuance you have shown with your comment.

I understand where this is coming from, but I'll reply to this to make my point a bit clearer. I don't believe that "caring is not innately understood by men" - I referred to "an ETHIC of caring", which is different. Based upon my study of chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans, I believe that men must try harder to be nurturing as more "masculine" features tend to explicitly contradict this (features like aggression and in-group violence). While masculinity and femininity are sometimes unbound from a person's born sex (observable in all apes), men do tend to have more masculine traits than women, which I do not believe are as conducive to nurturing/caring for others.

what do you mean? just wondering

@@the_neanderthal09 "mother earth" etc. but then again that is what Darwinists do.

@@elizabethG633 Charles Darwin lived in the 19th century. Those who are willing to learn about science, history, and culture are not "Darwinists". I believe in the theory of evolution, for which there is evidence that is far more complicated and thorough than what Darwin proposed in the 19th century. To call me a "Darwinist" diminishes the nearly 150 years of evolutionary biology that has followed On The Origin of Species. I hope you will be more open to learning.

@@elizabethG633Facts > Fiction

Most of his data about them being so peaceful has now been proven wrong. Many current studies show that male Bonobos are 3X as violent as Chimpanzees!

THIS!!! OOOHH SO TRUE