Is it true that humans and bonobo are closer relations then man and chimp?

Question

And, if true, would the matriarchal bonobo social structure actually be more natural for us rather than the patriarchal chimp social structure?

Answer 1

As far as I'm concerned,
Bono isn't human.

Answer 2

We're all pretty closely related. The bonobos may give us a better idea of what our ancestors were like, since they are closer to those ancestors in body size and diet than the common chimps are. I don't really think we can claim what would be the most natural social structure based on that, though, much as I really would like to think we should all be hoing around. I don't know that we really have a natural social structure. In fact, the way we're able to change that structure so quickly is one of the reasons we're so adaptable. A bonobo way of life may not work out of the jungle. We'd be able to change that to something that would work; the bonobos wouldn't.

Answer 3

Humans may be slightly more closely related to bonobos - ttheir body proportions more closely mirror ours - but the relation between humans and bonobos and chimps is about the same.

And more recent research has suggested that bonobos may not be so perfectly matriarchal, but they are certainly more peaceful, pleasure-seeking and cleverer than other apes (including plain old chimps.)

We deviated from chimps and bonobos some 6 million years ago - our closest hominid relatives are our now-deceased predecessors. But the wide array of human societies since suggests that both chimps and bonobos are a suitable model. There are matriarchal and patriarchal human societies, peaceful and violent ones, sexual licentiousness and prudery...What chimps and bonobos teach us is that humans are capable of just about anything.

Answer 4

Yes, bonobos and humans are more closely related. The problem with the matriarchal society that it wouldnt' work for large populations, like humans. Males are the expedible resource, which means women should be taken care of more carefully. This is explained by the fact that you can continue a population that has 50 women and only 1 male, where as you can't continue a population that has 50 males and only 1 female. Thus, as men become expendible, they're often sent to do expendible jobs, such as hunting and warfare, where as women are left home to do not-so-life-threatening things, such as rearing the children and cooking. However, with the job of warfare and hunting also comes status. Men begin to realize that they're in control of what the family eats by bringing the meat to the table. They're also in control of political alliances with other families/tribes/clans. They gain power over the women because of their jobs. Thus, a society of humans is more likely to be patriarchal.

Answer 5

No it would not be more " natural " for us. We are neither chimps or bonobos and it does not mean anything, even if we were closer to one or the other, genetically. Our psychology and physiology are far removed from our ape cousins. A common mistake of anthropologists is to anthromorphize. We are Homo sapien, not Pan troglodyte or Pan paniscus.