War, beyond homo sapiens: Peace eludes chimpanzees as well

In 1970, when Edwin Starr first sang “War, what is good for?”, the question was a rhetorical one. In 2026, it is, perhaps, less so. In the current era of conflict, every party has their sights on the moral high ground. The 21st-century Homo sapiens is a species so divided that it cannot agree on an answer to Starr’s question. Could it lie with our closest evolutionary cousins?

The Ngogo chimpanzee troop at Uganda’s Kibale National Park is one of the largest in the wild and also the most studied. At its peak, the group consisted of around 200 individuals who loved, ate, and quarrelled but did not go to war for decades. That began to change around eight years ago. And last week, researchers declared that factions were engaged in a deadly civil war. At first, the more dominant faction had the upper hand, but then others became more lethal and violent. A community that once lived in harmony for decades has seen 28 deaths, including nine infants (that’s over 10 per cent of the population) over imaginary lines in the sand.

Overall Analysis

The editorial opens with a reference to the song War by Edwin Starr, using its famous rhetorical question to frame the discussion on the relevance and meaning of war. The author suggests that while the question once had an obvious answer (war is useless), in today’s divided world it has become less clear. This introduction sets a reflective and slightly ironic tone, emphasizing how modern conflicts are often justified by competing claims of moral superiority. The phrase “moral high ground” reflects this idea of self-justification by conflicting parties.

The editorial then shifts focus from humans (Homo sapiens) to chimpanzees, creating a comparative perspective. This shift is important because it expands the discussion from human politics to evolutionary behavior, hinting that conflict might not be purely a human phenomenon. The transition is smooth and analytical, guiding the reader from abstract thought to real-world observation.

In the second part, the author describes the Ngogo chimpanzee troop in Kibale National Park. The description uses human-like verbs such as “loved, ate, and quarrelled”, which makes the animals relatable and builds emotional connection. This anthropomorphic language strengthens the impact when the peaceful community is later described as descending into a “deadly civil war.” The use of the term “civil war” itself is powerful, drawing a direct parallel with human conflicts.

The editorial highlights the transformation of a once harmonious group into a violent one, emphasizing unpredictability and the fragility of peace. The phrase “imaginary lines in the sand” serves as a metaphor, suggesting that the causes of conflict are often arbitrary or constructed, both in human societies and in animal behavior. The mention of casualties, especially infants, adds emotional weight and underscores the senselessness and brutality of such conflicts.

Overall, the language blends scientific reporting with philosophical reflection, using analogy and metaphor to question whether conflict is an inherent trait across species. The editorial subtly encourages readers to reflect on whether humans, despite their intelligence, have truly evolved beyond such instinctive violence.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Rhetorical – asked for effect rather than to get an answer.
2. Moral high ground – a position of ethical superiority.
3. Faction – a smaller group within a larger group, often in conflict.
4. Dominant – having power or influence over others.
5. Harmony – a state of peaceful coexistence.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial suggests that conflict may not be exclusive to humans but could stem from deeper evolutionary tendencies, as seen in chimpanzee behavior. At the same time, it implicitly questions humanity’s moral progress and ability to rise above such instincts.

Tone: Reflective, analytical, and subtly critical.