Don' forget that too much may be the start of war in the first place.

@Fernapple Very true. Mindless group-think and following a leader.

@Elganned Yes, but I have seen filmic evidence of a chimp bringing a stone for another to crack nuts with. While fires etc. are only advanced technology that we enjoy because of the teaching and organizing qualities of language. When talking about ideas and motivations you are getting into the realms of subjective judgements, and it is very easy to "spin" what looks like theory out of a slight and subjective judgement.

@Matias No I have not read it and it may be unfair of me to judge before doing so, but the whole thing smells of woo with a hidden theist agenda. The fact that as you say he sites hundereds of studies, makes me suspect cherry picking. As to language, there is some albeit questionable evidence that many animals are capable of understanding human language to a limited degree, therefore the origin of language may be on more than a quantitive rather than a qualitive effect, plus perhaps some physical changes such as changes in the shape of the larinx which makes sound production easier. There is also the factor of abstraction and that language may develop for the mental ability to lie.

@Matias, @Elganned This discussion brings to mind behaviors involving a common threat.

Many animals become very vocal in such incidents, presumably to sound the alarm to their kind. So if a common threat happens frequently over a long period of time -- that is, generationally -- could it be that social behaviors, particularly cooperation, intensify over that time period, as the fittest members survive? That is, the more adept at the social behaviors, vocalization included, who help the group survive.

In the case of humans, perhaps the common threat was present at night, which necessitated vocalization.

@Fernapple You should read his work. He has done innumerable studies and his arguments are very carefully rendered with consideration of opposing views. It's always wise to look at the evidence before accusing someone of woo... it's not enough that Tomasello's conclusions doesn't conform with your particular bias. Moreover, I really don't think Tomasello has a theist bias.

@Gmak I am sure I will read his book and it is unfair of me to critique his work without.
But.

Firstly Chimpanzees are known to cooperate when patrolling the boundaries of their territories, and also when hunting, where they even show organized division of labour. These would be quite impossible without a concept of “we”. Indeed it would be almost impossible for any social animal to even function at the most basic level without the idea of we, think just of the simple. “ There are more/less of them.” Which must be at the bottom of all group conflict. These are well known and accepted fact in commonplace knowledge.

One of the main reasons why pseudo-science takes hold, is the human tendency to want single simple answers, despite the fact that life is never that simple. No animal exists in the niche it does for any one single simple reason, least of all humans. It is natural for those who instigate ideas to overrate them, and that is forgiveable but this is at best a very weak idea anyway.

@Fernapple
[web.uvic.ca]

Here's an article from Science magazine from the Tomasello lab. Tomasello is held in high esteem in the science community. It looks like you could do a bit of research before accusing the man of pseudoscience!