I'm not sure if monkeys experience revenge the way humans do. As one of the comments mentioned in the article, it's probably just a survival instinct.
In places like the Monkey Temple in Bali that's exactly how you keep them at bay. In our local zoo where you can interact with lemurs, they can be chased away with a small water spray.
The general belief here in India is if you are hurting a snake, might as well kill it, and then burn it, just to be sure.
I recall reading (the book escapes me), that just about all animals employ a Tit-for-Tat mechanism for dealing with other animals of the same species that cheat.
Revenge is a very useful social tool, especially against other species threatening their offspring.
An instinct is something you have no choice over, it's automatic.
Humans very clearly have a choice as to whether they pursue revenge or not. If someone wrongs me in a given way, I can choose how to respond, or to not respond at all; and I can spend as much time as I like (decades if I choose to) pondering on that. It's doubtful these monkeys function quite at that level.
It's unknown whether, for example, these monkeys have any choice in the matter. Their programming may be purely instinctual when it comes to a revenge response.
I think this is a common but entirely wrong model, and I'm not sure why people hold it.
Do you think humans have no instincts? I would argue exactly the opposite, humans, like all animals, are driven almost entirely by instinct, whether it's prosocial instincts causing you to have a moral code much like those around you, inspiring guilt and shame when you break it, or causing you to feel a need to talk to people and comment on Internet stories, reproductive instincts driving you to seek a mate, or survival instincts to ensure a regular food supply.
I think it works exactly the same way in all animals. They are equally capable of making choices, because choice is a preconscious thing, not something that occurs as a result of careful, reasoned intellect. Obviously, humans are capable of making more informed choices, but "reason" is mostly a post-hoc rationalization engine.
I'm sure the story has been "embellished" a bit though and there's probably tons of confounding factor but I've heard a lot of similar stories about camels and their famous penchant for revenge :).
The snake came back looking for the nest and could not find it. It looked around with no luck. It went to the family water vase (because there was no piped water supply) and spit inside. The mother saw this and told the other to put the nest back.
The snake saw the nest, went immediately back to the vase, coiled it and flipped the water over over to empty it.
It had spit poison in the supply to hurt the family for revenge of its nest. And then sought to undo that act.
I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, but a matter such as this seems plagued by uncertainty and it seems rash to me to be making such presumptions.
I'm not sure what you mean. Did you forget a word?
The original post presumes that monkeys' experience of revenge is "just a survival instinct". I find it quite odd to make such a strong assumption about something as unknowable about conscious experience (perhaps wrongly if there is evidence to that effect I am not aware of).
Your reply pointed out that mammals have similar brain structures. To me, this would imply that humans and other mammals (particularly monkeys) should have more similar experiences of the world as a base assumption, rather than leading us to dismiss similar behaviours as survival instinct etc. Perhaps I missed your point?
I can see that this is quite hand-wavy topic, but hopefully this helps to clarify a little.