Pages

Saturday, May 12, 2012

What Makes Humans Special?

A spider monkey
I see and hear this question all the time, even from scientists - in particular, scientists who study things like non-human primates, paleoanthropology and that sort of thing. Increasingly, however, that question makes less and less sense to me.

Basically, I don't understand why we need to come up with anything that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Why should there be something like that?

I don't mean in the sense of describing Homo Sapiens as a species - there are plenty of anatomical and genetic markers for that. The question seems to be asked in a more general sense, as if humans are somehow not part of the animal kingdom, but somehow separate from it.

Reasons often listed include things like theory of mind, complicated language, abstract thought, technology (fire specifically) and so on. Granted, humans do seem to be better at those sorts of things that all the other animals (and the plants too, apparently). You'll note that those are all brain-related things, which only goes to show that our brains really are unique, at least in some respects, amongst all the animals.

But does that make us somehow special? Does it mean we're different in some really important way? People asking the question seem to think it does, but I disagree.

Problem is that distinction is arbitrary. It's as if people want to believe that we're somehow in class above the rest of life, and look to the most notable distinguishing characteristic as the defining thing that makes it so.

That seems like a pretty childish point of view to me. The sort of thing written about in ancient myths.

"And God blessed [man and woman], and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." - Genesis 1:28, King James version of the Christian Bible
An idea befitting a bronze-age nomadic culture, but hardly relevant in a society that knows as much about the world as we do today.

Better than you.
I can imagine a group of elephant philosophers sitting around trying to decide what sets their kind apart from the animal kingdom, and arriving at the conclusion that because no other animal has as marvellous a trunk, that all other species are inferior. Including those silly brown and pink apes with their pointed sticks.

Why should one, admittedly impressive, phenotypic trait somehow elevate a species above all the rest in any meaningful sense? It's one thing to consider your own species more important than the others because it happens to be your own. But to suggest that there's some objective dividing line between your species and all the others smacks of a level of intellectual dishonesty.

"There isn't a sharp line dividing humans from the rest of the animal kingdom -- it's a very wuzzy line -- and it's getting wuzzy-er all the time" - Jane Goodall

I don't have much more to say about it, other than to ask the question: why should intelligent, educated, critically-minded, modern people feel the need to distance themselves from other life-forms? It seems more meaningful to me to celebrate the similarities we share with our distant cousins, rather that drawing lines in the sand.

10 comments:

  1. Two additional thoughts for you:
    1. Even if you want to focus solely on brain-stuff, it's hard to say that humans are automatically superior in that area. Your common, garden-variety swallow (African or European), can mentally calculate aerodynamics in split seconds at a level of accuracy that would take a human minutes with a calculator and perhaps over an hour without one. The time it takes our best pilots to learn to fly that well is normally longer than the whole swallow's lifespan.

    The abstract communication systems used by hive insects are also pretty interesting. An ant colony represents the same level of organisational complexity as a human city, without having to rely on the "crutch" (as they might view it) of artificial technology. So what's better: Good organisation skills or technology? Without an objective end goal, who's to say?

    So even if you want to say that minds or brains are what make humans special, you still have to turn to arbitrary dividing lines within that contest.

    2. The "humans are clearly superior" perspective can also cause you to miss a lot of interesting stuff, like cases where the other critters are close to us or interestingly very different from us. There's obviously piles and piles of non-human ape behaviour research, which is several different flavours of interesting. And there's the dolphin stuff too; their "language" or whatever the best word for it is, is incredibly interesting, and so is the variation in their learned culture (Dolphin anthropology? Delphinidology?). But anything to do with non-human tool use is also always exciting, unless you're going to start from a position like, "Yeah, well, it's not as good as the way humans do it."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great blog post.

    There may be several reasons for people attempting to make the distinction - ignorance and arrogance are the most obvious culprits.

    I also think it's directly linked to playing down the importance of non-human life in order to salve the conscience over the killing and exploitation of non-humans. Once we start emerging from our anthropocentric cocoons and breaking free from a speciesist worldview, we may start thinking more deeply about those habits responsible for the worldwide genocide of a number of animals more than 7 times the global human population per annum (excluding marine life).

    I have known at least one intelligent and normally rational individual to postulate that chickens don't "truly" suffer, or that their suffering does not matter because it's not equivalent to human suffering (this is someone who cares about dogs and cats). When I mentioned the topic of the suffering of pigs who have been shown to have comparable intellect to dogs, he merely stated that they are very tasty.

    So this is what the ultimate intellectual position in favour of needless suffering and wasting of life ultimately comes down to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a good point.

      I find the argument that an animal's intelligence probably correlates with its ability to suffer somewhat compelling. Although it's not an empirical argument, and even intelligence is notoriously difficult to measure, or even define.

      Objectively I don't actually see anything wrong with one animal causing suffering to another, but aesthetically I'm sympathetic to the view that we should try to minimise the total amount of suffering in the world.

      That said I continue to eat, and enjoy eating, meat. I suffer under no illusions that when I do so, I'm eating the bodies of dead animals not unlike myself. I've seen animals slaughtered, and have seen how they suffer. I wouldn't want to slaughter an animal myself, but I'm okay with the fact that someone has done it on my behalf.

      I find some comfort in the fact that in general the meat industry tries to minimise the amount of suffering the animals go through, but not much.

      Essentially I don't have a moral problem with people eating meat, provided they aren't in denial about the fact that in doing so, they are essentially committing murder.

      I'm quite in touch with the fact that I'm an omnivore. When I look at a cow, sheep or even a pig, I appreciate the beauty of it, the similarities I share with it, and even its intelligence (in the case of the pig). But at the same time I see it as food, and start to salivate reflexively.

      I am, however, looking forward to the advent of in-vitro meat so I can enjoy the food without having caused any suffering at all.

      Delete
  3. What Makes Humans Special?

    Besides the fact that this question is undefined, I will nevertheless be presumptive in my comprehension of it and answer it, even in spite of it being the most self-answering question that can ever be asked, it behoves me to answer it out of sheer pity for the Asker for asking it.

    Humans are "special" because they are "The Perfect Slave".

    It should be obvious that in trying to categorize people (as in all people) as those who all think they are superior to the fauna and flora of this planet, it simply shows that the Asker is actually directing his question to those only, whom he thinks, thinks they are.

    In actuality, all people are aware that all fauna and flora on this planet could co-exist without man, but man could not exist without it, albeit that in all probability it could take this very experience for man to prove this fact.

    As man adds no intrinsic value to nature on this planet, the Asker would be wiser to ask, "What is Man?"

    I shall leave it at that out of pity for the Asker, as he has yet to discover he has a left foot.

    Which, in this particular case, could take a very long time.

    (In spite of the fact that there is no time)

    Q: What is Man?
    A: The Perfect Slave

    Q: Why?
    A: Because he can create other slaves

    Q: You mean as in reproduce?
    A: No, as man is not alone in this ability

    Q: huh?
    A: don't worry about it, as soon as you discover you have a left foot, then you'll figure it out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Douris, when you first started posting comments on my blog, I thought you were just an asshole. But given the interactions we've had over the last few days, I'm come to revise that assessment.

      I'm not qualified to make a diagnosis myself, but it's my sincere opinion that you should consider consulting with a mental healthcare professional, if you aren't already. I'd be happy to recommend some for you, if you like.

      I'm also happy to continue our conversation (about that and only that) in private, should you prefer. Hit me up on Google+ if you're interested.

      Other than that, I probably won't be responding to your comments anymore, since I don't think that would be doing either of us any favours.

      Good luck, man. I hope to get the help you appear to need. Remember, there's no shame in seeking treatment.

      Delete
  4. Thank you for taking the time to post a civil and honest response. I apologise for my long comment, I’m posting it in 3 parts. Since I had some trouble trying to reply to your reply, I'll attempt to post my comments here...

    I don’t know how long it will take for affordable in-vitro meat to hit the shelves, but in the meantime I’m happily vegan, and see no reason why farmed animals should continue to suffer while it is not necessary to eat meat.

    Some resources on eating healthily as a vegan:

    Ginny Messina RD’s food guide for vegans
    http://www.theveganrd.com/food-guide-for-vegans

    Veganhealth.org, created by Jack Norris, RD
    http://veganhealth.org/articles/dailyrecs

    If the straw that broke the camel’s back for me was the second video on this page: http://www.meat.org/, the fleet of trucks full of hay that will forever keep the camel buried is the book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Animal-Liberation-Definitive-Classic-Movement/dp/0061711306/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

    -----
    On intelligence and suffering:

    It seems to me that higher intelligence enables one to experience kinds of suffering which animals with lower intelligence aren’t able to, but that the experience of physical pain is probably similar for animals with similar nervous systems.

    It may be useful to think about how much we expect suffering to differ in adult humans and babies. The biological equipment for experiencing pain is virtually identical, even though new-born human infants have a lesser ability to rationalize than the average adult Labrador. Yet it is accepted, nowadays, that pricking a baby with a pin will result in the same amount of physical suffering as it would for an adult human.

    Humans can become depressed due to a lack of recognition at work, but this is not a problem for cats. Do our differing intellects mean that there’s a difference between the physical sensation of someone stepping on my foot or a cat’s paw? I don’t know of a reason why it should be so.

    But what if it were less painful for a cat to have her paw stepped on than for me to have my toes stepped on? I don’t think that this would mean that it’s fine to intentionally step on a cat’s paw.

    Humans and fish are both vertebrates and thus have similar nervous systems. When fish are skinned alive, they struggle as much as I would imagine any human would struggle if they were placed in the same situation. While a human in that situation might experience emotions such as sadness, anguish and worry that a fish might not, I can’t imagine condoning the physical experience, even if it is devoid of any emotion… And even if it is somehow less physically intense for a fish to be skinned alive than for a human; if the experience is in any way similar for the fish, it must still be terrible and best avoided.

    What we know of animal emotion is even more shrouded in mystery than what we know of physical suffering in animals – but experiments have been done that indicate that even chickens experience some emotion. The following is one example:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1364383/Scientists-say-chickens-empathy-feel-pain.html

    Humans in general seem to be continuously underestimating both the intelligence and ability to suffer of animals who don’t articulate their suffering in human words – the latter was once true of human babies as well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ==PART 2==

    The following is a quote from the presentation ‘Babies Don't Feel Pain: A Century of Denial in Medicine’, presented at The Second International Symposium on Circumcision, San Francisco:

    “The majority view was penned back in 1848 by Henry Bigelow, writing in one of the first publications of the new American Medical Association. He wrote that babies had "neither the anticipation nor remembrance of suffering, however severe," making anesthesia unnecessary for them. Like most of his colleagues then and since, Bigelow believed the ability to experience pain was related to intelligence, memory, and rationality. Like the lower animals, the very young lacked the mental capacity to suffer.”
    http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/chamberlain.html

    Wikipedia:
    “The belief was that in babies the expression of pain was reflexive and, owing to the immaturity of the infant brain, the pain could not really matter.[27]”
    […]
    “It is now accepted that the neonate responds more extensively to pain than the adult does, and that exposure to severe pain, without adequate treatment, can have long-term consequences.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_babies

    I frequently hear people make a similar claim about animals as in the first paragraph I quoted from Wikipedia above, namely that animals are not intelligent enough to truly suffer, and that their pain thus does not really matter. Interestingly, the claim usually pertains to the animals we tend to exploit and not the animals we tend to view as companions.

    Yet when I see how animals struggle during different stages of the slaughter process, there is no doubting that they can experience pain and that it matters to them.

    -----
    Objectivity, aesthetics, and animals causing harm to each other:

    I have a problem with humans knowingly and unnecessarily causing suffering.

    I wonder if, when you refer to objective thinking, you mean to put ethics aside entirely.

    Objectively, does it matter whether human nations slaughter and oppress one another? The only sense in which anything can matter, it seems to me, is from the point of view of sentient experience, human and non-human. The reality is that we are sentient and we care about what happens to us – we (humans and other sentient animals) have interests.

    Is there really a sound philosophical explanation for why all human interests should take precedence over all nonhuman interests? I don’t think so. I highly recommend reading the essay ‘All Animals are Equal’ by Peter Singer: http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm (If you only read one link from my response, please read this one.)

    I do not view the fight for an egalitarian world to be merely a matter of aesthetics – it is the most vital cause in the world.

    -----
    Regarding animals harming each other:

    Without human interference, obligate carnivores cannot survive without killing, and they don’t have the ability to rationalize about it. In contrast, humans can not only rationalize about eating meat, but also be happy and healthy without it.

    Accepting that we’re not inherently and irreconcilably different from all other animals does not mean that there are no differences between ourselves and other species. We hold humans responsible for random animal abuse and neglect, and also increasingly for abuse in the name of sport (dog fighting, cat burning). Most people view the harming of other animals by humans who can think about it, as something to be avoided and discouraged. Imagine seeing someone cruelly beating a dog. Is it purely a matter of personal preference on the part of the person beating the dog whether this is an acceptable activity, or do the interests of the dog bear considering too?

    It makes no meaningful moral difference whether the goal of causing suffering is sport or pleasure of the palate, while nourishment can be obtained otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ==PART 3==
    -----
    You have said: “I've seen animals slaughtered, and have seen how they suffer. I wouldn't want to slaughter an animal myself, but I'm okay with the fact that someone has done it on my behalf.”

    Does being okay with something mean that you should be okay with it?

    Have you considered that you do not have to be a behavioural omnivore, or that having an urge does not necessitate giving in to that urge?

    I liked meat, but I just eat tasty plant-based food instead, and I’m satisfied. I think a lot of people’s instinctual rejection of vegetarianism comes down to simply not knowing that one can enjoy food just as much without meat.

    From James McWilliams’ blog, Eating Plants (his blog has moved this past weekend, so the link may have changed by Monday).
    “"Moreover, we don’t claim a customary right to experience an endless array of pleasure in other arenas of sensual life. The pleasures of food are often compared to the pleasures of sex. Still, few of us live life under the impression that we can indulge every sexual desire that tickles the imagination just because it creates pleasure. We don’t have TV shows featuring figures such as Anthony Bourdain traveling the world sampling local and exotic sexual indulgences. To the contrary, we structure the quest for sexual pleasure within a framework of reasonable, morally bound regulations. Whether we adhere to these regulations or not isn’t the point–we generally assume that they serve an important societal function. As I see it, the only reason food gets a pass from this form of regulation is that animals cannot provide their consent. Thus our quest for pleasure trumps their right not to be needlessly violated."”
    http://eatingplantsdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/the-eats-show-unc-chapel-hill-and-animal-ethics/

    In summary:

    It will always be a struggle to try and avoid fuelling harmful industries, and the right choices are not always obvious or easy.

    But I can once and for all remove my contribution from factory farming of beings known to be sentient and capable of suffering physically and emotionally, and I can remove my contribution to their premature, violent and unnecessary deaths. I can remove my contribution from the careless siphoning of life from and thinning out of species in the oceans, not to mention the horrible deaths that fish die.

    It’s not just nonhumans who benefit from it when people in developed nations shun meat-eating. I have removed my contribution to the perpetuation of the thankless, underpaid, hurried and soul-crushing work that is slaughter in commercial slaughter facilities. Additionally, the depleting of the world’s fish stocks have a considerable impact on poor fishing communities.

    More info on problems with commercial fishing:

    Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, impact on the environment, fish and poor fishing communities:
    http://www.wesleyan.edu/wsa/warn/singer_fish.htm

    Ocean Sentry on over-fishing and impacts on the environment and developing countries:
    http://www.oceansentry.org/lang-en/overfishing/campaign.html

    National Geographic on over-fishing:
    http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/environment/habitats-environment/habitats-oceans-env/declining-fish/

    ReplyDelete