[recycled material - first appeared here]
Evolution has been, and still sometimes mistakenly is, portrayed as a grand parade to the new, the better, the more complex. But two things, at least, make this flatly untrue.
First, the failures are an undeniable yet indispensable part of the parade. Sure, they tend to be fleeting and thus partly invisible — joining the parade for a mere half block before veering off to nowhere — but to overlook them is sheer folly. The numbers, were we to count them, are staggering.
Second, there is no force pushing evolution inextricably toward the bigger and the better. None that seems more than a human projection, in my opinion. Consider this recent science news headline:
Male Sex Chromosome Losing Genes By Rapid Evolution, Study Reveals.
That’s right, the male “Y” has been losing size (and hence complexity) over time. It’s shrinking. And not due to immersion in cold water.
With evolution, whatever works in one form or another, persists. Whatever doesn’t, disappears. Sometimes. If we are talking organisms, that is absolutely true. But non-working (non-functional) characteristics of organisms can persist if there is no cost the selective pressures can subtract. Sometimes.
I’m not an evolutionary biologist, so don’t take my word for it. I also wouldn’t advise taking any single thinkers word for anything. I suggest aiming for a deeper education.
Maybe that guy isn’t a jerk; maybe he’s just low on oxytocin.
A new study conducted on macaques has generated this proclamation:
Oxytocin, the “love hormone” that builds mother-baby bonds and may help us feel more connected toward one another, can also make surly monkeys treat each other a little more kindly. [article source]
In the experiment, macaques in the experimental group were administered oxytocin–a hormone we humans share–via an inhalation mask. Relative to the control group, these monkeys displays greater pro-social behavior, as gauged by their willingness to give some sweet juice to their cohorts.
I wonder: would outfitting automobile air conditioners with an oxytocin injector eliminate road rage?
Xenophobia. Fear of foreigners. In a sense, to fear the foreign, the strange-to-you, is wise. For what we don’t know can hurt us. And the foreign is less known, more unpredictable. So we prefer the familiar, at least when it matters most.
You might say that chimpanzees are a xenophobic species. They notice unfamiliar individuals and go on alert mode. They recognize a “them,” and appropriately don’t trust the foreigner. Not initially, it’s too dangerous. Chimpanzees will threaten, chase and fight strangers. Not because they like to. But because unaffiliated-with-us individuals pose a real threat to resources: to mates, to infants, to territory, to food.
So deep runs this propensity to be alarmed by the strange that chimpanzees will attack members of their own group who merely act strange. For example, during a documented polio epidemic – yes, chimpanzees share that with us as well – a few chimpanzees became partially paralyzed and consequently started moving differently. Strangely. They were subsequently attacked by their own group members.(8) Unfamiliarity, alarm, and fear can do that.
Among humans, in-group members tend to behave similarly. Speech is a form of behavior. Whether an American male is more likely to use the word dude or sir while addressing another male reflects their current and past social group. Group members also often share dress, customs, diet, and more. How else can you recognize an “us”? “Them,” on the other hand, have foreign ways; they act strangely.
Pants cinched well below the waist, visible tattoos and piercings, long, untrimmed beards – these are strange only relative to a particular audience.(9) If a non-idiosyncratic behavior strikes you as strange, chances are it ‘belongs’ to an outsider. Where behaviors are different, it is easy for the human mind to conclude “stranger.” Yet the “to me” goes unsaid. When there is more than one stranger with shared qualities, we can designate a “them.”
The types of ‘thems’ human beings are capable of perceiving is quite varied. Here is a short list of potential us/them categories: ethnic, linguistic, racial, sex-based, sexual orientation-based, national, political, age-based, and even sports team-based.(10)(11)
To reinforce the boundary between “us” and “them,” outsiders get painted with less noble traits, insiders more noble. This psychological tendency is the likely wellspring of ethnocentrism.
Us/them distinctions go deeper than idle opinion and abstract thought. As evidence, consider the results from a psychological experiment published in the journal, Evolution and Behavior. Pairs of men were made to compete in a ‘friendly’ game. When competing, there was a measured rise in their testosterone and cortisol levels. The increase in hormone levels was more pronounced when the competition involved between-village contestants than within-village contestants.(12)
Turning to the Bible now, a revision in how the us/them boundary is drawn around believers can be seen to progress through its books (reflecting the time written and the corresponding social context). In Exodus there are many references to “the God of Abraham.” Oh, that god. Are you a member of the group that worships that god, are you one of us? In Exodus we read references to the god of the Hebrews. In Kings and Chronicles and many other books of the Old Testament, the most high god is frequently referred to as a god of Israel. Other religious-identity references include “the god of” David/Jacob/your-fathers. In the New Testament books the most high god is spoken of a number of ways, including: the god “of your ancestors,” “of Israel,” “of your fathers,” and there are also those few mentions “of Jew and Gentile.”
I am the God of your father Abraham.(Genesis 26:24)
This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go. (Exodus 9:13)
This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says…(1 Kings 11:31)
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him. (Romans 10:12)
In a practical sense, the god of a specific people has become the supposed god of all people. Some maintain that this god was always the god of all. I suspect it is because they do not want to recognize the tribal nature of gods. Whether or not you include everyone as part of your tribe, that nature remains.
—
(8) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p. 330
(9) As a tangent here, I imagine that suburban white boys adopt the ways of ghetto blacks to make themselves mildly alarming to others. By dressing and acting in a foreign fashion, they draw attention to themselves and perhaps feel dangerous and more potent within their own group. Their novel dress with fox-in-the-henhouse overtones (unpredictable outsider) may slightly alarm others. And that is the point. Strangers are alarming because the strange alarms us. When the potential to attract attention and put others on notice completely wears off, this type of behavior wanes. It brings to mind the image of a juvenile or perhaps mid-status-level chimpanzee walking around with it’s shoulder fur in a state of semi erection. “Look out, I could be dangerous, give me room” (to move up in status).
(10) Wrangham, R. & Peterson, D. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, Houghton Mifflin, NY, 1996, p.196
(11) I imagine that cultures in which there is a significant difference in the appearance and behavior of the sexes, members of the opposite sex are more likely to be perceived as a “them.” Or maybe another species altogether, for they have really strange ways. At least according to the audience of my sex and our customary behavior. Maybe each sex could even perceived to be from different planets altogether. You think?
(12) Wagner, J. D., Flinn, M. V., & England, B. G. “Hormonal Response to Competition Among Male Coalitions,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 23, Issue 6, November 2002, 437-442.
Most of the time, when human traits are compared to the traits of other species, the analogy is worded something like this: “Rats discovered to have human-like trait.” As if the trait is ours, and it comes as a surprise that it is shared by a distant genetic cousin.
I welcome the day when more findings express this perspective: “Humans discovered to have rat-like trait.”
But back to the rats. Seems they exhibit something akin to empathy. Those (not) dirty rats!
In, Helping your fellow rat: Rodents show empathy-driven behavior, I learned of new research that shows rats are capable of “emotional contagion.” In humans, and other social species, emotions are contagious. When other individuals express them, we can feel them too. That’s why being around mopey people, for example, is a bit of a bummer.
In a serious of experiments it was found that given a choice between a chocolate treat (we share that, too?!) and freeing a trapped cagemate, rats will forego the chocolate and come to the aid of another rat.
I wonder if future research will show that rats are capable of double-crossing other rats, thus deserving the expression, “You dirty rat!” But maybe we just ought to change it to, “You dirty human!”
Sure, human beings are a distinct species. We are unique. As is the star-nosed mole and millions of other life-forms. But are we manifestly special to such an extent that we deserve to grant ourselves unquestioned dominion over all other species?
As for any alleged immaterial soul . . . that has yet to be manifest in any verifiable way. So how else does our kind rate as totally above and beyond all others? What exclusive characteristic makes us ontologically fabulous?
As scientists are learning more and more about other species, and are getting better and better at shedding anthropocentric blinders, it is becoming clear that we aren’t so whole-cloth exceptional. Consider the following two new findings:
1) ‘Look at That!’ Ravens Gesture With Their Beaks to Point out Objects to Each Other
Previous research has shown that while dogs understand human pointing, chimpanzees do not. And chimpanzees don’t point in the wild. At least not with an extended index finger at something in the distance. Dogs don’t either.
So is intentionally directing the attention of another a uniquely human trait? Maybe not.
For two years, Simone Pika und Thomas Bugnyar investigated the non-vocal behaviour of individually marked members of a wild raven community in the Cumberland Wildpark in Grünau, Austria. They observed that ravens use their beaks similar to hands to show and offer objects such as moss, stones and twigs.
Hmm. What else have we got?
2) Plant-food and tool transfer among savanna chimpanzees at Fongoli, Senegal
Chimpanzees found to share food and tools?! What we have here is more evidence revealing that nature isn’t completely red in tooth and claw (and thus in need of religion to save it from itself).
From the study abstract -
Transferring food is considered a defining characteristic of humans, as such behavior is relatively uncommon in other animal species save for kin-based transfer. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) are one exception, as they commonly transfer meat among nonrelatives but rarely transfer other resources. New observations at Fongoli, Senegal, show habitual transfer of wild-plant foods and other non-meat resources among community members beyond transfers from mother to offspring.
Chimpanzees sharing tools . . . those hairy communists!
Okay, we’ve still got our Stanford-Binet scores and other ways to convince ourselves we aren’t “mere” animals. Oh, and language! Almost forgot language. No other animals are capable of using a completely symbol-based means of communication. Right? Well, at least as far as we currently know.
Recent Comments