Posted on 01/21/2014 5:21:07 AM PST by Heartlander
The attack on human exceptionalism these days is unremitting–and highly ideological.
The latest assault on our uniqueness comes from Edge.org, which asked the world’s supposedly most “brilliant minds” to come up with ideas that should be retired in science. Harvard professor (of course!) Irene Pepperberg–oh, so predictably–argues that the time has come to reject human uniqueness.
Based on what? Pepperberg makes the obvious point that different animals also have remarkable capacities. From her essay (republished in the Guardian):
Yes, humans do some things that other species do not – we are indeed the only species to send probes to outer space to find other forms of life – but the converse is certainly equally true. Other species do things humans find impossible, and many non-human species are indeed unique in their abilities.
No human can detect temperature changes of a few hundredths of a degree as can some pit vipers, nor can humans best a dog at following faint scents. Dolphins hear at ranges impossible for humans and, along with bats, can use natural sonar. Bees and many birds see in the ultraviolet, and many birds migrate thousands of miles yearly under their own power, with what seems to be some kind of internal GPS.
Humans, of course, can and will invent machines to accomplish such feats of nature, unlike our non-human brethren – but non-humans had these abilities first. Clearly I don’t contest data that show that humans are unique in many ways, and I certainly favour studying the similarities and differences across species, but think it is time to retire the notion that human uniqueness is a pinnacle of some sort, denied in any shape, way, or form to other creatures.
Talk about deflection from the actual attributes that make us exceptional!
The examples Pepperberg conjures are merely differences in biological function. But those are irrelevant to moral uniqueness. For example, even if we were the only bipedal species on the planet, that would be merely a physical difference, and hence, morally irrelevant.
In contrast, those capacities and expressions that distinguish us from all other known life forms are morally material. Only we are moral agents, expressed differently across the breadth of humanity, demonstrating that unlike the hawk’s vision, there is a volitional element to moral deliberation involving the exercise of reason, experience, emotions, etc..
That capacity is intrinsic to human nature–but not hawk, elephant, viper, or dog nature, expressed by each of us unless we are too immature or profoundly ill or injured.
Only we are capable of recognizing and accepting (or neglecting) duties. Only we have rational capacities of abstract thinking, learning from the past, planning for the future
Only we are capable of good and evil. Only we seek meaning. Only we can philosophize and worship–or decide to reject faith or choose to be indifferent to deeper questions. Heck, only we ask ultimate questions.
Only we can betray. Only we are truly altruistic or selfish–often both at different times–terms that reflect the uniquely human and moral nature of those behaviors.
And in those few cases in which we can anthropomorphize some human-like attributes to animals–even if true (doubtful)–the differences in quality are so vast they amount to differences in kind.
Pepperberg’s argument is akin to saying that a beaver’s dam–purely instinctive–is morally equivalent to the Hoover Dam. Yes, both stop the flow of water for an instrumental purpose, but come on!
She eventually reveals the game that is afoot:
Nota Bene lest my point be misunderstood: my argument is a different one from that of bestowing personhood on various non-human species, and is separate from other arguments for animal rights and even animal welfare – although I can see the possible implications of what I am proposing.
Ah, but destroying human exceptionalism is the necessary predicate to imposing legal regimes of animal rights, animal personhood, nature rights, utilitarian bioethics, etc.. In fact, I believe that is the point of most of the anti-human agitation we have witnessed in recent years.
But if you destroy human exceptionalism, you take with it the philosophical backbone of Western Civilization–e.g. the unique and equal dignity of every human being–which has brought so much intellectual liberty, human freedom, and material prosperity into the world
Imagine the authoritarian possibilities if we redefine ourselves as just another animal in the forest!
But not his salary.
Man is also the only animal who creates his own morality.
That's two things that make us unique in the animal kingdom. I could add others. Such as, man is the only animal who holds his insanity to the light and calls it reason, this 'Harvard professor' being a perfect example.
Should Ms Pepperberg ever need surgery, might a suggest she seek out a flounder or a grouse?
It requires a a lot of cognitive firepower
to act this stupid.
Only humans create art for art’s sake, with no practical purpose necessary. Animals may create things, but only for practical purposes.
What I find funniest of all is that there is some actual, real, and hard-core irony (and I mean real Irony, not the Alanis Morrisette variety), in the Professor arguing about destroying human exceptionalism. The fact of the matter is that the very act of stringing together her philosophical argument, and putting it into written form, is something that NO OTHER ANIMAL has yet shown the capability of doing. Hence, the irony is that an animal that is exceptional by definition, exercising one of the very things that makes her exceptional, is arguing that she is NOT exceptional.
Yes, I am fully aware of the old saw about the infinite number of chimpanzees on the infinite number of typewriters, but I put that right up there with ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.’
Oh, goody! Now I can run over Prof. Pepperberg with my car and not stop.
True:
"....Yesterday a commenter who is himself brimming with rudimentary intelligence took issue with my statement that "either natural selection explains our intelligence, or our intelligence explains natural selection. You can't have it both ways." Instead, the commenter declared that "natural selection is the cause of our intelligence; in turn, our intelligence provides the written and/or verbal explanation of natural selection. Problem solved; now we have it both ways."
The tail-chasing circularity of this dogomatic barkument should be evident [to us]. It is logically equivalent to saying that truth and intelligence do not exist, since they may be reduced to blind natural selection. With such a view, there is not even an ontological basis to draw a fundamental distinction between animal and human intelligence, much less between the evolved brain and the uncreated intellect.
HERE: On the Intelligence of the Stupid and the Stupidity of the Intelligent
bttt
Unintelligent people are usually just plain wrong, so we don't have to worry much about them. On the other hand, in order to attain truly deep stupidity, one must generally be of above average intelligence.
HERE: Deep Stupidity and the Medicine for a Nightmare
bttt
I like to take the middle ground here, that yes, humans are biologically mammals, but unlike animals, that are mostly controlled by their biology, humans are able to go beyond our biological imperatives to do other things.
A superb example of this goes to the heart of the matter, with human reproductive strategy.
To start with, about halfway through gestation, the testes of the fetus of male mammals secretes a squirt of testosterone, which travels to the brain of the fetus, and tells it that it is a “male” fetus. If it does not get this squirt of testosterone, the brain is female, by default.
In the 1960s, and then again in the 1980s, scientists did extensive animal experiments with this one event, sometimes adding testosterone where there was none, other times blocking testosterone from reaching the fetal brain, and they even went so far as to provide testosterone to half the brain of a fetus, but not the other half.
In doing so, they created female animals that exhibited male mating behavior; male animals that exhibited female mating behavior; and bisexual animals that exhibited the mating behavior of both females and males.
My point is, that in animals, this is enough to determine sexuality. Heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.
But not in humans. Though medical conditions can result in feminine *behavior* in boys, and masculine *behavior* in girls, and even androgyny in both, it *does not* determine their sexuality.
Something in humans allows them to override their biological mating behavior, so whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, this major biological event does not dictate it, unlike all other mammals.
And that is just one thing. Humans have innovated other mating strategies that are unknown in the animal kingdom.
The strategy of basic biological reproduction is complex: for males, it is to provide their DNA to as many females as possible. For females, it is to get the best male DNA donor.
But more evolved species use monogamy to achieve a better outcome for their offspring, in which the male stays with a single female to provide for their offspring. This requires a compromise by both the male, to mate with just one instead of several females; and by the female, to get less than ideal DNA in exchange for help with provision.
However, humans have uniquely taken this further with the idea of socially-enforced marriage. The flaws in the animal system of monogamy are first, that if there is an abundance of males, those with the best DNA are not the same as those that are the best providers. Second, that while all animals are compelled to mate, many are not suitable for mating. Biologically they are intended to die without having reproduced.
Socially-enforced marriage overcomes these things by maximizing the reproductive bond, by putting the couple off limits to others, non-breeders. The entire affiliated group of humans protects couples from interlopers.
However, this also means that because non-breeders are still compelled to want to mate, there must be distractions to prevent their interference with a married couple. This might include things such as infertility, prostitution, or post-menopausal mating. The latter two confined at least to primates, if not unique to humans.
As an aside, periodically studies are made of chimpanzees, in which a single dominant male has a harem of females. However, just outside the perimeter of the dominant males territory are other males, seeking to lure members of his harem into mating with them.
Researchers like to use this as an example of the “normality” of cheating. Since chimpanzees do this, then it is okay for humans to cheat. However, they do not examine the complete picture.
If a dominant male catches one of his females mating with an interloper, he is likely to kill both of them. So, if cheating is okay because chimpanzees do it, then so is the homicide of a cheating spouse and their lover.
Hmmm… Yes. Well, your thinking is very unique regarding human uniqueness.
It should be noted that throughout human history dominant, powerful males have tended to have a great many more children. Either through formalized polygyny or informal philandering. Or, IOW, it is GOOD to be the King.
This has been reversed in recent decades, with high-status males (and females) much less likely to reproduce than low-status people.
The long-term consequences of this seemingly anti-Darwinian behavior remain to be determined. But it seems unlikely they will be positive.
True. Man cannot engage in mere animal sexuality without sinking beneath even the animals, who are innocent in their animality.
HERE: Sexual Secrets of the Normal
You wrote: "...However, humans have uniquely taken this further with the idea of socially-enforced marriage. ....Socially-enforced marriage overcomes these things by maximizing the reproductive bond,..."
And when did this forcing of the sexual genie into the marital bottle happen? :) See HERE
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.