Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
July 14, 2015 at 8:16 am (This post was last modified: July 14, 2015 at 8:19 am by Napoléon.)
I came across a two-part feature on BBC's website that was pretty fascinating and thought some of you guys/gals would like it. If you have a spare 10-15 mins it's well worth the read and does a good job at compiling an awful lot of interesting information.
Essentially, it's two articles that give opposing sides of an argument about whether humans are really 'unique'.
The first article shows just how similar we are to other primates, and how a lot of the things that we assume makes us special, actually, aren't so special at all:
Article 1 Wrote:There's no doubt that human abilities are more developed than those of chimps, particularly when it comes to spoken language. The point is that the differences are not stark and absolute, but rather a matter of degree – and they get subtler the more we investigate them.
I really like this article because it absolutely destroys the notion that we get our morality from religion. But that's just a bonus, what the article also says, and pretty undeniably in my opinion, is that morality isn't unique to us.
Here's some quotes I liked from the article, maybe those who don't want to read through the entire thing can just skim read the following:
Quote:A species, by definition, is unique. In that trivial sense humans are unique, just as house mice are unique.
But when we say humans are unique, we mean something more than that. Throughout history humans have created a seemingly impenetrable barrier between us and other animals.
As the philosopher Rene Descartes wrote in the late 1600s: "animals are mere machines but man stands alone".
Charles Darwin was one of the first to speak out against this idea. In The Descent of Man, he wrote: "There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties and that all the differences are differences of degree, not of kind."
He later extensively documented the similarities between human facial expressions and those of animals.
Quote:In 2003 de Waal published research looking into how capuchin monkeys reacted to an unfair payment.
After two monkeys had completed the same task, both would happily accept a cucumber as a reward. But when one was randomly given a more delicious grape instead, the other was not happy and began to refuse the cucumber.
Chimpanzees behave in a similar way. But what if a chimpanzee controlled the reward instead of a human experimenter?
We know that for the most part, they act selfishly when it comes to food. They are known to steal or hide it from rivals.
However, a 2013 study found that they also know the value of cooperation. They will share food even if there is nothing obviously in it for them. The study found that they will split a reward equally, just as humans do.
Quote:These insights all suggest that chimpanzees are socially aware and understand each other's behaviour.
Quote:Chimpanzees even have culture. They aren't composing symphonies but culture can be defined as passing on knowledge, habits and transmission from one generation to the next.
You won't see a chimp cooking a gourmet meal for his best friends but that misses the point. De Waal argues that chimps completely depend on cultural and social learning.
Quote:Morality, consciousness and culture were all once considered to be uniquely human, but chimps have them all. So what is left?
Language, clearly. We can write whole books on the topic, chimps do not. We cannot look into their eyes and ask them how they are and expect a verbal response.
Nevertheless, it's clear that they have a complex system of communication.
Chimpanzees lack the vocal structures to make the sounds we do. But language is more than spoken words: gestures and facial expressions also play an important role. When you take that into account, chimps suddenly don't look so bad at language.
So I think you get the idea with part 1. We're not as unique as we like to think we are.
Article 2 Wrote:Charles Darwin, in his book The Descent of Man, wrote that humans and animals only differ in degree, not kind. This still stands true but Suddendorf says that it is precisely these gradual changes that make us extraordinary and has led to "radically different possibilities of thinking".
...
as far as we know, we are the only creatures trying to understand where we came from. We also peer further back in time, and further into the future, than any other animal. What other species would think to ponder the age of the universe, or how it will end?"
This article acknowledges the points made in the first, but argues that the differences between humans and other animals, however miniscule they are on the face of it, actually add up to incredibly significant things.
Some quotes:
Quote:Ever since we learned to write, we have documented how special we are. The philosopher Aristotle marked out our differences over 2,000 years ago. We are "rational animals" pursuing knowledge for its own sake. We live by art and reasoning, he wrote.
Much of what he said stills stands. Yes, we see the roots of many behaviours once considered uniquely human in our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos. But we are the only ones who peer into their world and write books about it.
Quote:Evidence in the form of stone tools suggests that for about 100,000 years our technology was very similar to the Neanderthals. But 80,000 years ago something changed.
"The Neanderthals had an impressive but basically routine material record for a hominid. Once H. sapiens started behaving in a strange, [more sophisticated] way, all hell broke loose and change became the norm," Tattersall says.
We started to produce superior cultural and technological artefacts. Our stone tools became more intricate. One study proposes that our technological innovation was key for our migration out of Africa. We started to assign symbolic values to objects such as geometrical designs on plaques and cave art. By contrast, there is little evidence that any other hominins made any kind of art.
Quote:Comparative studies between humans and chimps show that while both will cooperate, humans will always help more. Children seem to be innate helpers. They act selflessly before social norms set in. Studies have shown that they will spontaneously open doors for adults and pick up "accidentally" dropped items. They will even stop playing to help. Their sense of fairness begins young.
Quote:We know that chimpanzees also work together and share food in apparently unselfish ways. However, Michael Tomasello of the Max Planck institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, says they will only cooperate if there is something in it for them*.
*I feel I need to point out here somewhat of a contradiction. The other article states the exact opposite. Which one is right?
Quote:Something must have happened in our evolution, Tomasello says, to make humans increasingly reliant on each other. Our brains needed fuel to get bigger and so collaborative hunting may have played a key role in that. Our advanced teamwork may simply reflect our long history of working together to get food.
Quote:Chimps can knowingly deceive others, so they understand the world view of others to some extent. However, they cannot understand others' false beliefs. In a chimpanzee version of the Sally-Anne task, researchers found that they understand when a competitor is ignorant of the location of food, but not when they have been misinformed. Tomasello puts it like this: chimpanzees know what others know and what others can see, but not what others believe.
Quote:This tells us something profound about ourselves. While we are not the only creatures who understand that others have intentions and goals, "we are certainly unique in the level of abstractness with which we can reason about others' mental states", says Katja Karg, also of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Quote:There's more to it, Thomas Suddendorf, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Queensland in Australia is keen to point out. We have a fundamental urge to link our minds together. "This allows us to take advantage of others' experiences, reflections and imaginings to prudently guide our own behaviour.
"We link our scenario-building minds into larger networks of knowledge." This in turn helps us to accumulate information through many generations.
Again, an interesting read if you have the time.
So after all that, I will ask the question: Are we really unique? Or are we just another animal, albeit one with slightly higher brain functions than anything else on this planet?
Guess I'll turn that into a poll, seems to be the trend lately!
*edit if a mod could change the word "how" to "what" in the poll, that'd be great.
