Defining our humanity

On May 25 there was an article in On Line Opinion, titled “On being human” by Peter Sellick. It was an opinion based on purely intuitive thought rather than being the result of research following normally accepted logical thought processes. Intuitive opinions are not necessarily wrong. Combined with learning and humility it can be a source of wisdom. Intuitive thought served our cave dwelling ancestors exceedingly well when they had to instantly identify and respond to danger or opportunity. People who had roughly similar experiences only, can readily accept intuitive opinions.

For some time, intuitive thought was gradually being supplemented by analysis and synthesis, based along logic associated with mathematics or geometry. Even Thomas Aquinas made the distinction between intuitive or revealed truth and deductive thoughts. Crucially, people are trying to look for evidence from a variety of different sources, no matter how well thought of that single source may have been in the past.

Looking at various sources for information became the de rigueur in academic circles. The aim is to form a coherent and systematic structure. Things that remained outside logical analysis (for an individual or for a larger group of people) were left to inspired guess or myth.

One such guesswork was the motion of the stars, the Sun and the Moon relative to our Earth. To the ancients it did look as though the Earth was at the centre, and everything moved round it. They were no worse off for believing that, because it did not affect their lives in any way. A whole system of myth was built based on that perception. It was only later, when accurate calculations were needed for timing, for navigation, and for the understanding of weather patterns, that the old intuitive idea about the Earth’s position was replaced by the heliocentric view of our planetary system.

So let us return to defining a human being.

Like Euclid, we have to start somewhere. We ought to go a little further back than Peter Sellick - which was about 2,000 years ago. Let us start about 16,000 years ago when prehistoric individuals lived in the caves at Lascaux, in the Dordogne area of France. They can be identified as being truly humans, making elaborate pictures, (probably associated with hunting rituals), making tools and weapons, and being able to make fire.

How can their humanity be defined?

Humans are social beings, capable of perceiving and communicating concepts, which they do not or cannot directly observe, and are capable of creating and controlling energy.

Our ancestors living in the caves at Lascaux exhibited all these characteristics. They were not only social for hunting or defensive purposes, but they also expressed their creativity, - as the paintings themselves show. All mammals can be social for hunting, grooming or for defensive reasons. Young mammals can be observed honing their hunting skills, or gaining strength, in a playful way. However, when hunting, eating, grooming, or play exhaust them, they totally relax and slumber. Only humans spend their leisure time in a creative way.

What about the ability to perceive and to communicate concepts, that they did not or cannot directly observe?

As the paintings show, they became prepared for hunting at a future time, animals they did not see, that were in the area around somewhere. They could visualise things without actually seeing. It is also possible that their rituals were accompanied by some kind of rhythmic music making. Only recently, a flute-like instrument was found in a cave near Ulm, in Germany, which is about 35,000 years old, strongly suggesting a musical awareness among Stone Age inhabitants in that area. (Ulm is about 40 miles southeast of Stuttgart.)

What about creating and controlling energy?

The people living in the caves at that time, had the ability to make and to control fire not just to keep warm, but they had to extract the dyes used in the paintings, by the process of heating some colour containing stones.

Now let us fast forward to our modern age. How can the definition of the human being seem looked at afresh?

The first part of the definition, of being social, can be considered almost as stating the obvious. Even insects, such as bees and ants are social. Monkeys in particular are social. But, as stated before, mammals are social for hunting, foraging, grooming and defensive reasons. Only humans occupy their leisure-time creatively. The myriad of hobbies, from fishing, music making, knitting, painting, and so on, is testimony to this.

Qualities that enhance the sociability of an individual are more advantageous in an evolutionary sense, than when it is limited. Any activity or behaviour that adds to the social value (indirectly) is preferable to activities, which benefits only the individual. Contrast the activities of a habitual thief; a drug dealer; or an embezzler, with a house builder or a nurse. It is not difficult to see who adds to the social value, and who does not. The spectrum of sociability is wide. One’s sociability may be limited to a few individuals, or it may encompass a very large group. Even the hardened recluse, who supposedly shuns everybody, depends on others in some way.

What about our ability to perceive and to communicate objects or concepts that we do not or cannot observe?

One of the examples is the genetic code contained in the double helix. It was not seen as such, but people accept, and are making use of the way it works. Other examples are the myriad of plans followed when building a house, or working out the stress levels of an aeroplane wing before the plane itself is built, or a painting or music bringing to one’s attention a sentiment or thought.

Also, our capability to create and to control energy has vastly expanded since the Stone Age people were using a simple fire for heating, cooking, and later, making various forms of pottery. The intensity of fire itself increased through the centuries, before we started to use various chemicals such as coal and gas. Electricity has added to our knowledge, and most recently, we made use of atomic fission. The quest will, no doubt, to expand further.

Conclusions

We have to consider what is unique to humans. The prevailing definition of a human being emphasises our superior communicative skills and our exceptional tool making capabilities. This is not adequate. There is nothing unique about the ability to communicate. All mammals do it. Have humans just happened to develop it exponentially? There is nothing unique about tool making either. Chimpanzees do it more than other mammals. Have humans just developed it to an extraordinary degree?

Whatever happened about 40,000 years ago, humans acquired the unique features of the ability to create and to control energy, and the ability to perceive and to communicate things they do not or cannot observe directly. Even our sociability is unique, in as much as humans are the only beings who occupy their leisure time creatively.

The present view of our humanity needs to be looked afresh. The notion that only the fittest survive is wildly misinterpreted and misapplied. Yes, a person has to be fit, but fit to carry out a task. A teacher, an engineer, a musician and an athlete all have to be fit for a purpose. To be good at any task requires self-discipline and training. This process can be described as a continuous struggle for survival to improve one’s ability to do their best.

Both in the plant and the animal kingdom, the individual that prospers is the one that is more adaptable to the demands of the changing environment. Only in that sense can they be considered fit. In the case of humans, they almost constantly have to adapt not just to changes in their physical environment but more so, to changes in their social environment.