Humanism
We humans often set ourselves apart from animals, for many reasons. Historically, it has been because some scriptural doctrine or another informed us that we were either made from scratch to be their superior, or chosen by some deity for special enlightenment. As an atheist and evolutionary biologist, I can't accept these reasons.
Less doctrinally challenged ideals for human superiority based on our intelligence and character have been more recently used as justification for our behaviour. An objective view of our behaviour reveals a less than intelligent, territorial, jealous, violent, and greedy species. Actually, looking solely at our actions and their outcomes, not their motivation (or worse, after the fact justification of them) , we behave as any other reasonably social creature does. We support our own herd, and fight off all others to secure territory, which protects the resources our herd needs to survive.
There is a fine example of how this kind of behaviour works in the animal kingdom, involving beetles. It is often used in explaining population dynamics in undergraduate science courses. A certain species of beetle requires a particular food source for it's larvae. The food source is the seed of a particular tree, and each larva requires half a seed in order to reach maturity. If two beetles lay an egg on the same seed, both larva have enough food to become beetles. If three beetles lay their egg on the same seed, all three larvae die as a result of the competition for food.
If we were truly more intelligent than animals, we would be able to figure out a way that everybody got all they needed, no matter where they were born in the world. Some continents are heavy with mineral wealth, some have rich arable soil to farm, some have plentiful fresh clean water, some have all of these things in the same place, and their citizens are wealthy and healthy, for the most part. Some land masses have none of these resources, and their citizens are poor, unhealthy, uneducated and die very young.
If none of us are chosen by an external force as superior, then we are all equal. If we are all equal, then the world's resources belong to all of us, especially those materials that are limited. And not just those living in the present, but the future generations should have a claim in the wealth of the world. If everyone had equal access to all resources, would there be any need for standing armies to defend them?
If we evolved from animal ancestors, as I think it is safe to assume we did, then our future rests firmly on the concept of humanity, in taking the final step in shedding our animal past, and becoming superior to them in the only way we possibly can. By achieving some real intelligence.
Less doctrinally challenged ideals for human superiority based on our intelligence and character have been more recently used as justification for our behaviour. An objective view of our behaviour reveals a less than intelligent, territorial, jealous, violent, and greedy species. Actually, looking solely at our actions and their outcomes, not their motivation (or worse, after the fact justification of them) , we behave as any other reasonably social creature does. We support our own herd, and fight off all others to secure territory, which protects the resources our herd needs to survive.
There is a fine example of how this kind of behaviour works in the animal kingdom, involving beetles. It is often used in explaining population dynamics in undergraduate science courses. A certain species of beetle requires a particular food source for it's larvae. The food source is the seed of a particular tree, and each larva requires half a seed in order to reach maturity. If two beetles lay an egg on the same seed, both larva have enough food to become beetles. If three beetles lay their egg on the same seed, all three larvae die as a result of the competition for food.
If we were truly more intelligent than animals, we would be able to figure out a way that everybody got all they needed, no matter where they were born in the world. Some continents are heavy with mineral wealth, some have rich arable soil to farm, some have plentiful fresh clean water, some have all of these things in the same place, and their citizens are wealthy and healthy, for the most part. Some land masses have none of these resources, and their citizens are poor, unhealthy, uneducated and die very young.
If none of us are chosen by an external force as superior, then we are all equal. If we are all equal, then the world's resources belong to all of us, especially those materials that are limited. And not just those living in the present, but the future generations should have a claim in the wealth of the world. If everyone had equal access to all resources, would there be any need for standing armies to defend them?
If we evolved from animal ancestors, as I think it is safe to assume we did, then our future rests firmly on the concept of humanity, in taking the final step in shedding our animal past, and becoming superior to them in the only way we possibly can. By achieving some real intelligence.
posted by The Last Scientician at 2:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home