The Uniqueness of a Human Being: Part Two

There’s just something really special about Homo sapiens relative to all the other animal and plant life forms we share Planet Earth with. Well actually every life form is special in one way or another*, but still humans stand out from the crowd. Many people will attribute that to the alleged ‘fact’ that we were created in God’s image, although IMHO the concept of a supreme, supernatural creator being carries so much dead (philosophical baggage) weight as to have as close to zero credibility as makes no odds. Therefore, I suggest something’s screwy somewhere.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

That brings up some interesting observations. Privacy (which is not the same thing as having your own personal space or your own territory) and embarrassment seems to have no obvious evolutionary advantage. That’s obviously the case because such concepts are not shared by any other animal life form currently on Earth, and that probably equates to past animal life forms as well. Did T-Rex care about being naked before doing battle with an equally naked Triceratops? - Probably not. Did T-Rex hide behind a tree before doing a pee? – Probably not.

Question: Why do we feel the need for privacy and feel a sense of embarrassment? Where did these concepts come from if they have no obvious survival (evolutionary) advantage?

Privacy and embarrassment tends to be associated with restroom and mating activities. Yet, from firsthand observations, my cats can go to about their litter box business in full sight of me, and of each other, without the slightest qualm. When animals mate, they don’t give a tinker’s damn if the whole darn world is watching. An animal’s gotta do what an animal’s gotta do. Further, each and every animal is in a sense strutting around in their birthday suit. Do they look the slightest bit uptight about this? Hell no.

When it comes to embarrassment, if you look at things logically and objectively, the skin around your private parts isn’t any different from the skin on your face and hands, so what’s the big deal? You don’t tend to be embarrassed over your ear lobes or your knees or which toe on your foot is longest; so why, in theory should your sex organs be singled out for cultural attention, actually inattention since they tend to be covered up?

So, there are a few more bits and pieces that make humans stand apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. But, there still has got to be a logical reason why. If embarrassment is a cultural trait as it appears to be (it’s certainly not biological) how did it ever get its start?

Sense of humour: Nearly all of the higher animals play – it’s preparation for the serious work of making a living. But play itself isn’t humour. Humans of course tell jokes, make puns – we’ve all seen people laugh in a conversation when someone says something amusing -all that’s a function of our higher intellect and our language capabilities. You wouldn’t expect animals without that sort of language ability and comprehension to connect the dots and laugh. I can tell jokes to my cats for hours on end; they’ll never understand the punch lines. However, part of our sense of humour isn’t based on language. There are the physical jokes and pranks we pull. Now some animals do have the physical ability to pull practical jokes on their peers, but I’m not aware that that happens in actual fact. My cats could if they wanted to, pick up in their teeth and hide my house keys from me as their version of a feline practical joke. Cats don’t play practical jokes. Overall however, when examining the human sense of humour,                                                        I have to ask what possible link can there be with regards to a natural evolution of a sense of humour and survival-of-the-fittest?

Blood types: To the best of my knowledge, humans are pretty unique in having about twenty different blood groups or types. That makes medical blood transfusions somewhat risky unless checks are carried out beforehand for compatibility. Not every human can receive blood from every other human.  I checked with my vet, and apparently any dog can give a transfusion to any other dog; any domestic feline’s (cat’s) blood can be transfused into any other domestic feline. I suspect much the same applies throughout the animal kingdom.

Blood types might make a bit of sense if each type of human breed had their own unique type. Maybe they once did but breeding between the races has distorted and diluted that so that now all races have all types of blood. Even so, if other animals can get by with just plain blood, just one blood type, albeit a blood type unique to that species, I don’t see why humans evolved a large variety of blood types. 

Emotions: Nearly all animals show emotions, even many of the ‘lower’ invertebrates. However, though other animals can weep - shed water from their eyes (my cats are examples here), only one animal, man, actually cries apparently as a response to an emotional state. I’m not sure what the evolutionary survival-of-the-fittest bit is about crying. I mean if you’re about to be pounced on by a sabre-tooth cat, will crying make the predator feel sorry for you; put the cat off it’s game and save you? Crying might promote bonding between humans, but there’s lots of bonding in the animal kingdom without the need for tears. So, why should there be crying in response to an emotional state. It’s a mystery to me.

Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC): The number of documented cases of humans, for some totally unknown, maybe unexplainable reason, bursting into flame which quickly kills and consumes the victim, has reached such numbers as to no longer reside in the realm of the paranormal/pseudoscience. What’s really unexplainable is that, relative to humans, to the best of my knowledge, no other life form has ever been witnessed and documented as having had their demise via spontaneous combustion. SHC certainly confers no advantage vis-à-vis passing on your genes. You’ve been handed a Darwin Award through no fault of your own.

Here’s a weird one – our signs of aging. All life forms age; all complex life forms can die from old age, that’s obvious and a given (however, elementary particles, like electrons, don’t age). Humans show obvious signs of aging – greying hair (or losing our hair) and wrinkles and liver spots. It’s easy to tell a 20 year old human from a 40 year old from a 60 year old from someone 80 years old. In most of the rest of the animal kingdom, visible signs of age and aging aren’t obvious. In some life forms, the only visible sign of age is size – trees, fish, and reptiles – organisms that continue to grow throughout their lifespan. Frogs don’t seem to get wrinkles as they grow older! How do you tell a 10 year old elephant apart from a 30 year old elephant? My 12 year old cat looks identical to what it looked like as a two year old. No grey hairs; no pussy cat wrinkles. Yet a 12 year old domestic cat is getting on towards pensioner status given a human analogy. Why should evolution seemingly single us out for acquiring grey hair and wrinkles?

In conclusion, if these traits can not be adequately explained by good old fashioned Darwinian natural selection and evolution, then its back to the drawing board and proposing either a supernatural deity or accepting an explanation of artificial selection. The only real candidate for applying artificial selection to humans to would be an extraterrestrial intelligence. Exactly what their motive(s) might be in most of the above cases isn’t clear cut, but the ‘why’ in terms of Darwinian selection is equally unclear.

*All animals are unique or different in their own way. Felines can purr; bats have radar and dolphins have sonar; some animals can see into the infra-red or ultraviolet part of the EM spectrum; some animals can hear higher or lower frequencies than us humans.

God’s Population and Environmental Policy: Genesis 1: 28

One part of the Bible that people like and take seriously is that God commands people to have sex – with the opposite sex of course, even if only for the purpose of producing more people who will grow up and eventually have sex, etc. Humans tend to be very good at this, regardless of race, IQ, occupation, status, income, overall health or even disabilities. Unfortunately, the consequences have been less than a utopian paradise or heavenly.

Most would agree that humans have had less than a perfect record when it comes to observing and keeping the Ten Commandments. But there is one other commandment that predates the Big Ten that humans have taken to heart and have had no trouble at all obeying. But instead of leading to positive results, this commandment has led humanity into turning our home, Planet Earth, into a cesspool of filth and suffering even death on a massive scale, not just for us but also for the innocents that had no say in the matter as well. The root cause is God’s population and environmental policies.

Though God’s population and environmental policy isn’t confined to just this one Biblical chapter and verse, that specific chapter and verse, Genesis 1: 28, is probably the most destructive statement in all of recorded history. Genesis 1: 28 is God’s population and environmental policy for mankind. It basically amounts to breed, like, well like rabbits! Further, there’s a subclause that suggests we speak loudly and carry a big stick and let Mother Nature know in no uncertain terms who is King of the Mountain. 

God's policy on population growth is flawed. God's not a Greenie or an environmentalist! We all know the passage from Genesis 1: 28 (King James Version) - It goes something like this: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

In fact, it doesn’t seem to matter if you’re starving, are poverty stricken, have little if any access to basic amenities, the need to obey Genesis 1: 28 is so strong that little else matters. We’ve all seen horrendous images of the greatest of the great unwashed living in filth and poverty with children not much more than living skeletons, and dying like flies. Fast forward a generation and it is déjà vu all over again, only it’s now twice the number of the greatest of the great unwashed. Despite living in the most appalling of conditions, you can count on the universal – sex. And of course the poorer you are the more you will take dominion over resources in order to survive. A poverty-stricken man would gladly kill the last surviving member of an entire animal species if it brings in enough money to get him and his family through another single day.      

It’s normally Mother Nature’s way to keep population growth under checks and balances, except, thanks to God, humans prove the disastrous exception to the rule. When human populations suffer to the extent that death on a massive scale starts to transpire, other humans provide assistance to get them over the hump. Thus, the next time disaster strikes and people start dying off, you have a situation where they are even more in need of assistance since those who would have died the previous time lived instead to breed more - the next generation, now under the gun. Human compassion, or morality or ethics – presumably also a gift from God – always lauded, ultimately can lead to even greater need for compassion. It’s a vicious cycle.

Of course when it comes to non-human species, humans are not quite so compassionate, moral or ethical. It’s that “subdue” and “dominion” bit. Humans don’t wait for Mother Nature to take charge, rather assume responsibility themselves, as a logical extrapolation of Genesis 1: 28.  Here in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), the ACT government authorises yearly the culling (i.e. – shoot to kill) of multi-thousands of kangaroos because these animals allegedly have a detrimental effect on the native environment of the ACT (i.e. – they get in the way of humans). Never mind the fact that the animal is a native (not an invasive species) to the area and their presence predates human settlement by millions of years. Also, never mind that humans outnumber kangaroos by thousands to one. Even locally, humans vastly outnumber the kangaroo. Guess which of the two species has the higher impact on the natural environment. The example of the kangaroo can be retold in other contexts thousands of times over – the American buffalo for example. That's quite apart from humans killing animals for 'sport'; not for food or clothing, but just for a hell of it; because it makes the brave hunters feel big – king of the mountain in fact. Genesis 1: 28 strikes again, and again and again.  

Now Genesis 1: 28 is ultimately a Biblical impossibility because it is unsustainable, as should already be bleeding obvious to blind Freddy, and should have been obvious to God Himself. But God is selfish. God wants worshipers and the more the better. God may well want more and more and more humans to bow and scrape to Him, but at what ultimate cost to the Earth He allegedly created; all those plants and animals He allegedly created; and His ultimate alleged creation, humanity?

Apart from mice and rats (which have a low ecological footprint), there's probably no wild mammalian species still in existence that outnumbers us anymore. There's something seriously wrong when there's threatened and endangered species, some  that now only total 500 to maybe (if lucky) 5000 individuals left, when humans are seven billion strong and ever accelerating in numbers, especially in Africa. What hope is there for God's animal creations? We've living in an era of mass extinction right now, and we're the cause. What lifestyle for humans when there's no more fit air to breathe; no fit water to drink; all natural resources depleted; disease and hunger rampant.

God may enjoy all those billions of humans here and now with billions more to come worshiping and praying to Him, but those "fish of the sea" are a fraction of what once was; ditto the "fowl of the air" and ditto, ditto "every living thing" - well, maybe not cockroaches, not yet at least (until they become a human food source of last resort and you'd eat them if it were down to a choice of that or starvation - besides they're rich in protein). The Book of Revelation maybe impossible nonsense, though the ‘End of Days’ (for humans) might not be, thanks to Genesis 1:28. It would be rather ironic if God just barely spared mankind via Noah’s Ark, only to have mankind go kaput because of that other extract from Genesis.

Of all of God’s crimes against humanity, which have been numerous (like the Genesis Flood), this apparently innocent statement contained in Genesis 1: 28 in the long term will be the one with the most implications, and ultimately the worst one of all, and God made it, and an all-knowing God should have known better. Of course that’s if you place any credibility in Biblical quotations. But that’s another topic.