Letters to the Editor
-
The ONLY Thing That Separates Us From The Animals
Anytime you are forced, as a proponent of the view that humans are absolutely unique among animals, to use a ridiculously obscure human gene called "FOXP2" to make your case, you're already in big trouble.
Talk about desperation. Such hair-splitting is silly, and tends to argue against our intelligence, not for it. (Oops!)
Evolution favors, and rewards, the development of intelligence in all animals because greater intelligence means greater rates of survival, which means a greater chance of passing on one's genes to the next generation, which of course, is the whole point of evolution.
Watching authors like Michael Gazzaniga turn themselves into human pretzels while trying to configure some argument for our uniqueness, while entertaining, is tiresome, boring and annoying.
Here is the one, and only, thing that separates us from the (other) animals: the belief in our own superiority.
I guess then, the cosmic joke's on us, isn't it?
-
Human Exceptionalism Appeals To The Intrinsically Insecure.
nuff.
-
The flukes of the Universe
We may yet achieve the distinction of being the first species to bring about its own extinction by rendering our environment incapable of sustaining us. We are the flukes of the universe and whether we can hear it or not the universe is laughing behind our backs. And no god will save us.
-
Burden of proof
Most humans have believed that humans are unique, i.e., more important and valuable than other animals, since ... well, always. There are some pretty good prima facie reasons for this that go well beyond mere "species chauvinism" (for one thing, try naming another species even capable with coming up with the idea of "species chauvinism"). Gazzaniga appears to detailing some of the very many reasons for believing that this very commonplace opinion is indeed true, and giving some tentative explanation of why and how it came to be so.
Rather recently a few people, Burton, apparently among them, have begun to believe and to argue that humans are not special or unique at all, and are of no more worth than any other type of animal. They are, of course, entitled to their beliefs and to make arguments for them, and there is no reason why Salon should not publish such arguments if they are well made. However, Burton does very little in the way of making such arguments here. Rather, he insinuates that human non-specialness is the conventional wisdom, the default position, and so tries to shift the burden of proof to those who, like Gazzaniga, think humans are special. That might be appropriate in a magazine published by PETA, but in a forum like Salon with a more diverse and representative audience it amounts to intellectual dishonesty. In effect Burton is saying, "Gazzaniga does not share my kooky viewpoint, and in fact provides many arguments against it, but he does not make an absolutely watertight case, therefore his book is rubbish." That makes it an unfair review, quite regardless of the merits of either Burton's or Gazzaniga's positions. Yes, the kooks sometimes (though rather rarely) turn out in the end to have been right, but you do not get to occupy the intellectual high ground just because your views are kooky. It is the extraordinary claims that need to be justified by extraordinarily strong evidence or arguments, not the ordinary ones, but Burton's objection seems to be that Gazzaniga's arguments are just regular strength, and not unassailable. That may be so, but it ought to be enough, at least until we see some very much stronger arguments for the contrary view.
-
Well said, Grubert!
"Human Exceptionalism Appeals To The Intrinsically Insecure."
You should print that on t-shirts and bumper stickers. It is such a concise statement of this fundamental truth: Humans are animals. Unbelievably extraordinary and wonderful animals, but animals nonethless. Knowledge of this fact allows us to understand ourselves and our inclinations and respond in culturally-appropriate ways.
Ironically, we probably have an evolutionary propensity to deny and/or misunderstand our place in the animal kingdom!
-
Explanation not evidence
Spindoc, is not understanding the logic here (not that Burton helps much). FOXP2 is not supposed to be evidence that humans are special and unique, it is supposed to be a possible and partial explanation of how humans come to be special and unique. One piece of evidence for human uniqueness is the indisputable fact that we have languages of a subtlety and scope that vastly exceeds that of the meager signaling systems employed by other species, allowing us actually discuss complex and abstract matters like this. No other known species can debate these sorts of issues. Unless they are keeping their abilities very well hidden indeed, no other animal can even rise to the level of making the sort of logical error that Spindoc makes. The story of the FOXP2 gene is supposed to be part of an explanation of how humans (and humans alone) come to have language, it is not supposed to be a proof that we do. We already knew that.
In fact, it seems more than likely that the main point throughout Gazzaniga's book is to explain how human uniqueness comes about, not to prove that we are unique. The fact that Burton presents the book as an attempt to prove human uniqueness is what makes his review so misleading.
Of course, the fact that humans may end up destroying their world, or even the arguable fact that humans are despicable, is no argument at all against human uniqueness. Quite the contrary.
-
Special, you might say.
Of course our species is unique. What species is not unique?
-
The Unfounded Sense of Superiority is the Problem
All animal species are different, including humans. And every animal is different, in many ways, from others of its own kind. So difference is not the issue.
The real issue is the idea that our particular human differences put us on a higher moral plane, giving us the 'right' to rule the planet, and the other sentient creatures we share it with, as assumptive dictators, owing no moral consideration to the other, less sentient creatures. Hence, a non-human animal, because it is somehow 'lesser,' is considered either a pet or a main course.
But if our differences from the other animals were truly so great as to merit this higher worthiness of existence, then surely we would not be so violent, self-centered, easily distracted by shiny baubles, or as unashamedly, willfully uncurious as so many of us seem to be.
In other words, our intellectual superiority does not seem to translate into moral superiority. In fact, we just use our intellect to come up with more clever ways to be unregretfully unethical, and more clever rationalizations for our continued false sense of superiority.