What Are You?

Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primate, Hominidae, Homininae, Hominini, Homo, H. sapien. That's the easy answer, but what does that mean? I have found myself asking this question over and over in as many different contexts as you can imagine. I am coming to believe that until each of us finds our own answer this question, our personal sense of morality will be resting on shaky ground. It's such a difficult question to breach though. Where do I even start? It is becoming clear to me that whether religious or not, most people think we humans are "higher" or "separate" from all the rest of the animals on earth. Whether it be because we are made in the image of God, or because our brains evolved consciousness, there seems to be a common opinion that (for whatever reason) the rules that apply to the rest of biological life don't apply to us. And here I must confess the more I think about that the less I believe it's true. There are several reasons for this, a couple of which I'd like to explain here.

The first is that it is impossible for us to objectively view anything. We are 100% influenced by our consciousness, and our self awareness. There is no avoiding it. Everything I am writing is influenced by my ability to think about it, it can be no other way. Wolves cannot view the world outside of being a wolf, and although we'd like to think we could imagine what it would like to be a wolf, the fact that we can "imagine" being a wolf is the very reason why we could never really know what it's like to be one.
We think we have a responsibility to the planet and to all life on it, but we only do as far as it appears to us, through our own narrow paradigm. And what if our paradigm is wrong, or at the very least not as ethical as we think it is? That is where I pause, and find fault in the above argument. I am all for saving the polar bears and stopping global warming, but is driving my car less, and donating to the World Wildlife Fund really the moral thing to do? If the earth became hotter we might perish along with the polar bear and Emperor Penguins but the fact of the matter is there are millions of species that would actually benefit from the warmer climate and who knows what animals and bugs natural selection would favor then? Is it our moral (and ethical) obligation to save the bears (and ourselves) and deny a warm and blissful future to all the critters that would benefit from it? How can we even claim to have any idea what is best for nature, when we can only view it through our own eyes.
I wonder what if there had been "intelligent" life around during the time of the dinosaurs, and those conscientious beings (like us) had started a campaign to "Save the Dinosaurs!"? What if they succeeded in repopulating the earth with T-Rex's and Velocaraptors? Wouldn't they have felt like they were doing the moral thing by saving a species from the brink of extinction? Doesn't that sound familiar? But then where would we be right now exactly? Probably sleeping in a burrow surrounded by acorn shells and our own feces, that's where. Even if these imaginary beings were intelligent, they could not possibly foresee the consequences of their actions.
It surprises me we think we know more than nature. It surprises me that we really think we have any right or authority to alter things in any direction on purpose. We criticize ourselves for depleting the ozone, but we pat each other on the back for trying to rebuild it. What is the difference? In both instances we are changing somethingto suit ourselves, that left to it's own devices would be different. All animals leave their mark. Bears don't tidy up a moose carcass after they are done gorging themselves. They leave it behind and other animals and bacteria benefit from it. How is it that we think our brains know more about how things "should be" than three billion years of evolution? We say we are doing it for the planet, for all living things, but that isn't true. We are only doing it for ourselves, because the fact of the matter is the world would get along just fine without us. Actually it would probably get along better. The environmentalists shout that they are trying to save the earth. Being as objective as I can possibly be given my humanity, I would argue the best way to "save the earth" (in the way the environmentalists mean) is to get rid of us. And I'd also like to point out we are doing a good job of heading in that general direction. So maybe nature does know more than us after all. I could go on and on about this, but I think I have made my point, and if I ever want to finish this blog I'd better move on.

Number two. Evolution may be unpredictable, but there are still patters that can be seen. One thing that stands out is evolution sticks with what works. If it ain't broke, evolution doesn't fix it. That's the reason most animals have bilateral symmetry, why there are only a handful of body plans in all of the biological world, and why all mammals have hair. Every once in a while natural selections tries something new, after all that's how we get change. If the "new" adaption works it proliferates, if it doesn't it goes the way of the dodo. Good ideas are expressed in multiples, bad ideas are singular. That is why I find it interesting that we are the only ones that developed intelligence. (OK maybe chimps and dolphins too, but not to the degree we do, and certainly not the environmental impact we do). Isn't that odd? Think about adaptive traits and how they spread among species. Teeth, claws, fur, big ears. All of those traits can be found on a number of animals. But our big brains are pretty unique. And more than that, (and more to my point) look what it has resulted in? Dinosaurs, with their little brains roamed the earth for over 150,000,000 years, yet in about 200,000 years we H. sapiens have evolved to the point that we can cause our own extinction. As far as I know, this has never happened before. And evolutionarily speaking that is a huge disadvantage. Our genes want to live and be passed on, anything that hinders that process from occurring constitute an unfit species. I am beginning to believe that our intelligence and our consciousness are an evolutionary failure. Stated simply our big brains are a bad idea from a purely evolutionary standpoint. I don't think we will be a long lived species because we are committing every no-no in the evolutionary book. We are outgrowing our resources, we are overpopulating our habitats, we are creating things that are harmful to ourselves, we are our own greatest threat. Just think about that last one for a second. Can you think of any other animal who's greatest predator is it's own kind? That's about as f*!ked up as it gets where nature is concerned. Right now humanity does not fit the criteria of an evolutionary successful species. If I had to guess I'd say we were at the bottom of the list. We might think we are "moving" ahead with technology and research, but I disagree. In a way I feel that everything that is happening in the world, from a scientific standpoint, is inevitable.

I know this sounds depressing, and I guess it is in a way, but that's not how I feel about it. The most comforting thought I have these days is that I really am a part of the world I live in. I really belong here just as I am, as much as the oak tree out my office window, or the snails that have eaten all my plants. I mess things up, and I make mistakes (like BP and the oil spill), but nature doesn't hate me for it. It will just exploit whatever it can from whatever happens as a result of my life. The proliferation of life on our planet is the closest thing to a miracle I have ever witnessed, and to know that I am a part of that process is humbling and exhilarating. The thing is I am not sure how morality and ethics fits into this view of the world. Can I even have a sense of morality if I think everything that happens (in the large picture) is OK? Am I replacing god with nature, and making up excuses for myself? It's a slippery slope. I think about all the children starving in third world countries, and I want to save them all. But at the same time the facts are if we actually succeed in saving everyone there would be too many of us and we'd all die of starvation. What is the moral view to take? If anyone has any thoughts on this I'd sure like to hear them. This is one of those topics that always leads me around in circles, and causes me endless hours of frustration....that and it's almost my birthday and I always get grouchy around my birthday.