Many still think of a “ladder of life”, humans at the top and all. Yes we’re the only organism with a 2nd replicator (memes) but in most ways we’re NOT number one.
For more detailed cures read Stephen Jay Gould, (I’ve a lot of criticism for him but in this area he reigns). Here’s the shortlist of nature facts to cure us of human chauvinism:
- The part in Alien where the creature bursts out of the body is somewhat true: 90% of DNA in your body is not human.
- 1 cubic cm of soil has 10,000 species of bacteria (all mammals come to a pathetic 5400 species).
- Chimps are actually more ‘evolved’ than us, with 50% more gene changes since our last common ancestor.
- Wheat is more complicated than humans, with 5 times the genome size. (I know much of the genome isn’t useful to the organism but even so, there’s almost certainly a lot more going on in a wheat cell than our cells.)
- “We share about 96% of our genes with chimpanzees, 80% with mice, 75% with dogs, 50% with the fruit fly, Drosophila, 40% with roundworms (nematodes) and 30% with yeast” (source). So the “all men are dogs” expression is only 3/4 right.
- 1 species of humans, 350,000 of beatles. Insects absolutely murder all vertebrates in terms of numbers and species. As said by Nigel Stork: to a first approximation, all multicellular species on earth are insects
- Though we were first to stumble on full-fledged language, ants beat us in discovering agriculture (crops and livestock) by probably 40 million years.
- If animals were to form a “kingdom” there would be 20-30 other kingdoms, most single-celled. They also have much greater diversity than all us (animals essentially being all the same: plant parasites).
- Likelihood of humans going extinct in the next billion years: almost certain. Likelihood for the great kingdoms of single-celled-organisms: almost nil.
- Multi-celled life has only been around for the last 20% of the Earth’s existence. Mammals have only been around for the last 20% of multi-celled existence. Humans have only been around…well I better leave it to Mark Twain:
Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is, I dunno. If the Eiffel Tower were now representing the world’s age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man’s share of that age; and anybody would perceive that the skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would, I dunno.
In short, as Tyler Durden said, you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. And that’s not in itself a bad thing.
12 comments ↓
> Likelihood of humans going extinct in the next billion years: almost certain. Likelihood for the great kingdoms of single-celled-organisms: almost nil.
Wow… Thank Goodness I’ll be dead.
Do you have any more information on why it’s so likely that humans will be exinct?
That point was a bit more of a pontification. Biologists like Dawkins and Gould thought we’d become extinct largely based on the fact that 99% of all species become extinct and we’re no paragons of sustainability.
I have seen 2 or 3 articles on prediction experts that would give about a 50% chance of something deadly (asteroid or nuclear war) in the next century. And over billions of years there are endless hurdles for us that bacteria simply won’t have to deal with.
I guess from a perspective of strict evidence the most you can say is humans have a MUCH MUCH higher chance of going extinct than single celled species.
Even if we don’t get hit by some disaster, it’s still certain that humans will go extinct, simply for the same reason that homo erectus no longer exists.
I hadn’t realized this before. Hopefully our replacements will be able to use our science so that it won’t go to waste.
That is, even if we don’t die like neanderthalensis, we will change like erectus.
Also, remember that the press is very, very fond of reporting disasters, even potential disasters. The prediction experts who work out how we will survive aren’t going to get any column inches.
But anyway, two reasons that Humans thrash Nature chauvinism;
Despite all these disadvantages, most of these species are at our mercy, not the reverse.
If consciousness really is confined to one cold clammy rock, that just makes us more special, not less, in the same way that precious stones are special.
I’m not sure we’ll evolve to a different species, since in a technologically developed society there is little selection pressure (see my other post about this: http://anadder.com/are-humans-still-evolving-probably-not). If we do it will probably be a case of eugenics, where we design our own human genome.
Also I wouldn’t say most species are at our mercy. Of course for large animals this is true. But probably 95% of all species are insects and bacteria who we could never wipe out (think of our historic battles with disease and pests); I reckon as per our narrow-minded worldview we find it hard to think of the bulk of the iceberg, just the tip
Genes will still drift, and if we drift long enough we won’t be human anymore.
Ah, then it’s a good thing I didn’t say ‘wipe out’ wasn’t it? There’s not much point in wiping most species out.
However, of things there is a point in doing, we can generally do it. There’s only a few exceptions, such as colds, but even here it’s a stalemate, rather than dominance on either side.
“the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man’s share of that age; and anybody would perceive that the skin was what the tower was built for.”
Maybe not anybody, but the skin of paint might.
I’m not sure that I understand the logic used in e.g. points 2 and 3, i.e.: humans are less variable than other creatures, therefore they are not superior. !!???
yep, reminds me of the great george carlin thing about “life is sacred” only being mentioned by living people who are obviously biased.
2 and 3 are about misconceptions about evolution:
2 — people think that because we belong to the mammals (or apes/vertebrates/eukaryotes etc.) that these groups are the most advanced, the most successful, the most varied in terms of species. ie. the bias extends not to humans (since we are obviously 1 species) but to whatever classification group we belong to. plus another part of human chauvinism is simply not considering how many other species they are and how unlike us they are (you mean all insects aren’t the same?)
3 — this counteracts people who think that evolution is solely progressive and that we’re “more evolved” because we’ve had “more improvements” made to us compared to our closest cousins. this shows that even by that standard, we still aren’t number 1
Right. So they aren’t standalone arguments, and are only meaningful in the context of presumed arguments.
I enjoyed this. I’ve never found others who believe that humans are not the most inportant creatures on the planet. I’ve always thought that humans were very arogant in assuming that just because we are different and do not understand other species and we have one form of technology that we recognise that we are superior. Animals may have knowledge and comunication on a totaslly different level that may be as intricate as our but just beyond human understanding. We say our technology makes us the best but truly we are destroying our own home so really we are fouls and animals aid the earths flow and may understand the earth better than us. Great post
joel — guess i assumed more context on behalf of the reader — a common mistake in the great ivory tower of blogging
carrie — thanks but why would someone think animals have some kind of intricate knowledge? this isn’t really an option ever since modern biology, computer science etc — animal brains just aren’t equipped to do any kind of intricate information processing. i suggest you read this great post which talks about anthropomorphism a bit more. i guess part of the point of my post was that although we DO have the monopoly on thinking, thinking isn’t the only game in town.
Yes perhaps but I do think we put animals on a far lower footing than they deserve. We have acquired a certain type and level of thinking but humans are on different levels from one another. Induvidual creatures have different potentials and capabilities but yes I agree simply having a purely more advanced brain shouldn’t be the only information we use to judge levels of superiority or advancment Also my point was being advanced isn’t always a positive aspect. Primitiveity has many benifits and different lifestyles provide understanding of different things. I certainly think that though most animals have a far less advanced way of thinking than the human race that they are indeed on our level i.e. most are ‘people’ I mean people in that they are sentient, self concious and self aware rather than assuming only that with human DNA is a person. Obviously sentience is very hard to measure as we judge it from a human perspective assuming anything similar to ourselves is a sign of it but this is at least a starting point. The fact is most animals show far higher degrees of sentience than human babies and we need do still think of our race as superior. I will read that post. Thanks. I just thought it the topic raised some interesting points about how we see ourselves in relation to other species and on what grounds we judge them.
[...] written before about human chauvinism. An example we all engage in is anthropomorphising nature. Usually in giving animals human [...]
Leave a Comment