I am no Punxsutawney Phil, and don't care much for the men in high hats who awkwardly kept my fellow groundhog aloft at a safe distance from their coats, but I did see my shadow today and, I hate to tell you, it is human!
We, animals, are often said to be like humans in our bodies, but very unlike them in our minds. People keep repeating this despite all of the contradictory evidence. And here I am not alluding to the attempt to teach pandas "sexercises" by showing them "panda porn" or by having dogs massacre each other for monetary gain, which just goes to show that we are all too human. I am referring to the evidence for nice, helpful, cooperative behavior by animals. We may not be human, but it seems we can be as humane as the next Homo empathicus.
Scientists are insufferably skeptical, though, so when dogs rescue humans (or cats - go figure!) out of a burning building or when dolphins protect human swimmers against encircling sharks, we animals have done everything in our power to demonstrate our kinder side, yet the scientific community dismisses our efforts as "anecdotal evidence." They forget that by the same token the observation that humans are able to reach the moon is anecdotal. Scientific experiments rarely test human capacities to the limit.
It was necessary, therefore, that we participate in experiments that measured our empathy. This was done, for example, by giving one chimpanzee access to a key that could unlock a door for another chimpanzee, behind which there was food. Would the one chimp help the other to get the food? Or one capuchin monkey was given the option to either get food for itself only or for itself as well as another monkey at the same time. Would the monkey prefer to share?
After many of such tests it has now been concluded that, yes, primates other than humans love to help each other. They do care about the welfare of others as much as humans do, which is to say, some of the time.
This has implications for modern human society, because all too often politicians start from the assumption that society needs to be structured around competition, given that this is how nature works. Their dismal, inaccurate view of the natural world thus informs their view of human society. Too bad if some people have no health insurance, so the argument goes, so long as those who can afford it do. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona went one step further by voting against coverage of maternity care, because, as he explained, he had never had any need for it himself.
I feel that we should hold Senator Kyl and others of his species aloft in the glaring daylight and see what their shadow tells us. If they don't see the sun soon, there will be a never-ending winter.
We humans are not the givers of rights, we only take them away. All beings born on earth have an equal right to the natural bounty of our planet home.
What, irrespective of political leanings do you mean? Isn’t this confusion allied to our attempts to classify everything? When in reality some are like this and some are like that. In such variety and variation that we are bemused and bedazzled by it all. Yet above all this, there is an overriding requirement to be fulfilled. One in which failure confirms irrelevance, and success denotes significance.
Surely what has relevance, is the potential efficacy of each available strategy in regard to the prevailing environment. What will work best, and what won’t. When we realise what it is we are attempting to do.
I think that my greatest fear these days is that _Homo sapiens_ will destroy itself _after_ having driven Orangutans and other primates to extinction. If we humans can't get survival right, we should at least give the others a chance.
Climate-degradation-deniers, "rapture"-watchers, and similar people are pernicious because they are arrogating to themselves the right to play Russian roulette with ALL our lives.
On a lighter note, I'm suggesting a new definition of humans as "the animal with buttocks," _Homo sedens_, _Homo saltans_, or _Homo obstinatus_, as you wish : http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~bgoodric/index_files/GoodrichTimelyThinking_1.pdf
Page 5, footnote 15.
"After many of such tests it has now been concluded that, yes, primates other than humans love to help each other. They do care about the welfare of others as much as humans do, which is to say, some of the time."
It is the "some of the time" portion that requires more analysis and that constitutes the development time (referred to previously in increments of centuries) required for transcendence in terms of the chasm between here and there., some of the time and “The Land with no History”, where empathy is second nature versus a desire to leave a legacy.
Thanks again Mr. de Waal. I hope others find the hope in your treatment for there is plenty to be had.
Chuang Tzu -- Translated by: Thomas Merton