Making Monkeys of Ourselves

Our either-or mindset and species arrogance has shaped much of our so-called science. The objectivity of science is marred by observations never made, because they don't fit into the reigning dogmas, as enforced by the reigning and usually very defensive dogmatists.

Some assertions are open to question on the basis of definitions that are either too restrictive or too global. Consciousness, for instance, and which live forms have it. How much of consciousness is operational, how much is metaphorical? Hard to say. But science must open up to the questions.

Other assertions can be countered by new observations, even though they are observations of creatures that have been around longer than science, and ostensibly well-observed. But a science based on a gene-centered or individual-centered interpretation of evolution and natural selection tended to discourage observations of subtle relationship behavior, and behavior that tends to benefit the group as a whole. Scientists in the field are now beginning to notice what was in front of them all the time, as well as using new circumstances, approaches and technologies to study animals in more natural circumstances---that is, natural to the animals, not to the lab rat scientists.

So it shouldn't be too surprising that new findings are still being made, such as the recent studies showing altruistic behavior is natural, in human infants and in other primates.

Of course, observing altruism in human infants is something most mothers have done, without benefit of grants or closed-circuit TV. It's just that the theory didn't allow for it, or didn't admit of the possibility that behavior can be selfish sometimes, and sometimes unselfish, without such behavior being taught in either case.

But the primate studies are more consequential because they suggest "altruism may have evolved six million years ago in the common ancestor of chimps and humans." (Even this, I suspect, is too limiting, in terms of species with instincts to share.) They also found that chimps and human infants will cooperate in their unselfish behavior.

It is astonishing that we need bickering scientists to tell us what we observe all the time, and especially in extreme events like natural disasters or ethnic cleansings: some people behave violently and viciously, some merely selfishly, some with heroic altruism, and a lot with a mixture of several of these behaviors, depending on various factors, including leadership. But we are so determined to have our behavior determined by One Thing--be it a god or a gene--that provides us only with an off/on, either/or, us/them switch---that we don't allow ourselves to accept what we already know. We've got it all inside us as well as all around us. We choose, one way or another.

Not recognizing this leads paradoxically to a society that devalues the individual, consciousness and choice. The idea that each of us is dominated by our selfish genes means we are irresponsible and driven, and must be controlled by authority for the good of the state. The idea that we have kindness in us might turn us into bleeding hearts, who want the means of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness available to every individual and family, insofar as we together are able to provide it. Which at this stage of the game, we are. Though thanks to our leaders and controllers of dominant ideas, we don't.

Finally, it's worth remarking that our ethnocentrism likely extends further and farther than we comfortably recognize. What we see as "natural" much of the time is likely shaped by our 10 thousand or so years of Big Agriculture, urbanizing classes and kingdoms---which we euphemistically call civilization--and which we merely assume has always been this way, except in more primitive form (sometimes brutal, sometimes comic, but always simpler.) But it wasn't necessarily so, and there are scholars who believe it decidely was not so.

This unacknowledged context also colors not only the story we tell ourselves about the past, but what we see in the the present. Including in the monarchy of science, which in these centuries has been geared much more to how to do things rather than how to understand. And in science as elsewhere, it is difficult (though not impossible) to see what you are not looking for.