Are Humans Special?
— Christian de Quincey
A colleague replied:
First of
all I want to say that I am 100 per cent in alignment
with your goal of “a saner, healthier, more
equitable, more sustainable, more compassionate world
for all species.”
I have
explored these questions through living them. I have
been a vegan, vegetarian, eating only
“happy” animal products. I used to live
on an organic farm. I have volunteered for
Greenpeace, the Green Party (both in the U.S. and
U.K.). I have explored deep and transpersonal
ecology, social ecology, eco-feminism,
eco-Marxism/Anarchism/Capitalism, animal rights, and
welfare ethics, bioethics etc. I have protested fox
hunting, climate change, global capitalism, marched
for peace, etc.
So I share
your concern that a holocaust has been unleashed on
nature by humanity. It's heartbreaking, on top of all
the inevitable heartbreaks of life—what a
waste. Ultimately, my goal in life and for all people
is to live in the mystery, to live in
love—now.
Even if I
am not able to articulate it fully in words, I have a
sense that everything is especially special, and what
is special about humans is this: We can
consciously learn how
to manifest beauty, love, joy, compassion, truth,
authenticity, wildness, non-attachment, intimacy,
trust, light, heat, health, life—Divinity.
My response: I’m
with you all the way in your project to “live
in the mystery” and “to learn to manifest
beauty, love, joy, compassion . . .”
Yes!
I'd like
to explore two points you make: First, to say that
every species is special makes sense. It means that
every species has something unique that makes it that
particular species. You could say it is part of the
definition of what being a species is. But to say
that all are “especially special” is a
contradiction. It’s just not possible that
everything is more special than everything else. The
problem with the notion “humans are special" is
that it implies we are
especially special
or
uniquely unique. I
think such self-aggrandizing hubris is the source of
the “holocaust” on nature you mention.
That is why I say we need to change our fundamental
guiding story as a civilization. That is why I write
my books. That is why I teach.
The other
point, directly related, is when you say “what
is special about humans is this: We can
consciously learn to
manifest beauty, love, joy, compassion, truth,
authenticity, wildness, non-attachment, intimacy,
trust, light, heat, health,
life—Divinity.” I see this as just
another version of the fundamentalist credo that God
made humans “stewards” of the Earth.
What basis
do you have for asserting (believing) only humans
have the capacity to
consciously learn to
manifest beauty, love, joy, compassion . . .?
Isn’t that just an assumption? (perhaps
motivated by a deep-seated, unconscious urge to put
humans above the rest of nature—and that, I
think we both agree, is a recipe for ecological
disaster). Anyone who has spent time with other
species—such as dogs, dolphins, whales,
parrots, chimps, gorillas, elephants—knows that
they also appreciate and manifest love, joy,
compassion, etc. How can you know whether or not this
is accompanied by conscious intent? Why would you
assume it is not?
What's the Evidence?
How much
evidence do we need to show that every
“special” quality attributed to humans is
also exhibited by other species? These qualities
evolve, and are on a spectrum. Humans shine brighter
on some qualities; other species shine brighter on
different qualities. The most recent example is the
striking, even startling, evidence that young chimps
have memory abilities far superior to humans’.
Name any other “special” human quality,
and then do the requisite interspecies research; you
will find evidence for that trait in some other
species, too.
If your
commitment to human specialness is evidence-proof,
that would make it pure ideology—just
fundamentalist faith. If not, what evidence would
shift your position?
Have you
ever hung out with a dog, for example, and noticed
his/her commitment to “joy, love, compassion,
authenticity, wildness, non-attachment, intimacy,
trust, light, heat, health, life?” How would
you know whether a dog or any other species has a
conscious commitment to beauty or divinity? Do dogs
show appreciation for
human notions of
“beauty”? Hardly. But, then, when was the
last time you or I rolled around in some deliciously
smelly piece of decaying flesh, or licked a leaf
where a raccoon had pissed the night before? I
won’t even ask why you think humans are the
only species with a hotline to divinity.
I’m
urging us to nudge ourselves out of the (ultimately
self-destructive) rut of anthropocentricism.
Here’s a question: Are we the only species that
has the capacity to shift our species perspective?
Can dogs shift from canine-centricism? Chimps from
chimp-centricism? Dolphins from cetacean-centricism?
Can other species besides humans adopt the
perspective that other species also have a valid
perspective on reality? How would you test this? Or
would you jump to the conclusion that there’s
no need to test because you already
“know” the answer?
(fundamentalism).
When I
engage in debates on this topic, and challenge the
notion of “human specialness,” I have
been accused of being a “traitor to my
species.” Typically, I respond with a mix of
obviousness and humor: “Some
of my best friends are humans.”
I am
not down on humanity
per se. I do love
the magnificence and spirit of humanity. I want us to
survive as a species. But I do not want us to cling
to a metaphysical story that elevates us above the
rest of nature; a story that is doomed to fail us and
bring down many other species with us. Seeing it
happen all around the world, at a rapidly increasing
rate, saddens my heart. And I'm often angry at our
profound stupidity and self-serving greed.
Do Science and Spirituality Make Us Special?
Yes, there
is something special about humans:
We can ask these deep metaphysical
questions. We can
debate them. So what? Does it make us
especially special?
Does it make us superior?
Does an
ability to construct complex and subtle abstract
models—we call them “cosmologies,”
“metaphysics,”
“science”—mean we are superior to
other species? Who decides that? How much of our
civilization is, ultimately, created in the service
of over-inflated human egos? And, really, why should
we assume that even engaging in spiritual practices
that lead to experiences of “unity,”
“divinity,” “transcendence,”
or “transformation” is a mark of superior
or special consciousness?
Couldn’t it be that we humans feel a need to engage in such psychospiritual practices precisely because we are constitutionally out of sync with the rest of nature? I’ve never met a parrot who needs a priest, a rabbit longing for a rabbi, a gorilla searching for a guru, or a dog howling for the divine. What we assume to be great achievements of the human mind may, in fact, be magnificent expressions of a profound pathology. Maybe. I don’t assume I know the answer to this either way. What I do know is that I don’t know of any evidence that marks humans as “especially special.” And certainly I do not know that humans have any “divine” or “natural” right to exploit other species.
I want us
to recognize and acknowledge that we, necessarily,
experience, perceive, and interpret the world, and
our place in it, from a thoroughly
human perspective.
And part
of that perspective, understandably, is self-serving.
But we also have the ability to realize that what
applies to us also applies to other species. They,
too, naturally and inevitably, experience, perceive,
and interpret the world, and their place in it,
from
their perspective.
We simply
have no right or reason to assume that our
perspective trumps all others. That’s my bottom
line.
