Skip to main content

Man Is Not Great: The Evolution of Anthropocentrism

Why do humans care whether their species is special? Why are they so invested in their specialness that they're uncomfortable with the idea that they aren't? Why is it a bitter pill to swallow that humans aren't uniquely important in the universe, that they aren't the intended end of evolution, and that their wondrous and diverse subjective experiences emerge from the same physical processes observable in "lower" animals?

I think that the maladaptive human tendency to insist upon their specialness in the universe is an extension of an adaptive tendency to self-advocate in their tribes.

Consider fear. The predisposition to turn around when you feel like something might be behind you is likely to save you when there really is something there. Most of the time, when you can't help but turn around on the dark basement steps, there's no threat. From an evolutionary perspective, it’s better to turn unnecessarily than to do nothing in a moment of danger. That you have the impulse to turn and that you tend to turn when you feel that impulse are the result of genetic luck. When these traits are adaptive, they increase survival. When they're maladaptive, they have no negative effect.

The human need to feel that their species is special is an evolutionary byproduct of traits that benefit social cohesion and survival. It stands to reason that a sense of importance within a tribe would enhance group stability and cooperation. This trait, like fear, persists because, by sheer molecular chance, it's useful. When it isn't useful, nothing is lost.

Self-interest became anthropocentrism. If you have a tendency to think of yourself as important, then you might be more likely to stand up for yourself. This could give you better access to mates and food, and maybe even more protection from threats. It happens that humans have a tendency to think a certain way. As with many traits, the tendency doesn’t switch off when it’s not directly helpful. It generalizes, morphing from, "I matter in my immediate social group," through, "my species matters in the world," and finally to, "we are the most important species in the universe." Anthropocentrism doesn’t add any direct survival value in the abstract sense, but it doesn’t harm survival either, so it's retained.

Why humans protect the idea that they are special in the universe is a question that has loomed large in my philosophical thought. I think the answer is in evolution. Self-interest and kin-group bias overgeneralized into anthropocentrism, which is, however incidentally, continually reinforced by sociocultural structures like religion.    

How to excise anthropocentrism from philosophy and science is a different question, albeit one of no less importance.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Threat and Opportunity

Humans see everything as either a threat or an opportunity. These are the only classifications they have. A threat could be a corporal threat, like a violent person, or it could be a threat to their attention, like a boring person or a waste of time.   You're not in control of whether something looks like a threat or an opportunity. You can certainly apply control to turn one into the other, but your first impressions of anything are unconscious. I'm a waste of time. There's nothing to be gained from socializing with me because I'm profoundly socially impaired. I have no status and no way to earn status, so I'm a threat to attention. People who choose to pay attention to me find the endeavor prohibitively expensive of their energy. Attending to me is necessarily a struggle against the Darwinian impulse to conserve energy.  We can call this a rejection response.   I've said that humans naturally have a psychological allergy to me, but that's not a good...

How to Save the World

The following isn't related to autism.  It's an edited transcript of my side of a conversation with an AI.  I'm including it here because I think it's important. It should be pretty easy to arrive at the notion that, if we want to minimize our environmental impact, we should look back at a time when we were making a minimal impact and return to that. But that is not a suggestion anyone is making, and I don't think it's a suggestion anyone is likely to make, wherever these conversations are being had.  The conversation about conservation always begins with the tacit question, "How can we continue breeding unchecked forever, and how can we continue to deplete natural resources indefinitely?"  If you start from the idea that what we are doing now must not be impacted by whatever solution we come up with, then you're not going to come up with a good solution. This issue seems complex.  I don't think it's actually complex at all, however. I thin...