In introducing this week's topic, I fear that my language may have painted something of a false dichotomy. Are we "just" wild animals, or are we somehow separate from the many species with whom we share planet Earth? I often find myself guilty of stratifying the human experience far above that of "lesser" creatures, an exercise which can frankly be taken to a dangerous extreme when the sanctity of life is in question.
Stephen Jay Gould elegantly asks, "Why should our nastiness be the baggage of an apish past and our kindness uniquely human? Why should we not seek continuity with other animals for our 'noble' traits as well?"
When reading the comments from yesterday's video post, I noticed a common theme unfolding. We can learn more about ourselves--and yes, we ARE apes--if we study our closest living animal relatives, the bonobos and the chimpanzees of the Pan genus. Of the five living great apes (humans, gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, and bonobos), we share the highest DNA compliment with chimps and bonobos (we only differ by about 1-2%). To put that in perspective, we are closer to these ape relatives than they are to gorillas, closer than a dog is to a fox, or even an African elephant is to an Indian elephant. In fact, we (Homo) are thought to have diverged from Pan genus only 4-5 million years ago, an eyeblink in the grand evolutionary scheme of things.*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/talk-nerdy-to-me-are-we-not-apes_n_1082929.html
Comments
I quote Lincoln:
"FYI 'Current Events' is for things that are at least tangentially related to Buddhism."
@LeonBasin, if you post matter in Current events, please make sure they have some current newsworthy relation to Buddhism.
And it would be nice to have original matter from you to discuss, instead of an endless stream of quoted articles or items you've found cruising the web....
Why not think up a topic of your own, now and then?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4766490.stm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625085134.htm
As has been pointed out, instinct doesn't have to always mean something negative. A natural biological reaction can be compassionate.
I liked that.
We are not that far removed from animals, look at the divorce rates, monogamy is an epic fail anymore. Not many non-humans mate for life (anymore), including the apes, so monogamy is more to keep order in the human kingdom, and is not all that "natural". If anything it is exceptional that a human keeps a mate for the long term.
Chimps can reason, they know enough to take a stick to get ants from a mound to eat. They also show compassion towards each other. Humans have taught them some pretty amazing things, too. Look at me, I can talk and operate a computer!
:::grabs a banana and scampers off:::
I quote from Leon's opening post:
Stephen Jay Gould elegantly asks, "Why should our nastiness be the baggage of an apish past and our kindness uniquely human? Why should we not seek continuity with other animals for our 'noble' traits as well?"
One thing I have noticed since having a pet, is the calming influence which i'm sure others will relate to too, not to mention the joy having a pet can bring, so the above quote is in my mind, quite pertinent.
To put it in one sentence; animals can have the ability to teach us patience, to laugh more, to be more affectionate and calmer. So yes, we should seek continuity with other animals for our 'noble' traits. I.M.O. They can draw these noble traits out of us in ways that perhaps another human being can't always.