What it means to be human - Part III

In prior posts I've suggested on a number of occasions that humans, as a species, are substantially different in our origins and development than other species such as horses or dogs. I referred to humans as a hybrid species. I think that statement requires definition and clarification.

There are a number of aspects to how the term hybrid is used. The first listed definition in Webster's is the breeding of a male of one species or genus with the female of another species; a cross-bred animal or plant. Usually, however, the term cross-bred is reserved for the crossing of varieties of the same species while hybrid is used to define a mating of two different species. That is how I use the term hybrid when talking about human origins - the mating of (at least) two different species. That conclusion slowly grew over a number of decades. Problem is, of course, how do you prove something like that? At the current level of understanding of the human genome, the current state of the science of genetics, I don't think you can prove it through scientific methodology. And yet I am convinced. The question that keeps circulating in my mind is, "Why are humans necessary?"

For every environmental, ecological, niche whether in the sky above, the earth below or the seas beneath, there is some form of creature who inhabits it. Hundreds of thousands of species from the microscopic to the gigantic. And they all are purpose-driven and devised by the environment in which they originated. Designed from the ground up, cell by cell, over millions of years of evolution to fill that niche. Only a few such species can exist outside the original environment, whether it is an amoeba or a Blue Whale. What niche do we fill? What is the environment that we are designed to fill in a purpose-driven and holistic fashion. What is our species' existential gestalt? The specific environment we evolved in, and an environment that defines the boundaries of our continued existence (a tube worm living at the edge of a fumarole at the bottom of the ocean is an extreme example). Clearly, there no longer is one. Perhaps there never was such an environment. Humans are different from every other species in this regard. Drastically so.

What it means to be human - Part II

In previous posts I've argued backwards, reverse engineered aspects of human mentation using computer structure and function as the basis for the argument. It is my belief and understanding that whatever humans produce, whatever technology we invent, reflects aspects of the human mind. Everything that we imagine and in some cases translate into saleable products preexists in the mind. In that sense there is little or nothing that is truly unique. We do not create out of thin air. The creative process or talent is often interpreted as doing just that, but that talent in whatever field actually reflects an enhanced ability to mine the mainframe for data or information that previously did not exist in the artist's mind. That ability is genetically endowed. Thus human behavior as a whole

Looking back, I am astonished at the extent to which thinking about human behavior has changed over the last three decades. When I was in college, it was thought, and trumpeted, that behavior patterns were almost entirely due to how we were raised, to nurture and not nature (our genetic endowment). Now, over the last 15 years or so, due in part to a number of identical twin studies, it has become clear that just the opposite is true - that the great majority of what we do, how we act (especially as perceived by others), and what we are is genetically derived. Certainly upbringing influences outcome, sometimes dramatically, but upbringing will not basically alter the fundemental ways we interact and function. Speech habits, educational pursuits, hobbies, cultural interests, who we date and marry - they are all heavily influenced by genetic endowment. To me, from what I have come to understand about human behavior, this has become established fact. About 80% nature, the rest nurture. The exciting thing about this conclusion, what I consider to be fact, is that it allows one to examine behavior with an eye to tracing behavioral ancestry. To examine why we are so different one from another, and yet so much the same.

What it means to be human - Part I

Several days ago I posted on YouTube the second video in a planned series on my science fiction saga, The Alarai Chronicles. It was long overdue. The title is the same as this post. There is only so much you can communicate in a seven to ten minute video, and I want to elaborate on the subject here and in following posts.

What does it mean to be human? Is it such a broad and complicated topic that the effort to get my arms around it is hopeless? Perhaps in part, but I don't intend to attempt an exhaustive review. What I intend is a more focused examination on aspects of being human. Actually, given the breadth of the topic, I suspect this is what most writers do whether they admit it or not.

Even as I sit here at the keyboard contemplating the task, I am nearly overwhelmed. Just think about the diversity of the group of mammals we term human. The profound differences in size and physical appearance alone is amazing. And yet, as far as I am aware, successful breeding is possible and has occurred even at the extremes. Given that, it is not surprising that studies of the human genome reveal that we all, the entire human race, possess at least 99.9+% of the same genetic endowment.

And yet, something, somewhere along the tortuous path of our evolution forever set us apart from other species (and, I have come to believe, from one another as well in spheres other than the purely physical). Some would say the ability to reason sets us apart from other species. Others say it is our ability to speculate on the future or to attempt to manage our environment. And, of course, the sophistication of our verbal communication and being self-aware. Well thought out views, but, other than the last item, secondary to what interests me.

Actually. I find that some of the simplest creatures are quite good at reasoning, learn quickly, are flexible in approaching problems, and convey intent to their fellows in highly complex and succinct patterns. Crows are a good example, wolves are another. Both species are curious, intelligent, highly social, and communicate quite nicely. I've even seen squirrels solve complicated problems. Generally driven by the desire to fill their bellies, of course, but is that so different from the thrust of our own problem solving? So what about self-awareness?

We are all, we humans, aware, conscious, at some level from an early age that our life span is finite, and that at some point we are going to 'die'. The corollary is that, therefore, we exist. And then we cease to exist. Thus we pursue our lives with one mental eye firmly fixed on that statistically adjusted life span, leading to so many of the diseases and insanities peculiar to our race. Opinions of what lies beyond the curtain of physiologic termination are as varied and remarkable as the species itself, and well beyond the scope of this discussion. The existence of those opinions (whether in belief or disbelief) are critical, however, to our period of life and in some ways central to what I find pivotal in understanding what we are and where we have come from.

In writing Exile to the Stars, the issue of what we are as humans looms large and is threaded throughout the fabric of the book and series. Thing is, I really wasn't aware of that thread at the time of writing. That is a major clue to what defines us as human. However, This isn't about me it's about us. I want to start much farther back in time than my eye blink of an existence, or yours.

I won't be gone so long this time.