The OLD Philosopher – John M. Miller
This essay is prompted by an essay about various books that have been written about the origin of our species, Homo sapiens. To avoid being sexist, that Latin genetic term should be “Humans of Wisdom,” or Wise Humanity,” rather than “Man of Wisdom.”
Maya Jasanoff wrote a wonderfully thought-provoking piece in The New Yorker (May 13, 2024, pps. 61-63) called Origin Story: What do we hope to learn from our prehistory? Citing theories of famous thinkers from the 17th century on and books written in the past half century or so, she explored how social scientists of various academic disciplines have pondered the evolution of our particular brand of hominids. In 1856 some workers in the Neander Valley of Germany dug up a skull which did not look like the skulls of other hominids which had been discovered there and in other parts of the world. A British geologist named William King postulated that it was a precursor of Homo sapiens, and he called it Homo neanderthalensis. The sad fate of Neanderthal Man is that he ceased to exist. Either our species killed all of them off, or they became extinct due to their own genetic deficiencies. Nevertheless, all of us apparently have some Neanderthal genes in our DNA. I deduce that intermarriage was common even 50,000 years ago. Despite parental disapproval, love and/or sex has always managed to cross racial and cultural boundaries erected by old folks and broken by young folks.
Virtually every human on the Earth today belongs to the species Homo sapiens, but over the past couple of centuries other species of human-like hominids have been found by archaeologists, such as Peking Man, Java Man, and Australopithicus, or Southern Man. Most anthropologists hypothesize that our species evolved from 700,000 to 1.5 million years ago in East Africa. From there these early humans moved north into the Fertile Crescent, and from there east all the way to South and East Asia and eventually to Australia, and west into Europe. How anybody got to the Western Hemisphere I shall not even address, because that subject is fraught with possibly more uncertainty than every other subject in this brief foray into how the behavior of present-day humans became as murky as it is.
The 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously described our ancient ancestors as being “nasty, brutish, and short.” He believed that folks in his time (and by extension, ours) hadn’t evolved much beyond being ignoble barbarians. On the other hand, Jean Jacques Rousseau, an 18th century French political philosopher, thought that pre-Homo sapiens had no noteworthy abilities other than a pair of legs with which to run, and two arms for defending themselves. Their only interests were food, sex, and sleep, said Rousseau. However, he made a much more cheerful analysis of primitive ancients in community than Hobbes. Rousseau was convinced ancient humans lived peacefully with one another, sharing food with one another, and everyone was considered equal to everyone else. As far as Rousseau was concerned, it was “civilization” that turned people into warring tribes.
Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. To say that it caused quite a stir is an understatement, although far more cultural and religious conservatives were upset by it. Darwin was not especially interested in the human species, but in all species, animal and plant. Thomas Huxley was another 19th century English thinker who was a strong supporter of Darwin. Huxley coined a new term, “prehistory,” to describe the time before humans were able to read and write. Literacy evolved sometime between 5000 and 4000 BCE. During the previous tens of millions of years, several species of pre-Homo sapiens hominids sprang into and out of existence, until our species is the only one currently inhabiting this planet.
Maya Jasanoff is intrigued by the question, “When did humans become human?” Was it when we became hunter-gatherers hundreds of thousands of years ago? Was it when we invented tools tens of thousands of years ago? Was it when we invented agriculture, perhaps seven to ten thousand years ago? Was it when innumerable languages began slowly to spread throughout the world, as cultures developed in hundreds or thousands of places everywhere on Earth?
The question that intrigues me is not when humans became human, but rather what makes humans human? And if we are Humans of Wisdom, is our behavior sufficiently wise for us to be called “human”? If in our prehistory we were once peaceful and egalitarian, living in a Rousseau-ian idyllic state of nature, what happened to us that we became so much more Hobbes-ian: nasty, brutish, and short, at least “short” compared to gorillas or modern humans?
Is it “human” to wage wars that kill thousands or millions of other humans? Is it human to despoil the planet we inhabit? Is it human to enslave, rob, rape, extort, embezzle, or sabotage?
In our anthropocentrism, we often dispute whether we are basically good, basically evil, of a mixture of both but with highly debated proportions of one or the other. There are many places in the Bible that vaguely suggest or boldly declare that we are basically good or basically evil, or something in between.
Having thought about these matters for nearly three-quarters of a century, I think the only valid conclusion is that all of us are a mixture of both good and evil. We certainly are not totally evil, nor can anyone convincingly argue that we are wholly holy.
My problem with all of us humans is this: Why aren’t we better than we are? In many ways, we have made great human progress, especially in matters technological: how to build better mousetraps, how to grow more and better food, how to eliminate many diseases altogether and to ease other diseases in other respects, and how to build a computer with gigantic abilities that fits into the palm of your hand and is portable, for better or worse, wherever you go.
On the other hand, our technology has evolved into methods of killing multi-millions of us in a short period of time or instantaneously. Seventeen million people were killed in World War I, and seventy-three million in World War II. Were those wars human? Our computers are used to make sensible affirm outright lies and to bilk millions of people out of billions of dollars. And as technology can erase diseases, it also can send plagues among people who are considered enemies.
How can we overcome the worst traits of our behavior? Sociologists and social psychologists say that conscience tells us what we ought or ought not to do. But is conscience a gift of God, is it inborn, or is it learned? There is no universal agreement on that, either.
As our ancient ancestors slowly evolved, they created religions to guide them on the path toward proper behavior. Almost every culture that ever manifested itself had some form of religion in its cultural DNA. Years ago I remember reading an article in the National Geographic about a temple unearthed by archaeologists in southern Turkey. It was reckoned to have been built at least 15,000 years ago. The scientists who found it concluded that religion was the foundation of civilization, rather than civilization being the foundation of religion. That is a fascinating idea, particularly for one who is an ordained parson. In any case, religion surely goes back hundreds of thousands of years.
Some theologians claim that humanity should be classified as Homo religioso. The trouble with that notion is that not everyone is religious. In fact, a sizeable percentage of human beings exhibit no interest in religion at all. And even if everyone was religious, can it be honestly argued that religion has woven only demonstrable improvements into the human race? Individually and corporately, humanity’s religions have made undeniable advances among us, but they also have spawned hatred, wars, and genocide.
An old aphorism proclaims that “Every day in every way we’re getting better and better.” At a quick glance, that may appear to be true. However, current wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and Congo cast a dark cloud over such an optimistic outlook. Human-created starvation stalks several areas of the globe, and Anthropocene climate change adds to the uncertainty. Without question, human beings have made great improvements compared to life in the distant past, but we also have made some things much worse. Neither secular nor religious humanitarians can be satisfied with the present status of human life everywhere.
What is human nature supposed to be, and who is supposed to decide? Does each person decide for herself or himself? Should philosophers or theologians be the arbiters? Should governments decree who we should be? Or is it God who determined the pattern for what should constitute Homo sapiens? How human are human beings?
The answer to that last question depends on who is giving the answer. Professors of philosophy or psychology would probably give markedly different answers from those of refugees huddling in bombed-out buildings or immigrants fleeing dictatorial rulers in their home nations. No human has ever been perfect, and striving for moral perfection can only result in an awareness of abject defeat. Whether we are even evolving toward more “human” behavior will never be answered to everyone’s satisfaction.
Reading or watching “the news” in newspapers or magazines or on television or the Internet, it is intellectually impossible to propose that through the slow passage of time humans are improving. To be sure, news junkies may be more skeptical of human behavior than others who purposefully avoid the news. Ignorance of what is going on is what enables many people to keep going.
It seems to me it is unwise to assume that over time evolution has improved the basic essence of human beings. All of us still fail to live up to the best we can be. Nevertheless, because of our innate and undeniable wisdom, we have improved life for nearly everyone by raising the physical standard of living, and thus, perhaps, their spiritual standard of living as well. A smaller percentage of people of all ages are dying because of medical advancements. A smaller percentage are living in desperate poverty.
Perfection is not a reasonable goal for human beings, but all of can succeed in improving our lot and the lot of our neighbors. If we can do better we should do better. In so doing, we shall become more human than we are at present. I’m not going to hold my breath until it happens, but I shall never give up hope. – May 23, 2024
John Miller is Pastor of The Chapel Without Walls on Hilton Head Island, SC. More of his writings may be viewed at www.chapelwithoutwalls.org.