Again With the "Human Zoo Exhibits"
We have seen this before in the UK, and now in Australia: Humans exhibited in zoos as if we were merely another animal in the forest. But we are not mere animals. We are the exceptional species, human beings, unlike any other known species in the universe. We are moral beings, meaning that we have moved beyond the tooth and claw of the Darwinian world and into a way of living that is not constrained by the merely natural, but has in many (albeit, not all) ways, transcended it.
The idea behind these ridiculous exhibits is to make us more ecologically responsible. I believe the reverse is more likely. We will be ecologically responsible only insofar as we accept our exceptional status. If all we are is another animal, we have no greater duty "to the planet" than do elephants, mice, lions, or sharks. And while we are, of course, animals in a biological sense, these attempts to convince people that we just fauna can become very destructive. If that is all we come to perceive ourselves to be, that is precisely how we will act.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:50 PM
9 Comments
9 Comments:
I'm confused. We've moved beyond the "Darwinian world", but in the eugenics thread you and your backers are against every form of non-Darwinian intervention in reproduction. Doesn't that leave us humans subject to the forces of natural selection like all the other animals?
mtraven: Well, we are pretty much beyond being limited by natural selection, don't you think? People who would have died before being able to procreate no longer do. And they procreate. That is what upset the eugenicists so much back eighty years ago: the wrong people didn't die. Social Darwinists blamed charity and such. They spoke of allowing the weeds to wither and so forth.
I find it ironic that so many people want to try and intelligently design people--as if we have the wisdom.
Wesley - Hell, we can't even intelligently design a cat (ever seen a flat-faced persian?). How're we going to intelligently design a human being?
mtraven - Non-darwinian intervention in reproduction: Don't have sex.
Before I continue, don't think I'm knocking sex, and don't get on your moral high horse about how "religion is anti-sexuality." That's not what I'm saying so hear me out before you and others jump the gun. What I'm going at is WHY it's non-darwinian.
Now, as to the why - Human beings are the only critters on this blue marble that are capable and in some cases willing to forego having sex and thus reproducing. If you leave a male horse alone, it will either mastrubate or go nuts looking for a female. If you put a male kangaroo in a room with a female that is in season, he will try to mate with her whether she likes it or not, and if he is the stronger he will win. Same thing with dogs, cats, guinea pigs, etc etc ad nausium.
The net result - little kangaroos, horses, etc etc you get the idea.
Humans, however, frequently choose not to have sex. They actively choose not to have sex. It's not a matter of, "Well, I'm stuck in a room with no females, I guess I can't have sex." Members of various religious orders (Buddhists, Catholics, certain members of Native American tribes, just to name a small few) give up sex entirely. Some people won't have sex until they're married because they don't want to get (instert your favorite STD here) or risk pregnancy.
No other animal actively chooses not to engage in sexual intercourse. Thus, non-Darwinian birth control. So, you're wrong in that respect. Just by possessing the ability to refuse to have sex (whether we choose to or not is not the issue here), we have moved beyond a Darwinian world where instinct rules.
Also, other non-Darwinian interventions in reproduction (not going into detail, just listing them):
Pre-birth surgeries performed on fetuses, psychological patterning of infants who are autistic to help them connet with the outside world, use of medications to correct insulin inefficencies, creating glasses designed for one-year-olds who have vision problems... the list goes on, and they all intervene to provide a child with unnatural advantages that they otherwise lacked.
mtraven - I apologize for this being off subject but I couldn't find your email addy at your website. I've been a bit out of the loop so I've only just read your story about the child you lost about ten years ago.
I briefly volunteered in a prenatal/neonatal hospice. Nothing was more horrid than seeing the looks on those parents' faces. I know it was ten years ago but I want you to know that you have my deepest sympathy - I can't be inside your pain but I have seen it from the outside and I wish a thousand times over that you never had to go through that, and I'm sorry that you did. I have enjoyed our spirited discussions and I want you to know that you and your wife will be in my thoughts and good wishes.
t e fine: thanks for the good wishes.
wesley: we are not in fact beyond evolution even if the selection is no longer 100% "natural". See here for some examples of recent human evolution, such as the spread of the ability of adults to digest lactose (a mutation I unfortunately lack).
The eugenicists and social darwinists were confused in many ways, and in any case their prescriptive ideas have no bearing on the theory of evolution and natural selection, which is descriptive. All evolution needs to work is a population with some genes that have differential fitnesses (in the sense of leaving more offspring capable of reproducing, not in any other sense). Doesn't matter if the differences arise through purely biological means or otherwise. In other words, the old-school eugenicists were wrong to support their theories with Darwin. According to Darwin, what is fit is what successfully reproduces.
What that has to do with anything I am not sure, so let me close by disagreeing (surprise!) with your original point. Human beings are animals and it is the responsibility of science education institutions, which zoos are, to instill that point. This doesn't mean that humans are JUST animals, but nobody involved is claiming that.
I don't understand the logic of these posts and comments either. I don't see how why human exceptionalism is incompatible with the realization that in many ways, we ARE animals. We need food, breath O2, spread diseases...just like all the other animals.
Human exceptionalism is something different. But if you want to use human exceptionalism to deny our basic biology building blocks, then you lose me.
Royale: Human exceptionalism is about moral status based on biological identity. At least as to what I have written, no one is denying that we are animals in general or mammals in specific.
Human zoos? Sounds kinky.
Then I don't see how human exceptionalism, a moral distinction as you define it, is incompatible with human zoo exhibits, the importance of which is to stress our biological building blocks.
To stress one is not to lower the importance of the other, as it does not appear the zoos are saying that we lack morality.
I would like to know what the sign posts outside the human zoo exhibits actually say. If they discuss the importance of recognizing our biological building blocks, then the environmental message of these exhibits is conveyed. And in that sense, they would be successful.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home