Shades of Sarah Palin: Earliest Humans Cared for Special Needs Children--Scientists Surprised
Fossil evidence has been found that the earliest humans cared for--rather than abandoned or killed--their disabled young. From the story:
The discovery of the oldest known infant born with a skull deformity hints that, contrary to popular belief, early humans might not have immediately abandoned or killed their abnormal offspring, a new study says. Many mammals are known to reject newborns with severe deformities. Scientists had therefore assumed that ancient humans behaved likewise...The surprise comes because many scientists see us as just animals. But there is something--dare I say it, exceptional--about the human species, and apparently this distinction that makes such a huge difference has been part of us from the time we first began to emerge/evolve/were created (take your pick).
But this child would likely have required "special need care" to have lived as long as it did, she said. Deliberately killing unwanted offspring "is not an uncommon practice among mammals, including great apes," our closest genetic relatives, Gracia noted...But the new discovery shows that the fossil youngster's condition "was not an impediment to [receiving] the same attention as any other Middle Pleistocene Homo child," the study authors write (prehistoric time line).
Yes, yes, I know: Human societies have killed or exposed disabled children. Heck, the Dutch do today in their neonatal units--indicating to me that Dutch society has experienced a serious ethical regression from the most ancient of times. But this story vividly illustrates that being human is something different in kind from any other known life form that has ever existed in the universe.
No, human exceptionalism is not arrogant. It is indisputable.
Labels: Human Exceptionalism. Human Ancestors Cared for Disabled Children.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 11:08 AM
22 Comments
22 Comments:
It seems I remember reading that dolphins were closer to humans than apes or monkeys? Of course, that was on a nature show, so I suppose I should just take it for what it's worth.
Mia -
Consider: in order to get females up to mating again, many dolphin males will murder their females' calves. No calves = desire to mate, after a period of noted "grieving" in the female. Also, dolphin males will round up the females and rape them.
I'm not sure that I want to be that closely related to them...
P.S. - to those of you I know and love, I have a job interview tomorrow!
I think it shows that people in ancient societies made choices, just like we do now. Sometimes they choose to do good, sometimes they chose to do evil. Surely, some parents felt tenderness toward their offspring that transcended whether or not they were disabled, just like people do now. Others abandoned their children, as some do now.
SAFEpres: But this is way before what could be called an ancient society, as in the Egyptians. It is very early human, pre Neanderthal. That;s what makes it so notable.
I suppose you are familiar with Shanidar. It's a cave that Neanderthals used to live in, where the body of a disabled man was discovered. Apparently the group had cared for him even though he could not have contributed to the group's welfare in the same ways that the other men did.
TE, good luck with your j.i.
Laura -
Thank you!
You know, it's sad that we have to think this is "extraordinary." As humans, we feel compassion. Why not? We see something or someone else suffering, and we feel empathy - we experience right along with the suffering person/animal. It's part of our nature. Why *shouldn't* compassion be part of our makeup, even at the earliest times?
I mean, come on, people keep forgetting that our ancestors were the ones who first invented *inventing.* THEY had to come up with fire, with clothes, with agriculture, with everything we take for granted in our high-tech world. In some ways, they were more brilliant than we'll ever be, because they started everything, and we're standing on their shoulders. But to hear people talk, you'd think humans weren't intelligent before the 1800's! Nevermind the poetry of the Psalms and the Quaran, nevermind that China had detective agencies that would have rivaled anything Robert Peel came up with much, much later, nevermind Solomon and Queen of Sheba, none of that matters because for some reason all those humans were "unenlightened" and "inhibited."
It's more telling that we're so shocked to see pre-Neanderthal people be compassionate.
Craniosynostosis does not always cause the child to be a special-needs child. Its effects vary widely depending on severity and on other factors. In fact, sometimes it is untreated with no ill effects at all, as apparently in my own case, where Saethre-Chotzen Syndrome was undiagnosed in infancy. So intervention is not always needed. The conjecture in the article is fascinating, but it seems to me they may be extrapolating beyond the data to a child who needed a lot of special care to survive.
Well assuming that we are like other animals is a premise of experimentation on non-human animals; what I've been saying all along is that true human exceptionalism would not condone experimentation on non-human animals, out of the same compassion in humans claimed here.
We don't know whether this happened with all their disabled children, and Lydia just made a good points, including that this is indeed extrapolating beyond the data; if we always acted "differently than animals" in these situations, there would be no death culture to have to fight; non-human animals sometimes do show compassion in these situations and do their best to nurture their "imperfect" young, to the best of their capabilities, and sometimes show more compassion than humans. We are exceptional in terms of our capabilities, but every animal is exceptional in terms of what its species is and what its capabilities are. There is nothing wrong with being animals; that is what we are; it's not denigration to call ourselves that. Those less exceptional use our being animals as an excuse for being less than human. Not everyone is as good as everyone else. When human exceptionalism extols the achievements of science and its benefits to humanity and our entitlement thereto, and endorses animal experimentation, it is endorsing those same ones who have created the death culture; cannot have the cake and eat it too. It doesn't denigrate us to acknowledge that we are animals, or elevate us to consider ourselves apart from the other animals; it elevates us to be the best version of the kind of animal that we are, and exibiting that kind of humanity is inconsistent with experimentation on non-human animals, which ultimately is destructive to ourselves as well as them, and that kind of self-interest is the same kind of sense other animals have, as well as humane, and those things intersect because when we are being that kind of human, we are being exceptionally human. We can't be truly and ideally human without being humane. It's when we experiment on non-human animals that we are being "like animals" in the denigratory sense.
T.E.: GOOD LUCK! YOU'LL DO GREAT!
It also may prove that contrary to some evolutionary theory, we have some good instincts that transcend the "survival of the fittest" prototype. IE, our instincts to be good are not just the product of modern society, they are part of our ancestral make up.
As an anthropologist I can report that we simply cannot know that much about the lives of people through the fossil record. More questions than answers exist. This is why I thew up my hands in frustration and left archaeology for cultural anthropology. But the questions the findings raise like in this case merit much thought.
William Peace: That's what I thought.
SHS: I say it's arrogant and I say it's disputable. (Scans like "I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it," couldn't resist...)
T.E.: A little over one in 12 people (highest human birth rate is when sun is in Cancer and Leo) have to feel queasy about being related to lions, who do likewise. Obama, Bill Clinton, Fidel Castro are Leos....not all of whom behave that way...
T.E.: Well they were lucky to have the opportunity to interview you. Hope it went as you wished if you found it of interest.
This reminds me a lot of Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man." :)
Simple me, I guess I'd be called an adherent of evolutionary theory. Well if this was way back in our history, before we "evolved" civilization-wise to now (when we've got the culture of death...), that's closer to "the animals," isn't it.
Ianthe, Lydia -
Had another job interview today, too, so yay! So far everything looks good but I'm still in the early days. I'm thinking seriously of taking a part time job working as a secretary/data entry/cashier for a local Mr. Sticker (does car inspections). Since I'm healthy and well fed, I feel like I'm taking money away from people who need it if I go on unemployment.
Ianthe -
I'm too bull-headed to put up with most Leos, I'm afraid. But I know what you mean.
T.E.: Well I wish enough people were bullheaded enough not to put up with Obama. They say that one does better at job-hunting when one keeps working at something, anything, while looking. I guess it depends on the hours re less availability for interviews, but on the other hand it shows the prospective employer that one has a work ethic. Work is work; personally I'd prefer the kind of part-time job you're talking about to a lot of other things, e.g. that sound impressive but are really useless. My all-time favorite job was scraping barnacles off, and painting, boat hulls.
SAFEpres: Maybe they think we should be evolving beyond that, and that the trait should be abandoned.
Ianthe-maybe. But very often, one of the arguments used by such individuals is that current care for the handicapped and otherwise disadvantaged isn't natural, that we do it because of man-made religious or social norms. This, however, may indicate that this is part of our natural inclinations, not the mere product of social engineering.
Ironically, of course, such people do believe in helping certain people as opposed to others, such as Peter Singer, who recently published a book called, "The Life You Can Save," about poverty in the third world. A bit ironic, but not to him, since he doesn't view disabled people as people. People in the third world, though, at least those who are not handicapped, do deserve our help, according to him.
SAFEpres: Well, says he. I agree that it's part of our natural inclinations -- among which are, in fact, man-made religious or social norms, social engineering, etc. These people just make no sense. We should be used to it by now. Not everyone evolves at the same rate, or is as capable of making sense as others are.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home