This has little meaning for me, though it might be constructed afterwards. I think we have to start with evolution, and not simply evolving but evolving evolvability. The building up of complexity out of simplicity (something demonstrated by iterating virtual numbers in simple equations with real numbers) comes to patterns in species that have collective behaviours, and one of these collective wholes seems to include parts that would seem to be redundant. Evolution does not just include survival of the fittest, but patterns that are successful in passing on genes and a bit of spare too.
The spare, the immediately unnecessary, the redundant, is part of a successful species when an environmental catastrophe and shift in conditions takes place. A whole population may be wiped out, but just a few, formerly redundant, yet maintained, suddenly are right for the new conditions. Redundancy might be excess or might be difference, but a 'clever' species looks after its lesser members for that stormy day.
We humans are not only conscious, but are conscious about being conscious. Some higher animals may have an aspect of this. See a dog look in a mirror.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a67ce/a67ce0399e84e0fc9376ce0d0b5c788f16c26122" alt=""
Does the dog do this? No, but in pack life there is a kind of loyalty, and many dogs also behave like baby wolves to show some dependency in an exchange with humans that gives and takes, securing its own place and yet giving too in that securing. Exchange spills over into gift: the gift also includes an element of surprise, the unseen. The dog has clear wants, but a dog that puts its head on your lap knows (we reason) that it is giving as well as receiving in a clear relationship.
Animals many probably seek out such a relationship of give and take, therefore exchange and gift. We humans develop these at an idea level.
Dogs and other animals
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a1ba7/a1ba7875be96c02a4dac25920ce5ee3fb356d6b3" alt=""
We do a lot of these things ourselves: like relating to others, arranging cupboards in a particular way, walking the same way, arranging ourselves in tribes and having out groups, and fussing over shapes and objects. But the precision of language we have, and the sheer complexity of social arrangements, and our ability to put ourselves into the place of the other, brings forward an ethical dimension and responsibility that is quite a compelling demand.
In that sense we are unique: but unique by degree and not by kind. We are in the same evolved tree. The dog's eye is like our eye, and from the same fantastic evolved elements that spread around so many species. But the human brain brings forward that extra ethical demand, and thus the ethical crime when the demand is not met and neglected. In that sense one might grope towards a reverence for life that is God image like, but that's just a shortcut expression for what is consequent from such self-consciousness and the ability to maintain a library.
It is silly to say that one day a dog may evolve into saying, "Hello." They already do. When the dog wags its tail there is an exchange, but there is a gift in the welcome.
2 comments:
I like to think that people at some stage realised that their lives can have a purpose. To say you're created in the image of God confers a huge amount of security, but hand in that an equally huge amount of responsibility for other humans and, indeed, for all of creation.
I have always rather liked the image and the sense of purpose and "goodness" it conveys.
And, yes, uniqueness also applies to animals. It is not negated by the mechamisms of evolution. That which randomly arises is no less unique than if it had been planned. My pregnancies could have resulted in any random babies, only when they were born did it become clear that they were the two unique invidiuals who now share my life.
I agree with all of that.
Post a Comment