What Makes Us Human

By Thomas Suddendorf

The physical similarities between humans and other mammals are quite plain We are made of the same

flesh and blood we go through the same basic life stages Yet reminders of our shared inheritance with

other animals have become the subject of cultural taboos sex menstruation pregnancy birth feeding

defecation urination bleeding illness and dying Messy stuff However even if we try to throw a veil over

it the evidence for evolutionary continuity between human and animal bodies is overwhelming After all

we can use mammalian organs and tissues such as a pigrsquos heart valve to replace our own malfunctioning

body parts A vast industry conducts research on animals to test drugs and procedures intended for

humans because human and animal bodies are so profoundly alike The physical continuity of humans and

animals is incontestable But the mind is another matter

Our mental capacities have allowed us to tame fire and invent the wheel We survive by our wits Our

minds have spawned civilizations and technologies that have changed the face of the Earth while even our

closest living animal relatives sit unobtrusively in their remaining forests There appears to be a

tremendous gap between human and animal minds yet the precise nature of this gap has been

notoriously difficult to establish

People tend to have opinions about animal minds that are in stark contrast to each other At one extreme

we imbue our pets with all manner of mental characteristics treating them as if they were little people in

furry suits At the other we regard animals as mindless bio-machines mdash consider the ways animals are

sometimes treated in the food industry Most people vacillate between these interpretations from one

context to another

Scientists too seem at times to defend contradicting views apparently aimed at either securing human

dominance or at debunking human arrogance On the one hand scholars boldly assert that humans are

unique because of things such as language foresight mind-reading intelligence culture or morality On

the other hand studies regularly claim to have demonstrated animal capacities that were previously

believed to be uniquely human

The truth you may suspect can often be found somewhere in the middle In THE GAP I survey what we

currently know and do not know about what makes human minds different from any others and how this

difference arose It is about time that serious headway is made on these fundamental questions Nothing

less than understanding our place in nature is at stake There are also important practical implications of

establishing the nature of the gap for instance in terms of identifying the genetic and neurological bases

of higher mental capacities Those traits that are unique to humans are likely dependent on attributes of

our brain and genome that are distinct

A clearer understanding of what we share with which other animals also can have profound consequences

for animal welfare Demonstrations of shared attributes of pain and mental distress in animals have

changed many peoplersquos views on blood sports and cruelty towards animals Establishing their mental

capacities their wants and needs can provide a better scientific basis for our decisions about how

different species should be treated It may be time to challenge the notion that mentally sophisticated

creatures are legally treated as objects no different from cars or iPhones

Comparative research has shown that our closest animal relatives the great apes share some

extraordinary capacities with humans such as the ability to recognize their reflections in mirrors Such

findings have led to calls to accept great apes into our community of equals with legally enforceable rights

But we need to take into account not only their impressive capacities but also their limits because with

rights come responsibilities mdash such as respecting othersrsquo rights

Though we may be perfectly happy to extend the right to life liberty and freedom from torture to apes

(and so would be willing to prosecute someone who kills an ape) would we be equally happy with the

other side of the coin Would we be willing to put an ape on trial for murder In 2002 Frodo a 27-year-old

chimpanzee studied by Jane Goodall snatched and killed a fourteen-month-old human toddler Miasa

Sadiki in Tanzania I do not remember calls for a trial Moreover should we police ape-ape rights

violations Surely there would be little point in prosecuting male orangutans for rape or a chimpanzee for

infanticide Yet people used to think animals could be held responsible like humans can During the

European Middle Ages animals were in fact frequently put on trial for immoral acts such as murder or

theft They were given lawyers and penalties that matched those given to humans for similar crimes For

instance in 1386 a court in Falaise France tried and convicted a sow for murdering an infant The

hangman subsequently hung the pig in the public square Her piglets had also been charged but upon

deliberation were acquitted because of their youth

One of the key characteristics that makes us human appears to be that we can think about alternative

futures and make deliberate choices accordingly Creatures without such a capacity cannot be bound into a

social contract and take moral responsibility Once we become aware about what we cause however we

may feel morally obliged to change our ways So be aware then that all species of apes are under threat

of extinction through human activity We are the only species on this planet with the foresight capable of

deliberately plotting a path toward a desirable long-term future Plan it for the apes because they canrsquot

Thomas Suddendorf PhD is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Queensland in Australia and a

fellow of the Association for Psychological Science

httpwwwhuffingtonpostcomthomas-suddendorfwhat-makes-us-human_b_4414357html

060617 1350 Humans have long believed that we are somehow special But many traits once

considered uniquely human are shared with animals

By Melissa Hogenboom

3 July 2015

Theres not much difference between gorillas and humans (Credit JabrusonNPL)

Though we may be perfectly happy to extend the right to life liberty and freedom from torture to apes

(and so would be willing to prosecute someone who kills an ape) would we be equally happy with the

other side of the coin Would we be willing to put an ape on trial for murder In 2002 Frodo a 27-year-old

chimpanzee studied by Jane Goodall snatched and killed a fourteen-month-old human toddler Miasa

Sadiki in Tanzania I do not remember calls for a trial Moreover should we police ape-ape rights

violations Surely there would be little point in prosecuting male orangutans for rape or a chimpanzee for

infanticide Yet people used to think animals could be held responsible like humans can During the

European Middle Ages animals were in fact frequently put on trial for immoral acts such as murder or

theft They were given lawyers and penalties that matched those given to humans for similar crimes For

instance in 1386 a court in Falaise France tried and convicted a sow for murdering an infant The

hangman subsequently hung the pig in the public square Her piglets had also been charged but upon

deliberation were acquitted because of their youth

One of the key characteristics that makes us human appears to be that we can think about alternative

futures and make deliberate choices accordingly Creatures without such a capacity cannot be bound into a

social contract and take moral responsibility Once we become aware about what we cause however we

may feel morally obliged to change our ways So be aware then that all species of apes are under threat

of extinction through human activity We are the only species on this planet with the foresight capable of

deliberately plotting a path toward a desirable long-term future Plan it for the apes because they canrsquot

Thomas Suddendorf PhD is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Queensland in Australia and a

fellow of the Association for Psychological Science

httpwwwhuffingtonpostcomthomas-suddendorfwhat-makes-us-human_b_4414357html

060617 1350 Humans have long believed that we are somehow special But many traits once

considered uniquely human are shared with animals

By Melissa Hogenboom

3 July 2015

Theres not much difference between gorillas and humans (Credit JabrusonNPL)

Kanzi has good taste He likes oranges cherries and grapes He points to what he wants on a lexigram a

computerised touchscreen device on which each symbol represents a word Kanzi can use 500 words and

when he is talked to he can understand a few thousand

He also likes marshmallows He will strike matches to light a fire then warm some on a stick Kanzi is not

human He is a kind of ape called a bonobo which along with chimpanzees are our closest living relatives

Although he cannot talk like us Kanzi transformed our ideas about our primate relatives ndash and in turn our

ideas about ourselves We once viewed ourselves as the only creatures with emotions morality and

culture But the more we investigate the animal kingdom the more we discover that is simply not true

Many scientists are now convinced that all these traits once considered the hallmarks of humanity are

also found in animals If they are right our species is not as unique as we like to think

Tool use was once considered a uniquely human ability (Credit Anup ShahNPL)

A species by definition is unique In that trivial sense humans are unique just as house mice are unique

But when we say humans are unique we mean something more than that Throughout history humans

have created a seemingly impenetrable barrier between us and other animals As the philosopher Rene

Descartes wrote in the late 1600s animals are mere machines but man stands alone

Darwins books werent universally adored after they were published as shown by this satirical 1871 cartoon depicting Charles Darwin as an ape (Credit Wikimedia Commons)

Charles Darwin was one of the first to speak out against this idea In The Descent of Man he wrote

There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties and

that all the differences are of degree not of kind

He later extensively documented the similarities between human facial expressions and those of animals

If a young chimpanzee be tickled he noted as is the case of our young children a more decided

chuckling or laughing sound is uttered He also observed that chimpanzees eyes wrinkle sparkle and

grow brighter when they laugh

Apes like bonobos love to be tickled just like we do (Credit Cyril RuosoNPL)

His thoughts were later forgotten or ignored By the 1950s animals had been reduced to unemotional

machines with mere instincts

The behaviourist BF Skinner thought all animals were much the same Pigeon rat monkey which is

which it doesnt matter He said that the same rules of learning would apply to them all At the time

there was a prevailing attitude that they lacked intelligence There was a taboo against attributing

emotions to animals says Frans de Waal of Emory University in Atlanta US

It was only when the primatologist Jane Goodall began her studies on wild chimpanzees in the early 1960s

that things started to change albeit slowly Her mission was to look at chimpanzees in order to

understand more about our ancient human ancestors

A bonobo using a tool to get food thats too deep to reach (Credit Anup ShahNPL)

From the beginning of her time in Africa she saw strikingly human-like behaviours In her early research

she referred to the chimpanzees as he and she rather than it She also gave them names something

previously unheard of in academia and began to describe their unique personalities She also discovered

they ate meat they were not vegetarians as had been assumed And to get it they were using tools She

saw chimpanzees fishing for termites with twigs This in itself was a ground-breaking finding Until then

tool-use had been considered a uniquely human ability Her project leader at the time the

paleoanthropologist Louis Leakey said Now we must redefine tool redefine man or accept

chimpanzees as humans

Credit Sue FloodNPL)

At a similar time de Waal had been observing chimpanzees in Arnhem Zoo in the Netherlands He saw

many intricate social behaviours and was frustrated by the lack of studies describing them My biology

books were useless he says

For one as Darwin had written about over 100 years earlier de Waal also noted that tickling a young

chimpanzee elicits the same smiling response as children A study published in May 2015 has since shown

that the same muscles are involved when chimps and humans smile

Our incredible range of facial expressions may be unique but look at the face of a chimpanzee for long

enough and you will begin to see a similar complex repertoire of smiling and laughter We also know that

they are extremely good at reading each others facial expressions So are monkeys

(Credit Anup ShahNPL)

Chimps social skills are the basis for another behaviour once thought to be uniquely human morality

Morality can be said to encompass fairness altruism and empathy For centuries our moral codes have

been crucial to our notion of humanity We have long believed that our heightened moral reasoning and

empathy sets us apart from the beasts We know that children have a strong sense of fairness from an

early age For instance they will share with friends even if there is an obvious cost to them They also

seem to be innately altruistic they will help pick up dropped objects without any prompts from as young

as 14 months

(Credit Roland SeitreNPL)

In 2003 de Waal published research looking into how capuchin monkeys reacted to an unfair payment

After two monkeys had completed the same task both would happily accept a cucumber as a reward But

when one was randomly given a more delicious grape instead the other was not happy and began to

refuse the cucumber Chimpanzees behave in a similar way But what if a chimpanzee controlled the

reward instead of a human experimenter

We know that for the most part they act selfishly when it comes to food They are known to steal or hide

it from rivals However a 2013 study httpwwwpnasorgcontent11062070 found that they also

know the value of cooperation They will share food even if there is nothing obviously in it for them The

study found that they will split a reward equally just as humans do In one task chimpanzees shared

bananas in the same way that humans share money

(Credit Anup ShahNPL)

Chimpanzees also seem to be instinctively helpful Just like young infants chimpanzees will help humans

reach for out-of-reach objects They also help each other Chimpanzees will unlock a door that leads to

food for a mate even if the one doing the unlocking would not get any In the wild researchers have

witnessed chimpanzees helping disabled group members adopting unrelated orphans and helping friends

escape from poachers snares

This sense of altruism must run deep in the animal kingdom because rats will also save a friend from

being soaked with water even if it means getting wet themselves These studies suggest that cooperation

is a useful survival trait for many species If humans chimps and rats all cooperate the common ancestor

of all three may have done so too Chimpanzees live in a rich social environment they depend on each

other says Felix Warneken of Harvard University in the US It does not require a big society with social

norms to elicit a deep-rooted sense that we care about others

(Credit Anup ShahNPL)

The long-held view that chimps are selfish and mean is no longer acceptable says de Waal People say

that morality comes from God from religion he says but we can clearly see the roots of morality in

many other species Of course with the good comes the bad It would be misleading to only consider

chimpanzees as helpful moral creatures Just like us they have a dark side There are many instances of

fighting murder and even infanticide

Their society is built upon a complex hierarchical social world where it is important to keep friends close

That means chimps can get manipulative Just watch the clear deception going on in the video below

from the Primate Research Institute at Kyoto University in Japan De Waal has called them

Machiavellian in reference to the deceitful power-grabbing techniques described by historian and

philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli He saw that a dominant male chimpanzee who had become powerful

with the help of friends became jealous if these allies associated with his rivals In response the male

would keep them apart As soon as his best buddy starts grooming his rival he gets very upset and breaks

it up says de Waal Thats a divide and rule strategy

Chimps have to maintain their place in the hierarchy (Credit Anup ShahNPL)

These insights all suggest that chimpanzees are socially aware and understand each others behaviour

But how good are they Humans can recognise the mental states of others an ability psychologists call

theory of mind We can figure out what others are thinking and what their intentions are and infer

what another person does or does not know

Children learn to do this from a young age and there is now a lot of evidence that great apes possess

many of these mind-reading skills

There is a lot going on behind those eyes (Credit Fiona RogersNPL)

For example a subordinate chimpanzee will only pick up a tasty banana if he can do so without being

seen by a more dominant chimp The subordinate knows that the dominant chimp would claim it

Chimps also have some understanding of human minds They can tell the difference between a person

who is unwilling to give them food and a person who is unable to so The latest line of evidence

(httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0003347215001682 ) in this field shows that after

food is taken away from them chimps will steal it back from an opaque box which the experimenter

cannot see into They leave the food in the clear box alone

Clearly we are not the only ones who can think about others as individuals with goals intentions and

perceptions says Katja Karg of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig

Germany the lead author of the study

Baby bonobos (Pan paniscus) are a lot like human children (Credit Anup ShahNPL)

The next step is to look at whether orang-utans have the same ability says Karg We split from them

about 14 million years ago so if they do it would suggest our mind-reading skills are ancient Knowing

someone elses mental state also requires a conscious awareness of your own That suggests that

chimpanzees also have a degree of conscious awareness They are not the only ones So far the ability has

been found in many other apes dolphins Asian elephants and the European magpie

Chimps use twigs to fish tasty termites out of their nests (Credit Anup ShahNPL)

Chimpanzees even have culture They arent composing symphonies but culture can be defined as passing

on knowledge habits and transmission from one generation to the next You wont see a chimp cooking a

gourmet meal for his best friends but that misses the point De Waal argues that chimps completely

depend on cultural and social learning There is now abundant evidence for this

(httprstbroyalsocietypublishingorgcontent3661567997 ) Wild chimp societies have

developed different tool use courtship and grooming behaviours which they pass onto their offspring In

the lab chimps will conform using tools in the same way that others do This conformity is a hallmark of

human culture according to the researchers The chimps conformed to their groups social norms even

though another technique could have been just as useful Most recently it has emerged that

chimpanzees can learn to cook food although they do need to be prompted They would probably quite

like a drink to go with it a 17-year-long study ( httpwwwbbccouknewsscience-environment-

33050939 )found that they were partial to alcohol from fermented palm sap and drank enough to show

signs of inebriation Suddenly that gourmet meal idea doesnt look so far off

Chimpanzees communicate in many ways such as pant-hooting (Credit Anup ShahNPL)

Morality consciousness and culture were all once considered to be uniquely human but chimps have

them all So what is left Language clearly We can write whole books on the topic chimps do not We

cannot look into their eyes and ask them how they are and expect a verbal response Nevertheless its

clear that they have a complex system of communication

Chimpanzees lack the vocal structures to make the sounds we do But language is more than spoken

words gestures and facial expressions also play an important role When you take that into account

chimps suddenly dont look so bad at language

An adolescent bonobo (Pan paniscus) (Credit Fiona RogersNPL)

Chimpanzees do not have our advanced skills but they have many of the components of language Kanzi

the bonobo with his language skills is an extreme case ndash and he was trained by humans But there is

plenty that chimps can do for themselves For instance one study found that chimps beckon in the same

way we do Other work identified 66 distinct gestures which all conveyed meaningful information

They even have cultural variations for the world apple which were discovered when a group of Dutch

chimps was re-homed to a Scottish zoo It is clear that chimps like many other species have intricate

ways of communicating with each other The fault has been ours we have been slow to understand what

they are saying

Chimpanzees even kiss each other (Credit Karl AmmannNPL)

The more we look for similarities between humans and our relatives the more we find For biologists we

are one species out of many says de Waal He points to the way chimps kiss and embrace after a fight in order to make up just as humans do If you

want tohellip say its a very different behaviour then the burden falls on you to explain whats so different about

what the chimpanzees and humans are doing says de Waal Theres no doubt that human abilities are more

developed than those of chimps particularly when it comes to spoken language The point is that the

differences are not stark and absolute but rather a matter of degree ndash and they get subtler the more we

investigate them By that measure humans are no more unique than any other animal

Wersquore all just animalshellip right Not so fast says Melissa Hogenboom a few things make us different from

any other species

By Melissa Hogenboom

6 July 2015

I am become death the destroyer of worlds So said the physicist Robert Oppenheimer who helped to

invent the atomic bomb

The two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 killed around 200000 Japanese people No

other species has ever wielded such power and no species could

The technology behind the atomic bomb only exists because of a cooperative hive mind hundreds of

scientists and engineers working together The same unique intelligence and cooperation also underlies

more positive advances such as modern medicine

But is that all that defines us In recent years many traits once believed to be uniquely human from

morality to culture have been found in the animal kingdom So what exactly makes us special The list

might be smaller than it once was but there are some traits of ours that no other creature on Earth can

match

No animal can get close to the devastation humans can cause (Credit Thinkstock)

Ever since we learned to write we have documented how special we are The philosopher Aristotle

marked out our differences over 2000 years ago We are rational animals pursuing knowledge for its

own sake We live by art and reasoning he wrote

Much of what he said stills stands Yes we see the roots of many behaviours once considered uniquely

human in our closest relatives chimpanzees and bonobos But we are the only ones who peer into their

world and write books about it

Obviously we have similarities We have similarities with everything else in nature it would be

astonishing if we didnt But weve got to look at the differences says Ian Tattersall a

paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York US

To understand these differences a good place to start is to look at how we got here Why are we the only

human species still alive today whereas many of our early-human ancestors went extinct

Neanderthals (left) didnt fare as well as we did (Credit SPL)

Humans and chimpanzees diverged from our common ancestor more than six million years ago Fossil

evidence points to the ways which we have gradually changed We left the trees started walking and

began to live in larger groups And then our brains got bigger Physically we are another primate but our

bigger brains are unusual

We dont know exactly what led to our brains becoming the size they are today but we seem to owe our

complex reasoning abilities to it

It is likely that we have our big brain to thank that we exist at all When we ndash Homo sapiens ndash first

appeared about 200000 years ago we werent alone We shared the planet at least four other upright

cousins Neanderthals Denisovans the hobbit Homo floresiensis and a mysterious fourth group

The human brain is advantageously big (Credit Thinkstock)

Evidence in the form of stone tools suggests that for about 100000 years our technology was very similar

to the Neanderthals But 80000 years ago something changed

The Neanderthals had an impressive but basically routine material record for a hominid Once H

sapiens started behaving in a strange [more sophisticated] way all hell broke loose and change became

the norm Tattersall says

We started to produce superior cultural and technological artefacts Our stone tools became more

intricate One study proposes (httpsciencesciencemagorgcontent3225902733 )that our

technological innovation was key for our migration out of Africa We started to assign symbolic values to

objects such as geometrical designs on plaques and cave art

By contrast there is little evidence that any other hominins made any kind of art One example which

was possibly made by Neanderthals was hailed as proof they had similar levels of abstract thought

However it is a simple etching and some question whether Neanderthals made it at all The symbols

made by H sapiens are clearly more advanced We had also been around for 100000 years before

symbolic objects appeared so what happened

We had the capacity for art early in our history (Credit SPL)

Somehow our language-learning abilities were gradually switched on Tattersall argues In the same

way that early birds developed feathers before they could fly we had the mental tools for complex

language before we developed it

We started with language-like symbols as a way to represent the world around us he says For example

before you say a word your brain first has to have a symbolic representation of what it means These

mental symbols eventually led to language in all its complexity and the ability to process information is

the main reason we are the only hominin still alive Tattersall argues

Its not clear exactly when speech evolved or how But it seems likely that it was partly driven by another

uniquely human trait our superior social skills

Comparative studies between humans and chimps show that while both will cooperate humans will

always help more Children seem to be innate helpers They act selflessly before social norms set

in Studies have

shown (httponlinelibrarywileycomdoi101111cdep12101abstractjsessionid=DC6358F6E5250B672

CA6EC44FCC52F06f04t03) that they will spontaneously open doors for adults and pick up accidentally

dropped items They will even stop playing to help Their sense of fairness begins young Even if an

experiment is unfairly rigged so that one child receives more rewards they will ensure a reward is fairly

split

Children show proactive kindness unlike our close relatives (Credit Thinkstock)

We know that chimpanzees also work together and share food in apparently unselfish ways

However Michael Tomasello of the Max Planck institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig

Germany says they will only cooperate if there is something in it for them

Humans do that too but in addition they care about what their partner gets In some experiments we

have children as young as 14-18 months who seem to expect their partner to collaborate in certain ways

and who share in ways chimps dont

Human children are less selective about who they share with Chimpanzees though largely only

share with close relatives reciprocating partners or potential mates

Felix Warneken of Harvard University in Cambridge US differentiates it like this Children are proactive

that is they help even when presented with only very subtle cues Chimpanzees though need more

encouragement They are reactive they will hand over objects but only after some nudging

Something must have happened in our evolution Tomasello says to make humans increasingly reliant on

each other Our brains needed fuel to get bigger and so collaborative hunting may have played a key role

in that Our advanced teamwork may simply reflect our long history of working together to get food

Mind readers

The fact that our nearest relatives share too simply shows that it is an ancient trait It was already present

in the messy branch of early humans that led to us but none of these other species were as hyper

cooperative as we are today

Humans have a unique ability to understand the beliefs of another person (Credit Thinkstock)

These cooperative skills are closely tied to our incredible mind reading skills We understand what others

think based upon our knowledge of the world but we also understand what others cannot know The

Sally-Anne task is a simple way to test young childrens ability to do this

The child witnesses a doll called Sally putting a marble in a basket in full view of another doll Anne When

Sally leaves the room Anne moves the marble to a box Sally then comes back and the experimenter asks

the child where Sally will look for the marble

Because Sally didnt see Anne move the marble she will have a false belief that the marble is still in the

basket Most 4-year-olds can grasp this and say that Sally will look in the basket They know the marble is

not there but they also understand that Sally is missing the key bit of information

Chimps can knowingly deceive others so they understand the world view of others to some extent

However they cannot understand others false beliefs In a chimpanzee version of the Sally-Anne

task researchers found ( httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0003347200915185) that

they understand when a competitor is ignorant of the location of food but not when they have been

misinformed Tomasello puts it like this chimpanzees know what others know and what others can see

but not what others believe

This tells us something profound about ourselves While we are not the only creatures who understand

that others have intentions and goals we are certainly unique in the level of abstractness with which we

can reason about others mental states says Katja Karg also of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary

Anthropology

Language gave us the skill to exchange complex thoughts and ideas (Credit iStock)

When you pull together our unparalleled language skills our ability to infer others mental states and our

instinct for cooperation you have something unprecedented Us Just look around you Tomasello says

were chatting and doing an interview they (chimps) are not We have our advanced language skills to

thank for that We may see evidence of basic linguistic abilities in chimpanzees but we are the only ones

writing things down We tell stories we dream we imagine things about ourselves and others and we

spend a great deal of time thinking about the future and analysing the past

We have a fundamental urge to link our minds together

Theres more to it Thomas Suddendorf an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Queensland in

Australia is keen to point out We have a fundamental urge to link our minds together This allows us to

take advantage of others experiences reflections and imaginings to prudently guide our own behaviour

We link our scenario-building minds into larger networks of knowledge This in turn helps us to

accumulate information through many generations

We connect up our brains and its one of our defining traits (Credit SPL)

That our rapidly expanding technology has allowed us all to become instant publishers means we can

share such information at the touch of a button And this transmission of ideas and technology helps us in

our quest to uncover even more about ourselves That is we use language to continue ideas that others

put forward

Of course we pass on the good and the bad The technology that defines us can also destroy worlds

Take murder Humans arent the only species that kill each other Were not even the only species that

fight wars But our intelligence and social prowess mean we can do so on an unprecedented scale

We can fight and kill on an unparalleled scale (Credit istock)

Charles Darwin in his book The Descent of Man wrote that humans and animals only differ in degree

not kind This still stands true but Suddendorf says that it is precisely these gradual changes that make us

extraordinary and has led to radically different possibilities of thinking

And it is these thoughts that allow us to pinpoint to our differences with chimpanzees That we do so is

because they are the closest living relative we have If any of the now extinct early humans were still alive

we would be comparing our behaviour to them instead

Still as far as we know we are the only creatures trying to understand where we came from We also

peer further back in time and further into the future than any other animal What other species would

think to ponder the age of the universe or how it will end

We have an immense capacity for good At the same time we risk driving our closest relatives to

extinction and destroying the only planet we have ever called home

httpwwwbbccomfuturestory20150706-the-small-list-of-things-that-make-humans-unique

060617 1353

What makes us human Our innate curiosity and our ability to laugh People have been wondering what stuff is made of since the beginning of time Antelopes by contrast

havenrsquot writes John Lloyd

This is a big question but one answer covers it all we ask questions There are quite a few

human languages ndash Latin and Irish among them ndash that donrsquot have words for ldquoyesrdquo or ldquonordquo ndash but every

language on earth has a word for ldquowhyrdquo

Why is this Why are we the only species on earth that is concerned about things that donrsquot directly

concern our survival or that of our offspring Porcupines do not look up at the night sky and wonder what

all the sparkly bits are weasels donrsquot worry about what other weasels think of them lobsters really donrsquot

enjoy pub quizzes

When my son was about 14 I was trying to explain what a hydrogen atom is like The fact that we have any

idea at all is in itself an extraordinary testament to human curiosity People have been wondering what

stuff is made of since the beginning of time Antelopes by contrast havenrsquot And no antelope has ever

expressed what Harry said next ldquoDad why is there something and not nothingrdquo This is a question first

posed by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz often said to be the last man in history who knew

everything that could then be known But he didnrsquot know that it seems

Stephen Hawking recently asked the question in a different way ldquoWhy does the universe go to all the

bother of existingrdquo He happens to be a friend of Jimmy Carr and itrsquos the most wonderfully moving thing to

see Jimmy make him laugh Laughter I would say is another thing that makes us human and being able to

make people laugh is a high calling Watching Bill Bailey live on stage always makes me proud to be

a member of the same species

But why do we laugh Irsquove been in comedy for 40 years and I still donrsquot know Itrsquos the simple things that

donrsquot have answers What is life No one knows biologists canrsquot tell the difference between a live hamster

and a dead one ldquoWhat is the meaning of liferdquo is even more difficult Scientists canrsquot agree on the meaning

of the word ldquomeaningrdquo

Where do ideas come from What is consciousness Where is last Thursday Do they artificially sweeten

the delicious glue on the back of envelopes Once you start asking questions you become like a five-year-

old child You canrsquot stop And you become very annoying When I was that age I asked my father ldquoDaddy

what is the Holy Ghostrdquo ldquoMrsquoboyrdquo he replied ldquoSt Francis of Assisi struggled with that question for 40 years

in the wilderness ndash I cannot help yourdquo

Andrew Billen the TV critic of the Times once asked me ldquoWhy do you think the universe is interestingrdquo

To my surprise I found myself answering without thinking ldquoFirst to lead us to ask the questions that really

matter and second to distract us from ever finding themrdquo As Niels Bohr the great Danish physicist used

to say ldquoAt last gentlemen we have encountered a paradox ndash now we have some hope of making

progressrdquo Bohr was a bit of a paradox himself He kept a lucky horseshoe over his door When asked

ldquoSurely you donrsquot believe in that nonsenserdquo he said ldquoOf course I donrsquot believe in it but I understand it

works whether you believe in it or notrdquo

What do you believe in What questions really matter I think there are only two ldquoWhy are we hererdquo and

ldquoWhat should we do about it while we arerdquo

The question of what it means to be human is central to all science fiction and one of the greatest writers

in the genre Robert Heinlein had this to say ldquoA human being should be able to change a diaper plan an

invasion butcher a hog conn a ship design a building write a sonnet balance accounts build a wall set a

bone comfort the dying take orders give orders co-operate act alone solve equations analyse a new

problem pitch manure programme a computer cook a tasty meal fight efficiently die gallantly

Specialisation is for insectsrdquo

We must get on therersquos a lot to do

The ldquoWhat Makes Us Humanrdquo series runs on the Jeremy Vine show (Radio 2)

John Lloyd is the creator and producer of ldquoQIrdquo (BBC2) and the co-creator and presenter of ldquoThe Museum of

Curiosityrdquo (Radio 4)

httpwwwnewstatesmancom201407what-makes-us-human-our-innate-curiosity-and-our-ability-

laugh 070717 0950

Andrew Billen the TV critic of the Times once asked me ldquoWhy do you think the universe is interestingrdquo

To my surprise I found myself answering without thinking ldquoFirst to lead us to ask the questions that really

matter and second to distract us from ever finding themrdquo As Niels Bohr the great Danish physicist used

to say ldquoAt last gentlemen we have encountered a paradox ndash now we have some hope of making

progressrdquo Bohr was a bit of a paradox himself He kept a lucky horseshoe over his door When asked

ldquoSurely you donrsquot believe in that nonsenserdquo he said ldquoOf course I donrsquot believe in it but I understand it

works whether you believe in it or notrdquo

What do you believe in What questions really matter I think there are only two ldquoWhy are we hererdquo and

ldquoWhat should we do about it while we arerdquo

The question of what it means to be human is central to all science fiction and one of the greatest writers

in the genre Robert Heinlein had this to say ldquoA human being should be able to change a diaper plan an

invasion butcher a hog conn a ship design a building write a sonnet balance accounts build a wall set a

bone comfort the dying take orders give orders co-operate act alone solve equations analyse a new

problem pitch manure programme a computer cook a tasty meal fight efficiently die gallantly

Specialisation is for insectsrdquo

We must get on therersquos a lot to do

The ldquoWhat Makes Us Humanrdquo series runs on the Jeremy Vine show (Radio 2)

John Lloyd is the creator and producer of ldquoQIrdquo (BBC2) and the co-creator and presenter of ldquoThe Museum of

Curiosityrdquo (Radio 4)

httpwwwnewstatesmancom201407what-makes-us-human-our-innate-curiosity-and-our-ability-

laugh 070717 0950

What makes us human genetics culture or both No Comments

by Daniel Zadik on May 27 2013

In Kubrickrsquos masterpiece 2001 A Space Odyssey a group of our ape-like ancestors encounter a towering

black rectangle somewhere in an African desert Something in them changes A seed is sown Everything

from tool use to space travel is now inevitable

Human beings have always felt that we are fundamentally different from other animals We have done

countless things that no other species could do We have reshaped the world around us But anyone who has

spent time with animals can see that we also have much in common

Defining exactly what separates us from other animals has proven surprisingly difficult Large brains tool

use and language may each seem like attractive answers but each turns out to be less clear-cut Maybe the

most notable thing about humanity is that we are able to communicate ideas well enough for each generation

to maintain and build upon the understanding of the previous one giving us a cumulative culture like no

other

That still leaves open the question of what gives us this potential Ruling out an intervention by Space

Odysseyrsquos monoliths was there a single trigger that kickstarted the human revolution

Undoubtedly genetic mutation played a part But did those mutations occur before the revolution started or

after In a paper published in Science Simon Fisher at Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistic

Netherlands and Matt Ridley formerly a science journalist try to answer the question

Adapted from a sketch by Josh wwwcartoonsbyjoshcom

Genes before beans

We share 99 of our DNA with our closest living relative the chimpanzee So any genetic component of

being human must be found in the differences between the two Recent advances in technology mean that

DNA sequences from some of our most recent extinct relatives are also becoming available to us allowing a

finer understanding of who evolved what and when

The best known mutations are those that change the sequence of a gene which in turn changes properties of

proteins made by that gene We now know that a surprising amount of key variations are caused by

mutations that leave the protein sequence unchanged but alter the amount or the situations in which a

protein is made The relationships between genes and proteins form complex networks in which an

apparently small change in the DNA can lead to many changes in the proteins produced and therefore

profound changes in the nature of the organism In this way a relatively few changes can lead to big

differences in say brain size and structure

But the brain is shaped by both genes and experience and that makes it hard to be sure which came first

Questions of genetic and behavioural evolution sometimes put scientists in a chicken or egg situation

What came first

If a genetic mutation and a behavioural change appear to be associated scientists can be tempted to assume

that the genetic mutation caused the change But Fisher and Ridley argue that it is also worth considering

that a change in lifestyle could suddenly make a particular mutation advantageous and therefore allow it to

spread throughout the population via natural selection For example a bigger brain is advantageous only if

the body has enough resources to support it It is possible that the mutations that caused the increase in brain

size in humans happened only after the behavioural revolution of cooking which made the nutrients in food

more accessible

Sometimes it is even possible to identify genes that may have had specific roles in the evolution of specific

behaviour For example the FOXP2 gene is believed to be involved in language Modern individuals who

have faulty copies of this gene have difficulty speaking and understanding language FOXP2 is also the gene

whose sequence has the most differences between chimps and humans and it is likely that between modern

humans and Neanderthals the amount of FOXP2 protein made varies

Oopshellipam I doing something wrong James Nash

It is important however not to assume that this is the origin of language In many animals versions of the

gene exist and they have roles in vocal and motor skills It is likely that the evolution of FOXP2 gene honed

such pre-existing skills Such changes would be most advantageous to humans when some level of language

was already being practised

Examples of genetic changes following behavioural ones have previously been observed but it is not always

given due consideration Much later in our evolution after farming had developed evidence shows that

humans developed an increased ability to tolerate lactose (a key component of milk) only after they began

consuming it More recently Europeans developed higher tolerance for alcohol relative to Asians because of

their greater alcohol consumption

Being human

So there are many things that separate modern humans from chimps and fewer that separate us from our

closer extinct relatives These include genetic physical behavioural and cultural differences and they came

into being over time causing each other or allowing each other to become advantageous This doesnrsquot imply

that the transition was smooth Successful populations may exist for long periods relatively unchanged

while one change can quickly trigger a cascade of changes

It does however make it difficult to say that any specific change turned an ape into a human A definitive

answer to what made us ldquohumanrdquo requires you to decide quite arbitrarily on a definition of human and in

doing that you have probably answered your own question

Daniel Zadik does not work for consult to own shares in or receive funding from any company or

organisation that would benefit from this article and has no relevant affiliations

httpwwwnewphilosophercomarticleswhat-makes-us-human-genetics-culture-or-both

070617 1000

What makes humans special

What separates human beings from their animal ancestors Andrew Buskell examines the concept of

ldquocumulative culturerdquo

There are many traits and behaviours that make humans exceptional Some of these traits and behaviours

are easy to identify To take one example humans communicate linguistically in a way that is strikingly

different from our great ape ancestors And while there are other differences between humans and

animals many are hard to identify and quantify Over the last fifty years or so however researchers have

developed models experimental paradigms and tests that provide greater and greater insight into what

makes human beings exceptional

size in humans happened only after the behavioural revolution of cooking which made the nutrients in food

more accessible

Sometimes it is even possible to identify genes that may have had specific roles in the evolution of specific

behaviour For example the FOXP2 gene is believed to be involved in language Modern individuals who

have faulty copies of this gene have difficulty speaking and understanding language FOXP2 is also the gene

whose sequence has the most differences between chimps and humans and it is likely that between modern

humans and Neanderthals the amount of FOXP2 protein made varies

Oopshellipam I doing something wrong James Nash

It is important however not to assume that this is the origin of language In many animals versions of the

gene exist and they have roles in vocal and motor skills It is likely that the evolution of FOXP2 gene honed

such pre-existing skills Such changes would be most advantageous to humans when some level of language

was already being practised

Examples of genetic changes following behavioural ones have previously been observed but it is not always

given due consideration Much later in our evolution after farming had developed evidence shows that

humans developed an increased ability to tolerate lactose (a key component of milk) only after they began

consuming it More recently Europeans developed higher tolerance for alcohol relative to Asians because of

their greater alcohol consumption

Being human

So there are many things that separate modern humans from chimps and fewer that separate us from our

closer extinct relatives These include genetic physical behavioural and cultural differences and they came

into being over time causing each other or allowing each other to become advantageous This doesnrsquot imply

that the transition was smooth Successful populations may exist for long periods relatively unchanged

while one change can quickly trigger a cascade of changes

It does however make it difficult to say that any specific change turned an ape into a human A definitive

answer to what made us ldquohumanrdquo requires you to decide quite arbitrarily on a definition of human and in

doing that you have probably answered your own question

Daniel Zadik does not work for consult to own shares in or receive funding from any company or

organisation that would benefit from this article and has no relevant affiliations

httpwwwnewphilosophercomarticleswhat-makes-us-human-genetics-culture-or-both

070617 1000

What makes humans special

What separates human beings from their animal ancestors Andrew Buskell examines the concept of

ldquocumulative culturerdquo

There are many traits and behaviours that make humans exceptional Some of these traits and behaviours

are easy to identify To take one example humans communicate linguistically in a way that is strikingly

different from our great ape ancestors And while there are other differences between humans and

animals many are hard to identify and quantify Over the last fifty years or so however researchers have

developed models experimental paradigms and tests that provide greater and greater insight into what

makes human beings exceptional

that the transition was smooth Successful populations may exist for long periods relatively unchanged

while one change can quickly trigger a cascade of changes

It does however make it difficult to say that any specific change turned an ape into a human A definitive

answer to what made us ldquohumanrdquo requires you to decide quite arbitrarily on a definition of human and in

doing that you have probably answered your own question

Daniel Zadik does not work for consult to own shares in or receive funding from any company or

organisation that would benefit from this article and has no relevant affiliations

httpwwwnewphilosophercomarticleswhat-makes-us-human-genetics-culture-or-both

070617 1000

What makes humans special

What separates human beings from their animal ancestors Andrew Buskell examines the concept of

ldquocumulative culturerdquo

There are many traits and behaviours that make humans exceptional Some of these traits and behaviours

are easy to identify To take one example humans communicate linguistically in a way that is strikingly

different from our great ape ancestors And while there are other differences between humans and

animals many are hard to identify and quantify Over the last fifty years or so however researchers have

developed models experimental paradigms and tests that provide greater and greater insight into what

makes human beings exceptional

One important difference between humans and animals is the extent to which humans employ huge

amounts of knowledge and technology While it is true that some animals build structures (think for

instance of beaver dams) and that some use tools (with the New Caledonian crow being an exceptional

instance) humans not only have a large and varied tool-kit but also use this tool-kit to survive in almost all

the terrestrial territories of the globe

A large number of psychologists primatologists and biological anthropologists are now attempting to

understand how and why humans establish and maintain technology (what Irsquoll call ldquoinnovationsrdquo) and

knowledge over time The label that they use to capture this phenomenon is cumulative culture

Cumulative culture is another interesting difference between humans and animals But what exactly does

ldquocumulative culturerdquo mean What is it that is accumulating here

When we turn to look at what various people working on cumulative culture mean by the concept we find

that they tend to pick out very different kinds of phenomena But if researchers use different definitions of

cumulative culture it is reasonable to question whether they are also identifying different underlying

structures There is room for philosophy here to help distinguish the various dimensions of cumulative

culture and to make clear at least in the broad strokes what different kinds of structures might be at

work

In what follows I briefly highlight three different ways that the cumulative culture concept has been used

by (predominantly) psychologists and biological anthropologists showing that they donrsquot quite pick out the

same phenomena Demonstrating these different kinds of accumulation is one step towards a more fine-

grained scientific analysis of what separates our human psychology from our animal ancestors

Illustration of a Beaver dam 1884 Public Domain

Cumulative Culture as Increasing Complexity

One way in which human innovations seem to differ from those we see in animals is their complexity

Consider Global-Positioning System (GPS) Satellites GPS Satellites are incredibly complex innovations an

artefact that could not have sprung complete from one inventorrsquos head Instead such a complex thing is

the result of years and years of tinkering with gradual improvements to design telemetry physics and

material science

The increasing complexity of innovations seems to be a peculiarly human trait and one that seems to rely

on a special ability for faithful copying Without faithful copying (the story goes) we would lose

accumulated innovations of the past never being able to add more complex bells and whistles to the

artefacts that we have It seems like humans have a psychology that allows for ldquoratchetingrdquo or

accumulating complexity we can maintain innovations in our communities and slowly ldquoratchetrdquo up what

these artefacts can do

Cumulative Culture as Increasing Number of Innovations

Another striking feature of human beings is that as well as our having so many innovations we also

maintain them in our societies for long periods of time Thus another way that culture accumulates is in

terms of the sheer number of innovations But how do we explain this ability to grow knowledge ndash to grow

our culture

Illustration of a Beaver dam 1884 Public Domain

Cumulative Culture as Increasing Complexity

One way in which human innovations seem to differ from those we see in animals is their complexity

Consider Global-Positioning System (GPS) Satellites GPS Satellites are incredibly complex innovations an

artefact that could not have sprung complete from one inventorrsquos head Instead such a complex thing is

the result of years and years of tinkering with gradual improvements to design telemetry physics and

material science

The increasing complexity of innovations seems to be a peculiarly human trait and one that seems to rely

on a special ability for faithful copying Without faithful copying (the story goes) we would lose

accumulated innovations of the past never being able to add more complex bells and whistles to the

artefacts that we have It seems like humans have a psychology that allows for ldquoratchetingrdquo or

accumulating complexity we can maintain innovations in our communities and slowly ldquoratchetrdquo up what

these artefacts can do

Cumulative Culture as Increasing Number of Innovations

Another striking feature of human beings is that as well as our having so many innovations we also

maintain them in our societies for long periods of time Thus another way that culture accumulates is in

terms of the sheer number of innovations But how do we explain this ability to grow knowledge ndash to grow

our culture

There are plenty of capacities that are at play here but a crucial kind of ability seems to be that

of inventing and combining innovations What is required for these capacities One interesting feature

seems to be the ability to break down tasks and innovations and to have the psychological capacities to

mix and match and repeat various component parts of tasks and innovations This ability to imaginatively

as well as physically try out the combinations and permutations of various innovations seems to rely on

cognitive abilities for decomposing tasks into constituent parts and manipulating these parts in a variety of

ways

Cumulative Culture as Increasing Cultural Adaptiveness

So far I have only hinted at the use of our innovations and knowledge only saying that it somehow allows

human beings to survive in an extremely wide range of environments One important aspect of culture that

seems to follow from such observations is the way in which culture has helped the human race to succeed

to outbreed other mammals of a similar size This is to treat culture as something akin to a biological

adaptation as something that can generate a ldquofitrdquo between populations and their environment

Take spices as an example Several spices have antimicrobial properties ndash others are fungicides There is

some suggestive evidence that recipes passed down over time incorporate (tacit) knowledge about these

properties Spices are added in combination to increase their antimicrobial effect and at different times in

the cooking process seemingly sensitive to the heat-resistance of their antimicrobial properties

How can culture have this feature of increasing adaptiveness where recipes can have increasingly effective

antimicrobial properties Here researchers seem to identify two important features First the size of onersquos

population is important The more individuals in onersquos population the more likely it is that (a) knowledge

about how to make the innovation will be widely distributed (b) there will be ample opportunities to learn

such innovations and (c) new and varied innovations will be generated with the chance of an even better

one coming along

Second we need someway of telling when things work from when things donrsquot Even with widely

distributed and variable innovations unless individuals can tell which innovations are better (or worse) the

population is less likely to generate innovations with an adaptive fit This capacity to tell good from bad is

likely to rely on some cognitive machinery ndash though here there is a serious debate as to what this

machinery might be

Illustration of the New Caledonian Crow (Corvus moneduloides) 1887 Public Domain

Let me sum up Cumulative culture is something that marks human beings as exceptional from other

animals But understanding this intricate phenomena and how it came about is complex I have

highlighted three ways individuals interested in cumulative culture have used the term picking out three

broad kinds of accumulation the complexity of an innovation the number of innovations and the

adaptiveness of an innovation Each Irsquove shown seems to rely on very different kinds of underlying

structures

What does this mean for the term ldquocumulative culturerdquo We might think that if it picks out very different

kinds of accumulation each resulting from different underlying structures that the term isnrsquot very useful

Maybe we should get rid of it

My own view here is under development but I think we should keep ldquocumulative culturerdquo There is

something in common between these three senses of ldquoaccumulationrdquo they all structure the heritable

variation available for subsequent generations It might be the case that cumulative culture is picking out

what evolutionary theorists call evolvability Cumulative culture might be an investigation into cultural

evolvability

By Andrew Buskell

Illustration of the New Caledonian Crow (Corvus moneduloides) 1887 Public Domain

Let me sum up Cumulative culture is something that marks human beings as exceptional from other

animals But understanding this intricate phenomena and how it came about is complex I have

highlighted three ways individuals interested in cumulative culture have used the term picking out three

broad kinds of accumulation the complexity of an innovation the number of innovations and the

adaptiveness of an innovation Each Irsquove shown seems to rely on very different kinds of underlying

structures

What does this mean for the term ldquocumulative culturerdquo We might think that if it picks out very different

kinds of accumulation each resulting from different underlying structures that the term isnrsquot very useful

Maybe we should get rid of it

My own view here is under development but I think we should keep ldquocumulative culturerdquo There is

something in common between these three senses of ldquoaccumulationrdquo they all structure the heritable

variation available for subsequent generations It might be the case that cumulative culture is picking out

what evolutionary theorists call evolvability Cumulative culture might be an investigation into cultural

evolvability

By Andrew Buskell

Andrew Buskell is a Fellow in the Department of Philosophy Logic amp Scientific Method His research focuses

on philosophical issues surrounding the science of human evolution particularly the evolution of human

psychology

httpwwwlseacukphilosophyblog20160303what-makes-humans-special 070617 1115

Summer task

Read this document and have a look at the links that have been provided

Write a response to the question below Please try to write between 800-1000 words You might want to

research what other philosophers have thought for example Plato Aristotle Kant Nietzsche Sartre

Q What is a human

To be emailed to pwallacesimshautlieuschje on the first day back to school

This is a really useful site to use for many

of your subjects

Please look at this link and make notes on

the imbedded clips

httpwwwopenculturecom201502what-makes-us-human-chomsky-locke-marxhtml