Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Defining our humanity

By Stephen Cheleda - posted Wednesday, 29 July 2009


The first part of the definition, of being social, can be considered almost as stating the obvious. Even insects, such as bees and ants are social. Monkeys in particular are social. But, as stated before, mammals are social for hunting, foraging, grooming and defensive reasons. Only humans occupy their leisure-time creatively. The myriad of hobbies, from fishing, music making, knitting, painting, and so on, is testimony to this.

Qualities that enhance the sociability of an individual are more advantageous in an evolutionary sense, than when it is limited. Any activity or behaviour that adds to the social value (indirectly) is preferable to activities, which benefits only the individual. Contrast the activities of a habitual thief; a drug dealer; or an embezzler, with a house builder or a nurse. It is not difficult to see who adds to the social value, and who does not. The spectrum of sociability is wide. One’s sociability may be limited to a few individuals, or it may encompass a very large group. Even the hardened recluse, who supposedly shuns everybody, depends on others in some way.

What about our ability to perceive and to communicate objects or concepts that we do not or cannot observe?

One of the examples is the genetic code contained in the double helix. It was not seen as such, but people accept, and are making use of the way it works. Other examples are the myriad of plans followed when building a house, or working out the stress levels of an aeroplane wing before the plane itself is built, or a painting or music bringing to one’s attention a sentiment or thought.

Advertisement

Also, our capability to create and to control energy has vastly expanded since the Stone Age people were using a simple fire for heating, cooking, and later, making various forms of pottery. The intensity of fire itself increased through the centuries, before we started to use various chemicals such as coal and gas. Electricity has added to our knowledge, and most recently, we made use of atomic fission. The quest will, no doubt, to expand further.

Conclusions

We have to consider what is unique to humans. The prevailing definition of a human being emphasises our superior communicative skills and our exceptional tool making capabilities. This is not adequate. There is nothing unique about the ability to communicate. All mammals do it. Have humans just happened to develop it exponentially? There is nothing unique about tool making either. Chimpanzees do it more than other mammals. Have humans just developed it to an extraordinary degree?

Whatever happened about 40,000 years ago, humans acquired the unique features of the ability to create and to control energy, and the ability to perceive and to communicate things they do not or cannot observe directly. Even our sociability is unique, in as much as humans are the only beings who occupy their leisure time creatively.

The present view of our humanity needs to be looked afresh. The notion that only the fittest survive is wildly misinterpreted and misapplied. Yes, a person has to be fit, but fit to carry out a task. A teacher, an engineer, a musician and an athlete all have to be fit for a purpose. To be good at any task requires self-discipline and training. This process can be described as a continuous struggle for survival to improve one’s ability to do their best.

Both in the plant and the animal kingdom, the individual that prospers is the one that is more adaptable to the demands of the changing environment. Only in that sense can they be considered fit. In the case of humans, they almost constantly have to adapt not just to changes in their physical environment but more so, to changes in their social environment.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

9 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Stephen Cheleda was born in Budapest in 1938 and has lived in the UK since December 1956. After working in industry, he became a teacher of Mathematics in 1971. Stephen did an MA in Peace Studies at the University of Bradford. He retired in 2003.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Stephen Cheleda

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 9 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy