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.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
9 posts so far.