The Third Chimpanzee
Considering that 98.5% of our genetic material* is identical to that of our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees - are we really as different a species from the rest of the world, as we’d like to believe? Some traits that we consider unique to us, and infact think of as defining humanity - how unique really are these traits such as language, art, tool use (eventually technology) and our social relationships and organization?Â
Jared Diamond’s ‘The Third Chimpanzee’ is a book that takes the reader into an insightful analysis of each thing that we assume make us human and then, does a neat little twist on it to set you questioning. Every chapter starts off by stating how different a particular trait is from anything else that is found in the animal world, including in our cousins, the chimpanzees, gorillas or bonobos. But then - and this is where it gets interesting - it begins looking for similar or related behaviours in these species which could have arisen from the common evolutionary history that we share with them. For example, research has shown that chimpanzees do make and use rudimentary tools, although of course nowhere on the scale that homo sapiens have achieved.
Diamond gives us the gossip on various competing theories which explain why a particular behaviour evolved in humans, due to what evolutionary pressures, at what time and how such behaviour got more widespread over time. Besides the ease with which he makes complex research perfectly understandable to a lay reader, what is creditable is the way he brings together research from diverse fields -archaeology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics and zoology to name a few. Â He then goes on to demonstrate how while certain behaviours do have animal origins, their mainfestations in humans is entirely different.Â
Next, Diamond looks at a few other behaviours which are not ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ in themselves, but are still quite uniquely human. These chapters look at the evolution of behaviours such as adultery. I was quite surprised to realise both that adultery is confined to human beings and that adultery is rampant among most societies. A study conducted for something quite different showed that 10% of the babies in a particular group actually had different paternity than what was claimed - anticipating the storm, the results were never published!Â
But - it was a bit of a revelation that most another animal societies either do not or ‘cannot’ have adultery. Chimpanzees, male and female are completely promiscuous, so without ‘commitment’, there is by definition no adultery. Bonobos on the other hand are completely faithful to each other and mate for life, with no known cases of straying, while gorilla males mate with a number of females that don’t look at other males. Humans are actually the only species that profess commitment, yet look for opportunities outside the pair. The book analyses a number of theories on why adulterous behaviour would have evolved - and in this chapter, Diamond also scrutinises how some theories, especially older ones could reflect the biases of researchers themselves (usually reflecting a male-centric worldview). Â
Not everything homo sapien is lofty, progressive or even neutral though; Art, language and technology may be, but self-destruction (as individuals or groups) and genocide are also uniquely human attributes, at first glance. Here too, Diamond shows how such urges (especially genocidal) also exist in our close relatives - chimpanzee groups, for instance have been shown to attack and even annihilate one another. Total annihilation of a rival group is however rare, unlike homo sapiens, where murderous attacks on entire communities and murder on a very large scale is not unknown. Variations in the technology and resources that different human groups can acquire, makes this possible - as opposed to animal societies where resources are more evenly distributed.
Finally, the book examines the self-destructive ways in which human beings behave, such as drug or alcohol addiction and on a group level, the destruction of habitat and resources leading to the death of an entire community. Commonly, most of us are inclined to think that ancient peoples were much better at conservation - we often idealise them as living in some kind of communion with nature. Yet, research on small communities such as the Easter Islanders reveals a history of excessive usage of natural resources and eventual depletion. Diamond demonstrates that environmental destruction is no modern phenomenon, even if the magnitude has increased.Â
Reading the book, I felt that this is probably one of the areas where we are most different from any other species living on earth. I mean, we don’t see any other animal chopping down the rain forests or polluting the oceans, do we? While Diamond is cautiously optimistic about the possibility for change and that human beings will learn from the past, I wasn’t too convinced.
Overall, a great read for anyone who is interested in looking at the question of what it means to be human and how we got where we are today.Â
* More recent research indicates that the genetic similarity is no greater than 94%, but I don’t know if that is the accepted version in the scientific community and not being knowledgeable enough to comment, I haven’t listed these figures.Â
I like to think of species as different hues. Our human mindset is programmed to think that humans are the most “superior” species. But only as much as scarlet red is the most “superior” color/hue. Chimps and gorillas maybe cerise and saffron but thats about it. No superiority. Genes characterize species just as RGB weights creates thousands of hues.
Actually, there is a bit of black and white here. What do we think of as superior? If you look at attributes such as use of technology, or indeed of the end outcome - the colonisation of every part of the Earth - then, we do indeed have superiority. But, in the long run, will this do us good, is another question.
From an ethical perspective, if one were think that the ability to feel/empathise is what defines superiority, scientists are still debating on that one - and many of the results coming out are pretty uncomfortable. If other apes can indeed feel in similiar ways as us, we have even less justification for destroying them and their habitat.
From a third perspective, if one were to look at superiority from a darwinistic viewpoint, i.e. ability to perpetuate the species - then perhaps insects and reptiles are much more superior than us, and will continue to stay long after we are gone!
I’ve mentioned this elsewhere but I repeat. We in the college celebrated the Science month this feb and we had apeakers highlighting environmental issues and the speaker actually switched off the microphone to save energy and offered to illustrate his point by a self explanatory power point presentation adding his comments where necessary without using the mike. Our teachers wanted to switch on the AC where as in Feb we don’t even need the fan in Jmshedpur. We humans can only learn the hard way but this time around it looks as if we’d only end up punishing the next generation.i am sure you’ve watched the PP presentation by our eminent Ex President Dr. Abdul Kalam on what we may face in the middle of the 21st century if we continued polluting the environment and even this went over the heads of my colleagues. They seem to think that this was an exaggeration and this was only meant to scare us. Well I can only pray for some good sense to prevail in the mind and action of our children.
True. Most of us are unwilling to make even small changes…leave alone the kind of dramatic changes needed to stop habitat destruction and global warming.