I imagine that you have watched at least one program about nature at some point and I hope it was one featuring David Attenborough. I am especially fond of his programs not only for his articulate and soothing narration, but also the care with which he guides the viewer's understanding. He neither diminishes nor elevates his subjects, refusing the simple characterizations employed by vapid script writers or their tendency to anthropomorphize animal behavior.
As a biologist and natural historian, Attenborough conveys respect, even a bit of awe which to my thinking is the proper way to regard nature's handiwork. As many of these documentaries as I have watched over the years I still find myself questioning certain animal behaviors and even more what they might suggest about the human animal. It is one thing to debate nature vs. nurture as it applies to us, but when I see creatures in the wild acting in ways that are not readily explained by instinct, survival or DNA level programming, in fact doing things which seem counter to those imperatives, I have to stop and ask why?
We are taught that nature rejects the superfluous. My Grandfather, head of surgery at two hospitals and a brilliant diagnostician by all accounts refused to allow my parents to remove my tonsils when they became inflamed. He also advised against removing my appendix. I recalled his admonition some years ago when a surgeon about to operate on my gall bladder suggested he might do a twofer as long as he was in the same neighborhood. Granddad believed, as I do, that those organs were not vestigial but had a purpose, even if we were not clear what exactly that might be.
So in no particular order, I submit that there are dozens of examples of animals engaging in purposeful acts which are inconsistent with our view of impulsive, unconscious, instinctive or learned behavior. Here's a short list by way of illustration:
Some species of birds and mammals grieve
Some animals engage in barter with humans--exchanging objects for food--even those that have no prior familiarization with humans.
Some aquatic mammals protect--even rescue drowning humans.
Some animals display conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism.
Some animals exhibit self control.
Some animals comfort humans in distress?
I am not a biologist of course, just a curious observer wondering if human traits like empathy, jealousy, conscientiousness, reciprocity, self control and grief are learned or baked in, so to speak. It is an important distinction. Forgive me if I side step the nature vs nurture debate. It carries a great deal of cultural and political baggage that cloud the much more fundamental question I am posing here.
At the risk of overreaching, do we come into this world with an inherent sense of right and wrong, fairness, justice, compassion, even, dare I say it, morality? Or, are those all qualities we obtain as a consequence of our upbringing? And just for fun, let me take it one step further and ask a question I saw posed on a social media site recently: can one have a sense of, fairness, justice, compassion, even morality without a belief in some higher power?
I hope you will understand if I do not offer some glib answers to these questions. My post this week is intended as a provocation and to be honest I have argued both sides of these questions in my own mind. Some days when I see the wretched things we are capable of as a species it is hard to imagine innocence, and then, sometimes, slender tendrils of faith blossom inspired by human nobility. Shakespeare's Hamlet seems to reflect this duality perfectly:
"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? "
Comments