Does being human make us humane?

How long ago did we Homo sapiens forsake our humanity?

I ask this question, not for pure rhetorical value, but merely because it is something I consider at some point each and every day.  Over the years, and through what we’d like to call technological advancement, the entirety of the human race seems to have lost something of its humanity in the process of expanding our own power over others.  Indeed, our drive for some sort of progress has lead us to blindly destroy the very planet that we once loved and cherished, as well as many species that inhabit the glorious terrain of the Earth alongside us.  While, naturally, species die out due to unforeseen factors that include both the terrestrial, such as volcanic eruptions and a changing climate, as well as the extra-terrestrial, such as meteorite impacts; we cannot simply dismiss our position in this worldwide catastrophe.  Though the five major extinctions that have occurred in the Earth’s long history may have been inevitable; the latest, sixth extinction seems to have been completely avoidable and human-facilitated.

The effects of our actions seem to have gone overlooked, or simply disregarded by the vast majority of the Earth’s population.  Why not?  After all, we like to place ourselves above the creatures that we are destroying.  What are human-beings if not a particular species of animal, like any other?  Certainly, we maintain certain advantages when compared to the typical ape, or bird.  Unlike these creatures, we have managed to further our own standing on planet Earth, and extend our influence out to all corners of our world.  Along with this, we are most certainly the most intelligent of species in regards to research and development; being able to predict exact events, imagine our own demise and the demise of other species, and create tools that revolutionize our own way of thinking.  Based on these traits, most people seem to have put the existence of humanity above all others.  We are human, they are mere animals.

While these arguments may hold some merit, allow me to bring up a point of particular interest to me.  Acts of genocide, occurring throughout history in such places as Rwanda, Nazi-controlled areas of Europe, and even the widely developed and “advanced” country of the United States of America, have all shared remarkably similar characteristics.  One of these, and the point that I would like to discuss here, is the dehumanization of one’s enemies.  You see, while exterminating a large number of human-beings may present morality issues, conflicts with ethics and virtue, et cetera; we the people seem to have had no problem killing off the “Tutsi cockroaches”, the “Jewish rats”, or the “red-skinned savages”.  During such times, and under such provocation and suggestion that even other humans are nothing like the ‘master race’, or the truly “civilized” people; men and women often forsake all signs of what truly makes them human in favor of this new philosophy that raises them above all others, regardless of any similarities.

Philosopher Peter Singer has shed some light on the topic of animal rights when compared with those of a human.  Though he maintains that steps can be taken to ensure that our treatment of animals improves, his philosophy can be applied to topics outside of the realm of slaughter for food and other by-products.  Singer argues that animals are the victims of prejudice as much as any minority in the human race can possibly be.  Applying this idea to the sixth extinction; would we be so hesitant to act if African-Americans were dying by the thousands, each and every day?  Hispanics?  Caucasians?  Though we maintain a level of superiority over the common ape, these thoughts must be addressed.  I do not necessarily suggest, as Singer does, that our rights must be drawn parallel to those of animals, I merely believe that the death of an animal should be treated with the same reverence as the death of a man.  A slaughter of man is not to be accepted, yet the destruction of species after species does not perturb us in the least.  This uncaring outlook on our part is both ignorant and immoral, and must be reevaluated if we are to maintain the right to call ourselves human.

Now let us compare this to the situation we currently face.  I am not suggesting that the extinction of species around the globe is a form of genocide on the part of humans, mainly because the majority of the changes causing other species to die out seem to have been years in the making, and accidental.  However, I surmise that the reason we do not act in a rapid and timely fashion to limit the damage of our “sixth extinction” is simply because we do not care about the “animals” that are dying off each and every day due to our actions.  In the grand scheme of things, what is humanity but the self-proclaimed “master race” on Earth?  The possible extinction of the gorilla worldwide matters to us no more than the death of a Jew would matter to a Nazi in WWII.  The Holocaust was considered a tragedy for the amount of dead, roughly estimated at six million Jews.  This is a great tragedy, and most certainly, we should mourn and respect the dead.  However, this number is simply dwarfed by the amount of animals that have been killed by human activity, whether this be overhunting, destruction of habitat, or pollution and other such factors.  We mourn the dead humans, and regret their loss, yet we do not care for the Gorilla, and do nothing to act before we must mourn the death of another species.  According to many, they are a lesser species, they serve no purpose.  Why, then, should we waste our resources in an attempt to cater to them?

The answer to this query lays both in ethical and logical thought.  Ethically, such an argument is rather simple.  We, as human-beings, beings with capability for higher levels of thought than most, and with access to more resources than any other species on Earth, hold an unspoken duty to the planet to preserve all that we have been given for future generations, as well as other species.  Gifted with innovative minds, natural cosmopolitanism, and physical tools such as opposable thumbs; it seems as though we were intended to not only inherit the Earth, but also to protect it and all of its inhabitants.  Now, while we have not been ‘assigned’ this task by some higher power necessarily, this duty is one that each of us must take on ourselves.  We must all realize that being human-beings does not make us humane.  Humanity is displayed through our actions for betterment of all, and our progress in spite of all of our natural vices such as greed, envy, and sloth.

Logically, however, this argument holds as much pertinence as it does in ethics.  Nature operates, and has always operated, on a food chain of sorts.  While not always pertaining to predator-prey dynamics, the idea of this oft-referenced chain is that the death of one species would affect all of us, even we humans who seem to have evolved past the point of caring about such things.  We depend upon other species for food, clothing, and many other byproducts that we have come to depend upon.  Were we to wipe out a significant portion of the chain through our actions, such actions as burning the Earth’s wildlife, overhunting, and mass pollution would come back to haunt us in the way of our eventual extinction.  The extinction of Homo sapiens may not come in the form of climate change, or extra-terrestrial impacts.  We reap what we sow, and at some time in the future, humanity will pay the price for its lack of action to stop this sixth great extinction.

Information on Peter Singer found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Holocaust Statistics (along with many others regarding Genocide) found here:  http://genocide.change.org/blog/view/statistics_on_genocide_that_i_wish_didnt_exist#

Credit to Professor Hinton of Rutgers University for originally sparking the comparison to Genocide and my opinion on it.
-Blog by Edward Reeseg