A Desultory Diary, Episode 10: The Ape Within

“Nature is red in tooth and claw, wrote Tennyson. This is indeed at least partially true, especially regarding interspecies conflict. I cannot conceive how a loving God, for instance, could have created one species as carnivore and another as prey. Darwin, who intended to study for religious office in his youth—before he became, shall we say, “woke”—had similar feelings. He, too, couldn’t conceive of a loving God who could program a certain type of wasp to sting and paralyze a tarantula, subsequently burying the hapless creature alive with a single egg on its abdomen. When it hatched, it would feed on the tarantula who was unable to move but  still very much alive. This can be considered an excellent survival strategy devised by adaption to one’s environment, but that doubtfully existent God—who even more doubtfully maintained that He "so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son”--certainly didn’t include mercy for spiders among His inscrutable ways.

When we consider intraspecies relations, there is irrefutable evidence, especially regarding apes, that cooperation and peace-making are widespread. How could it be otherwise? For instance, when a fight breaks out between two male bonobos, females often rush in to make peace. (They do this by offering sex to the opponents, the perfect distraction, at least among bonobos!) There are even examples of interspecies kindness, once again among bonobos.

The idea that human morality is a thin layer of sheep’s clothing covering a wolf underneath is unfounded. Thomas Hobbes, the sixteenth century advocate of absolute monarchy, asserted “Homo homini lupus_--that is, man is wolf to man. This is as true as “Nature is red in tooth and claw,” that is, only partially true. (As a wolf, however, I would rather be surrounded by my own kind than by a pack of frequently savagely unkind human beings.)

Our emotional heritage from the animal within is ambiguous. We certainly find this “moral” ambiguity when we examine the cultural lives of chimpanzees. They can wage brutal wars against chimps of a different group, and sometimes can be savage to chimps in their own group as well. They can also be what we humans would call “kind and compassionate.”

The famous primatologist, Frans de Wall, whose excellent book, The Ape Within, I strongly recommend, asserts that human beings are much worse than apes regarding brutality and much better than they regarding compassion. There is no Holocaust in their history, no United Nations either. While this is true, I think what limits apian benignity and savagery is their relative lack of intelligence. Apes are unable to invent guns, but I think if they could, they would.

If you’re ever confronted by a chimp in a rage, you better get out of the way.There has been a fairly recent case when a chimp—chimpanzees may be smaller, but they are much much stronger than humans—ripped off someone’s face in a fit of anger. What would happen if a chimp in a rage understood what a gun was—quite possible—and had its finger on the trigger?

Humans generally acknowledge that some form of the biblical command to love one's neighbor as oneself constitutes the highest morality. I do not consider this, however, to be an imperial ukase, a divine decree. It is simply the voice of the better angels within us. It has been viewed as a command, however, because aggression, also a part of our genetic heritage, needs to be transcended. 

Apes "fan fresh our wits with wonder". We can also learn many things from them. In the mirror that apes hold up to us, it is as if we see inchoate good as well as inchoate evil.We, after all, share most of our genes with them. Which to emphasize is up to us.

Genes influence destiny, but genes and destiny, however, are not the same thing. Frans de Waal points out that for something to be instinctual it must be present at an early age and be universal. (For instance, laughing and crying). Crimes such as rape are, therefore, not instinctual. Similarly, war is not inevitable. It might well remain a possibility, but under the right cultural and social conditions, that possibility can be greatly reduced. This is indeed good news.

Life Swings, Life Sucks

1.
In Jennifer Doudna's and Samuel Sternberg's excellent book, "A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution," the authors discuss the development of gene editing and gene therapy--in which Doudna was very much involved as a prominent research scientist--and the awesome powers that are more and more available in the field of genetic manipulation. She supports "changes in which DNA is altered...to correct a harmful gene variant," and is against changes that will "provide some type of genetic advantage." That is, the elimination of scourges such as sickle cell disease and cystic fibrosis is to be desired; the production of designer babies, however, is not. Genetic engineering is widely accepted in the United States and elsewhere. It is an amazing phenomenon. For instance, genetic material from a spider that gives the arachnid its ability to spin silk from spinnerets has been inserted into the genes of goats. The resultant silk protein is thereupon isolated from goat  milk, resulting in a substance that has commercial use. Fruit, vegetables and a wide array of living "subhuman" things are genetically modified today, and, apparently, cause no harm.

Genetic engineering doesn't stop there, of course. DNA manipulation, for instance, has resulted in pigs the size of lapdogs--ideal for pets? Desired results in animals and plants are one thing; what about "desired" results in humans?

The suffering caused by genetic diseases is, well, horrible. A prominent bioethisist, quoted in the book, said, "to intentionally refrain from engaging in life-saving research is to be morally responsible for the foreseeable, avoidable deaths of those who could have benefited from research in gene-editing is not an option, it is a moral necessity." And, as perhaps expected, the optimist thinker, Steven Pinker, advises those who would proceed cautiously, to "Get out of the way."

It is not that simple. The path to lapdog-size piglets can also lead to lapdog-size humans. The potential for the use of genetic editing to "improve" humanity is very real. Manipulation of genes that would increase longevity or improve intelligence is only a lab away.
Doudna is confident that humanity will straighten out and fly right--metaphorically, that is--but I'm not so sure.

Calvin, I think, was quite correct in stating that the human mind is a factory of idols. Perhaps only half right; angels are produced by the neuron assembly line as well. What is to stop a rogue state, however, from producing designer babies? If every North Korean, for instance, became an Einstein, where would that leave every European?

For me a general truth is that whenever something good comes along, someone will also occasionally put it to bad use. It's not human nature, perhaps, but it is indeed fallen human nature.
Increasing access to nuclear weapons--it seems naive to think that this was once t h e issue!

(Since I began this article, a NYT article confirmed that a young person had been cured of sickle cell anemia through genetic manipulation.)

2.
In a recent debate among Democratic candidates for the presidency, Sen. Elizabeth Warren challenged Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He recently had a nine-hundred-dollar per plate  fund raiser in a winery. "What kind of people go to such events," she complained. Apparently not those whose first priority is fighting for equality. Buttigieg countered that he was far less wealthy than any other Democratic candidate. More important, he argued that the purpose of Democrats should be to defeat Donald Trump, not to pass "tests of purity." The implication is: stay pure and lose. (Trump, in contrast, has raised to date over 300 million dollars for his reelection, far far more than any Democratic candidate.
--As the French say, l'argent fait tout, although it is my hope that in 2020 l'argent ne ferait pas que presque tout).

In this world, purity is for angels, who are, of course, fictional creatures. Just as a scientist shouldn't be overly confident that progress will always--or alas! even mostly--be put to use in ways that are consistent with justice, equality, and compassion; politicians need to fight for what's right, even if this sometimes includes "stretching the truth".

We can learn a lot from observing primate behavior. There is a school of thought that nature is savage; "scratch an altruist and watch a hypocrite bleed" may serve as a motto for this view. Civilization is at best a veneer under which nature, red in tooth and claw, is always ready to appear. Close observation of chimpanzees and bonobos, however, have disproved this theory: there is a lot of cooperation and even compassion among primates. An example of which is a bonobo that took a stunned bird to the top of a tree and released it, saving its life. But primate life, especially among chimpanzees, has its dark side as well. They apparently can be just as savage as humans.

I hold the great moral imperative, namely to love one's neighbor as oneself, to be of natural, that is, evolutionary, origin; this dictum, I believe, arose through cooperation necessary for group survival. It is a moral imperative, that is, a command, since the temptation to do one's neighbor in can be strong as well.

Would you like another example of how a good can be put to less than noble use? The internet. I am in my mid 70's and sometimes forget a name or place. I can google the missing word instantly. I am also using the internet to type this essay. There are so many good uses of the internet! I, like so many others, would find it difficult to live without it. On the negative side, however,  is political manipulation and the diminution of privacy. Not to forget that the most frequent use of the internet has to do with porn.

The ambiguity of life makes one a realist. Even an optimistic realist. Although when you scratch a altruist you will never find unadulterated purity, you will frequently find decency.Yes, scientific progress is great, Jennifer Doudna, but it is best to proceed not only confidently, but with caution. Yes, Senator Warren, striving for purity is also good, but, the world being what it is, one must gaze at the heavens while keeping one's feet on common ground.