午夜福利1000集合

AS ANY cat lover will tell you, humans do not have all the tricks. We think of ourselves as special, but many species are just as proficient at adapting to their environment and manipulating circumstances to their own ends. We behave like gods, yet we are irrefutably animals. What then, if anything, sets us apart?

In The Book of Humans, science writer Adam Rutherford tries to answer by embarking on a kind of intellectual enema, exposing the popular myths about human exceptionalism and settling on a few core truths. He accepts that there is something unique about Homo sapiens and our evolutionary journey, but delights in reminding us, as Charles Darwin did, of the indelible stamp of our lowly origin.

Like the soul, the attributes that define our humanness are surprisingly elusive. It is often said that we are shaped by our technology, yet we are not the only tool users. Some sea urchins, insects, spiders, crabs, snails, octopuses, fish, birds and other mammals manipulate objects to help them access food or exploit their habitats.

We are the only animal that cooks, but not alone in our use of fire: Aboriginal Australians have recorded hawks deliberately setting bush fires to chase out small mammals. We also excel at violence, although so do chimpanzees, whose societies appear as warlike as our own.

Nor does our appetite for non-reproductive sex stand out. Other animals masturbate (elephants, dolphins), have oral sex (bears) and engage in genital-to-genital contact (bonobos do it every few hours). These behaviours may cement social bonds. They also seem to be for pleasure, though most biologists, unable to read animal minds, are reluctant to acknowledge this.

What is left? One thing now unique to us, although perhaps the Neanderthals also had it, is language. Rather than leave it at that, Rutherford focuses on what it enables us to do: communicate, share information about resources and exchange ideas, skills and technologies with people beyond our group. Culture is the key, in other words. Without it, we would be just another animal.

鈥淎re there other species of contemporary humans yet to be found? Did we breed with them?鈥�

The Book of Humans is in the vein of Yuval Noah Harari鈥荣 Sapiens. But Rutherford鈥檚 tone is less exalted, his approach more questioning. As a geneticist, he is appreciative of the messy and convoluted way in which modern humanness has emerged. 鈥淭here is no single genetic change that made us Homo sapiens鈥� There isn鈥檛 a gene for speech鈥� creativity, imagination, spear throwing, dexterity, consciousness, or even cultural transmission. There wasn鈥檛 a moment when we were not human before.鈥�

He makes a charming guide, giving the impression that, like us, he finds it all rather mysterious, though he clearly knows what he is talking about. 鈥淚鈥檝e dissected a lot of pig鈥檚 brains in my time,鈥� he writes, before launching into an examination of animal cognition. The small details interest him as much as the big picture. His explanation of how our genetic make-up differs from that of other primates is as carefully considered as his discussion of why small populations with less cultural sophistication are less likely to survive than large ones.

Knowledge brings understanding, but it also makes things messier. The recent discovery that the earliest figurative art was created not by us but by Neanderthals has confounded our assumptions about our cousins. They had culture, but they didn鈥檛 survive.

Are there other species of contemporary humans yet to be found? Did we breed with them? Rutherford thinks the answer to both is almost certainly yes. 鈥淭he picture of how we came to be is only going to get more complicated as we continue to discover,鈥� he says. 鈥淲e should revel in this complexity and celebrate the fact that we alone are capable of understanding it.鈥�

听

This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淐ultural complexities鈥�