This question interested people from of old. As a token of deep admiration for the insight of people of the classical antiquity who had asked this question first, let us repeat it in an ancient language:
Quid est Homo?
Strange though it may seem but no satisfactory definition of man can be found. The name “Homo sapiens” given to our species by Carl Linnaeus in his Systema Naturae (1758) sounds pleasingly for human’s self-esteem but it is not a definition in scientific sense. It is merely the formal “address” assigned to the sprig, which our species occupies on the branchy classification tree of living beings. As to the adjective “sapiens” (wise, judicious, it itself is not defined unambiguously and therefore cannot serve as a definition for anything else. Charles Darwin himself wrote in “The Descent of Man” (1871): "It would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term man ought to be used.” A lot of formulas, dished up in the modern literature as the definitions of the species Homo sapiens, are not the definitions, in effect. All they only list some or other features peculiar to humans, but neither specifies that fundamental distinction of Homo sapiens, which singled this species out of all other living beings.
Thus, we come to a somewhat odd conclusion that all the efforts directed at deepening of our self-knowledge on the conceptual level, which lasted since ancient times, had led to surprisingly moderate results. Ancient philosophers could define Human as “two-legged without feathers”, whereas now, about two and a half millenniums later, we should content ourselves with the following: “bipedal apes belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens”. The latter definition can hardly be considered as noticeably more informative than the former one. Thus, one has to recognize that Jean Bruller (Vercors), a French writer, author of a sophisticated fiction “You Shall Know Them” (1953), had sufficient reasons when wrote “Not science nor philosophy, not Parliament nor clergy, can decide manlike ape of apelike man”. And then: “All man's troubles arise from the fact that we do not know what we are and do not agree on what we want to be”.
And here we have to make a step that may open the path to solution of the problem considered, in spite this step will conflict with the traditions of the humanities. This step is as follows.
To formulate a meaningful definition of Homo sapiens, a purely humanitarian approach is insufficient; a bit of physics is necessary.
From the viewpoint of physics, any living being is a complex, highly structured, dynamic system that forms and maintains itself alive due to energy flows it uses. Plants exist due to the flows of solar energy they absorb and convert into chemical energy of their biomass. Animals get needed energy from biomass of plants they eat or from biomass of other animals. Hоmo sapiens is a living being and nothing intrinsic to all other living beings is alien to him.
All living beings consume as much energy as they need for performing their physiological functions. The amount of energy available for a certain kind of organisms in a given habitat defines their population, whereas the diversity of coexisting species provides self-adjustment and stability of the biocenosis. Thus, the communities of naturally occurring organisms exist in a state of dynamic “equilibrium” with their habitat, and such state may last indefinitely long. The condition of sufficiently close conformity of energy consumption with physiological needs of living beings is of fundamental significance; all living beings existing on Earth are subjected to it. All with the only exception that appeared several hundred centuries ago, the species Homo sapiens. It differs from all other species in its ability to use energy in amounts exceeding physiological needs. Just this feature is distinctive. It allows to formulate a rational definition emphasizing the fundamental difference of a new offshoot on the Hominid’s branch of the evolutionary tree:
Homo sapiens is a species whose individuals are capable of using energy above their physiological needs.
When our prehistoric ancestor kindled a fire, saddled a horse, or forced his congener to do certain work for him, he, in fact, used more energy for his aims than his physiology required. It was precisely this fundamentally new capability that provided exclusive position of humans among other living beings and turned the prerequisite of a great evolutionary success of the species..
From the definition proposed a series of significant consequences follow logically thus allowing to explain in a quite natural way many sociocultural phenomena, which cannot be explained adequately on the basis of traditional imagination of what is Homo. This is, however, the next question yet.
7/13/08
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Humankind evolves due to dissipation of Energy
At the very end of the eighteenth century Thomas Malthus had specified the expected difficulties of maintenance the mankind, growing in number, with food. He was denounced since as a reactionary and pessimist, though was neither in fact. He was a sound scholar free from overly optimistic illusions. His warnings have not subsequently proved right not because they were false in principle, but because he could not foresee all the long-term consequences of the Industrial Revolution at its very beginning. Meanwhile the Watt’s steam engine had already been in use for about 30 years, its industrial application swiftly expanding. Thus, the mankind has already entered the new phase of its development characterized with rapid growth of consumption of technological energy. The use of increasing amounts of technological energy allowed overcoming the threat predicted by Malthus, but now, two centuries later, it engenders a lot of new threats for further well-being of humankind. Energy plays undoubtedly a very significant role in the contemporary life of humankind. Anyhow the sharpest political collisions are connected with the problems of energy; trading wars and rather often even the real, “hot” ones, are waging for energy. And all this happens now, in our age of humanity and democracy.
Thus, the analysis of the interrelation between two essences – Energy and Humankind – seems to be relevant. The problem is strongly aggravated, however, because these two essences are the subjects of two different branches of human knowledge, so distant from each other in the ideological and methodological respect that mutual understanding becomes rather difficult. Energy refers to the sphere of natural sciences (physics), whereas Humankind to that of human sciences. In these domains of knowledge, however, people speak in different languages and this is a formidable obstacle. There are the disciplines among the human sciences and the humanities which critically reflect upon the assumptions and principles of natural sciences, considering that their action does not extend into the humanitarian sphere.
It is quite obvious that any attempt to solve the tangle of interrelations in the pair “Energy - Humankind” entails a lot of accompanying questions, which should be cleared preliminary. A list of such questions, by no means a complete one, can be proposed for the beginning as follows:
1. What is Human? What is his fundamental distinction from our animal ancestors?
2. What follows from this distinction?
3. Why humans haven’t succeeded in finding an adequate answer to the first question within more than two millennia?
4. What are the roots of incompatibility of the ways of thinking in the natural sciences and the humanities?
5. What is money?
6. Are the economic processes subject to the laws of thermodynamics?
7. Is Energy the motive power of life of Humankind or Humankind becomes the working substance of a global energy transforming machine that generates entropy?
8. .......
In the book shown at the side strip some of these questions are touched upon.
Thus, the analysis of the interrelation between two essences – Energy and Humankind – seems to be relevant. The problem is strongly aggravated, however, because these two essences are the subjects of two different branches of human knowledge, so distant from each other in the ideological and methodological respect that mutual understanding becomes rather difficult. Energy refers to the sphere of natural sciences (physics), whereas Humankind to that of human sciences. In these domains of knowledge, however, people speak in different languages and this is a formidable obstacle. There are the disciplines among the human sciences and the humanities which critically reflect upon the assumptions and principles of natural sciences, considering that their action does not extend into the humanitarian sphere.
It is quite obvious that any attempt to solve the tangle of interrelations in the pair “Energy - Humankind” entails a lot of accompanying questions, which should be cleared preliminary. A list of such questions, by no means a complete one, can be proposed for the beginning as follows:
1. What is Human? What is his fundamental distinction from our animal ancestors?
2. What follows from this distinction?
3. Why humans haven’t succeeded in finding an adequate answer to the first question within more than two millennia?
4. What are the roots of incompatibility of the ways of thinking in the natural sciences and the humanities?
5. What is money?
6. Are the economic processes subject to the laws of thermodynamics?
7. Is Energy the motive power of life of Humankind or Humankind becomes the working substance of a global energy transforming machine that generates entropy?
8. .......
In the book shown at the side strip some of these questions are touched upon.
1 comment:
Beyond all doubt, the propounded definition of species Homo Sapiens deserves consideration. Author’s approach is quite original. It is based not on the minor biological differences between man and his immediate predecessors on the tree of life but on the quantitative difference in energy consumption. Man can use more energy than his physiology requires and he realizes this ability as a social being. However, besides human societies there are some other forms of social life such as anthills and clusters. Isn’t there a reason to say that members of such primitive “societies” also can use a deal of energy beyound their physiological needs?
Post a Comment