Why it matters that humans are animals.

I have written numerous posts advocating that because humans are animals they should be recognized as such (for example, see here , here, here , and here). For zoologists and others who study animals, it is obviously true that we are animals. We do hundreds of things that the other mammals do, plus a few extra. You can see it every day when you eat, breathe, emote, poop, become fatigued and fall asleep. Yet millions of Americans are horrified by the thought that human beings are animals. Consider that we aren’t simply animals. Our species is a carefully defined type of animal. We are apes. Frans de Waal explains:

Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough . . . We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament.

If you want even more detail on what type of animal humans are (we are in the ape sub-division of primates), watch this brisk video by Aron-ra. Again, this sort of information is really disturbing to many people, especially religious conservatives. So why don't I simply leave religious conservatives alone? Why do I persist on standing on rooftops and proclaiming this message that humans are animals? Why don't I just whisper this sort of information only to my closest of friends: "Pssst. Human beings are animals." Why don't I just let it be, and keep it all to myself? What could possibly be at stake that I feel compelled to spread the word that human beings are animals? I was in the process of assembling my own list when I just happened to read Chapter 12 of Mark Johnson's new book, The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding. Johnson is well known for his work with metaphors and embodied cognition with George Lakoff. Chapter 12 of his new book contains a section that leaped out at me: "The Philosophical Implications of the Embodied Mind." In that short section, Johnson sets forth nine reasons why it really and truly matters for people to acknowledge that they are animals and to fully accept that their minds are embodied, not free-floating entities independent of physical laws. Johnson's biggest target is the "objectivist theory of meaning," the idea that meaning "gets defined without any connection to the experience of the creature (i.e., the human) for whom the words are meaningful. Johnson points out that those who follow the objectivist theory of meaning believe that words and sentences somehow "carry" meaning without even trying to explain how words and sentences ever come to acquire meaning. It should send up immediate red flags that the predominate theory of meaning relies on floating thoughts, a theory of meaning that is not biologically anchored. Reacting to (and rejecting) this objectivist approach, Mark Johnson premises his analysis "with a mind that is not separate from or out-of-ongoing-contact with its body and its world." His worldview includes a specific definition of body and his impressive list of why it matters for human beings to take seriously "the embodiment of mind and meaning." Here are those reasons (I will be borrowing liberally from Johnson's book with these descriptions, beginning at page 279):

Continue ReadingWhy it matters that humans are animals.

Tit-ical Mass

As mentioned before on this blog, boobies are Kind of A Big Deal. For some reason, individuals and Facebook alike have a strong negative reaction to the public display of nipples and the fatty tissue surrounding them. An unprovoked showing of a female breast especially leaves individuals a-titter. Usually, for the protection of children and society, women are expected to keep their goods locked up. Ah, but I live in Ohio- such an enlightened state. Ok, ok, we are actually ranked dead last for gay rights protection, but when it comes to breast exposure protection, we are totally progressive. Except that women don't stroll around Ohio topless very much. Barring the rare drugged-out music festival where a handful of women prance about with painted breasts, one can hardly tell that Ohio law protects bare female nipples at all. The social taboo against bare-breast-baring holds a heavy weight over those women who might otherwise go topless, apparently. The only way to make this legal right truly exercisable is to strip female breasts of their social trappings, so to speak. This was the idea that birthed Tit-ical Mass, an impromptu breast walk that occurred in Columbus last Friday.

Continue ReadingTit-ical Mass

Bacteria that talk to each other

Bonnie Bassler, who teaches molecular biology at Princeton, explains that bacteria don't just grow and divide, grow and divide. They speak to each other and with other species of bacteria through their chemicals. Bassler studies how bacteria use chemical signals to act as coordinated social units. In this delightful TED talk, Bassler discusses how her research group has studied the manner in which bacteria talk to each other. They make chemical "words" to enable group activities (such as triggering the timing for effective virulence attacks), sensing each other through their "quorum-sensing molecules." They can also sense the difference between themselves and other bacteria. Note that each of us is 99% bacterial. Our human body consists of about one trillion of "our own" cells, but ten trillion bacteria. We have about 30,000 of "our own" genes, but we carry about 100 times more bacterial DNA than human DNA. Bacteria live as "mutualists" with us. They help us digest our food, make our vitamins, protects us from other pathogens and help us survive in numerous other ways. Rather than using antibiotics to kill bacteria (which inevitably selects for more virulent strains), Bassler suggests that a better understanding of the communications schemes used by bacteria is allowing scientists to develop potent new medicines. This is an upbeat and informative talk regarding a most ancient form of life.

Continue ReadingBacteria that talk to each other

Struggling to live life as an owl

Once again, I'm up late writing (it's almost midnight), but that is a natural thing for me to do, given that I don't actually become wide-awake until about 5 PM. That's the way it's been for me for as long as I can remember. Back in college, my grades started going up once I gave up on those 7:40 AM classes, and tilted my day toward the late morning through mid-afternoon. Quite often, I will get to work at about 10, working until seven or eight at night. This allows me to harness more of my peak time to do the challenging job I do (I am a consumer attorney). Several times a month, I find myself at the office writing a legal brief at one in the morning, working quite effectively. It's not that I don't like to sleep. I love to sleep. It's just that I love to sleep in. That's when it feels natural to me. I know that it's not merely a matter of biology. I stay up late because I want to get one more thing done, and then one more thing. I hate to give up the day, even when it turns into the next day. for me, there's no better time for concentrating than the night. For whatevercombination of nature and nurture, the night is my favorite time. I am an owl. Those other kinds of people, those "larks," often look at owls with suspicion, however. Even when owls spend as much time at work as larks, the larks assume that we owls are goofing off in the morning while they are working hard. What about those evening hours while we owls are still hard at work while the larks are long gone? Larks think that this is our own damned fault and the owls should be getting up earlier. I do think this is part of the Larkian thought process. This perceived tension has often provoked me to think about why it is that my schedule is tilted toward the afternoon and evening. Do I choose for it to be this way or am I biologically geared to be an owl? And why is it that so many owls (me included) end up marrying larks?

Continue ReadingStruggling to live life as an owl