Humans Aren’t as Special as We Once Thought

Jane Goodall made a significant discovery in the 1960s of chimpanzees using and making tools, which was previously believed to separate humans from other animals. It shares earlier ideas from Darwin, which suggest that animals exhibit similar abilities, differing only in degree, not whether the ability exists. This suggests that animals exhibit similar traits to varying degrees, just as humans exhibit higher intelligence, consciousness, and a more advanced understanding, and are not the only ones to do so. Other animals were once thought to lack culture, language, or symbolic thought, but later studies have shown that early hominins made stone tools and used symbols in various forms of art and tools. This means that homo sapiens are not the only animals capable of demonstrating a culture and more complex thoughts. Other evidence shows that a brown capuchin monkey would refuse a cucumber when it sees another monkey receive a grape for the same treatment, indicating an understanding of fairness. Another example is that grief and empathy were previously believed to be exclusive to humans. However, when orcas' young die, they carry it for many weeks, exhibiting Grief and a moral understanding of the deceased. 

This article uses field observations and various laboratory experiments to explain the traits exhibited by specific organisms. Like chimpanzees using tools, orcas mourning their young, and animals like elephants showing Grief. They use various lab studies, including ones showing monkeys refusing unfair treatments, rats helping each other, and bees exhibiting a level of stress. It all begs the question: if many organisms exhibit understanding, altruism, and emotion, are these traits a survival strategy or mechanism? Is it just something we do to survive, and there is no external moral value to it at all? It is not like we became that smart solely because our brains were becoming more complex and larger. It is because we learned more about the world and could teach our young what we learned. Other organisms reach their full potential within minutes to a few weeks after being born. However, humans must be nurtured and taught until high school or college to reach a basic understanding and intelligence. So, how can we determine the intelligence of an animal if it hasn't gone through the same training or learning as the human population? We see that when we train animals like dogs to sit, give paw, and perform other tricks, it's not only because of their genetic intelligence but also because of what we teach them as we gain more knowledge and new understandings. The human population won't become smarter solely through genetic changes, but also as we gain a deeper understanding and learn more about the world around us. 

Their main argument is that humans are not set apart from other organisms by a single defining trait, and the abilities once thought to be unique to humans appear in many different species. They support this claim with examples of primates, birds, mammals, insects, fish, and even plants. Instead of proving human uniqueness, evidence suggests that we exist within the same continuum and evolution with the rest of life.  As we learn more about other human species, such as Neanderthals, we can appreciate how unique we actually are. The argument reframes humanity as deeply similar and not separate from nature and the organisms we know of today.