MANY people have argued that humans are naturally cooperative. Charles Darwin, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, the Dalai Lama, Russian zoologist and anarchist , neurobiologist and psychologist , among many others including myself, have all made the case that our animal nature is characterised as much by kindness and collaboration as it is by competition and carnage. Now, the prolific primatologist joins the fray to convince people that we are not such nasty creatures after all.
鈥淥ur animal nature is characterised as much by cooperation as it is by carnage鈥�
Empathy, de Waal explains, is the social glue that holds communities together, and if humans are empathetic animals it is because we have 鈥渢he backing of a long evolutionary history鈥�. 鈥淏onding鈥� is what makes us happiest,鈥� he writes, and rapidly accumulating evidence from the behavioural and neural sciences supports the claim.
Advertisement
De Waal, drawing from his own research, focuses on non-human primates. He could have made a more compelling case, however, by discussing the broad spectrum of species in which empathy has been observed. For example, scientists are learning a lot about the evolution of human social behaviour from the social carnivores whose behaviour and social organisation closely resemble that of early hominids and who show high levels of cooperation and empathy. Monkeys, cetaceans, elephants and rodents (rats and mice, at the very least) all exhibit empathy and what we might call moral intelligence.
Given all that we know about empathy in animals, why do so many persist in seeing ours as a dog-eat-dog world? De Waal chalks it up to what he calls 鈥渕acho origin myths鈥�, which insist that 鈥渙ur species has been waging war for as long as it has been around鈥�. But humans have shown empathy for as long as we鈥檝e been around too. Even if our animal brethren were as violent as some think they are, that wouldn鈥檛 mean that we are as well, or that we ought to be. Such thinking suffers from the naturalistic fallacy that just because things are a certain way, that鈥檚 the way they should be.
Discussions of the rare instances of animals being cruel to other members of their species are attention-getters but they are over-inflated and misleadingly presented as confirmation that nature is 鈥渞ed in tooth and claw鈥�. The available data have been scant due to small sample sizes and great variability among different communities of animals, but things are changing now that more and better results are pouring in. Primatologist Robert Sussman and colleagues have shown, for instance, that the vast majority of social interactions in a wide variety of monkeys are affiliative rather than agonistic or divisive.
As we study more species in situations where they can show us who they really are we鈥檒l likely see that caring for those in need is more prevalent than many think. There鈥檚 ample evidence that the 鈥渁ge of empathy鈥� has been with us for a long time but has been overshadowed by the prevalence of the competitive paradigm. Maybe it鈥檚 a paradigm we cling to as a sort of biological excuse. The truth is, it鈥檚 not a dog-eat-dog world after all, because dogs don鈥檛 eat other dogs.
Harmony Books
