The Human Superiority Complex
Ezra Klein's June 27, 2023 interview of environmental philosopher Melanie Challenger
I loved Ezra Klein’s recent interview of environmental philosopher Melanie Challenger on his podcast, The Ezra Klein Show. While the discussion was obviously rooted in philosophy, the ideas discussed have significant practical implications. It isn’t hard to imagine what such implications might be from Challenger’s insightful statement: The world is now dominated by an animal that doesn’t think it’s an animal, and the future is being imagined by an animal that doesn’t want to be an animal.
While the applicability of this statement varies somewhat by culture and nation, the belief that humanity is separate from the natural world, combined with our free market, neoliberal economic focus on short term benefits (see here and here), and toxic individualism have been determining factors of anthropogenic climate change. They also contribute to our treatment of other species, our voracious consumption of the planet’s resources, and our polluting of the land, water, and air. Not surprising considering they strongly shape and constrain corporate strategic plans and sustainability goals, zoning and land use planning, municipal code adoption, regulation and policy development, public health funding, foreign policy, elections, and even individual building project decisions. All of this limits our ability to rapidly decarbonize while also creating equitable access to healthy environments.
Challenger, digging into even deeper underlying factors, discusses how the fact that we are predatory animals (even farming is a form of controlled predation) has shaped our relationships with the surrounding world, and ultimately our “moral systems, our ideas, [and] our beliefs about our world.” What would the religions, governing structures, values, and even design/construction decision-making processes look like of sentient beings who evolved from a herbivore? What would act as status symbols? Would there be vast inequities in power and wealth? Would resource consumption be a problem? Would such beings burn fossil fuels to the point of threatening the futures of themselves and other species? If humans collectively became vegetarians or even vegans, what impact would that have on how we perceive ourselves in relation to other species and the planet as a whole?
These factors also influences our ongoing development and interaction with A.I. We place on a pedestal a narrow definition of “intelligence” exemplified by A.I. (focused on specific creative cognitive functions related to things like scientific literature reviews, essay writing, music composition, mathematics, programming, etc., that also have an economic impact), ignoring or downplaying other forms of intelligence common to humans and other species. As examples, Challenger cites the intelligence of our immune system and mothers’ bodies syncing with their children while breastfeeding. Other examples include our circadian system, the ability to unconsciously read body language, and data transmission via storytelling (the latter two A.I. may also be able to replicate at some point). All of these have provided selective advantages over the course of our evolutionary history (including A.I. itself).
Ironically, as a result, A.I. then poses a threat to our perceived cognitive superiority over other species. Melanie Challenger wonders if this might help shift our views of humanity back to more of an “animality” perspective as opposed to seeing ourselves as pseudo-machines or separate from other species, impacting our ability to justify dominating other species and exploiting the planet’s resources. It’s an interesting question that they don’t really attempt to answer, probably because it’s really TBD.
She and Ezra Klein also point out the critical danger A.I. poses by exploiting our inability to “read” an A.I. “mind” and detect deep fakes and mis/dis-information. Within the larger contexts of what’s already been discussed, this will only help amplify ingroup/outgroup divisions and “othering,” making it harder to collectively address climate change, ecological damage, species extinctions, racism, wealth disparities, etc.
Not much room in the discussion is given for solutions (we are left to read her books), but she does briefly discuss our ability to create alliances with other humans and other species (the flip side of the competition/cooperation coin) that stems from our ability to “… care about anything that we happen to see around us.” The question becomes how do we create social and physical environments that encourage the cooperation side of the coin at larger and larger scales, that bring out our ability to “care about anything we happen to see around us”? Some discussions of this are given in the links above. Other relevant articles and resources are here, here, and here.
But perhaps one of the most effective means for dispelling this notion that humans are distinct from the natural world is via pk-12+ environmental education (see here, here, and here), as well as early and ongoing exposure to the many different cultural views – across space and time – of the natural world and humanity’s relationship to it. Julia Watson’s Lo-TEK design movement builds on both of these to spread understanding of indigenous world views and vernacular architecture within the AEC Industry. An understanding of humanity as inherently part of the natural world (and not superior to it) would also help undermine toxic individualism and our tendency to emphasize the short term in decision-making, all of which are likely necessary to achieve rapid decarbonization while equitably addressing climate change.