5 ms·

Humans developed methods to empirically study the best ways for consoling bereaved mothers, and develop statistically-guided time-frames for normal vs. patholog

Humans developed methods to empirically study the best ways for consoling bereaved mothers, and develop statistically-guided time-frames for normal vs. pathologic grieving periods. Then we use functional MRI imaging to study if monkeys undergo similar brain-signaling patterns (previously academically theorized to be similar, based on other research studies), decoded by advanced software, powered by advanced chips, powered by nuclear power plants. The report is curated by artificial intelligence, and handed by a robot to the human. That's human exceptionalism.

Voultapher 1y ago
[flagged]
- snozolli 1y ago
  the arbitrary line of humans vs non humans How is that arbitrary? It seems like one of the most clearly non-arbitrary delineations possible. For what it's worth, IMO, humans have created seed banks and will be the only species to preserve and revive extinct species, so yeah, humans are more important.
  - Voultapher 1y ago
    It's arbitrary in the sense that the process to arrive at that line is arbitrary and could and has yielded myriads of other lines. In the same sense that skin color is a very clearly measurable trait, and yet the implications derived from this trait are arbitrary and not inherently connected to the trait.
    - snozolli 1y ago
      It's arbitrary in the sense that the process to arrive at that line is arbitrary and could and has yielded myriads of other lines. That seems like a meaningless word salad. Human versus non-human is a clear, objective delineation with no randomness about it.
- southernplaces7 1y ago
  What you sound like is a self-indulgent fanatic, overall. Either way, you're wrong about human exceptionalism in that it's evident in most aspects of our existence vs. that of all other species. It's also something that (with better use of our capabilities) could let us not only protect the other species of the earth against disasters that previously would have led to mass extinctions, but also possibly even revive species that have already gone extinct, including many that we ourselves have extinguished. Worth noting your hypocrisy too here. As a member of the human species who obviously participates in it and its complex technlogical sphere (you are after all using digital tools and the hardware they run on to comment about how terrible we are on HN), you're a direct beneficiery of background industrial processes that themselves kill all kinds of animals and plants every year, while you lecture people on things like slaughtering cows.
  - Voultapher 1y ago
    Congratulation you discovered the "very useful" argument "You are part of society so you can't criticize it".
    - southernplaces7 1y ago
      Of course you can criticize elements of society while being a part of the whole. What makes you a hypocrite is when you lecture others on some aspect of their conduct in society while yourself being directly complicit in the exact same thing, only in slightly different ways.
- Treegarden 1y ago
  I agree with you on several levels, what we call “exceptional” is entirely dependent on the metric we choose. Every species excels in its niche, and human exceptionalism is just our own preferred framing. It's fair to say it often functions like supremacism: a belief in our moral or functional superiority over other life forms. That said, in a world of scarce resources and competition, tribalism and “team-thinking” are not bugs, but features, evolutionary tools for survival. From that lens, human supremacism isn’t a moral claim, but a pragmatic stance: of course we prioritize our own species. We are team human. As for whether we're destroying the planet, it's a complex picture. I'd recommend False Alarm by Bjorn Lomborg, it pushes back against overly apocalyptic assumptions and argues that while climate change is real and serious, we're not necessarily headed for collapse. Doesn't excuse inaction, but does complicate the narrative.
  - gausswho 1y ago
    Lomborg knows how to chase a limelight and put on a serious aspect, but his reasoning is plenty flawed. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/ https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examin... Ultimately, we are Team Earth. The scarce-mongering behind tribalist features does not bring pragmatism but rather sabotage.
- philipallstar 1y ago
  > I challenge you reader to ask yourself, is the arbitrary line of humans vs non humans more justified than the equally arbitrary line of white humans vs non white humans? I'll take it one step further. The fact that your immune system prioritises you over the life of a single bacterium is no different to the Holocaust. Provocative, but it does make us realise that we're walking gas chambers who should take immunosuppressants immediately.
  - Voultapher 1y ago
    This is an ethical question and there will be no simple or clear cut answers, as an engineer myself I know that can be frustrating. Personally I project my experience of the world onto other beings - of course that's fraught with issues. I'd give the chance that bacteria experiences complex emotions like suffering and imprisonment in a similar fashion than I do as very low. But a cow, which is a mammal like us and I've seen show complex emotional reactions first hand, I'd rate that chance much higher. So you're right if we take the idea to its extreme its not very useful anymore. But only because an extreme version of the idea seems ridiculous does not preclude the idea from being valuable in moderation. Reducing some likely suffering is better than doing nothing in my book.
  - themk 1y ago
    This is an odd take. If a bunch of "exceptional" humans start attacking me, I'm going to fight back. That has little to do with how I normally treat others (human or not).
- dgfl 1y ago
  What we’re exceptional at is survival. To the point where as few as 1% of our species even needs to think about making food. Also, citation needed on the complexity of whale songs exceeding the complexity of human language. But besides, this is not the point. What I question about this rhetoric is using human-developed moral frameworks to justify that we’re somehow a “disease” roaming the planet. As if a tapeworm that were to achieve total worldwide domination would stop and think “wait, I shouldn’t reproduce further because other creatures may suffer”. Same story with any other mammal. The reality of it is that we are clearly among the most successful species. Keeping the environment safe from us is extremely important, but undermining our own achievements and romanticizing other species whose only virtue is being less successful at surviving than us is strange. With our own moral codes, no less.
  - smitty1e 1y ago
    > What we’re exceptional at is survival. We've wandered pretty much the entirety of the planet and made it to the moon. Nuclear weapons. Controlling the scope of the conversation to exclude the counter-arguments, too, demonstrates the special place afforded humanity by the Creator.
  - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
    We're exceptional at survival so far. The odds of continuing to be exceptional at survival are not looking great. And compared to species that have been around for multiple geological ages, our survival time barely rates a mention. The one thing we're truly exceptional at is influencing our own environment. The only creatures to have more of an impact were the cyanobacteria responsible for the Great Oxygenation Event, which literally transformed the Earth's atmosphere. As for the disease line - we're supposed to be intelligent, and terraforming our home planet to make it more dangerous and less inhabitable when we know and understand we're doing this is not the most convincing proof of that claim.
    - account42 1y ago
      Oh please spare me the doomerism. There is no reason to believe that humans will go extinct any time soon, whether you believe climate scare prognoses or not. And other species haven't been surviving on this planet any longer than us just because they didn't evolve significantly during that time while we did.
- latexr 1y ago
  To be fair, the word “exceptional” doesn’t make a distinction between good or bad. We humans could be exceptionally delusional about ourselves and exceptionally shitty and detrimental to every species including our own. In case it isn’t clear, I agree with you.
- matheusd 1y ago
  > Choosing what traits one considers exceptional, will by definition select what species one considers exceptional. /Every/ other species that has /ever/ lived will cease to exist (at the latest, in a billion years or so). Humans are the only ones (so far, anyway) that have any hope of surviving more than that. That seems pretty exceptional to me :P Disclaimer: the fact that we're exceptional doesn't mean we don't do dumb things and we shouldn't improve and do better.
  - Drakim 1y ago
    Are you sure? I'm pretty sure there are types of bacteria that has existed long before humanity existed, and will exist long after humanity is gone.
    - jhbadger 1y ago
      The problem with that argument (which people also use on animals like sharks) is it assumes that these other organisms haven't also been evolving in the human timeframe. Yes, you can find evidence of organisms that look more or less like modern bacteria or sharks long before humans existed, but the idea that these organisms haven't been under selective pressure since is false. Indeed, they are probably under greater selective pressure now due to the effects of humans on the planet.
      - Drakim 1y ago
        Bit of a ship of Theseus situation I suppose. Humans have been and will continue to evolve as well, but you still want to credit them as "humans", so why not give the same logic to the bacteria?
    - matheusd 1y ago
      Pretty sure no bacteria will survive on earth after the sun expands enough to char it, yes. Even if I'm wrong, and it does survive _that_, then it eventually won't survive the sun spending its entire energy budget. We're the only ones that could intentionally (as in, actively design our future lightcone) to survive that, so that makes us special in my book.
darkwater 1y ago
Yes, but it also just could be that we are at a more "advanced" stage but given enough time some other species has the potential to do the same.
self_awareness 1y ago
All you've written is important only to humans. Other species don't give an F about MRI. So if you value your humanism based on traits important only to humans, then it's about egocentrism, not exceptionalism.
- account42 1y ago
  You don't think other species would value the ability to diagnose and treat internal body conditions if they could conceive of the concept?
  - self_awareness 1y ago
    I don't think so. Prolonging one's life is a purely human concept and has value only for humans. Accepting death for me is a more mature way of understanding how life works, than trying to prolong life. That said, I personally prefer prolonging life, but I do it only because I'm afraid.
    - hereme888 1y ago
      I believe all living things instinctively fight to preserve their lives as long as possible, which maximizes their value. Why wouldn't death be fearful? It's contrary to life.
      - self_awareness 1y ago
        Not all living things and not always. Some of them sacrifice themselves when they'll serve the purpose. Fear can be understood as simply wiring that influences the behavior so that an organism is less likely to die. That's how I see fear of death. But sometimes death of an individual is a better solution for the group, or even for the organism itself. The problem with humans is that we have somehow developed a view that death is the ultimately worst thing to happen, and we evade it with all our imagination, trying to find elixirs of immortality since we are aware what's going on, no matter what, not matter the cost other species pay for us. We don't see our limits and that's our problem, because we think we're exceptional and we deserve everything because of it. And it's very, very egocentric. We are not exceptional, in the sense that we don't automatically deserve more because we can paint pictures or compose music. We value ourselves based on things that don't even matter to other species. Instead, what we should do is to accept the responsibility that comes with the effectiveness of our brains, and figure out how it fits in the bigger picture of the ecosystem we're living in. But all we do with it is we exploit everything, making it serve us, because "we're exceptional and we deserve it". Even in this thread it's visible, people don't even spend a minute to consider this: 'whhatt?? humans not exceptional? i don't see any animals thinking about their exceptionalism, haha!'
dijit 1y ago
what you say is true, but I think we become a bit too optimistic about our own individual exceptionality. Many people forget the animals feel emotions very much the same as us, that they act and feel very much like us, and what separates is our ability to work together- and specialise, our individual intelligence is not terribly far away - but we have specialised in education so we’ve optimised our minds to work in a collective society and to specialise in certain trade craft. we think of animals as being “dumb” and we get surprised when they show signs of intelligence. - sent from my iPhone, which I can’t build a single component of; using software I can’t write, using electricity I can’t generate, while sitting on a sofa I can’t manufacture in an apartment I can’t build.
- moi2388 1y ago
  As long as you’re not chewing your couch and barking at your phone, I still think you’ve got the dogs beat
  - dijit 1y ago
    Sure, but I did those things too until I was “trained” (socialised).
    - MonkeyClub 1y ago
      Good boy :) Being highly programmable is part of our distinction. You can't build any of these things, but you can learn to build all of them. Your possible pinnacle isn't just not chewing the couch.
    - latexr 1y ago
      We still do. How is arguing on HN, Reddit, Facebook, or any other social network different from barking at our phones? We’re doing it with our fingers instead of our mouths, but otherwise it’s pretty similar.
  - latexr 1y ago
    Most people do or are highly susceptible to figuratively bark and fume at their phones. Doomscrolling, getting depressed by looking at lying influencers, being victims of selective arguments and rage bait… Good on dogs for not falling for that, perhaps we could learn from them. Good news is we can: just go play outside, have fun, run, throw a ball. And then turn that into a highly competitive sport, waste money and throw slaves at building stadiums to support a deeply flawed business which pits people against each other based on the colour of their shirt… No! Bad human! Sit. Can’t leave you alone for a minute without you trying to destroy everything.
bmitc 1y ago
All of that is predicated on our technology, which does not make us inherently exceptional.
- account42 1y ago
  Where do you think that technology came from then?
  - bmitc 1y ago
    Evolutionary luck and not exceptionalism.
    - Jensson 1y ago
      Evolutionary luck doesn't make you exceptional? To me evolutionary luck is what makes things exceptional.
bryanrasmussen 1y ago
in short human exceptionalism became clear about 300 years ago, and has been becoming more clear with each succeeding year? If so that is a relatively recent demonstration of exceptionalism. Given the long timeline of human existence it could even be argued that it is accidental that this proof of exceptionalism developed among the humans and not among some other species. I actually believe in human exceptionalism, in that many of the features spread around various species are all found highly developed in the human, but really that is an argument for all species exceptionalism. There are very few species that do not some collection of interlocked traits that make them exceptional in some way, it just happens that our exceptionalism is one that allows for triumphalism at the same time.
- hereme888 1y ago
  I'm actually amazed at what people accomplished thousands of years ago, given their resources and stage of development. From architecture and urban planning, to tool-making, to philosophy, to math, etc. I don't see them as less exceptional at all.
scott_w 1y ago
I have a number of issues with your statement. Firstly, most humans who ever lived didn't do those things. Are they not exceptional? Are they lesser in some form? Did human exceptionalism only start when we invented computers or science? I assure you, many prior civilisations saw humans above animals (source: The Bible), yet hadn't done the things on your list. Secondly, you listed outcomes. These are value judgements. As the article points out, humans did those things but we can't do basic things like smell water from miles away or see internal organs by just clicking. Animals don't value LLMs or mathematics, in fact many humans don't! The challenges to human exceptionalism aren't based on outcomes (because that's subjective) but tries look at what makes humans unique in a way that can't be replicated in any form. This has to be more than "we're better at X" or "we can combine X and Y to achieve Z" because, unless trait X or Y only exist in humans, then another species could conceivably replicate it given enough time for evolution. So problem solving wouldn't make us exceptional because we see it in other species. Language might but we do see rudimentary communication in other animals like corvids and cephalopods so perhaps humans just hyper-specialised in that. Hell, scientists have observed orca pods being unable to communicate across regions, hinting that there is a form of language. Just being better at these traits doesn't suffice because there are plenty of things other animals are better than humans at. We don't consider that exceptional in the same way.
- griffzhowl 1y ago
  I didn't interpret GP as trying to give necessary and sufficient conditions for human exceptionalism. I think it's just supposed to be a (perhaps) humorous and ironic example of a way in which humans are exceptional. So yes it's an extreme example because it references the whole of modern science and technology, but it also brings out the irony: the paper challenging human exceptionalism is dependent on this whole network of scientific and technological development which is as far as we know unique to humans
  - scott_w 1y ago
    > the paper challenging human exceptionalism is dependent on this whole network of scientific and technological development which is as far as we know unique to humans I addressed this in my earlier point: that's measuring an outcome. By this logic, humans before 1700AD were not exceptional. Humans who weren't involved in this are lesser.
tovej 1y ago
The human biomass and its byproducts do grow at an exceptional rate, that's true, we are exceptional. But being exceptional in one way should not be mistaken for being supreme or better, which I feel like a lot of commenters are suggesting. This growth is clearly unsustainable, and the bubble, so to speak, will eventually pop. Other species have managed to survive for an exceptional time, e.g. the horseshoe crab, or most species of moss. There are species whose individuals might be older than human civilization, like the glass sponge. There are species that will survive in extreme conditions where humans would perish, such as tardigrades. Are we better than them? Another point: evolution has caused living beings to reach equilibria where the whole system can thrive, where each species has a role. These systems have reached self-regulating states, where e.g. an overpopulation of predators will be cut down due to an absence of prey during the next generation. Is human society better than that? Because humans are destroying this balance through unprecedented growth, which these systems cannot respond to. Our growth is not only unsustainable from the point of view of human survival, but unsustainable from the point of view of the earths ecological systems as a whole.

Voultapher 1y ago

[flagged]

snozolli 1y ago
the arbitrary line of humans vs non humans How is that arbitrary? It seems like one of the most clearly non-arbitrary delineations possible. For what it's worth, IMO, humans have created seed banks and will be the only species to preserve and revive extinct species, so yeah, humans are more important.
- Voultapher 1y ago
  It's arbitrary in the sense that the process to arrive at that line is arbitrary and could and has yielded myriads of other lines. In the same sense that skin color is a very clearly measurable trait, and yet the implications derived from this trait are arbitrary and not inherently connected to the trait.
  - snozolli 1y ago
    It's arbitrary in the sense that the process to arrive at that line is arbitrary and could and has yielded myriads of other lines. That seems like a meaningless word salad. Human versus non-human is a clear, objective delineation with no randomness about it.
southernplaces7 1y ago
What you sound like is a self-indulgent fanatic, overall. Either way, you're wrong about human exceptionalism in that it's evident in most aspects of our existence vs. that of all other species. It's also something that (with better use of our capabilities) could let us not only protect the other species of the earth against disasters that previously would have led to mass extinctions, but also possibly even revive species that have already gone extinct, including many that we ourselves have extinguished. Worth noting your hypocrisy too here. As a member of the human species who obviously participates in it and its complex technlogical sphere (you are after all using digital tools and the hardware they run on to comment about how terrible we are on HN), you're a direct beneficiery of background industrial processes that themselves kill all kinds of animals and plants every year, while you lecture people on things like slaughtering cows.
- Voultapher 1y ago
  Congratulation you discovered the "very useful" argument "You are part of society so you can't criticize it".
  - southernplaces7 1y ago
    Of course you can criticize elements of society while being a part of the whole. What makes you a hypocrite is when you lecture others on some aspect of their conduct in society while yourself being directly complicit in the exact same thing, only in slightly different ways.
Treegarden 1y ago
I agree with you on several levels, what we call “exceptional” is entirely dependent on the metric we choose. Every species excels in its niche, and human exceptionalism is just our own preferred framing. It's fair to say it often functions like supremacism: a belief in our moral or functional superiority over other life forms. That said, in a world of scarce resources and competition, tribalism and “team-thinking” are not bugs, but features, evolutionary tools for survival. From that lens, human supremacism isn’t a moral claim, but a pragmatic stance: of course we prioritize our own species. We are team human. As for whether we're destroying the planet, it's a complex picture. I'd recommend False Alarm by Bjorn Lomborg, it pushes back against overly apocalyptic assumptions and argues that while climate change is real and serious, we're not necessarily headed for collapse. Doesn't excuse inaction, but does complicate the narrative.
- gausswho 1y ago
  Lomborg knows how to chase a limelight and put on a serious aspect, but his reasoning is plenty flawed. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/ https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examin... Ultimately, we are Team Earth. The scarce-mongering behind tribalist features does not bring pragmatism but rather sabotage.
philipallstar 1y ago
> I challenge you reader to ask yourself, is the arbitrary line of humans vs non humans more justified than the equally arbitrary line of white humans vs non white humans? I'll take it one step further. The fact that your immune system prioritises you over the life of a single bacterium is no different to the Holocaust. Provocative, but it does make us realise that we're walking gas chambers who should take immunosuppressants immediately.
- Voultapher 1y ago
  This is an ethical question and there will be no simple or clear cut answers, as an engineer myself I know that can be frustrating. Personally I project my experience of the world onto other beings - of course that's fraught with issues. I'd give the chance that bacteria experiences complex emotions like suffering and imprisonment in a similar fashion than I do as very low. But a cow, which is a mammal like us and I've seen show complex emotional reactions first hand, I'd rate that chance much higher. So you're right if we take the idea to its extreme its not very useful anymore. But only because an extreme version of the idea seems ridiculous does not preclude the idea from being valuable in moderation. Reducing some likely suffering is better than doing nothing in my book.
- themk 1y ago
  This is an odd take. If a bunch of "exceptional" humans start attacking me, I'm going to fight back. That has little to do with how I normally treat others (human or not).
dgfl 1y ago
What we’re exceptional at is survival. To the point where as few as 1% of our species even needs to think about making food. Also, citation needed on the complexity of whale songs exceeding the complexity of human language. But besides, this is not the point. What I question about this rhetoric is using human-developed moral frameworks to justify that we’re somehow a “disease” roaming the planet. As if a tapeworm that were to achieve total worldwide domination would stop and think “wait, I shouldn’t reproduce further because other creatures may suffer”. Same story with any other mammal. The reality of it is that we are clearly among the most successful species. Keeping the environment safe from us is extremely important, but undermining our own achievements and romanticizing other species whose only virtue is being less successful at surviving than us is strange. With our own moral codes, no less.
- smitty1e 1y ago
  > What we’re exceptional at is survival. We've wandered pretty much the entirety of the planet and made it to the moon. Nuclear weapons. Controlling the scope of the conversation to exclude the counter-arguments, too, demonstrates the special place afforded humanity by the Creator.
- TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
  We're exceptional at survival so far. The odds of continuing to be exceptional at survival are not looking great. And compared to species that have been around for multiple geological ages, our survival time barely rates a mention. The one thing we're truly exceptional at is influencing our own environment. The only creatures to have more of an impact were the cyanobacteria responsible for the Great Oxygenation Event, which literally transformed the Earth's atmosphere. As for the disease line - we're supposed to be intelligent, and terraforming our home planet to make it more dangerous and less inhabitable when we know and understand we're doing this is not the most convincing proof of that claim.
  - account42 1y ago
    Oh please spare me the doomerism. There is no reason to believe that humans will go extinct any time soon, whether you believe climate scare prognoses or not. And other species haven't been surviving on this planet any longer than us just because they didn't evolve significantly during that time while we did.
latexr 1y ago
To be fair, the word “exceptional” doesn’t make a distinction between good or bad. We humans could be exceptionally delusional about ourselves and exceptionally shitty and detrimental to every species including our own. In case it isn’t clear, I agree with you.
matheusd 1y ago
> Choosing what traits one considers exceptional, will by definition select what species one considers exceptional. /Every/ other species that has /ever/ lived will cease to exist (at the latest, in a billion years or so). Humans are the only ones (so far, anyway) that have any hope of surviving more than that. That seems pretty exceptional to me :P Disclaimer: the fact that we're exceptional doesn't mean we don't do dumb things and we shouldn't improve and do better.
- Drakim 1y ago
  Are you sure? I'm pretty sure there are types of bacteria that has existed long before humanity existed, and will exist long after humanity is gone.
  - jhbadger 1y ago
    The problem with that argument (which people also use on animals like sharks) is it assumes that these other organisms haven't also been evolving in the human timeframe. Yes, you can find evidence of organisms that look more or less like modern bacteria or sharks long before humans existed, but the idea that these organisms haven't been under selective pressure since is false. Indeed, they are probably under greater selective pressure now due to the effects of humans on the planet.
    - Drakim 1y ago
      Bit of a ship of Theseus situation I suppose. Humans have been and will continue to evolve as well, but you still want to credit them as "humans", so why not give the same logic to the bacteria?
  - matheusd 1y ago
    Pretty sure no bacteria will survive on earth after the sun expands enough to char it, yes. Even if I'm wrong, and it does survive _that_, then it eventually won't survive the sun spending its entire energy budget. We're the only ones that could intentionally (as in, actively design our future lightcone) to survive that, so that makes us special in my book.

darkwater 1y ago

Yes, but it also just could be that we are at a more "advanced" stage but given enough time some other species has the potential to do the same.

self_awareness 1y ago

All you've written is important only to humans. Other species don't give an F about MRI. So if you value your humanism based on traits important only to humans, then it's about egocentrism, not exceptionalism.

account42 1y ago
You don't think other species would value the ability to diagnose and treat internal body conditions if they could conceive of the concept?
- self_awareness 1y ago
  I don't think so. Prolonging one's life is a purely human concept and has value only for humans. Accepting death for me is a more mature way of understanding how life works, than trying to prolong life. That said, I personally prefer prolonging life, but I do it only because I'm afraid.
  - hereme888 1y ago
    I believe all living things instinctively fight to preserve their lives as long as possible, which maximizes their value. Why wouldn't death be fearful? It's contrary to life.
    - self_awareness 1y ago
      Not all living things and not always. Some of them sacrifice themselves when they'll serve the purpose. Fear can be understood as simply wiring that influences the behavior so that an organism is less likely to die. That's how I see fear of death. But sometimes death of an individual is a better solution for the group, or even for the organism itself. The problem with humans is that we have somehow developed a view that death is the ultimately worst thing to happen, and we evade it with all our imagination, trying to find elixirs of immortality since we are aware what's going on, no matter what, not matter the cost other species pay for us. We don't see our limits and that's our problem, because we think we're exceptional and we deserve everything because of it. And it's very, very egocentric. We are not exceptional, in the sense that we don't automatically deserve more because we can paint pictures or compose music. We value ourselves based on things that don't even matter to other species. Instead, what we should do is to accept the responsibility that comes with the effectiveness of our brains, and figure out how it fits in the bigger picture of the ecosystem we're living in. But all we do with it is we exploit everything, making it serve us, because "we're exceptional and we deserve it". Even in this thread it's visible, people don't even spend a minute to consider this: 'whhatt?? humans not exceptional? i don't see any animals thinking about their exceptionalism, haha!'

dijit 1y ago

what you say is true, but I think we become a bit too optimistic about our own individual exceptionality. Many people forget the animals feel emotions very much the same as us, that they act and feel very much like us, and what separates is our ability to work together- and specialise, our individual intelligence is not terribly far away - but we have specialised in education so we’ve optimised our minds to work in a collective society and to specialise in certain trade craft. we think of animals as being “dumb” and we get surprised when they show signs of intelligence. - sent from my iPhone, which I can’t build a single component of; using software I can’t write, using electricity I can’t generate, while sitting on a sofa I can’t manufacture in an apartment I can’t build.

moi2388 1y ago
As long as you’re not chewing your couch and barking at your phone, I still think you’ve got the dogs beat
- dijit 1y ago
  Sure, but I did those things too until I was “trained” (socialised).
  - MonkeyClub 1y ago
    Good boy :) Being highly programmable is part of our distinction. You can't build any of these things, but you can learn to build all of them. Your possible pinnacle isn't just not chewing the couch.
  - latexr 1y ago
    We still do. How is arguing on HN, Reddit, Facebook, or any other social network different from barking at our phones? We’re doing it with our fingers instead of our mouths, but otherwise it’s pretty similar.
- latexr 1y ago
  Most people do or are highly susceptible to figuratively bark and fume at their phones. Doomscrolling, getting depressed by looking at lying influencers, being victims of selective arguments and rage bait… Good on dogs for not falling for that, perhaps we could learn from them. Good news is we can: just go play outside, have fun, run, throw a ball. And then turn that into a highly competitive sport, waste money and throw slaves at building stadiums to support a deeply flawed business which pits people against each other based on the colour of their shirt… No! Bad human! Sit. Can’t leave you alone for a minute without you trying to destroy everything.

bmitc 1y ago

All of that is predicated on our technology, which does not make us inherently exceptional.

account42 1y ago
Where do you think that technology came from then?
- bmitc 1y ago
  Evolutionary luck and not exceptionalism.
  - Jensson 1y ago
    Evolutionary luck doesn't make you exceptional? To me evolutionary luck is what makes things exceptional.

bryanrasmussen 1y ago

in short human exceptionalism became clear about 300 years ago, and has been becoming more clear with each succeeding year? If so that is a relatively recent demonstration of exceptionalism. Given the long timeline of human existence it could even be argued that it is accidental that this proof of exceptionalism developed among the humans and not among some other species. I actually believe in human exceptionalism, in that many of the features spread around various species are all found highly developed in the human, but really that is an argument for all species exceptionalism. There are very few species that do not some collection of interlocked traits that make them exceptional in some way, it just happens that our exceptionalism is one that allows for triumphalism at the same time.

hereme888 1y ago
I'm actually amazed at what people accomplished thousands of years ago, given their resources and stage of development. From architecture and urban planning, to tool-making, to philosophy, to math, etc. I don't see them as less exceptional at all.

scott_w 1y ago

I have a number of issues with your statement. Firstly, most humans who ever lived didn't do those things. Are they not exceptional? Are they lesser in some form? Did human exceptionalism only start when we invented computers or science? I assure you, many prior civilisations saw humans above animals (source: The Bible), yet hadn't done the things on your list. Secondly, you listed outcomes. These are value judgements. As the article points out, humans did those things but we can't do basic things like smell water from miles away or see internal organs by just clicking. Animals don't value LLMs or mathematics, in fact many humans don't! The challenges to human exceptionalism aren't based on outcomes (because that's subjective) but tries look at what makes humans unique in a way that can't be replicated in any form. This has to be more than "we're better at X" or "we can combine X and Y to achieve Z" because, unless trait X or Y only exist in humans, then another species could conceivably replicate it given enough time for evolution. So problem solving wouldn't make us exceptional because we see it in other species. Language might but we do see rudimentary communication in other animals like corvids and cephalopods so perhaps humans just hyper-specialised in that. Hell, scientists have observed orca pods being unable to communicate across regions, hinting that there is a form of language. Just being better at these traits doesn't suffice because there are plenty of things other animals are better than humans at. We don't consider that exceptional in the same way.

griffzhowl 1y ago
I didn't interpret GP as trying to give necessary and sufficient conditions for human exceptionalism. I think it's just supposed to be a (perhaps) humorous and ironic example of a way in which humans are exceptional. So yes it's an extreme example because it references the whole of modern science and technology, but it also brings out the irony: the paper challenging human exceptionalism is dependent on this whole network of scientific and technological development which is as far as we know unique to humans
- scott_w 1y ago
  > the paper challenging human exceptionalism is dependent on this whole network of scientific and technological development which is as far as we know unique to humans I addressed this in my earlier point: that's measuring an outcome. By this logic, humans before 1700AD were not exceptional. Humans who weren't involved in this are lesser.

tovej 1y ago

The human biomass and its byproducts do grow at an exceptional rate, that's true, we are exceptional. But being exceptional in one way should not be mistaken for being supreme or better, which I feel like a lot of commenters are suggesting. This growth is clearly unsustainable, and the bubble, so to speak, will eventually pop. Other species have managed to survive for an exceptional time, e.g. the horseshoe crab, or most species of moss. There are species whose individuals might be older than human civilization, like the glass sponge. There are species that will survive in extreme conditions where humans would perish, such as tardigrades. Are we better than them? Another point: evolution has caused living beings to reach equilibria where the whole system can thrive, where each species has a role. These systems have reached self-regulating states, where e.g. an overpopulation of predators will be cut down due to an absence of prey during the next generation. Is human society better than that? Because humans are destroying this balance through unprecedented growth, which these systems cannot respond to. Our growth is not only unsustainable from the point of view of human survival, but unsustainable from the point of view of the earths ecological systems as a whole.