“How Human is Man?” was written in the late 1950s, at a time when human beings’ power to destroy was growing exponentially with the mass-production of nuclear and then thermonuclear weapons. Also around that time, several countries were doing above-ground testing of such weapons, which spread radioactive fallout across the planet. There was also a very real fear of nuclear war.
Eiseley starts out by pointing out that all living creatures, including humans, require a high level of predictability in their physical environment in order survive and reproduce. Animals aren’t capable of modifying their environment. Ecological systems did not change much during the vast majority of history. Ecologies changed by natural catastrophes and one-in-a-billion genetic mutations. He argues this guarantee of an unchanging natural environment is no longer true, and humanity and the the rest of the species on Earth are in grave danger because of that.
Eiseley discusses his fear for
1) how human character was changing for the worse and
2) why humans might destroy the environment because of that change in character at the same time humanity has greatly increasing power.
Consider Eiseley’s interaction with the alcoholic. Eiseley argues that the commonly accepted definition of human character was changing. Many people were beginning to believe they had less choice over their actions. Or put another way, Eiseley believed such people were denying the special moral duties they have as human beings. He felt such people were excusing their lack of will to live a responsible and moral life by arguing that 1) people are fundamentally just another sort of animal, 2) meaning that people are the shaped by their desires and conditioned responses, and 3) that it is not appropriate to expect people to do otherwise. Eiseley thinks such changes are bad by themselves because they undermine the freedom and moral life that, for Eiseley, defines what humanity is. As evidence of increasing amorality, Eiseley points at sociopath teenagers in street gangs and working people in unions who accept corruption in their union leaders if they believe that is necessary to get a higher wage.
Aside: It is important to note that Eiseley is tapping into a widely used intellectual conservative argument that goes far beyond concern over humanity’s relationship to nature. It is used by other writers to argue against treatment of addiction to drugs or alcohol as a disease rather than as simply immoral behavior that should be responded to with punishment and perhaps counseling. Variations of this argument are used by still other writers to argue for the immorality of sex outside of (married) heterosexual couples. If you find plausible the line of argument that there is danger in shifting of shifting boundaries between what people can and cannot be blamed for morally, you still must decide what sorts actions it is fair to consider immoral and which it is not fair to consider immoral.
Another cause for Eiseley’s fear about the change in human character is related to what he sees as the dissolving of traditional restrictions on destructive behavior. This dissolving of restrictions comes from the pressure of rapid technological change and rapidly growing scientific understanding. He admits there were both good and bad aspects to those traditional constraints on human behavior, be he thinks the good ones are needed now more than ever.
One of those traditional attitudes he thinks are needed more than ever were a reverence towards nature. Note how he points out that humans’ early gods were based in nature. Another traditional attitude he decries the loss of is a sense of humility and a loss of respect toward nature and non-human creatures. He argues that monotheistic religion provided this even as nature religions were displaced. And outside of religions, the social taboos (behavioral codes) of pre-modern cultures, whatever the excesses of those taboos, served to remind people there were principles more important to serve than the human wants and desires.
Eiseley’s fear has something to do with humans’ growing sense of disconnectedness from the natural world, a spreading belief that all of nature is becoming just an instrument for humans to use for whatever purpose they wish, that nature and natural laws should be used solely for humans to enhance their power to create, destroy, and cause change.
The problem is, without any overriding code or ideal suggesting what purposes it is acceptable (and not acceptable) to use nature for, there can be no long-term stability to support life. Suppose there is nothing to constrain what desires for power people will attempt to fulfill.
It follows that there is nothing to prevent people (who want such things) from eventually inventing and using technology that will do things like erode human freedom, destroy all human life, or (as Eiseley’s own student suggested) destroy many of the world’s animal and plant species in to create more room for humans.
Eiseley fears that human desire for power manifested in manipulation of the natural world will be left unchecked because moral responsibility for the effects of that technology will either be flatly denied or be perpetually pushed-off onto others and so the responsibility never falls on anyone. This is sort of what hard technological determinists mean when they talk about technological progress having its own internal logic and advancing independent of human choice. Note how Eiseley discusses the nuclear weapon scientists who invented nuclear weapons and the political leaders who ordered the mass deployment of those weapons. He takes that as one of the clearest examples of the perpetual pushing off of responsibility (buck passing) when it comes to technology.
From 1959 to 2003, what has changed?
Nearly four and a half decades later, what does Eiseley’s essay have to say to us? Countries banned the above ground testing of nuclear weapons and greatly slowed the spread of such weapons to other countries. While there is a very real threat that terrorists or developing countries may once again use nuclear weapons (or other weapons of mass destruction) on individual cities, the planet-destroying large scale nuclear wars seem far less likely than in 1959.
We saw the development of a powerful environmental movement in the U.S. and Europe that led to the creation of laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act in the U.S. and a big new federal agency to enforce them. Later, we saw global treaties on ozone depleting chemicals and bans on trade in endangered species of animals. We also saw a powerful reaction to the 1950’s anti-individualist pressures for social conformity in the 1960s and 70s. So was Eiseley wrong? Was his message heard and people changed?
Some people, like Lester Brown, say that the danger is much the same, the symptoms of technology being used without responsibility are just more subtle. Environmentalists have been pointing to humans overusing and ultimately exhausting of renewable resources like ocean fisheries, stores of drinkable ground water, clear air, and fertile land all over the planet. The argument goes that we need to do something about people acting in their own financial interest (seeking profit) without concern over what would happen if everyone does the same thing those people do.
The analogy commonly used is that of a set of shepherds who live near a plot of grazing land (called the commons) where the right to graze on the land is jointly held by all the shepherds. Hardin’s famous “Tragedy of the Commons” argues that these shepherds as individuals will, as the number of sheep they own grows, want to graze more and more sheep on the land. The shepherds may realize that the land will eventually become overgrazed and become unable to support sheep if all the shepherds do this collectively, but no herder believes that if he personally reduces his own used of the commons that the other herders will also limit the number of sheep they graze. Thus, there is no incentive for individuals to ensure the future availability of the resource. So, more and more sheep are put on the commons until it is exhausted.
The environmentalists point to instance after instance of cases like this where people overusing fragile renewable resources until those resources are destroyed, which will then cause severe ecological and economic damage. Environmentalists worry about a creeping destruction of species and the ecosystems that people depend on rather than the wholesale destruction that Eiseley saw in his day.
The environmentalists think the laws we have in place (which, by the way, are being weakened or eliminated in the U.S. in 2003) are not doing nearly enough to stop this creeping destruction. Aside from the depletion of renewable resources, they commonly point to the continuing failure of countries to get together and work out a compromise where the cost of doing something about the problem is substantial.
The textbook case of this is the attempt to reduce the emission of “greenhouse” gasses like Carbon Dioxide that contribute to global warming. That cost is substantial because burning fossil fuels generates CO2 and, at in the least the short-term, economic costs of choosing to use alternative energy sources or to find ways to conserve energy are substantial. Most electrical power generation as well as the transport of people and goods depends on the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas). Therefore, many national economies depend a great deal on the burning of fossil fuels since many forms of business consume electricity and involve transporting people or goods.
There are some people who are claim to be skeptics of greenhouse gases causing global warming despite scientific consensus that this is occurring. There is another group of people who would prefer to have no agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if they can’t have an agreement that favors their own country/industry. Still other people would prefer no agreement if any such agreement would mean they would have to make some sacrifices and change how they live.
Such people are insensitive to the possible outcomes of global warming including:
1) Permanent rise in sea level,
a. submerging parts of coastal cities, and
b. causing the water in wetland areas to become more salty--damaging the habitat of species that live there (many fish that humans eat spend part of their lives in wetlands).
2) Shifting of areas where certain crops can be grown, which affects farmers.
3) More frequent and more intense severe weather causing more storm damage.
4) Extinction of some species in places where the changed environment does not match the habitat those species need.
Global markets penetrate and connect more and more of the world every year. We have seen the relocation of factories to (and the creation of massive new electricity generation in) developing countries were populations are growing rapidly and governments are under intense pressure to create jobs. These countries have “weak” governments that currently lack the environmental laws and enforcement resources to help protect against damage to the environment.
We have mostly solved the problem of instant destruction of the planet because of a huge struggle over power (and perhaps ideology) between the world’s most powerful nations. It remains to be seen whether humanity will successfully prevent the slow-motion destruction of the planet as people around the planet struggle for economic power and increased wealth in the next 40 years.
© 2003 Shayne Weyker