7. Being Human in the Twenty-First Century

This is the core question of any philosophical anthropology. Unfortunately, contributions on this topic have remained fairly traditional and entrenched in the logic of the ‘two cultures’. See Hacker (2007); Jackson (2005).

Crutzen (2002).

McKay et al. (2022).

Over the course of modern history, six main developments have undermined humans’ sense of their uniqueness and importance. First, heliocentrism, which revealed that the Earth is a marginal planet in a marginal solar system, which in turn is part of just one out of over 100 billion other galaxies. Second, Darwin showed us that we are descended from primates. Third, Freud and Jung explored the human psyche and showed that most of our decision-making is not dependent on our rational and analytical consciousness, but rather on our autobiographic unconscious or the collective unconscious. Fourth, findings in thermodynamics show that the universe will eventually end in heat death anyway, regardless of what we do. Fifth, the ecological crisis demonstrates that the human species has a tendency to, and a capacity for, self-destruction, which threatens to destroy the ecosystem in a by-proxy suicide at the same time. Sixth, AI and deep learning prove that most of our mental capacities can be better exercised by a technology that we humans have created ourselves. The common denominator of all six developments is that an increase in scientific knowledge and understanding is accompanied by decentralisation and marginalisation of our personal, analytical ego-mind, and by a broadening, deepening and integration of our consciousness at the same time. This process demonstrates that science and technology can play a crucial role in truly awakening us to reality.

From an anatomical perspective, the ‘free hand’ does indeed play an important role. With twenty-seven bones, thirty-seven muscles, thirty-six joints and subtle fine motor skills such as the pincer grip (made possible by our opposable thumbs), the human hand plays a key role in memory consolidation, self-efficacy and self-control, interpersonal stress reduction (by touching other people), gestures and the capacity to literally grasp the world. The human hand is a unique evolutionary tool that is universal to almost all humans but possessed by no other species. Other examples unique to humans are the white iris, the prominent cervicothoracic rotation of the head, the ability to sweat and the capacity to build projectile weapons. As important and unique as they are, these features cannot explain the dominant role of the human species on this planet. See also Blumenberg (2014).

Cooking and gardening are sometimes considered to be exclusively human practices. But although findings in comparative biology are not yet conclusive, we will probably be forced to concede that even if cooking and gardening are human peculiarities, they cannot explain the full impact humans have had on this planet.

Comparative anthropology has shown that funeral rites require a level of consciousness that allows us to reflect on a life beyond our terrestrial one and to craft narratives that go beyond mere grief (which seems to exist in animals, too). The emergence of a belief in transcending one’s own life is sometimes considered to mark the point in history where humans began differentiating themselves from other species.

The concept of Grenzerfahrung (liminal experience), which is characteristic of and unavoidable for humans, was introduced by Karl Jaspers (1919).

The mirror self-recognition test evaluates whether a client/animal/human has a visual awareness of themselves. Robots first passed the mirror test a decade ago. Bekoff (2002), Pipitone and Chella (2021).

Complex, non-linear, open systems—such as the earth system—operate between the poles of necessity and chance. Their outcomes always remain indeterminate, even if we assume we have full information about how the system acted in the past. Multiple butterfly effects and low-threshold bifurcations mean we cannot fully anticipate any future outcome. See Prigogine and Stengers (1984).

See Peirce (1998 [1901]).

The development of the capacity to tell each other stories about things that do not necessarily exist in the physical world but instead visualise and verbalise a different world is sometimes called the ‘cognitive revolution’. This revolution increased the inner mental space between stimulus and response and enabled narratives with which large human cohorts can be coordinated. See Harari (2018).

Despite having a stronger and more robust anatomy, better fine and gross motor functions and a larger brain than Homo sapiens, Neanderthals did not survive. One of the best explanations is that although humans were more vulnerable to their environments, they developed a capacity for labour specialisation and collaboration in large cohorts that improved their evolutionary fitness. ‘Survival of the friendliest’ won out. See Hare (2016). We could hypothesise that the Buddha of the twenty-first century, representing the cutting edge of an integral consciousness, will be a group not an individual.

Scheler (2007), Gehlen (2014 [1940]), Plessner (1975, 1983).

Bowlby (1995 [1950]).

Festinger (1962).

Wason (1960).

Hoffman (2019).

An advantage of forgetfulness and false memory is that our brains are not overloaded and so are better able to cope. AI, by contrast, never forgets! See Lotus et al. (2007).

Wilber (2007), Brunnhuber (2017, 2023c).

This is referred to as cumulative cultural evolution. Social learning from other people, substituting, externalising and hyperspecialising in a cooperative manner makes us more adaptive, but also more vulnerable and self-deceptive unless we have rules, sanctions and narratives to coordinate us in large cohorts. See Tomasello (2019).

This epistemic labour specialisation enables humans to intentionally focus on an object of interest—for example, making a watch or solving a mathematical equation, or teaching the requisite skills to other people.

See Bohr (2008), Meyer-Abich (1965), Walach (2010).

Whereas reductionism tries to dissect, catalogue and analyse components to explain outcomes, complex systems are sensitive to the history of their own initial conditions. A dynamic characterised by open networking, multiple intermediary hierarchies, feedback loops and self-organising components will move beyond static equilibrium and lead to the emergence of new, unpredictable structures. See Šlaus (2020).

Mandelbrot (1977), Mainzer (1997).

See Wiki Didactic (2015).

Brunnhuber (2023b).

See Jung (2001).

Examples include traffic flow analysis (road safety, preventing congestion, implementing bike lanes), public health management (real-time tracking, predictive coding, end-to-end monitoring), preventing cyberattacks against public infrastructure, providing e-government services, enhanced large-scale public infrastructure monitoring (water/energy supply, forest management, real estate, identifying undeclared properties) and supporting smart, citizen-based policy decisions. Conventional approaches—Excel sheets, benchmarking, linear risk assessments, expert consultations—will not be able to deliver the required level of insight, speed, accuracy and data to make decisions in highly complex situations.

Tegmark (2019), Tomasello (2019).

From a physics perspective, all these dimensions (nano, cosmic, speed) are unlimited and do not set any boundaries. It is the human species that is subject to planetary boundaries (outside) and mental frames (inside) which set the limits of our lives on this planet.

See, for example, Schumacher (1973).

See for further examples Yong (2022).

Mancuso (2023).

See Uexküll (1957, p. 11).

We must differentiate between this unavoidable anthropomorphism, an anthropocentrism that puts humans at the centre of the universe and a relational humanism that casts humans as marginal ‘string players’. This third approach is best suited to explain the human position in the twenty-first century.

The question is therefore not whether we implement technology or not, but rather which technology. Is it one designed to increase humans’ self-efficacy and self-control and provide decentralised solutions within the middle dimension or not?

This is referred to as the Pugh paradox. See Wikipedia (2023b).

Industry 4.0 refers to the overall digitalisation of our industry, including the IoT, decentralised digital systems, connectivity and assistance systems. Industry 1.0 was initiated by the steam engine, Industry 2.0 by mass production and the conveyor belt, Industry 3.0 by the use of digital devices for storage and automation. See Wöhe (2015).

See Schwab (2017).

This picture of an evolutionary ladder has been promoted by all monotheistic religions (‘make nature your subject’) and Darwin’s theory of evolution. Both narratives are based on a vertical mental frame, where the top of the hierarchy implies a superior position. What is required instead (as I explain in this book) is a mindset shift towards a parallel, horizontal frame.

Darwin propagated the idea not only that evolution developed through the selection and adaptation of the fittest, but that the human species stands at the pinnacle of this evolutionary process, dominating all other species and nature in general. This misguided Darwinian frame is based on the idea of competition and a vertical hierarchy of individual species and entities. And it has led to devastating consequences: mass extinction, degradation of nature reserves and destruction of the conditions of life we all depend on. An alternative frame takes a cooperative and collective perspective, in which living beings are understood as existing in parallel rather than in a hierarchical ranking. We could call this the ‘parallel frame’.

Animals and living beings should be protected not just because they experience pain or because they look similar to humans, but because they are social beings with a species-specific upbringing and bonding that need a suitable environment. All these elements assume different forms than they do for humans; we will never fully understand other animals but should always respect them. See Nussbaum (2023).

Nature is often described in analytical and atomistic terms, as something which can be quantified, calculated and controlled, with measurable, objective data treated as superior to perceptual, subjective value. However, nature is better described in terms of biosemiotics: signs organise all living beings and the responses of all living beings remain undetermined and open. For a critique of conventional ways of conceptualising nature, see Lovelock and Margulis (1974), Schneider (2004), Schneidler (2021).

For an introduction to this complex topic, see Nagel (1974).