The hopeless ape
Authors: David J Coffey
Journal: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (2009)

In 1945, during a speech to the House of Lords, the philosopher Bertrand Russell asked the question, ‘Is it possible for a scientific society to continue to exist, or must such a society inevitably bring itself to destruction?’ In a small volume titled Has Man a Future? published in 1961, Russell states that the true purpose of science ‘is to increase human knowledge, and to promote man's mastery over the forces of nature for the benefit of all’. Surely, it is a serious misunderstanding to suggest that science and technology could achieve mastery over the forces of nature?

Russell's thoughts were propelled into print as a result of his justifiable concern for the destructive potential of nuclear power. His approach seems to me, however, to be a strangely inadequate perception of biological reality. It fails to understand the rigidity of biological demands. His observation that ‘From a purely biological point of view, we may consider anything a progress which increases the number of human beings who can live in a given area’ is bizarre. The exponential explosion of the human population, courtesy in large part of human scientific ingenuity, is one of, if not the, most menacing problem facing human survival. Russell illustrates his questionable thesis with the example of the Americas. Whether the massive population increase since the discovery by Columbus is more likely to secure the future of our species than the tribal balance that existed previously is a fundamental and contentious element in the debate concerning human survival.

This year we celebrate Charles Darwin's revelation of reality that life evolved, thereby replacing the biblical myth of creation. The full implication of his genius is yet to be realized. It tells us not only from whence we humans came but to where we are almost certainly going.

The Judeo/Christian tradition, by elevating us to a position of superiority, of dominion over nature, has misled us as it may have done Bertrand Russell in spite of his agnosticism. Our anthropocentric arrogance blinds us to the reality of our precarious predicament. We must jettison the comforting belief in a transcendental special concern for human welfare, at least applied to our Earthly life. We must accept that the ultimate authority is biology personified as Nature. Nature, indifferent to the survival of an individual or the continued existence of a species imposes its inviolable dictate – adapt or die – with an unrelenting, unforgiving rigour. Survival depends on the adaptive competence of the attributes with which evolution has endowed each species of plant and animal.

Evolution provided humanity with its singular attribute, increased cerebral capacity, most obviously manifest as its scientific and technical ingenuity. Unfortunately, without accompanying prescience we have never been able to predict the environmental consequences of any innovation until irreversible. Herein lies our vulnerability. Are the forces of science and technology leading us to the uplands of existence, as Russell apparently naively hoped, or have we blindly followed their deceitful, siren voices that falsely promise us security and environmental control, Utopia?

The survival of our species is then dependent on the adaptive competence of its biological attributes. It was the unique cerebral complexity of our primate ancestors that enabled them to leave the jungle, for whatever reason, to exploit the open grasslands in spite of their inhibiting, cumbersome bipedal anatomy. There followed stone tools, pastoralism and agriculture, ‘civilization’, the invention of the wheel, warfare, the internal combustion engine, manned flight, space exploration, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and of course medicine and surgery.

There can be no denying the moral justification for medical science. The alleviation of pain and suffering, which is such an integral feature of life on Earth, cannot surely be questioned? It, however, comes under the scrutiny of the ultimate Earthly authority that demands that it be adaptive? The ingenuity of medical innovation is truly staggering. The journey from phlebotomy, purging and coloured water placebos to the discovery of antibiotics, the genius of spare part surgery and the use of stem cells, for example, has taken but a few decades. Diseases heretofore inevitably fatal can now be cured. Human longevity has been extended, almost entirely courtesy of medical science, but sadly for many into the terminal twilight of incontinence, mental confusion and total dependency.

One can have nothing but compassion and sympathy for barren couples, desperate for a child, who turn to modern medical techniques to achieve their ambition, but in a world already over populated does it make survival sense? The recently discovered technique to produce sperms from stem cells with the hope of assisting male infertility can only exacerbate the population problem. The recent reports of rats and monkeys being born of three parents to prevent genetic illness is brilliant science but contributes to, and must surely hasten, human extinction. Further, is the dubious practice of assisting ladies, long past menopause, to have a baby anything more than arrogance on the part of the medical consultant, a search for personal kudos? Survival strategy for humanity surely demands the immediate cessation of fertility medicine.

For a species to continue to survive, Nature demands that it remain in balance, in dynamic harmony, with its environment. In a stable environment, a population explosion is controlled by predation, disease or starvation. When there is environmental modification the survival of the species living therein depends on their adaptive flexibility. There is nothing revolutionary in these observations. They should be known to anyone with a basic knowledge of biology.

It should be clear that our species, Homo sapiens, which Russell observes we ‘arrogantly call ourselves’, offends against the natural law of biology on both counts. It is our scientific and technical ingenuity that is constructing an environment to which we will not be, perhaps are not, adapted. The normal checks and balances by which Nature controls population density in order to maintain dynamic balance are flagrantly flouted with the assistance of a significant contribution from medicine and surgery.

Russell claims that only a ‘philosophic Martian biologist’ would be capable of impartially assessing ‘the past, the present and the future (if any) of our species, and the value, for good or evil, of what man has done, is doing and may do hereafter, to life on Earth’. Such reticence is surely misplaced. It is just over 100 years since the horse was replaced as the only means of transport. Mechanized movement, together with instant worldwide communication, has permitted globalization which in turn has facilitated international crime, the introverted, egocentric, selfish behaviour of multinational companies, pernicious political corruption, endless wars and global drug dependency, while our insatiable need for energy and other environmental abuses have led to global warming.

Our reliance on scientific accoutrements is swamping the world with polluting chemical debris and the plastic dross of our modern technical society. Too many human beings are causing environmental devastation, starvation and seriously affecting biodiversity. Further, it is an established ethological observation that increased population density results in increased aggression, an observation human behaviour surely confirms!

The dilemma for human survival is a straight contest between the inescapable demands of biology and the consequences of the cerebral complexity we so prize. In addition to the questionable advantages of our scientific and technical capability, we must include such confounding and confusing elements as religiosity, altruism and the pretence of universal love that we like to think are unique characteristics of humanity. Russell states ‘Sages and prophets have preached the folly of strife, and if we listen to them we shall emerge into new happiness’. Moral integrity and compassion is hardly a universal characteristic of humanity. While acts of heroism and selfless altruism certainly exist they are countered by an abundance of premeditated gratuitous evil. Russell spends considerable effort promoting universal love and, somewhat nebulously, coercive world government supported by an international police force. Sadly, there is precious little evidence of the approaching Utopia he hoped for. Realistically, humanity is a maladapted species heading for extinction. Those with optimistic inclinations seek salvation from science and technology, the very elements that, being without prescience, have produced the impending calamity, an infinite regress surely!

It must be apparent, even to the most sanguine of souls, that humanity is facing a serious crisis. The pit of hopelessness that we have dug for ourselves, courtesy of our cerebral complexity, our scientific and technical ingenuity, is deep indeed. It has led to a totally unmanaged and unmanageable society. So pleased are we with inventions and discoveries that we fail to perceive their detrimental consequences. Science lacks cohesion. Fragmented discoveries by insular groups fail to anticipate their interactive environmental impact. There is precious little evidence that universal love of which Russell dreamed, will ever materialize. Our cerebral complexity is insufficiently flexible to allow the only solution for our predicament, rejection of the endless ‘progress’ facilitated by science and technology and the return to live in dynamic harmony with the environment. Sadly, there is no chance that we will grasp that option. The answer to Russell's question, ‘Has Man a Future?’ is surely a resounding ‘NO’!