What it means to be human is rightly the first theme in making sense of the world. After all, if you can answer this question clearly, it would go a long way towards understanding why humans do what they do. For instance, if we could define ourselves, foremost, as a species with genetically driven or determined behavioural patterns, explaining our behaviour would be pretty straightforward. But although we should not disregard or downplay the extent to which our biological or genetic make-up influences behaviour, it is also clear that humans are different from most other species in that much or most of their behaviour is not genetically pre-programmed but learned from their social environment. Being entirely dependent on others from birth, humans learn from those around them what they need to do to meet their needs and keep themselves alive. They also learn how to behave and interact with others in the group or groups (society) in which they grow up. Being a genetically unspecialised and social species (one that relies on others) is perhaps a good starting point for answering the question above.
Unfortunately, this does not take us far in explaining the behaviour or actions of a particular individual, let alone those of a group or a large society. While it is common to hear individual or collective actions (from sexual behaviour to war) ascribed to human nature, such explanations are unsatisfying. Not only do they reduce what may be a large number of factors that may have driven an individual to act in a particular way, context, and at a particular time to just one thing (such as sexual urge), but they also do not explain why not all people behave in the same way, even in the same context and at the same time. What makes an individual behave or act in a particular way is not easily explained and may be influenced by many, often conflicting, factors, considerations, and feelings, among other things. This complexity is even greater when we want to explain what is happening in a group influenced by the actions of many, perhaps numerous, individuals.
The genetically unspecialised nature of humans raises some very uncomfortable questions. It implies that humans lack a built-in compass for their social behaviour and interactions with the biophysical environment. Most, if not all, species of plants and animals other than humans occupy a particular niche in ecosystems and have been endowed with, or develop, capacities that enable them to live and reproduce without posing a threat to the survival and development of other species. But here comes a species, Homo sapiens, that utilises its brainpower to develop tools and ideas to manipulate the environment to meet needs that evolve into increasingly diverse, demanding, and insatiable forms. With technological development and growing populations, human ecological impacts have become increasingly damaging, to the point where they are steadily but surely destroying the conditions for life on Earth, including their own. Evolution has produced a species that, from an evolutionary perspective, is environmentally harmful and self-destructive; arguably, the rise of humans is an evolutionary mistake.
Yet, arguably, the fact that humans do not occupy a particular ecological niche but live in and adapt to virtually all ecosystems, taking from them whatever they consider necessary or desirable to meet their needs, can also be seen as a strength. Perhaps the emergence of humans marks a new stage in the evolution of life. The human species may be a logical or even necessary step in the history of life or the universe. It is tempting to look at human exceptionalism not as an evolutionary mistake but to ascribe to it a special meaning or unique purpose. This view, supported by some religious beliefs (notably Christianity), interprets human exceptionalism as deliberately designed or planned by a higher power (God), who has given humans the right to rule over nature and use it for their own ends. Although seeking a special meaning for the role and place of humans in evolution is foremost a philosophical or religious matter, I think we should be careful not to ascribe intentionality and a teleological orientation to evolution. Generally, the evolutionary trend has been towards the flourishing of biodiversity and the development of interconnected ecosystems that are conducive to sustaining life on Earth. As James Lovelock has argued, collectively, life has created and helped to maintain the physical conditions (including an atmosphere) that sustain life on Earth. Nonetheless, there have been several stages in Earth’s history when life was decimated or nearly wiped out, suggesting that evolution is not a linear process. It may also suffer another significant setback from a human-induced disaster that spells the demise of the human species. In the (even) bigger picture, humans have no control whatsoever over cosmological events or developments. Despite the dreams of some billionaires, it is very doubtful that humanity could survive for long on another planet, an encounter of the solar system with a black hole, let alone the inevitable end of the Sun or a collision between galaxies.
As interesting as all such speculations may be, they do not offer much guidance on the question, “What does it mean to be human?” Despite, or perhaps because of, beliefs about human exceptionalism, humans have behaved badly toward each other and the environment throughout history.
For instance, for much of history, men and women have been ascribed different natures, resulting in them being (and still being) assigned different statuses. Throughout history, some humans have considered themselves superior to others, believing they were born to rule, while others were born to serve or be slaves. In India, the caste system classifies people from birth into lower and higher castes, assigning them different statuses and roles. Racial differences have long been a source of considering people superior or inferior. In recent times, people wage cultural wars about what it means to be a man, woman or of a different gender. Homosexuality has been regarded as unnatural in many societies, although attitudes on this point have changed significantly around the world. Possibly, Homo sapiens played a role in the decline and extinction of the Neanderthals, whom they may not have regarded as truly human. There is little doubt that, throughout history, humans have been a discriminating and murderous species towards each other, especially if they saw others as less human or inferior. The treatment of the North American Indians, Africans, and many other peoples by Europeans during the colonial era is a relatively recent example. But it is perhaps only since WWII, notably because of the slaughter of six million Jews in Nazi Germany, that treating people based on their ascribed traits or nature has come to be seen by many as unacceptable and abhorrent.
Additionally, although we often like to think that there was a time when people lived in harmony with their environment (as illustrated by the ways of life of indigenous peoples), history suggests otherwise. There is evidence that, at an early stage, human societies contributed to the extinction of other species and relied on unsustainable environmental practices. As a result, many societies have collapsed under the growing environmental, socio-economic, and political pressures caused by their unsustainable ways of living. Over time, the rate and scale of environmental destruction have increased with the development of ever more powerful technology. Even if indigenous peoples have lived in (relative) harmony with nature compared to modern societies, this does not alter the course history has taken or the reality of the existing societies and systems on which most, if not all, of the remaining indigenous peoples now also depend. The socio-cultural and political-economic systems that have evolved alongside the development of modern societies are fundamentally at odds with the imperative of environmental protection. More strongly, they support and seem to lead inexorably to creating an increasingly “man-made” environment that, the thinking goes, can be manipulated and controlled to serve human ends, whatever these may be. Increasingly, humans adapt nature to their needs or wants, as defined by the most powerful people in society. There is little to suggest that modern human societies are learning (or even wanting to learn) from the environmental mistakes that they have made and continue to make.
In brief, it matters greatly how society answers the question “What does it mean to be human?” particularly in how it treats entire groups of people and the environment. Even if all people are regarded as human, some have often been considered a subspecies with different innate characteristics and treated differently within and between societies. The social flaw in human nature that enables humans to develop and adopt social codes of behaviour has opened the door to many forms of discrimination, exploitation, and oppression. The ecological flaw has led people to believe that they are not subject to environmental conditions or limits, but rather stand above or apart from nature, and can use, control, manipulate, and shape it based on what they perceive as necessary or desirable. On both counts, we can record many instances of harm and damage.
Although it may never be possible for people or societies to agree on this question, it does not mean that it is unimportant. Some ways it has been answered have been (and still are) more damaging than others. Moreover, the answer to this question is not God-given but depends on how the dominant (most powerful) groups in society and the world define human nature. There is, therefore, in principle, scope for contesting prevalent views and changing them so that they cause less (ideally no) harm to people and the environment. Bringing about such change is, of course, much easier said than done. Doing so involves addressing this theme and the other five that affect the human condition. Nonetheless, one may argue that humanity has made significant progress in advancing global consensus on a range of issues that are considered essential to all humans, as reflected in the adoption of human rights declarations. These could be seen as manifestations of a growing global recognition of shared humanity, as advocated by cosmopolitanism. One common observation in this context is the significant gap between such declarations and their implementation.
Nonetheless, there is considerable evidence that, within and across cultures and throughout history, people can be and have been rather nasty to others, even at the best of times, let alone in the conditions of large-scale conflict and war. However, one should be cautious about ascribing this to human nature, given the role of socio-cultural and/or political-economic factors in defining what it means to be human. Human nature seems capable of a broad range of things and can be moulded in different ways. Although some proclaim that humans are inherently selfish and/or aggressive, these are not characteristics that dominate all humans all the time. Others emphasise the human capacity for empathy, unselfishness, self-sacrifice, cooperation and love, which can prevail in many situations. It seems that human nature is, at best, a mixed bag of tendencies. It depends very much on circumstances, conditions, and societal and political-economic contexts as to what tendencies prevail. Human nature does not prevent people from harming one another, intentionally or unintentionally. We cannot deny human nature’s ugly side and flaws, but must recognise the crucial importance of these contextual factors in bringing out human nature’s bad and/or good side. In other words, we need to handle humans with care.
See also Views of Human Nature