Maybe humans aren't as weak as we seem
Are we stronger than we give ourselves credit for?
(August 3rd, 2007 / 29 comments)When the average modern human is born, we have caution and nurture thrust upon us. We're held, coddled, fed, protected, placed, posed, moved - all very carefully.
And for good reason in some cases. We're generally helpless. We don't have the ability to do a lot of things that would be necessary for survival. We need constant assistance or else we would die very early deaths.
Our severe dependency is only remarkable when you look at the rest of nature - at the animals. A majority of them enter this world fairly well-equipped to cope with it.
There are deer that are walking within hours of emerging from the womb - turtles who scurry down beaches and swim thousands of miles after being alive for only a few minutes. They seem so capable and strong compared to us.
But we're not like that...right?
A while ago, I saw video of a tribal woman in a remote area of Africa. She had just given birth to a child, and was in isolation with the baby, as is customary in her culture.
Watching her interact with her infant, I was amazed. This baby had only been alive a matter of days, but its mother would grab it by the leg or foot and swing it around, placing it none-too-gently on nearby rocks or across her leg and then going back to work weaving or doing whatever it was she was busying herself with.
She wasn't supporting the baby's head - it remained contorted in whatever position it "landed" in. She wasn't wrapping it in soft blankets - it was completely naked and exposed the entire time. She wasn't cooing or whispering to it and tickling its feet - she seemed fairly oblivious to the fact that the baby even existed, only paying attention long enough to move it out of her way.
Was this child abuse?
My first reaction was of course to think she was a bad mother - but was she really? My thoughts went back to the animals. In many cases the mothers of the animal kingdom are very caring and giving, but it doesn't always look that way at first glance.
Was this tribal woman neglecting her child criminally, or was she just doing what came natural?
A paradigm shift of sorts
As soon as I asked myself that question, I noticing something. The baby wasn't crying. It wasn't screaming in pain.
No, it wasn't dead, you sickos.
In fact, the baby seemed perfectly content to lie with its back bent over a rock next to its mother. It was even moving gently around and making tiny noises, feeling its environment out on its own. I watched it locate its fingers and rub its tiny hands together...at only a few days old. The baby was perfectly fine.
Maybe we're capable of a lot more than we think
Maybe we've had so much luxury and become so far removed from our roots that we've forgotten how resilient and strong we as animals are capable of being.
I'm reminded of the scene in the movie "Instinct" where Anthony Hopkins' character is sitting in the jungle with his gorilla family, attempting to find some kind of shelter from the tropical rains pouring down from above. He appears miserable and pathetic, but as he looks around at his gorilla counterparts, he notices that they're just lying there, letting the rain soak them.
In the end, he drops his shelter and embraces the elements of the world he was born into.
That's the point, isn't it?
I understand that saying humans are animals is a divisive statement in some crowds, but I don't think anyone would deny that we are born onto this planet and are therefore a part of the ecosystem it contains - plants, animals, elements, etc.
Throughout our history, humans seem to have been dead set on removing ourselves from that - on seeing ourselves as somehow "above" it all, ignoring that we are indeed dust and nothing more.
In the process of fighting our nature, we've made ourselves far weaker and far more destructive, no longer able to live in our own native environment.
Sad, but all is not lost
I don't think it would take much for we as individuals to return to our strength by embracing and learning from the world around us and releasing the perception we all have that we are somehow superior to the earth we sprung from.
We are very capable. We are not pathetic, helpless weaklings. We don't need to be padded and wrapped and protected all the time. Those things are luxuries, which is not to say that they're bad or that we shouldn't embrace them when they're available.
I'm simply saying we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that these accruements and protective measures we've surrounded ourselves with are all we are. We're a lot more than that.
Take a look at this video. In a way, I think it illustrates my point.
http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=gztgufd1ji
Rock on, humans.
Read more bunkbedfort
- Next Entry: Right now, somewhere on this earth...
I whole heartedly agree, I have a 2 year old son, not that we let him lay on a rock all day, but we did try and learn from the past. He was very content, only cried when he was hungry really. We've never "babied" him when he falls, if he's bleeding sure, but we don't do the rush over and comfort him, if he's hurt he'll let us know. We are a very strong species.
My only hope is that we do not hijack evolution and artificially select ourselves into extinction.
Shawn,
I've met a few parents like you and I always find it encouraging. I imagine you'll see huge benefits of your child-rearing strategy later on in life. Good luck!
Tristan,
That's probably a more reasonable fear than a lot of people want to believe. I think we do our species a great disservice in the long run by spoiling ourselves as much as we often do.
How many people do I know that could survive on their own if the luxuries we've become accustomed to disappeared? Very, very few.
If you examined the infant and childhood mortality rate in these cultures, you would find that babies and children in them die much more frequently than babies and children die in our culture, which nurtures. Arguably, such a state of affairs as exists in primitive societies is in fact more "natural": tribal cultures with poor food production and no medicine to speak of benefit from simply letting weak children who need a lot of care early in life die. Many primates (including humans) will kill their newborns if they perceive the inevitability of their death. Why waste calories on a kid who is going to die anyway? The mother you describe is behaving consistently with this strategy. If the child described had had lung problems or an infection of some kind it would have simply died. It may be more natural but it is very difficult to argue that it is "good" in the moral sense of the word.
The wonder of modern society is that we rather obstinately do not treat children as merely caloric drains: we hustle and bustle to keep them alive, even if they are frail or weak. This is because humans are rightly disdainful of a natural system which cares not one whit for the fact that a child is a blossoming consciousness. The dignity of humans derives directly from the fact that we believe that the truly important things are not the humdrum horror of the animal kingdom: eating, mating, finding shelter and resisting disease. We believe that quality of life derives from the experience of consciousness. Those of you who think it would be better to let our frail, unhealthy children die are no better than eugenicists who basically believe that only the strong deserve to live.
Humans have a lot to learn about living in a way which is more in tune with the natural order of the world. That much I will admit. But we shouldn't look to nature as a model of human living since nature is as parsimonious as it is unfeeling and it has no sympathy for the frail who can, just as any of us, enjoy the beauty of a sunset.
Vincent,
I agree with you. The point of the post wasn't to bash our nurturing, but simply to point out that we are more capable than it sometimes appears as a result of the nurturing.
I believe even the weakest of us deserves the chance live, and thank God we have the means to provide that chance to them.
I think the amazement I experienced, especially when viewing the linked video, was more about the fact that we can survive and adapt to hardships, and that losing sight of that capability of our species sells us very short.
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate it!
Well, "we" can survive hardship if "we" refers to just the particularly robust (during early life, in this case: it may be that very frail children develop into very robust adults in some cases). My point is that "we" actually refers to all humans, weak or strong, and I think if we begin to use the word to mean something else, we are entering dangerous territory.
I think your post is fairly balanced, but some of the comments seem to think it would be best to let the weak die.
Vincent,
Interesting point / caution - taken.
To use the case of the boy in the video again... He is certainly a part of the "we" that you've described - all humans. He is also a part of what would be considered by many to be the "weak" segment, due to the fact that he lacks sight and is therefore "disadvantaged".
But clearly, he's shown himself to be more than capable of overcoming that weakness - handily, I might add.
Although it wasn't intended, I would propose to say that the "we" in my post points specifically to the "weaker" or "frailer" parts of each of us.
Those of us who are healthy and robust and take it for granted can look to those who have been dealt a crummy hand as examples - as inspiration and encouragement. They are often the ones doing the most surviving and are consistently demonstrating the strength of our species.
I think Daniel's point is that if we shelter our children too much, then they become dependent on us.
We don't want children who need constant attention, unless they are physically or mentally disabled. And believe me, my mom has raised plenty of children, and the ones who are most ready for the real world (and the least annoying for all of us) are those children who have not been coddled since birth. The sheltered children always want the same level of attention they are used to, and when parents have to return to their duties, those children suffer the most (not to mention expend the most energy in crying and tantrums).
This is not advocating neglegience, but parenting is an idea, a model that humans have created and shaped. And just because it's your model doesn't make it work in the long run. Just like all forms of socialization, child rearing is very time-place specific. Just wait, 20 years from now there will be a new parenting model that will look at Vincent's child-rearing and say, "how savage".
P.S. F-you for implying that the African tribal woman is savage. Her country isn't placing this world on the brink of World War III.
Decon, when I talk about "our" culture, I mean modern, western society of which most countries in Europe are a better example than the United States. The US is rather savage: it lacks socialized medicine and a variety of social services.
I will not be so politically correct as to become a moral relativist. Any society which doesn't provide health, education, freedom, self-determination and self governance for all of its members I will happily call savage. Primitive people don't do a very good job on these indexes. Women are frequently little better than property and no one really has the freedom to spend much of their life in contemplation, male, female, child. This is savage in my mind and it ought to be in yours if you believe in human rights.
What a pointless article.
I don't know if any of you have watched NICU nurses in action, but... Well, I remember when my son was born and we were so careful, basically afraid we'd break his foot by putting his socks on and off...
And these nurses just come in, scoop him up, change his diaper with one hand, throw him over their shoulder etc...
We were like "wow, I guess the little guys really aren't so incredibly frail."
Jim,
That's a great observation. I've noticed the same thing in other medical personnel, but your example of the NICU nurses is perfect.
I felt similar amazement recently on a trip to an acupuncturist with a good friend. He seemed so callous and rough, but in the end he was able to help ease her pain immensely.
Thanks for the insight!
True, but what do u think the future WiLL look like? my opinon is that the younger generation (not all) seem to be more unappreciative and destrcutive, but WHY? is it because the way they were raised? i beileve so. im thinking that if there was no classes (poor, middle and rich) we can all live very pleasantly, and that there would be less greed, and no sense of power over others. it would feel like we r all created equal...
I understand that the physical traits of all humans r incredible the only thing that bothers me is their mentality.
Leo, thanks for the input.. now go sniff some glue
ah Bort i agree and i disagree, our physical traits are pathetic in comparison to the majority of other species. Its our mental prowess which seperates us from everyone else.
There are different levels of seperation, i believe we abuse our advantage and thus lower ourselves but we have the capacity to do an awful lot right, which is where you comment on mentality is soo relevant, most people find day to day living easy.. its all set up for them, there is no incentive to change.
i know this comment reads like a cynical matrix style review of society.. but for as long as there is no reason for people to break the mold, the majority will not.
everything*
thought provoking article, thankyou.
Will Treasure,
Thank you very much! Good to have you weigh in. I find myself incredibly guilty of not making changes unless it's absolutely necessary.
A pastor I know often says "Change only occurs when the pain of staying the same becomes worse than the pain of changing." I think that sums it up pretty well.
RE:Vincent
I agree with you on most points. America is pretty bad at taking care of its own people, but I still think Europe has only recently surpassed us in Human Rights and Social Safety nets, and they sure as hell couldn't have done it without American Power threatening Soviet encroachment.
See, Americans got screwed because they were made to fear the "Reds" and any form of socialism (I know, we accepted Social Security and Medicare, but that's only because Americans are smart enough to know they will inevitably age ). Forgive Americans for holding on to this irrational fear of socialized policy, but we were tricked into hating it for so long (including to protect Europe) that we can't help it.
And I don't think seeing that morals are relative is being politically correct, it's just being wise, Imagine a world where we didn't know each others' customs and worst, didn't want to know them! We'd offend every foreigner and people would hate each other, xenophobia gone mad! My point is this, Westerners are more likely to shelter their children because this "idea/model/concept" of child-rearing and parenting is time-place specific. For example, I know French families let their kids drink wine at a young age, in America, this is endagerment of a child. Get it? You can't escape the fact that your morals and values, and ideas of right and wrong, are shaped by the society you grew up and live in. This doesn't mean you have to cast off your own morals and values, because, like I said, I do think Europe has better social policies, but I'm not going to bring my child up according to anything a European tells me. I'm going to do it by learning from the people around me and seeing how those models work out. And from what I've learned, sheltering a child sets up the family and that child for future disappointment, but there must also be a balance, because you can't neglect your child.
I like one the earlier posts about not running to a kid when they fall or hit themsleves, just watch them instead. If they bleed, go, but if they don't, DO NOT make any face other than an observative one. Kids will start crying as soon as they see your worried face.
This reminds me of the article in Violent Acres on "picture perfect parenting" (link above). The author can't figure out why children like to be knocked down, but, reading this, it occurs to me that perhaps children's instincts tell them to expect rougher treatment than they usually get from our culture. Just a thought.
I say doubly BS to both the article and those comments. You are trying to say that the world would be a better place if we raised our children the african way, that they are more in tune with nature, that they are effete "pussies" and could use a manly treatment? Read more about the African society and also try to read some stuff that conflict with whatever is your current opinion. As manyfold as the African countries maybe there are very view I would want to live in.
"No, it wasn't dead, you sickos."
It was the next logical sensibly question that I thought of
Maybe Africa is so fucked up because of all the wars and colonization and, oh yah, poverty. Right, because being poor and war ravaged doesn't raise infant mortality rates or anything like that.
"It may be more natural but it is very difficult to argue that it is "good" in the moral sense of the word."
That depends on how you define moral. At the individual level, every life is precious, but at the ecological level, not so much.
Primitive cultures have always made lots of room for other species to exist in their environment by allowing death from disease and dysfunction to occur naturally. In Western societies, it's okay to feed any number of mice, monkeys and cats into the medical machine so that people with severe disorders can live. I consider this deeply immoral behavior. It's all viewpoint.
One American child occupies the footprint of 80 Ethiopians. Expand the picture a bit, it's less pretty, and it IS a manifestation of the idea that only the strong deserve to live.
Bunny
He is not saying that our society today is raising "pu****s". He is saying that possibly parents aren't giving their children the credit that they might deserve, as in maybe sticks and stones won't break their bones. Babies are more durable then most think.
Babies and toddlers are, pound for pound, stronger than oxen. Especially in their legs.
Not saying we should fling around our children onto rocks, and other rough surfaces, but to pamper them too much, will only leave them confused, and too attached.
For exapmple
When baby birds are born, their mother is their protection, ther shelter, and their nest, is their world. When the mother bird feels that her children are ready to fly, she starts to get distant from the nest, by feeding them from a few feet back. If they are going to survive, they must proceed to leave the nest [their comfort], this is prepairing them for flight, sooner or later they'll be comfortable enough to explore, some suffer a few hard falls, and are brought back to the nest, to where the mother will try again.
Do not abandon your children, but let them explore, and gain insight on the world which they will have to grow up in and make it one day.
cheap@viagra.com
cheap@levitra.com
A well written piece of opinion. I, as a person who seeks the truth behind the connection between all creatures, agree with you whole heartedly. It's never too late to turn around and change things for the good. But the fact that this world is corrupt, I'm sticking with the fact that it's impossible.
Firstly our words wouldn't reach the so-called good government. Allowing cigarettes being sold just to increase their demand is a very greed move for the human civilisation. In short-term, it's excellent for us, since we have the money to purchase other things and decrease tax. However, the fact that we're majorily contributing in the world's end disgusts me. We sub-conciously believe that the government is corrupt, and yet we still follow, becauese we don't have the power to go against them.
Then I ask myself, what is good? Apart from the self-justification, what is actually ment by the term good? And is there no way with good being present with the absent of evil?
The government state that they're the only route to 'peace' and abolishment of poverty. A huge fake, I'm still very young in my adolescent and yet I noticed all of this, therefore I'm planning to seek the entire truth of everything, why are important buildings made with domes and hexagonal shapes? Are we pawns for the higher ups?