Is the human mind a product of evolution?
... are connected and bound with our evolutionary past? One possibility is by looking at animals closely related to ourselves in order to discover how much our ancestors behaved as we do today. Common Ancestor If Darwin’s theory [of common descent] is accepted, and all animals are considered to be biologically related to each other through evolution, then it can be argued that their behavioural patterns are also related (Wadeley, Birch & Malim, 1997). Furthermore, if a particular behaviour is observed in two closely related species then it is fair to say that such behaviour, although potentially altered by increased isolation, or speciation, was likely to have been displayed prior to their divergence. With this in mind, and if one considers the behavioural display of chimpanzees in relation to humans, it could be feasible to say that as both species display traits, such as inter-group violence, persecution of non-group members, and even genocide; then it is more likely that prior to the divergence of the human lineage from the other great apes (circa 6 million years ago) the common ancestor itself displayed similar behaviours. This in itself provides some credibility to the theory that the modern human mind has been shaped to some extent by evolutionary forces. However, Desmond Morris (1969) noted that ‘killing is not, in fact, a basic part of the primate way of life’, so there must be some factor that increases the tendency of violent interactions with regard to chimpanzees and humans. Both species are shown to be highly adaptive, and the display of such behaviour may be a reaction of both species to their particular environmental situation. It is certainly of interest when one compares the Bonobo (Pan paniscus - Matriarchal) and Common (P. troglodyte - Patriarchal) Chimpanzee species and consider that the difference in display of aggression and its utilisation of establishing patriarchal hierarchies (in the case of P. troglodytes) is down to the dispersal behaviour of the females. The only difference between both species of chimp, as noted by Wrangham & Peterson (1997) was that the bonobo chimps were not in competition with lowland gorillas for particular herbs, which meant a more evenly distributed resource that allowed the sustenance of a larger group. This small difference meant that bonobo chimp females, unlike their ‘common’ counterparts, are able to stay together and form bonds with their fellow females. Such a capability ultimately leads to the more peaceful social style of the highly sexual bonobo chimpanzees. It is noteworthy that an apparent single difference in resource competition of the two chimpanzee species led to a more aggressive, male oriented social strategy. With this in mind, it is possible that the apparent human trait of violence could stem from the harsh savannah environment, to which our ancestors moved. Moving into such an environment with highly evolved open savannah competitors no doubt pushed the human ancestor into a similar, if not more extreme situation as P. troglodytes, that is to say a situation of extreme resource competition with numerous savannah species. The aggressive ‘strive for life’, as put forward by Adler, of the human lineage would no doubt have been advantageous in the difficult conditions that were posed by the savannah environment and its inhabitants. Our ancestors competition (and later prey) were themselves efficiently adapted and evolved to life in the savannah environment, and no doubt pushed the humans to new levels of advance. Effects upon the modern human The need to be able to defend oneself will always be a necessary requirement to every individual; however, one thing that has become less applicable is the use of aggression in terms of mate choice. As already mentioned, in order for a female to ensure sufficient health for her offspring, features such as resource ownership, dominance, and strong and healthy genes are considered key factors in determining who will take the paternal role. However, in a modern day setting most resource ownership is not dependent on how aggressive and strong a male is, but rather more upon drive to succeed, and brains. It could be argued that a drive to succeed is a more positive aspect of aggression, but it is not exactly comparable to the days of savannah life. There is the counter argument to evolutions effects upon human behaviour. That is that all human behaviour, including aggression and violence, is learned (see Berkowitz, 1993; Montagu, 1974). I feel that it is important at this stage to note that in terms of aggressive and violent behaviour, there are several forms and motivations, and certain aspects are more/less connected with learning. However, to say that learning has no role in aggression or violence would be nonsensical, but it would be equally dangerous to completely ignore the role that millions of years of gradual evolution have played in forming the human species and behaviour. What a human experiences in his/her lifetime will undoubtedly affect behaviour, to be sure ‘a mass of information…gathered from recent research definitively demonstrated that a major (perhaps the major) source of aggressive behaviour is human learning (Groebel & Hinde, 1989). Equally, the biological adaptation that has occurred over the last few million years will also shape human behaviour as much behaviour stems from the brain, which itself has been built up over the ages (Tatersall, 2000), indeed biology came first then behaviour and culture. Captivity Many that try to make a connection between the animal past and the human present often have to make considerable leaps to bridge the two, and it is such leaps that cause criticisms. Wilson (1975) suggested that to evaluate human social behaviour it is necessary to first compare the behaviour of other species, followed by the comparison of behavioural variation among and within populations. A problem with this, however, is that looking at the behaviour of animals (that we may have evolved from or with) in their natural setting is not necessarily comparable to the study of humans in their setting. That is to say, humans are not residing in their natural habitat… We inhabit a manufactured jungle of concrete and metal, and we have become inevitably incorporated into such complexity, but trapped. It has been suggested that animals enclosed in unnatural confinements, such as zoos, display many behavioural abnormalities that are not seen in their wild counterparts (Morris, 1971). Morris (1971) found that captive animals have a tendency to attack and a...