On the use of evolutionary mismatch theories in debating human prosociality

Cuéllar, Andrés Segovia; Savio, Lorenzo Del

doi:10.1007/s11019-021-10025-4

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 53 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The grand purpose of tackling the chimera problem in the way I have, is to ask "forward-looking questions… and whether and how such dispositions can be changed… [rather than preserving concepts like 'legal persons'] that frustrate social, moral and political progress…." 125 Human exceptionalism may provide a necessary premise for human rights, but it does not provide a sufficient argument for rights in-and-of-themselves. So, it behooves us to ask about moral conditions for persons having their legal rights recognized.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do Chimeras Think About?

Capps

2023

Camb Q Healthc Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-human animal chimeras, containing human neurological cells, have been created in the laboratory. Despite a great deal of debate, the status of such beings has not been resolved. Under normal definitions, such a being could either be unconventionally human or abnormally animal. Practical investigations in animal sentience, artificial intelligence, and now chimera research, suggest that such beings may be assumed to have no legal rights, so philosophy could provide a different answer. In this vein, therefore, we can ask: What would a chimera, if it could think, think about? Thinking is used to capture the phenomena of a novel, chimeric being perceiving its terrible predicament as no more than a laboratory experiment. The creation of a thinking chimera therefore forces us to reconsider our assumptions about what makes human beings (potentially) unique (and other sentient animals different), because, as such, a chimera’s existence bridges our social and legal expectations about definitions of human and animal. Society has often evolved new social norms based on different kinds of (ir)rational contrivances; the imperative of non-contradiction, which is defended here, therefore requires a specific philosophical response to the rights of a thinking chimeric being.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do Chimeras Think About?

Capps

2023

Camb Q Healthc Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concept of evolutionary traps has been used almost exclusively for studying how non-human species respond to cues in anthropogenic environments [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. Key examples include artificial human lights attracting insects, island species responding naively to the presence of introduced predators, and seabirds not being able to discriminate between the cues of marine plankton and Figure 1.…”

Section: Making Sense Of Human Evolutionary Trapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of the polycrisis: Anthropocene traps that challenge global sustainability

Søgaard Jørgensen,

Jansen,

Avila Ortega

et al. 2023

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Anthropocene is characterized by accelerating change and global challenges of increasing complexity. Inspired by what some have called a polycrisis, we explore whether the human trajectory of increasing complexity and influence on the Earth system could become a form of trap for humanity. Based on an adaptation of the evolutionary traps concept to a global human context, we present results from a participatory mapping. We identify 14 traps and categorize them as either global, technology or structural traps. An assessment reveals that 12 traps (86%) could be in an advanced phase of trapping with high risk of hard-to-reverse lock-ins and growing risks of negative impacts on human well-being. Ten traps (71%) currently see growing trends in their indicators. Revealing the systemic nature of the polycrisis, we assess that Anthropocene traps often interact reinforcingly (45% of pairwise interactions), and rarely in a dampening fashion (3%). We end by discussing capacities that will be important for navigating these systemic challenges in pursuit of global sustainability. Doing so, we introduce evolvability as a unifying concept for such research between the sustainability and evolutionary sciences. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Evolution and sustainability: gathering the strands for an Anthropocene synthesis’.

show abstract

“…68 In ultrasocial cultures, these relationships are codified as norms or theories of justice, but prosociality is also found in nature. 69 So, if sociality (rather than an agency) is considered necessary and sufficient for moral status, then relying on the significance of social scalability should not also commit us to species chauvinism. 70 In this respect, it is becoming less prudent to exclude at least some nonhuman species as rights holders (if you like, as "social," rather than ultrasocial animals), and, if interspecific agency is plausible it would narrow, if not collapse, the perceived moral gap between culture and nature.…”

Section: Culture and Naturementioning

confidence: 99%

One Health Requires a Theory of Agency

Capps

2022

Camb Q Healthc Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One health suggests that human and animal health are comparable, but in practice, the concept aligns with the principles of public health ethics. One health ethics, as such, appears to eschew connotations of equality for the natural world. A theory of agency revises that anthropocentric assumption. This article begins with a critique of environmental dualism: the idea that human culture and nature are separate social realms, thus justifying public health as a (unifying) purpose. In response, this article argues that, first, a neuroethics of one health might equally regard humans and (some) animals, which have comparable mental states, as rational agents. Second, rational agency should ground our moral connections to nature in terms of the egalitarian interests we have (as coinhabitants) in the health of the planet. While this article makes a moderate case for interspecific rights (as the first argument asserts), neuroscience is unlikely for now to change how most public institutions regard nonhuman animals in practice. However, the second argument asserts that rational agency is also grounds for philosophical environmentalism. One health ethics, therefore, is a theory of equality and connects culture to nature, and, as such, is a separate, but coextensive approach to that of public health.

show abstract

On the use of evolutionary mismatch theories in debating human prosociality

Cited by 4 publications

References 53 publications

What Do Chimeras Think About?

What Do Chimeras Think About?

Evolution of the polycrisis: Anthropocene traps that challenge global sustainability

One Health Requires a Theory of Agency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About