Humans as Generalists
The real distinction between humans and other species is that
humans are generalists and all other species are specialists. This fact is
easy to miss because humans seem to fit into the general notion of species
and aren't distinctive at many levels. It is also easy to be mesmerized by
civilization and technology, which would seem to provide a specialty for
humans. This is an invalid judgment in my opinion, on the grounds that
civilization and technology emanate from consciousness which is a
mental state produced by a brain capable of consuming large amounts of
energy and a body capable of producing and making available to the
brain large amounts of energy. If the body were larger and therefore
consumed more of its energy production or if the brain were smaller and
incapable of absorbing the amount of energy it can, no consciousness
would evolve. Consciousness, by producing an objective view of the
world, allows humans to exploit all environments and therefore is the
source of our generality.
By specialization in a species, one means what the species eats and
where it lives. Most other species limit their food source or their range
of habitation or both. This allows them to master their environment to a
degree that cannot be entertained by humans by developing highly
efficient means of acquiring food and highly efficient adaptations to the
environment. Humans, on the other hand, live everywhere and eat
everything. This works against us because of our inefficiency. We are
too dependent on a kindly environment and therefore must be considered
at risk to major changes in it.
Specializing on one food source, for instance, assures survival in all
circumstances which do not eliminate that food source, while humans, by
consuming all, will be disrupted by alterations in the supply of any of
them. In the same way, by specialized adaptation to one environment,
one is assured survival as long as that environment prevails. By living in
all environments, any environmental change will impact us. So, since
environmental change is inevitable, the species that will be effected by
any single change will be those species specially adapted to the effected
environment and humans. All others will escape unscathed.
The environment can change in any one of an infinite number of
ways: weather, the amount of dry land, clarity of the air, salinity of the
oceans, orientation of the earth to the ecliptic, stability of the earth's
crust, meteor bombardment, clarity of the oceans, chemical components
of the air, relative stability of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, arable percentage of dry land, size and composition of the
ice caps, etc. Major changes in any of these parameters or less major
changes in combinations of them will impact on humanity. It will also
impact on other species, but only a small percentage of them, leaving
most of the rest unaffected.
So, while generalization, at first glance looks like a strength, on
rethinking, it looks like a weakness. It would probably be more correct
to say that generalization works to the advantage of small populations,
since they can easily emigrate away from problems. To large
populations it becomes disadvantageous because they will be effected by
all kinds of changes and the effect produced cannot be isolated to the
area in which it occurs because of the relatedness of humans. That is to
say, if the equator became uninhabitable by humans, those populations
would have to be absorbed by populations not directly affected because,
since they are the same species we would be unable just to kill them off,
as we could another species. This would cause great stress to the
absorbing populations perhaps leading to starvation due to over reliance
on diminished food sources. Thus all of humanity would suffer even
though only a small sector was directly effected.