Luke Matthews, PhD
  • Home
  • Publications and Research
  • Blog

Does it matter if we are all African?

10/13/2012

4 Comments

 
Research out last August by Anders Eriksson and Andrea Manica made news in the press for contradicting claims of neanderthal ancestry in contemporary humans.  This research is completely driven by mathematical modeling rather than relying on empirical data, and I think ultimately Neanderthal admixture will be supported.  John Hawks has very capably laid out the scientific issues and the reasons why Neanderthal admixture is likely to be supported when all is said and done.  What I want to address in this blog are the moral lessons that some have tried to extract from the “out of Africa” explanation of human origins.  Considering these past arguments in light of the currently debated genetic evidence for Neanderthal admixture indicates why arguments for the equal treatment of people based on their common origin are dangerous rhetoric passed off as reasoned philosophy.

The history of the argument that we should all treat each other equally because we are all so genetically similar or because we share a common ancestry in Africa dates back at least a dozen years.  In an article that appeared in the New York Times, writer Nicholas Wade quoted Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson as saying “We need to create a new epic based on the origins of humanity” (Wade 2000).  Dr. Wilson’s comments came from another article in the Wall Street Journal, in which he indicated that the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens could be a new basis for spiritual values that could replace traditional religion.  Mr. Wade’s own commentary from his article was that: “Many of the biologists who are reconstructing the human past certainly believe their work has a value that transcends genetics. Although their lineage trees are based on genetic differences, most of these differences lie in the regions of DNA that do not code for genes and have no effect on the body.”  He then quoted Dr. Peter Underhill, a geneticist who studies human origins as saying, "We are all Africans at the Y chromosome level and we are really all brothers."

Isn’t it convenient when scientific knowledge of the way the world is seems to justify how we think the world ought to be?  In this case people were arguing from evidence of the way biological variation originated in our species (world is) as a reason for why human behavior should be equitable across racial distinctions (world ought to be).  Trouble eventually follows though when people start saying the reason we ought to behave a certain way is because the world is a certain way.  As the out of Africa model gained more empirical support, even more scientists wanted to jump on the band wagon because they thought they had found a home-run secular reason to justify the equal treatment across race lines that had always been argued on theistic grounds from the time of the Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionists to Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement.  Searching online can find plenty of comments from anthropologists about how human biological variation is only ‘skin deep’ and we are all very recently diverged – as if racism would be more OK if biological differences went deeper than skin level or they diverged more anciently?  By 2010 Richard Dawkins was giving talks to forums for the black community about how “we are all African,” and even selling T-shirts! 

It was Christopher diCarlo, however, who laid out the case most explicitly that we all should treat each other well because of the facts of our origins in 2010 in Free Inquiry.  Dr. diCarlo does an admirable job of laying out the known science of human evolution.  Intriguingly, one of the scientists he covers prominently is Andrea Manica.  He summarizes the state of the science with: “We are all African. With these four words, we see a genetic coalescence of the entire human population. We now know that we descended from inhabitants of Africa who began migrating out of Africa around 60,000 years ago. In this way, it is impossible for us to not all be, in some ways, related.”  He then continues to draw philosophical lessons from this: “With these four words [we are all African], we see that racism is a human invention.  It is a social construct with lingering natural biases—leftover baggage from our mammalian xenophobic tendencies.”

I suppose then the proverbial shoe fell in May 2010 when scientists apparently confirmed that at least all living non-African humans have some Neanderthal ancestry that is not shared by African humans (here I use African in the idiomatic English language meaning rather than the sense of Dr. Dawkin’s linguistic contortion).  Yes, the percentage is small.  The original Neanderthal genome article put the value at 1-4% Neanderthal genes for non-Africans, but more recent studies indicate that number might rise to 8% summed admixture from Neanderthals and Homo erectus for some of us.  So, 8% non-recent African origin is small, but it certainly seems nontrivial.  Does that mean Dr. diCarlo now should conclude that racism is less of a ‘human invention’ or that some racism is more functional than ‘leftover baggage’?  Should we now start making T-shirts for Africans that say things like “Racially pure, no Neanderthal in here” or the Caucasian version “1-4% Neanderthal and loving it.”  If all Dr. Dawkins was doing with his T-shirt was educating the public about science then I suppose these post-neanderthal genome T-shirts are equally valid?  I hope he sends me a note when he starts selling them at his online store.

Of course Dr. Dawkins wasn’t just talking about science.  He and Dr. diCarlo were trying, poorly, to justify their deeply held ethical belief that equal treatment of people from different human subpopulations is a moral imperative.  For hardline atheists like these thinkers, the traditional theistic and metaphysical justifications on which abolition and civil rights were based are off the table.  They can’t believe as theists do that we should all treat each other equally because we emulate the God who knows and loves everyone regardless of the particulars of their traits or origins.  They don’t buy into the metaphysical claims of many Enlightenment thinkers that people are endowed with inherent rights that do not arise from natural origins.  Thus Drs. Dawkins, diCarlo and others predicated moral truth on empirical truth of our natural origins.  If they sincerely meant any of what they said, then they have to conclude racial prejudice is now a little more permissible (on the order of at least 1-4% more permissible). 

Alternatively, they could admit what I suspect is the case, that they never actually thought these arguments from peoples’ origins being equal were good justifications for people treating each other equally.  Admitting that however, would be tantamount to admitting that they don’t have a justification for their moral claims.  It would also mean admitting that instead of searching for good justifications for their moral claims, they would rather pass off glib rhetoric as reasons to their audience, apparently confident that their audience wouldn’t see that these are terribly illogical arguments, and therefore dangerous arguments, for equal treatment of human persons.

I suspect the current debate about human origins will land on the conclusion that some living humans exhibit some degree of genetic admixture from Neanderthals.  The result of this debate has many important scientific implications, but for those of us who hold to the reasons our culture has always held for equal treatment there are no ethical implications of this research.  From the many founding fathers of the United States who objected to slavery at our country’s infancy, to Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr., our culture has always used some form of metaphysical argument, and usually a theistic one, to justify that people from different ‘races’ should be treated equally.  The theistic justification is a strong one precisely because it does not depend on any of the facts of what our origins, similarities, or differences may be. 

Wade, N. 2000. The human family tree: 10 Adams and 18 Eves. The New York Times. May 2, 2000, Tuesday, Late Edition – Final. Section F; Page 1; Column 1.

4 Comments
Jason Hodgson
1/26/2013 08:10:47 am

Luke!

Very interesting piece!

I agree fully that it is an ill-conceived argument to support a moral imperative for kindness on genetic relatedness.

However, I'm not convinced the theistic argument is on any firmer ground. While it is true that theistic reasons have long been used to justify equal treatment, it is also true that theistic reasons have been used to justify racism and xenophobia. Why privilege the theistic argument for tolerance over the theistic argument for intolerance except that you have a deeply held moral belief that one is correct and the other wrong? Curious to hear your thoughts.

Reply
Luke link
2/5/2013 11:53:28 am

Jason my friend, I finally find time to respond to your excellent comment. There are a few issues raised by your comment that I want to address. First, your identification of a supposed weakness of the theistic justification for equal treatment does not address the strength I identified. I identified the strength that the traditional metaphysical and theistic justifications for equal treatment of races do not rest on any empirical evidence for the equivalency of traits or origins across human populations. You did not critique my point, but rather raised a different relativist critique that theistic justifications have sometimes been used to justify “racism and xenophobia”. That is a separate matter that I will address below. The point is the strength I originally identified remains – it does not matter if we find out different groups have different origins, or we find out some group is smarter/less smart or more resistant to disease, etc. It doesn’t matter if we find genes that cause people to be by nature ethnocentric or even racist, or if some people have such genes and others do not. Our obligations to our fellow persons is unchanged under the traditional theistic arguments for equal treatment. This is underscored when you consider the writings of Lincoln himself indicate he was prejudiced towards Blacks in that he thought they did not have equal natural capabilities as Whites. He was against the institution of slavery, however, because he argued it was a violation of individuals’ God given liberties to force anyone into labor.

The arguments of Drs. di Carlo and Dawkins do not have this logical strength in that their justification of our moral code is contingent on empirical findings. Now, you suggested in your relativist critique that I was only adopting the metaphysical or theistic justification I do because of my prior moral commitments, as I implied Drs. di Carlo and Dawkins had prior moral commitments. In truth, I was trying to be morally generous toward Drs. di Carlo and Dawkins when I wrote that. Of course sometimes some of us have prior moral commitments, and other times we form philosophical ones and derive our moral commitments subsequently. Dr. Dawkins himself has written that he regards our moral beliefs ultimately meaningless and on ethical foundations of sand, so I see no reason why he ought not change his position on equal treatment (Dawkins 1997). And I suspect that he or some of his followers will. For example, I am expecting actually that eugenics will, unfortunately, make a noticeable comeback in our lifetimes. The point is it is clear that at least sometimes we do derive our moral positions from other philosophical systems. That’s what gets atheists so upset half the time about theists – that theists come up with ethical conclusions they would not otherwise affirm if they did not believe in their flavor of revelation. And theists admit this. One purpose of theism or even secular philosophical ethics is to lead one to ethical conclusions that are counter to one’s initial intuitions – just as formal mathematics is intended to lead us to conclusions that can be counter to our initial mathematical intuitions.

Your specific critique is actually the relativist critique from the vantage point of an outsider – “why should I trust your theism or metaphysics when other flavors have concluded differently, isn’t this just an arbitrary decision?”. Regarding this critique, I first want to point out that it is in no way specific to religion – it is a generic critique that can be leveled from the outside of any knowledge system. As you well know, many of our postmodern colleagues have leveled the same critique a science – “why should I trust your science when other flavors of science were used to justify racism, genocide, eugenics, etc.”? Sometimes I hear this in the private sector about statistics – “one person's statistics prove one thing, another person's prove the opposite, so why should I believe any?”

What is the response we have to such critiques of science? The only response is that ‘other science’ was poorly done, but ‘this science’ is well done, but that can be evaluated only by taking science seriously, stepping into scientific methods and theories of knowledge, and evaluating competing scientific ideas on scientific grounds. The response to your relativist critique of theism is exactly the same. Now, I know you well enough to know you only accept scientific epistemologies, so there is really nothing I can say to convince you here. I will credit you with consistency, as in our prior conversations I seem to recall that you not only reject nonscientific epistemologies like theology, but also ones like literary criticism, philosophical ethics, and pure mathematics as none of them make statements that can be shown to be

Reply
Luke link
2/6/2013 11:35:59 am

...none of them make statements that can be shown to be true or false in any substantive way if you accept only scientific epistemology. I will briefly offer that most of the theistic arguments for racism have actually involved the same non-sequiter of deriving how we ought to act from supposed inequalities between persons – they simply offered theistic interpretations of why people had these supposed inequalities (mark of Ham, etc.). So, the same theistic argument of our duties and others rights regardless of observed equality or differences is a superior argument in this case just as it is against Dr. di Carlo’s argument. Additionally, the broad history of many religions, including Christianity and Islam, reflect communities that through their internal dialogues have arrived at increasingly inclusive concepts of equality and rights for all. You may be trying to lump inter-religious conflict into this as well, but that is a separate issue from what religions have preached about treatment across race lines. Inter-religion conflict is real, but complex. I written two academic papers related to this issue that you can find on my research page.

Dawkins, R. 1997. Obscurantism to the Rescue. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 72: 397-399.

Reply
visit link
7/23/2013 08:28:25 pm

In my opinion it is not the race or the color of the skin that matters, it is our deeds that make us human beings. This post was really interesting to read. The reference on the Neanderthal humans was good. Keep up the flow.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Author

    This is my personal blog.  The views expressed on this page are my own.  My views should not be taken to represent the views of my mentors, employer, or any person or group other than myself. 

    Archives

    November 2022
    May 2022
    March 2022
    April 2019
    March 2017
    June 2015
    June 2014
    December 2013
    October 2012
    September 2012

    Categories

    All
    Cultural Diffusion
    Cultural Phylogenetics
    Group Selection
    History Of Anthropology
    Kin Selection
    Multilevel Selection
    Neanderthal
    Out Of Africa
    Social Science
    Statistics

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.