Based on fossil finds and observations of remote splinter groups of indigenous people who continue to live very primitive lives, we can quite accurately reconstruct the early human condition. What particular feature allowed our earliest ancestors to outstrip their relatives in the animal kingdom – ape-like forms – somewhere between 4 and 2 million years ago? Our highly developed intelligence was clearly a key factor. Our brains grew in size and the increasing diversity of controlling ganglion cells boosted our ability to link cause and effect, even when these were widely separated in time and space¹³.

More highly developed animals – those clearly capable of learning – can also recognize cause and effect. This underpins the “conditioning” process that improves their reaction to the environment. If an animal innately recognizes its prey based on a visual key stimulus, and if it learns – as an additional characteristic – that the prey’s movement creates a specific sound or that the prey prefers a certain water hole or other location, then it can link this new insight with the key stimulus. The animal has discovered new features that betray the prey’s presence. It can then use these to increase the efficiently of the hunt.

Whether such new links enter the animal’s consciousness or merely expand and improve purely mechanical reactions remains unknown because we cannot speak with the animals. There is clear evidence, however, that at least higher mammals can draw conclusions that very closely mimic conscious human thought. If a chicken sees seeds on the other side of a long fence, it will attempt to reach them through the meshes of the fence. Even if the seeds are out of reach, the chicken will continue to pursue the same unsuccessful strategy. Conducting the same experiment with a dog, whose mental capacities are considerably greater, yields a different result. If the meat is far enough away and the olfactory stimulus not overwhelming, the dog will break off its initial tactic after a few unsuccessful attempts and run up and down the fence until it finds a hole or the end of the barrier: it reaches its reward indirectly. In this and many other examples of animal intelligence that do not involve innate capabilities, we are clearly confronted with something closely approaching the human ability to “draw conclusions”.

Wolfgang Köhler very elegantly demonstrated where the decisive advance over the animal brain lies. His well-known experiments with chimpanzees, which date back to 1921, are central to our topic and therefore more closely analyzed here. Chimpanzees are among the most intelligent vertebrates. Köhler confronted his experimental animals with the task of reaching bananas suspended from the ceiling of a cage. The tools at their disposal were an extendable stick consisting of sections that could be inserted into one another and empty crates that could be stacked on top of each other. The sections of the stick and the crates were strewn about the cage. Only a few of the animals were able to solve this problem. Köhler observed how the chimp struggled with the solution: it manipulated the sticks and crates, became enraged, gave up, began to again play with the various elements, until it ultimately succeeded.

Another particularly insightful experiment confronted with chimps with the same task, yet with the difference that the cage was connected with other cages by passageways. This time, the elements needed to solve the problem were distributed in the different cages. None of the experimental animals was able to reach the bananas. Why? Apparently because the animal brain can only recognize cause and effect when these are more or less simultaneously present in the animals field of view. This clearly demonstrates the special status of the human brain. We have developed a unique nerve structure that can perhaps best be compared with an internal projection screen. We call this our “powers of imagination”, our “fantasy”. Much like a whole film festival can be projected on one screen, we can use this unit lodged somewhere in our cerebral cortex to interlink and therefore compare virtually every memory that we have stored, every experience that we have made. This enables us to “hatch plans”, i.e. to design and make dry runs through programs of potential actions and reactions. All this is possible without taking a single step or lifting a finger. This fantasy projection screen allows us to deliberate the consequences of specific actions, determine what difficulties might arise, and how these might be avoided. In short, is the plan worth carrying out or would it better be discarded. What an enormous advantage it is to theoretically examine different solutions to problems that confronted us! The more experience you have, the better you can avoid ineffective actions – a considerable energy savings. Perhaps most importantly, critical mistakes are more likely to be discovered in advance and avoided¹⁴.

This particular capability was clearly less well-developed in our early ancestors than today. Each advance in this direction – through changes in our genetic information storage system – means a distinct advantage in both our predatory behavior and our predator-avoidance behavior. Biologists refer to this as a selective advantage. Our internal projection screen underwent continuous development, leading to an improved “intelligence”. The first phase of this intellectual game probably simply involved linking environmental impressions with one another and then drawing modest conclusions for a planned behavior. This gradual development ultimately led to stage in which our own bodies and our own activities became incorporated into the “movie”. The “self” became the lead actor who strove to achieve a particular goal and that was quite naturally the focal point of this combinatory game of fantasy. We came to view ourselves as an “object” with a status equal to that of animals, trees, cliffs, rivers – or other humans. As opposed to many, I do not consider the development of human “self-awareness” to be such an exceptional leap forward or to be such a fundamental feature. During development, every child initially concentrates on sounding out the environment. Then it begins to see itself as an object, for example when its name is “Billy” and it refers to itself as “Billy”. Ultimately, the object “Billy” becomes “I”.
How did humans apply this particular ability?
Looking back at the first three premises in this book – first on the significance of energy gain for all organisms, second on the fact that all animals gain their energy by predatory means, and third that this requires movement control mechanisms – then the evolutionary answer to this question is clear and simple. More advanced animals efficiently improved their innate foraging behavior by developing better or new control mechanisms. This learning process considerably boosted their ability to survive “natural selection”. Such additional programs enabled them to outcompete any rivals lacking this ability. Coupled with the projection-screen fantasy mentioned above, humans became unrivaled. Ineffective activities could be rejected in advance, risks avoided. Beyond merely improving the body’s behavior, we actually improved the body itself. How? By developing additional, artificial organs (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5: Increased performance of the human body. Human were the first to purposefully design and form additional organs that helped attain special capabilities. I  shows a person (M) with all the additional units necessary to carry out his or her profession, i.e. the professional structure (B). The energy balance must be positive regardless of whether food is acquired through predation or through transactions. The energy expended (E1) must yield an even greater energy uptake (E2). II: A human being can also be the central element in two (or more) professional structures. III: If the surpluses exceed the energy required to merely maintain life, then luxury structures (L) can be formed, which require energy expenditures. Certain additional organs can be utilized in more than one profession (x) or also for luxury purposes (y) – for example an automobile. See text for details. After H. Hass 1978.
 

Subjectively, we tend to consider such artificially created entities, for example weapons, tools, clothes and buildings, as something that does not belong to our bodies, even though they clearly improve the body’s capability and survival potential. I argue that this appraisal is a misjudgement.

Clearly, these additional units differ from our body organs in not being composed of cells or cell products. This is a disadvantage from the perspective that the cells of our body organs – our skin, hair, blood vessels, bones, etc. – not only form the organs but also continuously maintain, control and even replace them. None of these processes are relevant for a newly fashioned spear, for example. The same holds true for a hut or a bag fashioned from animal hides. On the other hand, such additional organs have the eminent advantage of not requiring a steady supply of energy, as the cellular organs do. Their upkeep is therefore much less costly. They can also be repaired or even replaced entirely without major difficulty – which does not hold true for our fingers, liver or eyes. Although cells are incredibly versatile, even self-renewing structures, they are also very demanding and have limited abilities. While many can redifferentiate themselves to assume entirely new functions, they will never be able to form organs made of metal – the very structures that so crucially influenced human development – because cells are unable to operate under the temperatures necessary to work metals.

Another difference is that our nerves do not extend into these new, additionally developed units. Our brains therefore fail to receive direct nervous input about their immediate performance and the problems and dangers they encounter. If, in our absence, our house, our tools or the sheets that keep us warm at night fall victim to flames, then no warning signals reach us and we lose those additional organs. On the other hand, our sensory organs can compensate for this lack of direct input. Our hands very reliably feel when the tools we use to dig for edible roots hit a rock. Our eyes very satisfactorily perceive whether the hurled spear has hit the prey or not. The tailor’s hand and needle, or the hairdresser’s hand and scissors, clearly form a perfectly integrated entity. Even though our nervous system does not extend into these units, it does control them perfectly. This interplay can be observed in every craftsman and in every factory.

A further disadvantage of organs that are not integrated into our bodies is that they can easily be lost and, above all, easily be stolen. The latter is particularly relevant because it means that the knowledgeable thief can put them to equal good use as the original owner did. The lizard, however, cannot fly with the wings it bites off a dragonfly. The substances an animal consumes can only be broken down and rebuilt as the body’s own structures – a process that entails a 90% loss of both material and energy. The additional organs, on the other hand, continue to serve without being altered in any way. Entire industries have therefore arisen to protect such organs. At the same time, the key advantage is that they can be put aside and do not burden the body when not in use. Animals must carry all their organs about with them at all times. The same holds true for natural human organs, but our tools, clothes or weapons can be used as needed and then put aside.

An additional advantage: we created additional organs that no animal could ever have developed. No nail-clipper or gun could grow at the end of an arm, not least because the disadvantages (impaired normal function) would have far outweighed the advantages. No cellular carriage or beer keg would have survived natural selection, which ruthlessly weeds out everything that does not boost fitness or hinders further development. Moreover, detachable organs are exchangeable. When our hand reaches out for a knife, then we are specialized for cutting. If we grab a hammer, then we are specialized in hammering in nails. When our fingers play a violin, then we have become specialized to create musical sounds. From this perspective, our ancestors, the apes and monkeys, appear in a somewhat better light. After all, their climbing activity in trees ultimately gave rise to our exceedingly versatile grasping organ with its opposable thumb. Without our hands, our highly developed brain would be of little use to us because we would be unable to implement what our minds devised. Dolphins also have a very highly developed brain, yet their rigid fins will never allow them to make or use a pencil. While perhaps curious, these arguments underline the essential, irrefutable message¹⁵.

Based on their diet, our early ancestors belong to the large group of universalists that feed on a wide array of food items. Mosquitoes are an example of the opposite strategy. These specialists have highly developed piercing and sucking mouthparts and equally highly developed movement patterns – both geared to a very narrow diet. These insects are perfect at their job and need fear no competitor. Nonetheless, they suffer from the same drawback of all specialists: If their source of food is lost, for example if all the animals that attract blood-sucking insects die off, then the monopoly was for naught and the insects are doomed. Universalists have much less precise programs and feeding organs, typically forcing them to share their niche with numerous competitors. On the other hand, they are much more adaptable to change. If one source of food disappears, then they can shift to another. With the advent of humans, evolution gave rise to the first specialist in versatile specialization! We have remained universalists, although we now apply our additional organs to achieve extreme specialization in our chosen lines of business. And no one form of specialization disturbs the other because the additional organs are not fused with our bodies and can be put aside at will¹⁶.

Further advantages: Additional organs need not necessarily be produced by the individual user. Several persons can combine forces to create such an organ, and they can then use it alternately or proportionally. This gave rise to large communal organs that benefited many persons, such as roads and bridges or the railroad, where users pay a certain fee. The post office, the canal system, the opera – the latter as a communal organ for luxury and art pleasure – as well as schools, libraries are additional examples. This approach is the only one that can effectively help protect our additional organs from theft. Certain members of the community specialize in this task – the remainder can then pursue their various endeavors in peace. In their central, original function, states are gigantic communal organs that citizens support through taxes and whose national defense systems shield the property of its members from predatory neighbors. In practice, such organizations assumed many additional functions, not always to the benefit of their citizens. Their key role, however, is to protect all the additional organs that so immensely empower our biological bodies but that so easily fall prey to theft.

Natural organs evolve only very slowly through the process of genetic change (the evolutionary history of our eyes lasted over 700 million years!). Additional organs, however, can be developed incomparably quicker (examples include the automobile, television and the computer). Moreover, certain individuals within society can specialize in their production, allowing them to manufacture the goods in better quality and at cheaper prices. This constellation became the very foundation of business and industry. Human culture and all luxury items are also largely based on additional organs (or even entirely so if the relevant behavior programs – which are also additionally created organs – are also counted to those that can be put aside). Whether it be culture, art, sports, tourist facilities, information transmission, magnificent buildings – none would have ever been created via cell differentiation! Finally, our additional organs have the key advantage of not perishing along with the death of their owners, as do the natural organs of animals and plants when they die. Additional organs can be utilized with no particular loss in value by heirs or other persons, i.e. they can serve other “capable entities” that continue the evolutive process. This is the very cornerstone of industrious nations. Biological bodies come and go, but the available potential of private and communal goods continues to grow. From this perspective, we have entered a new evolutionary phase in which humans are germ cells that construct and control larger, sometimes globally spanning life structures that continue on after our deaths¹⁷.

The third pillar of human progress, beyond our highly developed intelligence and versatile hands, is the ability to communicate using language. This additional brain function, which evolved parallel and in close correlation with the development of thought and logic, enabled each generation to build on the trove of knowledge amassed by preceding ones. Acquired capabilities could therefore be transmitted, a process much promoted by the written word¹⁸. Every human child therefore inherits a tremendous gift from an anonymous throng of long-deceased ancestors: the fruits of their experience and labor, the quintessence of their ideas and advances.

If visitors from outer space were to observe our planet and were interested in the evolutive process, they would determine that, in a first step (about 3200 million years ago), tiny unicellular organisms developed. Their even tinier organs (organelles) already showed a wide range of capabilities. This enabled these pioneers to adapt and spread into the various aquatic habitats. About 1800 million years ago, in a second step, some of them began to form colonies and most life functions were assumed by multicellular organs, which considerably improved efficiency. Certain organisms successfully conquered land, and life ultimately expanded across the continents. The third developmental step began only 2 million year ago. Its distinguishing feature? One terrestrial multicellular organism formed additional organs that were not fused to the rest of its body. This enabled it to specialize almost limitlessly. In a colorful juggling act, this creature applied one, then the other additional organ, creating energy surpluses that it plowed into an enormous range of business endeavors and luxury items. In the meantime, human interrelationships have reached an unparalleled diversity and continue to change unabatedly. Each one of us must search for direction in this raging torrent, where friend and foe seem to change at a moment’s notice. No uniform direction is currently in sight.
 

Back to the Table of Contents

Continue to "5^th Premise: Human intellect initially promoted our instincts"