It is the latter that I wish to focus on today.
The particular investigation that intrigued me involved rats, which I must say is a bold choice considering what some might regard as an instinctual dislike for rats by humans, along with the belief that rats will eat anything, including each other.
In this specific experiment, a rat is confined inside a transparent plastic tube with holes. The tube has a door that can be opened from the outside. The tube is placed inside a cage with another rat that is free to move around. The rat inside the tube exhibits its distress at being confined, which is visible to the other rat, which begins circling the tube, biting it, trying to dig underneath it. Eventually, the free rat learns how to open the door and liberates the trapped rat.
So, first, there appears to be recognition by the free rat that the trapped rat needs assistance, or at the least, would prefer to be released. Empathy? Second, the free rat acts upon this feeling? by
trying to help the other rat. If we assume this is a conscious decision by the free rat, why would it behave in such a way? There is no reason to think releasing the trapped rat would help the free rat, if we assume rats only act out of self preservation. Third, as we all probably know, rats (and many animals) have some sort of version of problem solving skills, which, in this case, enables the rat to open the door and free his friend. Friend?
Ah, that is the key. Because as it turns out, this behavior is contingent on whether the free rat feels a kin-ship towards the confined one. This particular line of research has discovered that a free rat raised with others of the same genetic type will help a trapped rat of that type, even if it is a stranger, but will disregard a rat of a different genetic type. Will do nothing.
To check on the strength of this kinship, when rats of different genetic types are raised together, the free rats will assist those with the different genetic type, and ignore those of the same genetic type who were not raised with them. Genetics is trumped by familiarity. Its about having a family, and knowing that the trapped rat is part of that family.
I imagine that many of us know someone, or have read about someone, who does not believe in evolution, specifically that all life forms have evolved from single celled marine life, eventually emerging from the sea to land. As the various forms adapted to the environment, various species were more successful in adapting and thriving in earth's changing atmosphere and terrestrial alterations, until a few million years ago (remember, the Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old), the first human ancestors appear. (I know this is a remarkably terse and incomplete version of Darwinian evolution, but our physical evolution is not the point of this post).
I am not sure if it would make it easier to help doubters of Darwin to accept evolution, but I would bet that some of them might, if they have pets, agree that their pets display emotions, specifically empathy, dogs that lick your face when you are sad being one such example.
Is it possible then, that empathy is a common trait of most life forms that exist on our planet? Perhaps then, empathy is a DNA trait, if you like, that has passed along from species to species, generation to generation. Passed along because it is necessary, even vital, for a species to continue to exist.
If we take the position that empathy is a critical emotion for life and human survival, then is it wise to encourage empathy, to reward empathy, and to use it as a gauge for our decisions, personal and societal?
Or, to put it another way, aren't the worst examples of human interactions in our history, situations and occurrences when we treated our fellow human beings as less than human? When we displayed a complete lack of empathy.
I am fond of saying that when a politician or pundit offers simple solutions to complex problems, they are more than likely not interested in solving them, but more likely interested in telling you who to blame.
But perhaps there is a simple way to evaluate our policies and laws, based on the Golden Rule, as delivered during the Sermon on the Mount. Do unto others as you would have then do to you.
Is that what the rat is doing, by freeing his trapped kin? Is that what we are doing by providing food and medical aid to those around the world who lack? Is that what we are doing when we help someone cross a busy highway, or pick up dropped items in the street, or reach something on a high shelf?
Is it possible that our personal and collective displays of empathy will be the yardstick used to judge us?
I have offered a number of what-if-this-is-how-we-are-judged scenarios over the course of this blog. If it turns out that judgement is merely a calculation performed by heavenly accountants with expressions of empathy on one side of the ledger, and actions performed without empathy on the other, I fear we are currently in a phase in which we are falling behind in that calculation.
However, I do believe we are a more empathetic species than rats, and like rats, we tend to treat those in our families with more caring. Wouldn't it be even better if we were to expand our definition of family to include all fellow Earthlings, not just those who share our race or religion, nationality or country of birth? And, finally, perhaps we should begin grading the efficacy of laws, solely on whether it displays empathy, or more critically, lacks empathy, for any particular group of people. Or, to be more blunt, would you want that law to be applied to you instead of "them"?
I found 2 other entries about empathy that I posted. Here are the links:
No comments:
Post a Comment