We shall focus on the 2%
At an event I attended recently, a speaker used an interesting analogy to elaborate on human evolution, arguing that genetically speaking, we have only 2% difference to a chimpanzee. In other words, we are 98% identical, from a genetic point of view to a primitive beast that lives in the wild.
Being a curious person, I decided to do some research of my own and found out that there is not exactly a consensus on this percentage, since scientists place the difference between 1.5 and 4%. Either way, we should agree that this is not a great consolation in our favor. The fact is that what separates us, genetically speaking, from a primitive beast is a rather modest percentage. Essentially, this suggests that we are more savages than our human pride would like to admit.
I also found out that the genes that regulate emotional reactions, the learning of habits, the social attachments, emerged in our primate ancestors many millions of years ago. Genes that regulate self-control, self-direction and cooperation emerged about 2 million years ago. But this story gets really interesting when we analyze the genes that govern creativity and self-awareness. These genes appeared in our human ancestors approximately "only" 100,000 years ago and, most interestingly, are not present in monkeys. So, the genetic crossroad is relatively recent, and has allowed us to develop narrative, art, science, to be more social and have greater longevity.
Following this line of thought, thanks to these mere 2% (for facilitation, we will stick to this number) we were able to erect huge and magnificent buildings, to produce wonderful artistic masterpieces (impossible not to think of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel), to create all kinds of music, to develop the sciences, things that evidently no animal was or will be able to produce. But in my modest opinion, the most important legacy of the 2%, is the human capacity to elaborate about life in a society, creating the most diverse codes of conduct and behavior, and to articulate on the most complex ways of self-governing, such as the Greek democracy, perfectioned two thousand years later with the division of government into three self-regulatory powers. Something so sophisticated that even today, centuries later, we still have difficulty understanding and putting into practice.
All this is really amazing and leads us to a pretentious illusion that the distance that separates us from a primitive beast is immense. But is it really?
When I was younger, I read about the transformation of the human brain over time and learned that within our nervous system it is possible to identify the path taken during our evolution. Simplifying things a bit in order to facilitate understanding, we still have active in us the brain of a lizard, more instinctive and primitive, the brain of a mammal, careful with the offspring and more sociable, and finally the cortex, responsible for logical reasoning. These "three brains" often conflict with each other. And then I ask; Who wins this battle? We often have instinctive, aggressive, violent, even beastly reactions. That is the 98% in action, leading us to forget in the back seat the 2% that led us to architecture, art, music, science, codes of ethics, laws, and democracy.
Think about a group of chimpanzees or gorillas. The process of selecting a leader is quite simple. All they need is for the alpha male to beat in its chest and, by the use of physical force, subjugate the other males and, "voilà", we have a leader. When we analyze this unsophisticated but effective process, it becomes almost inevitable the analogy with certain models of leadership that still thrive amongst us, "evolved humans", since thanks to the 98% we still allow ourselves to be deceived by similar stereotypes (which instead of beating their chests, smash their hands on the table) in all spheres of society.
Each time we act in a more violent, aggressive, impatient, selfish way, we are evidently favoring the 98% of our beastly heritage. When we mistreat other animals, whether for pure cruelty or recreational purposes, we are operating in the 98%. If we choose not to accept the differences of race, creed, sexual orientation (i.e., the irrational rejection of what is different), we are giving voice to the 98%. In times when a man subjugates a woman by force or use of power, what is prevailing is the 98%. When we seek to resolve differences of opinion by the use of brute force, not by the use of reason of arguments, we are prioritizing the 98%. And finally, as we chose the use of firearms in any situation, we are once again succumbing to the 98%.
It took countless years of evolution for these 2% to separate us from our ape ancestors. The undisputed fact is that today, our species has enough differentiation for us to be self-conscious, at least most of the time. We already have enough intellectual mass for self-analysis and self-criticism. We're evolved enough to make better choices. Choices that would privilege nonviolence, respect and why not to say, love for our neighbors (I will always insist that this type of love is a matter of choice, more rational than sentimental), the preservation of our planet and its oceans, animals, and forests. We already have the level of intelligence required to exercise tolerance of differences, gender equality, and resolve disputes without the use of arms. We just need the will to make use of these resources.
We shall then, rationally, and intentionally, focus on the 2% that separate us from chimpanzees. If we choose to operate on the 98% making use of the immense intellectual capacity we have today, the result can only be catastrophic, if not self-annihilating. It is up to each one of us to ensure that these hundreds of thousands of years serve to distinguish us positively, propelling us to a more harmonious and peaceful world. The choice is ours. And it's a choice that we must make every single day, in every human interaction.
So, what is it going to be? The 98 or the 2%? Let’s revise our attitudes day by day and make the right choice.
