Though humans are a species, it is still tempting to think of humans as special and somehow able to eschew the behaviour of a species. Many think that humans can act like something other than a species. I’m not sure what name to give to such a creature, a creature born from evolution over billions of years but somehow being freed of that process to become something that no longer has any selective pressures and can thus decide its own, and the world’s, fate for itself, by conscious effort. Humans are already doing that and, unwittingly, altering the environment in a way that introduces the selective pressures they seek to disable.
There have been attempts to explain why we (humans) are not making that conscious effort, even though we have the knowledge that not doing so could lead to the demise of many, or all, species and even this new type of life that we represent. An hypothesis which tries to explain such denial of reality is MORT (mind over reality transition). The basic idea is that self awareness in creatures developed to fairly complex levels many times but that complexity was limited by a tendency for that complexity to lead to an understanding of death as final, and the inevitability of death for each creature, especially the creature considering this idea. This is termed mortality salience which leads to an all-consuming fear of death to a degree which is maladaptive (by concentrating on survival above all else, even above reproduction which is the driver of evolution). The hypothesis is that another, otherwise maladaptive, trait also evolved in Homo sapiens at the same time, which cancelled out this terror. The other trait was the denial of reality, in particular, one’s own death, due to the invention of religion and life after death. This denial ability can lead to denial of all sorts of unpleasant realities (such as climate change and environmental collapse). Although denial of reality would be maladaptive on its own (because it could lead to very risky behaviours), apparently, in combination with extended Theory of Mind, whereby someone understands that others have their own thoughts and desires, and that these others also understand that you have your own thoughts and desires (which leads to mortality salience). Extended Theory of Mind has, we’re told, lead to all sorts of unique social behaviours, many of which ensured the success of our species.
The MORT hypothesis is called a “theory” by Ajit Varki, its suviving developer and adherent (the other being Danny Brower), although Varki admits that it is not something that can be falsified by experiment. However, it does explain some behaviours of our species and, apparently, why there are no other species that exist to threaten human superiority — the required traits have not co-evolved in any other species, either extant or extinct.
Most of the hypothesis relies on assumptions about other species and about the uniqueness of many social behaviours of our species. Many seem reasonable but, as biologists and paleontologists learn more about the capabilities of other species, it seems to me that some of those assumptions break down. For example, several species appear to have death rituals (and so understand what death is and even apply spiritual elements to the event) and we are learning that exinct species of humans probably had more complex behaviours than we’d thought, including representational art. Other assumptions include that mortality awareness leads to the usurping of normal species innate behaviour, due to the terror of death. There are no references for these assumptions in Varki’s paper. There is reference to Terror Management Theory (TMT) which covers similar ground, and treats denial of death as a coping mechanism, rather than an evolved trait.
This last point raises one of my issues with MORT. What causes a behavioural trait? Genes have physical results (for example, more powerful muscles, a larger brain, opposable thumbs) but I don’t see how a mutation can cause a human to deny reality, or even how it can cause mortality awareness. Certainly, physical attributes can enable these ways of thinking, such as larger brains, with more complex components and more neurons. But how do they actually lead to those ways of thinking? There is nothing in Varki’s paper or presentations about this and I couldn’t find any other research that might give some hints. Certain genetic changes can affect autonomous reactions to physical stimuli but becoming mortality aware and denying reality are more than just physical reactions. However, since everything in our bodies is physical, maybe there is a mechanism, though, in that case, we’d have to accept that all thought is predetermined (which might also be true).
Varki gets round the notion that TMT explains what he’s trying to explain with MORT by claiming that the mind over reality transition is incomplete and so TMT may be needed for part of the population. However, this also implies that the combined mutations of needed traits wasn’t so evolutionary beneficial that they became dominant. If they weren’t as beneficial as Varki thinks, then how can MORT provide an answer as to how humans became so successful?
If MORT is wrong, does any other hypothesis provide the answers? Human success (they have populated almost all regions of the planet but are still a single species) is surely based on physical attributes. All species consume resources as quickly as they can — with genes, there is no drive to plan for the future, which is unknowable, with only the present being certain. So consuming resources as quickly as possible in order to improve the chances of current reproduction is the only way to maximise the chances of propogating genes and for evolution to make the best of a (usually slowly) changing environment, including the evolution of competitors or prey. Whatever physical attributes mutation and evolution provide to an organism, it will always be best to consume what is available and propagate one’s genes. So physical changes that allow self awareness can never shut down that drive, otherwise extinction is assured, since the species won’t be able to adapt to environmental changes. Consequently, whatever social behaviours may emerge, whatever modes of thinking may emerge, none of it will slow the consumption of resources and the urge for reproduction. Denial of reality is essentially a symptom of these innate drives. That denial can take many forms but I think we’d be hardpressed to find anyone who is not in denial of our environmental predicament, in some way. Whether it’s the rational optimists who think there is no limit to human ingenuity, with the future just getting better all of the time, or the environmentalists who parade placards up main thoroughfares urging us all to drive EVs and change our light bulbs, or those who try hard to lessen their environmental footprint but still rely on modernity to continue. There can be calls for humans to do this or that but with the knowledge that such things will never be done until forced on humans by nature.
What would lack of denial look like? To be honest, I don’t know, as I don’t have knowledge of any examples. A few uncontacted tribes in some minimally compromised ecosystems may offer a glimpe but what are they not denying? I don’t know.
Back to MORT. Though it is a nice idea to explain why we are successful as a species and why we seem to ignore reality, in so many areas (especially where that reality is unpleasant), the mechanisms don’t seem to stack up, for me. It seems very possible that many other extant and extinct species are or were aware of their own certain deaths (for example H. naledi), and that some of them exhibit social behaviours that were thought unique to humans. In addition, it’s not clear what mechanism can induce lines of thought in a creature, so it’s difficult to understand how a mutation of a gene (or genes) could do that. The notion of life after death is, perhaps, a half-rational conclusion to a curious species that doesn’t have the information to explain all of the phenomena it observes — some entity must have created everything, has a plan that’s difficult for mere mortals to discern but that plan must include some ongoing existence for the creatures the entity created, otherwise why create them? Once entrenched, some form of religious belief will be difficult to shift especially as increasing knowledge has yet to explain why we’re here. Regarding denial of unpleasant realities, surely we’d believe whatever can help us avoid not fulfilling our natural instincts to consume and breed. For some, that means either ignoring reality or making up stories that gloss over or deny that reality.
Although just being a species can explain what we see (in light of the our being a social species, also). However, there is another theory to compete with MORT and TMT. This video explains the idea. Apparently, the more educated/intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to display a bias in thinking about subjects and two very intelligent people can end up holding contrary views on the subject. The hypothesis is that human intelligence evolved not as a tool for pusuing objective truths but for increasing one’s own self worth and worth to the group (so attractiveness to partners). This led to the development of Fashionally Irrational Beliefs (FIBs). This Identity Protective Cognition (protecting one’s position in the tribe) results in delusions that increase one’s standing to be rationalised. Elite universities have honed this “skill” by improving debating skills, making many who go on to be a country’s leaders, better able to apply reasoning to even ridiculous notions. It’s almost a viscous cycle – the more intelligent/educated we are, the better we are at rationalising delusions. But curiousity can break this cycle, though it’s not clear why or how we can force ourselves to be more curious.
In the end, the alternative hypothesis of FIBs boils down to being a species but does offer the hope of extracting oneself from that reality (by forcing oneself to be curious). This seems to be a FIB. Being a clever species, for me, explains all we need to know about our situation. MORT fits in nicely to that, but just as a facade.
What Are We Doing? 