World fame came to paleontologist Yves Coppens after the sensational discovery of the remains of Australopithecus Lucy. Our conversation with a specialist in human evolution touched on the topic of progress: it is curious that in our future, which causes anxiety for many, he looks with enthusiasm.
Psychologies: Paleontological discoveries arouse keen sympathy and interest in many of us. How do you explain this?
Yves Coppens: Maybe because the science I’m doing seems harmless to people. They do not see any threat to themselves in these discoveries — although in some respects they are not as harmless as they might seem. When I say that man originated from animals, that he is a close relative of the monkey, or that he appeared three million years ago, my words contradict the sacred texts and may not be liked. My grandmother, for example, said: “You may have evolved from a monkey, but I certainly don’t!”
Do you feel other people’s sympathy for your work?
I. K: Yes, but I myself love people and I think you can feel it. Like any passionate person, I like to talk about my favorite business in a way that is interesting and understandable to everyone. And, to be completely sincere, I probably love people also because I need their love.
Perhaps you are treated with interest also because the secrets of our most distant ancestors are available to you — after all, it was you who discovered the famous Lucy …
I. K: Yes, now her name is strongly associated with me … Recently, a child asked me: “When did Lucy meet you?” This formulation seemed to me quite accurate: I did not choose my hobby and did not look for it — the past has always interested and fascinated me since early childhood. Perhaps the thing is that research in this area reminds us of the most important questions that every person has been asking himself for many millions of years: what am I doing here? Where did I come from and where am I going? Interest in primary sources is natural, characteristic of the whole society as a whole, and at the same time, this interest for each of us is deeply personal. This confirms the popularity of genealogy, especially among those who lack a sense of their roots. Here, for example, in the United States: it is worth talking with an American for about fifteen minutes, and you will definitely find out that his mother is from Holland or his grandmother is from Ukraine. It seems to me that no matter how you tell Americans about their ancestors, they will be happy with everything — they need to feel their roots again.
Are you aware of such a need?
I. K: Well, of course! However, having dug into the ground in almost all corners of the world, I have long felt like a citizen of it.
There is an impression that men are more often fond of ancient history than women. Why do you think?
I. K: Yes, it is… Many anthropologists and philosophers I respect have been working hard to prove that both sexes are essentially the same. But finally they still do not convince me. Education, of course, plays a role, but if you look at things honestly, you can see that girls (with rare exceptions) have their own specific inclinations and interests from a very early age. For example (now many will call me a sexist — but what can you do!), many young scientists wrote dissertations under my supervision. So, when I asked what topic they would like to deal with, the young men were more interested in the head, skull, teeth — in a word, everything that can be attributed to the upper body, to the head and brain. And girls more often chose limbs for examination, that part of the body where our center of gravity, the pelvis is located … I can only state that men consider the brain to be the part of our body that is most worthy of interest. And women are more interested in the body, its movement, the way it moves …
Do we not run the risk, with such a naturalistic interpretation, of strengthening ourselves in the idea of an insurmountable difference between the sexes? Like our ancestors: a man is a hunter, and a woman is a gatherer …
I. K: We cannot close our eyes to this difference. When man appeared about three million years ago, he soon included meat in his diet — and he had to get it on the hunt! It is clear that it is difficult for a woman to hunt when one child is in her stomach and the other behind her back. This situation lasted for at least ten thousand years, until people became sedentary and began to stockpile food. How much have we changed since then? Nobody can say this.
In our era of «advanced civilization» what is primitive in man?
I. K: Both sexes? instincts. But today they have almost lost their former significance. But we have independence in the manifestation of will. This free will, I think, appeared at the same time as man, but since then it has been constantly developing and ahead of instinct. But at what pace? What separates the animal, which many years ago consisted of only instincts, from today’s man? This question haunted me for a long time.
And in 1988 you proposed an answer to it…
I. K: Yes. Once in Ethiopia, at the camp of Melka-Kontura, in the most ancient strata, we found a man Homo habilis (Latin “handy man”) with some tools. And in the newer layers, we found another person, Homo erectus (lat. «upright man»), but with the same tools. Then, examining the layers closer and closer to our centuries, we saw that the tools were gradually changing … but not as fast as a person. Thus, over the course of millennia, the evolutionary lag of culture was observed — it developed more slowly than our own nature. Until the two were equal about a hundred thousand years ago. Since then, culture has prevailed over nature. Therefore, biologically man almost does not evolve — the acquired prevails over the innate. For example, now that we are suffering from a viral disease, we do not adapt to fight the virus «naturally» — we turn to medicine, to «culture», and create a vaccine.
Do you think we will continue our evolution?
I. K: I think we have every chance for this! Culture is a complex concept: it includes spiritual, intellectual and technological achievements, aesthetics, ethics … And there is no reason for all this to stop developing. Unless there is some external interference — for example, biological (virus) or cosmic (what if a meteorite falls on our heads?). But so far the progress of culture is impressive. One has only to look at how much we can do today with the help of nanotechnology, by manipulating molecules or atoms. We are already almost able to re-create people.
And how do you, a specialist in evolution, look at this?
I. K: I’m amazed! We are already on our way to incredible achievements. Yes, they will break all the canons, but it has always been so. What we are doing now, in the tenth century would have caused horror. Do not be afraid of science and progress.
But fears are inspired by the fact that progress can be turned not only for good, but also for evil …
I. K: Every discovery has two sides — and one of them is really dangerous. But here you just need to remain vigilant. And one should not assume that this duty lies only with scientists: after all, they are driven by only one, quite understandable desire — to try new things, to move forward. Sometimes just to see what happens, to take risks, to experiment…
If I understand you correctly, our evolution is now determined by culture, not nature. Have we already reached the final point in natural development?
I. K: No, our nature continues to evolve, that is, to adapt to changes in the environment. And that is constantly changing. But the culture really anticipates these changes so well that we have less need to adapt to them. Indeed, it is now strange to think that different human populations are the result of adaptation to different environmental conditions — now we instantly move from one environment to another without feeling any unpleasant consequences …
Claiming that climate change is part of the history of our planet, you pour water on the mill of those who believe that the current environmental crises are in the order of things!
I. K: I do not agree with the concept of «crises». It’s about change, and it’s always happened. Only now it cannot be said that man has nothing to do with it: in three million years the number of people increased from several thousand to a billion, then in two hundred years — from a billion to seven billion. This cannot but affect the nature …
But you don’t seem to think that the human factor plays a decisive role here…
I. K: Frankly, at first I did not believe in this role. After all, in my work I constantly deal with the histories of various climate changes. For a geologist, there is nothing strange in the fact that the weather changes and the climatic zones move. Palm trees grew in Poland; in place of Paris, monkeys jumped through the mangrove trees! But for some time now I have admitted that now man has become one of the main causes, if not of climate change itself, then of accelerating its pace. At the same time, I am often annoyed by what I have to hear about this. Such reasoning is largely naive.
What do you mean?
I. K: For example, we often hear the call «Save the planet!». What nonsense! Yes, the planet does not care about us, she did not see this. Or «Save Humanity!» — also absurd! But, of course, humanity needs to adapt. And move around. And of course, conflicts are inevitable here…
But still, it is in our power to change our behavior and reduce the damage to nature …
I. K: Yes, we can make efforts to preserve nature. Already now we can create large natural parks, knowing that our space is going to change and there is nothing we can do about it. After all, a person will not stop exploiting the environment overnight. Stopping progress is, I think, impossible. Yes, and it would be a great pity! During my life I have had occasion to study stones, plants, animals… And now, summing up this long journey, I understand that, although I was interested in all this, the person fascinates me most of all.
Do you believe in God?
«CLOSEN PEOPLE, LOVE, THE VERY FACT THAT WE ARE ALIVE … THERE ARE FEW REALLY IMPORTANT THINGS IN THE WORLD»
I. K: I believe in humanity. And because I respect him, I respect his gods. All gods.
As you know, the Neanderthal disappeared, giving way to Homo sapiens. Do you think the same fate threatens us as a result of some kind of climate change?
I. K: How to know? But what I am convinced of exactly is that space exploration will continue and part of the Earth’s population will move to other planets. And then it may well be that there, as a result of the isolation of people, genetic changes will occur, and those populations will differ from those here. In this case, it can be assumed that when these species meet in one area, one of them can displace the other — as Homo sapiens displaced the Neanderthal.
You say it so coolly! Is it your profession that allows you to treat death differently than others?
I. K: I feel the death of other people just as hard as you do. After all, when a person dies, a unique personality disappears. It is always dramatic… But, perhaps, my work has somehow changed my attitude towards being. Thanks to this special relationship, over time, I understand that there are few truly important things in the world. These are close people. The love we can feel. And the very fact that we are alive. On the scale of humanity, everything else is not so important.