Living on Earth by Peter Godfrey-Smith Review: The Wonders of Animal Life

When Charles Darwin embarked on his influential voyage on the Beagle in 1831, his primary role was more that of a geologist than a naturalist. He crafted his theory of evolution by natural selection through an intriguing interplay of living and geological worlds, recognizing that life on Earth could modify the environment that shapes it.

In “Living on Earth,” philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith explores this concept, offering “a history of organisms as causes, rather than evolutionary products” to illustrate “a picture of an Earth continually changing because of what living things do.” While the book features various life forms like bacteria, birds, and octopuses, a significant portion zeroes in on humans, who are transforming the environment like no other species.

In examining human minds, cultures, and our ethical stance toward other species, Godfrey-Smith positions us within what Darwin termed “one grand system.” He attempts to envision how our increasingly technological societies might integrate into this great chain of being. “Living on Earth” is consistently enlightening, filled with insights and contemplative prompts, and graced with exquisite prose.

Behavior is best understood by trying to get inside the animal mind

Godfrey-Smith frames the book as the final part of a trilogy that began with “Other Minds,” focusing particularly on octopuses, and continued with “Metazoa,” which examined the evolution of cognitive complexity and subjective experiences in animals. Like many biologists and zoologists, Godfrey-Smith is convinced that “felt or conscious experience is probably widespread in animals,” making him a fervent advocate for animal rights.

His emphasis on how animals, including humans, impact their environments often ties back to questions of mind and agency. He argues that we are not mere automata or vessels for genes, but beings driven by independent goals and purposes.

A recurrent theme in these works is how minds and goals are shaped by the circumstances in which they emerge. For example, dolphins are unlikely to develop complex technologies and cultures, partly because of the differing challenges presented by land and sea (e.g., hammering a nail underwater). Dolphins and octopuses, therefore, have minimal use for tools. Reefs, dominated by creatures like corals and bryozoans, blur the lines between plant-like and animal-like behavior, unlike land-based distinctions.

Godfrey-Smith explains that “actions emanate from points of view, from the peculiar angle that each animal has on things.” Therefore, behavior is best understood not as a simple response to external stimuli, but by attempting to get inside the animal mind. This perspective traces back to German-Estonian biologist Jakob von Uexküll, who introduced the concept of the “Umwelt,” the world an organism perceives and acts in, which can be thought of as what that organism finds meaningful.

What’s missing from this picture, Godfrey-Smith argues, is the social context: no creature exists in a perceptual bubble, isolated from others.

So, how should we approach this understanding? Godfrey-Smith points out that, despite the extensive effort he has put into outlining the origins and cross-species parallels of familiar mental capacities, humans are distinct. Although many animals live in complex social structures, human culture is uniquely elaborate. Specifically, we have an open-ended, syntactically rich language, unlike the limited signals used by our closest evolutionary relatives.

Language and social organization have evolved together, enhancing not just our abilities but also our imagination. This shift has transformed ancestral behaviors from being habit-based to plan-based actions, altering the causal processes by which we affect the world. This evolution underpins our current capacity to dominate the biosphere and alter the environment on a planetary scale.

Godfrey-Smith’s reflections on the ethical implications of our interactions with other animals, in contexts like conservation, farming, and medical experiments, advocate for improvement. However, his willingness to consider unexpected angles keeps the discussion engaging. He poses intriguing questions: Could there be a moral case for reducing suffering in “wild” nature by intervening against predators? Should humanity consider extinction for the greater good of the planet?

Ultimately, Godfrey-Smith emphasizes identifying with nature rather than standing apart from it as stewards, advocating for “gratitude and a sense of kinship” with the processes that have brought our species into existence.

Source: The Guardian