What Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson does not understand about differences between human and animal

We know what he understands by these differences, because they are obvious. And do not get me wrong, I don’t want to undermine the intellectual performance of one of the most brilliant scientists, or troll him. I did not achieve what he achieved. But still, listening to my common sense I have to draw attention to what the professor did not take into account.

There is a huge gap between human and other species, especially in the area of intellectual capacity. Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson took a look at all the differences between human and animal, but he found nothing any significant difference which would not to be related to development. In other words, everything what makes us human is merely developmental difference.

He examined all differences to answer the question: what makes us special, including art, working, using tools, kissing, keeping animals, using drugs and medicines, and so on. Until now, all of these have been thought to be unique to humans. And yet, the professor proved the opposite. But seemingly what is the end for scientist is the beginning for philosopher.

The arguments of the professor were very convincing indeed. However he failed to recognize the obvious difference between human and another species. And this difference is not developmental but essential and decisive. It is mind blowing why he didn’t come to the conclusion, because he actually answered his own question without knowing it. Moreover the question was the answer.

As far as I know there’s no other species besides the human who can ask a question about anything. Only the human being is capable to think in abstract way at least according to the current state of science. And the good news, you don’t have to be scientist to recognize this very crucial difference.

What is the purpose of life? What is good and what is evil? What makes us human? Which animal is capable of philosophy? None of them. This is not a negligible difference, and this is not everything.

I would mention even the art as a difference which is not developmental, however the professor didn’t include so. Because animals are also capable of art, at least what he calls art. But what we consider “animal art” is nothing more than a mating strategy. It is not inspired by transcendental wish, thus it does not meet the criteria of human art. The human art is for the sake of art alone. According to the professor it’s not a significant difference, but this is it.

So many scientists and futurists strive to blur the difference between human and animal to prove their own evolutionary theories as much as possible. And some of them end up with denying the existence of free will, Stephen Hawking amongst others. But if you have a self awareness, and moral judgement, you must have a free will either. Otherwise, one would not be punished and held accountable for anything, as the animals wouldn’t. No human civilization can be built on denying free will, this is empirically proven fact. Because the whole legal system would collapse with recognizing the impunity. The personal responsibility is questionable if we deny the free will. There is no evidence that what I do intentionally is done involuntarily. One who denies the existence of free will does not understand the free will.

So there are four significantly crucial differences between human and other species: thinking in abstract way, moral judgement, free will, and art. There is no other species capable of these. Hence there is no animal what be capable of sin. If every difference would be developmental the evolution could be reversible. Simply because development is two-way. Everything can also develop backwards. But being a human is not a grey zone. Something is either human or not. Something is either animal or not, following the same logic. Something is either capable to think in abstract ways or not. Something is either has a free will and moral judgement or not. There’s no middle or third way around.

Thanks for reading me!