What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Be Animal: A New History of What It Means to Be Human
A wide-ranging take on why humans have a troubled relationship with being an animal, and why we need a better one
Human are the most inquisitive, emotional, imaginative, aggressive, and baffling animals on the planet. But we are also an animal that does not think it is an animal. How well do we really know ourselves?
How to Be Animal tells a remarkable story of what it means to be human and argues that at the heart of our existence is a profound struggle with being animal. We possess a psychology that seeks separation between humanity and the rest of nature, and we have invented grand ideologies to magnify this. As well as piecing together the mystery of how this mindset evolved, Challenger's book examines the wide-reaching ways in which it affects our lives, from our politics to the way we distance ourselves from other species. We travel from the origin of homo sapiens through the agrarian and industrial revolutions, the age of the internet, and on to the futures of AI and human-machine interface. Challenger examines how technology influences our sense of our own animal nature and our relationship with other species with whom we share this fragile planet.
That we are separated from our own animality is a delusion, according to Challenger. Blending nature writing, history, and moral philosophy, How to Be Animal is both a fascinating reappraisal of what it means to be human, and a robust defense of what it means to be an animal.
Human are the most inquisitive, emotional, imaginative, aggressive, and baffling animals on the planet. But we are also an animal that does not think it is an animal. How well do we really know ourselves?
How to Be Animal tells a remarkable story of what it means to be human and argues that at the heart of our existence is a profound struggle with being animal. We possess a psychology that seeks separation between humanity and the rest of nature, and we have invented grand ideologies to magnify this. As well as piecing together the mystery of how this mindset evolved, Challenger's book examines the wide-reaching ways in which it affects our lives, from our politics to the way we distance ourselves from other species. We travel from the origin of homo sapiens through the agrarian and industrial revolutions, the age of the internet, and on to the futures of AI and human-machine interface. Challenger examines how technology influences our sense of our own animal nature and our relationship with other species with whom we share this fragile planet.
That we are separated from our own animality is a delusion, according to Challenger. Blending nature writing, history, and moral philosophy, How to Be Animal is both a fascinating reappraisal of what it means to be human, and a robust defense of what it means to be an animal.
272 pages, Paperback
First published June 25, 2020
206 people are currently reading
6370 people want to read
About the author
Melanie Challenger
7 books62 followersMelanie Challenger works as a researcher on the history of humanity and the natural world, and environmental philosophy. She is a member of the UK's Nuffield Council on Bioethics. She received a Darwin Now Award for her research in the Canadian Arctic, and the Arts Council International Fellowship with the British Antarctic Survey for her work on the history of whaling. Her books include On Extinction: How We Became Estranged from Nature and How to Be Animal: A new history of what it means to be human. She hosts the podcast Enter the Psychosphere: A kinds of minds podcast.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 117 reviews
June 15, 2021
3.5 stars
An interesting read, halfway between philosophy and science.
However, it was weird to read as a vegan and a decade-long member of the anti-speciesm movement, since most of the assumptions that serve as a starting point for the author have been a moot point for many years as far as I am concerned.
I can't say I learned or was challenged much, which is always the hope isn't it ?
Chapters seemed to jump from one point to the other without much of a transition, and while all points I felt were valid, it made it a little hard to follow the reasoning - when in the end the author was always arguing for the same thesis anyway.
While I do see why the author/publisher chose this title, it did seem at times more like a speech on "how to be human" than animal, which left me feeling underwhelmed.
Overall, a strong work, but not quite what I expected : I am a little disappointed.
An interesting read, halfway between philosophy and science.
However, it was weird to read as a vegan and a decade-long member of the anti-speciesm movement, since most of the assumptions that serve as a starting point for the author have been a moot point for many years as far as I am concerned.
I can't say I learned or was challenged much, which is always the hope isn't it ?
Chapters seemed to jump from one point to the other without much of a transition, and while all points I felt were valid, it made it a little hard to follow the reasoning - when in the end the author was always arguing for the same thesis anyway.
While I do see why the author/publisher chose this title, it did seem at times more like a speech on "how to be human" than animal, which left me feeling underwhelmed.
Overall, a strong work, but not quite what I expected : I am a little disappointed.
July 21, 2022
Vídeo de Sugestão de Leitura: https://youtu.be/WR5ateE5Fk4
Antes de mais, quero dizer que venho da área de científico-natural. Biologia e Psicologia eram duas das minhas disciplinas favoritas. Acho que é importante dizer isto, porque acaba por ter um peso muito grande na minha experiência de leitura, na forma como absorvi este livro e na forma como já via o mundo previamente.
A autora faz neste livro um estudo sobre a forma como nós, Homo Sapiens, nos vemos em contraposição com os restantes animais que se encontram no planeta e de que forma essa nossa percepção acaba por afectar não só a nossa visão dos outros animais com quem partilhamos o planeta, mas também de nós mesmos, das pessoas que nos rodeiam e da nossa mortalidade. Sendo que este último ponto acaba por ser um motor que nos impele a desenvolver e evoluir, procurar soluções e tentar fintar algo que é, por si só, parte de um ciclo natural.
É um livro que aborda Biologia, Psicologia, Filosofia, Sociologia, alguma política (não fossemos nós animais sociais). Como disse, o livro é um estudo e, portanto, tem uma bibliografia extensa para defender ou contrapôr ideias e ideais, o que faz com que seja um livro para se ir lendo, reflectindo e interiorizando ou mesmo debater as ideias que nos são apresentadas.
Também acho importante referir que em 2018 estive a um passo muito, muito pequeno de uma depressão, que caí numa crise existencial que me deixou numa espécie de buraco negro onde nada fazia sentido. E que lembrar-me que somos animais, que fazemos parte de um ciclo, foi o que me ajudou a encontrar o pé. Portanto, este livro foi "food for thought", onde me revi em algumas das ideias, descobri algumas novas e acrescentei livros à wishlist.
Nunca tive um livro tão cheio de post-its. Nem que me demorasse tanto a ler. Mas valeu cada página.
Antes de mais, quero dizer que venho da área de científico-natural. Biologia e Psicologia eram duas das minhas disciplinas favoritas. Acho que é importante dizer isto, porque acaba por ter um peso muito grande na minha experiência de leitura, na forma como absorvi este livro e na forma como já via o mundo previamente.
A autora faz neste livro um estudo sobre a forma como nós, Homo Sapiens, nos vemos em contraposição com os restantes animais que se encontram no planeta e de que forma essa nossa percepção acaba por afectar não só a nossa visão dos outros animais com quem partilhamos o planeta, mas também de nós mesmos, das pessoas que nos rodeiam e da nossa mortalidade. Sendo que este último ponto acaba por ser um motor que nos impele a desenvolver e evoluir, procurar soluções e tentar fintar algo que é, por si só, parte de um ciclo natural.
É um livro que aborda Biologia, Psicologia, Filosofia, Sociologia, alguma política (não fossemos nós animais sociais). Como disse, o livro é um estudo e, portanto, tem uma bibliografia extensa para defender ou contrapôr ideias e ideais, o que faz com que seja um livro para se ir lendo, reflectindo e interiorizando ou mesmo debater as ideias que nos são apresentadas.
Também acho importante referir que em 2018 estive a um passo muito, muito pequeno de uma depressão, que caí numa crise existencial que me deixou numa espécie de buraco negro onde nada fazia sentido. E que lembrar-me que somos animais, que fazemos parte de um ciclo, foi o que me ajudou a encontrar o pé. Portanto, este livro foi "food for thought", onde me revi em algumas das ideias, descobri algumas novas e acrescentei livros à wishlist.
Nunca tive um livro tão cheio de post-its. Nem que me demorasse tanto a ler. Mas valeu cada página.
June 27, 2023
All that we do, we do as animals. But we justify it as humans. The way that we've structured the world is little more than the intuition of an animal whose greatest interests lie with its own kind. But we almost never confess to this. We tell ourselves instead that we have a soul. Or, if we don't want to call it a soul, we say there is a person inside us that is more important than the body from which it's made. In this way, the bodies of other animals mean nothing. They are bits of machinery, spare parts. We may use them as we wish. (52)In How to Be Animal, Melanie Challenger nicely outlines the problems created by our belief in personhood, soulfulness, or our "uniquely unique" status amongst animals.
If I could add to the passage above, I'd point out that biologists refer to species whose populations boom and whose territories grow as "invasive." It seems pretty clear that humanity is an invasive species. If we accept that, we need to revisit Charles C. Mann's essay "The State of the Species." In it, he cites arguments by Lynn Margulis that compare humanity's rise through demographic transition to that of a bacterial culture. A bacteria culture grows until it has used all available resources and then it retreats. If we are more than a bacterial culture in our use of resources, we'll need to find a way to curb our growth before our population busts. Or we figure out fusion and mine asteroids.
I broadly agree that every question Challenger asks here matters--and also that these questions matter more than people commonly realize. However, given that these questions are not especially new, I was hoping for a more comprehensive and readable review of past arguments than Challenger offers. And perhaps I also would hope for something more in the conclusion than "if we matter, so does everything else" (218). Yes, great, and yet... What follows from that realization is what we need to work out, but it's where Challenger's work ends.
A more readable overview of these philosophical clashes is offered in Ecocriticism, by Garrard.
Update 2023: Ezra Klein Show interview.
May 25, 2022
I have never read a book where I agree with the thesis of an author but the arguments are so poorly done that I want to disagree with my own initial view that should be the same as the author's!!!
My main point of contention with this book is the gross inaccuracies. First, Challenger broadly assumes that all scientists believe that humans are not animals while proceeding later in the book to give science that suggests that humans are animals (which the scientists agree upon!!) **REVISION: Further conversations with the author clarify that she does not mean scientists don't believe that humans are animals, but that exceptionalism, the idea that humans are different, superior, exceptional, is at play. Second, there are inaccurate interpretations of major philosophers. She tries to argue that Kant viewed people as means when his main maxim is to never use people as a means to an end! This seems to point towards Kant looking into dehumanization, but I am still unclear on how this sentence relates. Thirdly, and the most obvious fact, in my opinion, is trying to compare gorillas as the closest relatives to humans. I mean, come on. I feel like it's common knowledge at this point to know that chimpanzees are humans' closest relatives. UPDATE: in future editions, this will be changed to better clarify that humans are closer to chimpanzees, but there are similarities in general with gorillas.
The content below is very emotionally driven. I write reviews immediately after I complete a book which inherently lends my reviews to have a lot of emotional bias. Read at your own risk
Having these easy inaccuracies discredits much of the rest of the book. Had I not known these facts already, I would blindly accept them as credible truth—I mean she's an awarded researcher. So, for every fact that I am not previously familiar with, I can only take it with a grain of salt. This is a terrible application of #evidencebased.
And to make matters worse, the bibliography is selective, with her excuse being that her thinking for this book extends back over a decade. However, when referencing major sciences and philosophy, this is extremely problematic. Why write a book and have it published by a major publisher, just to be a half-assed effort.
Challenger also fails to really understand her audience. Some arguments would be good points, but the emotional associations with the argument make people think about another fear, not the contemplation of humans with animals. For example, genetic engineering is much scarier thinking about the consequences to humanity than thinking that the idea that humans can control so much of our bodies by chemicals limits the argument that humans have some superior inherent being, like a soul. She continually tries to stretch her points in very awkward and overextended ways that do not do any audience justice.
The organization within the book was not strong either. There were random photos inserted that vaguely resembled what was discussed on the pages, but not always. A simple caption would improve this so much better with more evident justifications or reasons as to why those pictures (out of all pictures) are specifically there.
I really wanted to like this book. I was so excited to finally see a full-length book that talks about a concept that I see so often overlooked. I hate to say this, but with her execution, I see why many people overlook it. I wish we had a better representation of this idea on the shelves.
Overall, I do not recommend this book, and I do not understand how a major publishing company or bookstore can print and shelve this. Allowing these books to face the shelves makes me less certain to trust any books' claims that I see now. That's sad.
On the bright side, this cover was really well designed. I loved the inclusion of so many types of animals— shout out to the octopus, eel, snail, bee, seahorse, and dragonfly. And I just noticed that the animals form the borders of a silhouetted human and that's pretty cool.
Anyways, skip this one, but if you see it in the bookstore, stop and admire the cover for a second. It's a good one.
My main point of contention with this book is the gross inaccuracies. First, Challenger broadly assumes that all scientists believe that humans are not animals while proceeding later in the book to give science that suggests that humans are animals (which the scientists agree upon!!) **REVISION: Further conversations with the author clarify that she does not mean scientists don't believe that humans are animals, but that exceptionalism, the idea that humans are different, superior, exceptional, is at play. Second, there are inaccurate interpretations of major philosophers. She tries to argue that Kant viewed people as means when his main maxim is to never use people as a means to an end! This seems to point towards Kant looking into dehumanization, but I am still unclear on how this sentence relates. Thirdly, and the most obvious fact, in my opinion, is trying to compare gorillas as the closest relatives to humans. I mean, come on. I feel like it's common knowledge at this point to know that chimpanzees are humans' closest relatives. UPDATE: in future editions, this will be changed to better clarify that humans are closer to chimpanzees, but there are similarities in general with gorillas.
The content below is very emotionally driven. I write reviews immediately after I complete a book which inherently lends my reviews to have a lot of emotional bias. Read at your own risk
Having these easy inaccuracies discredits much of the rest of the book. Had I not known these facts already, I would blindly accept them as credible truth—I mean she's an awarded researcher. So, for every fact that I am not previously familiar with, I can only take it with a grain of salt. This is a terrible application of #evidencebased.
And to make matters worse, the bibliography is selective, with her excuse being that her thinking for this book extends back over a decade. However, when referencing major sciences and philosophy, this is extremely problematic. Why write a book and have it published by a major publisher, just to be a half-assed effort.
Challenger also fails to really understand her audience. Some arguments would be good points, but the emotional associations with the argument make people think about another fear, not the contemplation of humans with animals. For example, genetic engineering is much scarier thinking about the consequences to humanity than thinking that the idea that humans can control so much of our bodies by chemicals limits the argument that humans have some superior inherent being, like a soul. She continually tries to stretch her points in very awkward and overextended ways that do not do any audience justice.
The organization within the book was not strong either. There were random photos inserted that vaguely resembled what was discussed on the pages, but not always. A simple caption would improve this so much better with more evident justifications or reasons as to why those pictures (out of all pictures) are specifically there.
I really wanted to like this book. I was so excited to finally see a full-length book that talks about a concept that I see so often overlooked. I hate to say this, but with her execution, I see why many people overlook it. I wish we had a better representation of this idea on the shelves.
Overall, I do not recommend this book, and I do not understand how a major publishing company or bookstore can print and shelve this. Allowing these books to face the shelves makes me less certain to trust any books' claims that I see now. That's sad.
On the bright side, this cover was really well designed. I loved the inclusion of so many types of animals— shout out to the octopus, eel, snail, bee, seahorse, and dragonfly. And I just noticed that the animals form the borders of a silhouetted human and that's pretty cool.
Anyways, skip this one, but if you see it in the bookstore, stop and admire the cover for a second. It's a good one.
September 21, 2020
Whimsical, while maintaining its deeply scientific narrative - it's fascinating, thought provoking, and delightfully readable!
Like how Isabel Wilkerson exposed engineered superiority in Caste, How to Be Animal illustrates how we are feigning to be something which we created.
Deeply researched, while using fun metaphors like comparing scientific entropy to a slowly melting Gin and Tonic.
If you're a fan of Yuval Noah Harari's Sapiens, Helen Macdonald, Barry Lopez, Diane Ackerman, or E.O. Wilson you may thoroughly enjoy this too!
Galley borrowed from the publisher.
Like how Isabel Wilkerson exposed engineered superiority in Caste, How to Be Animal illustrates how we are feigning to be something which we created.
Deeply researched, while using fun metaphors like comparing scientific entropy to a slowly melting Gin and Tonic.
If you're a fan of Yuval Noah Harari's Sapiens, Helen Macdonald, Barry Lopez, Diane Ackerman, or E.O. Wilson you may thoroughly enjoy this too!
Galley borrowed from the publisher.
July 27, 2023
I quite liked this one. A neat philosophy-light read dealing with our human struggle to be more than animal when we would arguably be better off just admitting that an animal is exactly what we are. That is, if we can handle not being special.
Challenger dives head-first into the quagmire that is humanity and our struggle to be more than we are. To mean something. To not be just another animal. It's a delicate balance she tries to strike, one that has challenged big thinkers, biologists, and religions since the dawn of our time.
She questions our claim to supremacy and asks how we can assign ourselves a greater value than any other living thing. Is it because we think, care, or can - and if so, why, because so too can other creatures (except maybe the can bit), and not all of us.
Challenger does take a few liberties with establishing baselines that she then challenges, and some of the arguments aren't as satisfactory or well reasoned as one would, perhaps, hope. However, it's a wonderful, entertaining, sometimes thought-provoking, and easily accessible philosophical read about nothing less than who and what we are, and why.
Ultimately, "How to Be Animal" doesn't answer any of these questions, not really. But that's not really the point either, I think, the point is to think. And not to think, to be true, to be animal, to be human.
After all, "[a]ll that we do, we do as animals. But we justify it as humans."
Recommended!
Challenger dives head-first into the quagmire that is humanity and our struggle to be more than we are. To mean something. To not be just another animal. It's a delicate balance she tries to strike, one that has challenged big thinkers, biologists, and religions since the dawn of our time.
She questions our claim to supremacy and asks how we can assign ourselves a greater value than any other living thing. Is it because we think, care, or can - and if so, why, because so too can other creatures (except maybe the can bit), and not all of us.
Challenger does take a few liberties with establishing baselines that she then challenges, and some of the arguments aren't as satisfactory or well reasoned as one would, perhaps, hope. However, it's a wonderful, entertaining, sometimes thought-provoking, and easily accessible philosophical read about nothing less than who and what we are, and why.
Ultimately, "How to Be Animal" doesn't answer any of these questions, not really. But that's not really the point either, I think, the point is to think. And not to think, to be true, to be animal, to be human.
After all, "[a]ll that we do, we do as animals. But we justify it as humans."
Recommended!
February 9, 2025
A bit wobbly, scientifically speaking.
While the questions Challenger raises are important and interesting, they are far from being new, most of what she mentioned was part of my high school biology curriculum. Furthermore, her answers are insuficiente, sometimes contradictory, and a few times even incorrect.
And I do wish people would stop erasing Rosalind Franklin's scientific contributions, this was published in 2020, it's baffling that Challenger still attributes Franklin's findings to Watson.
In summary: I like the idea of this book but dislike the execution.
While the questions Challenger raises are important and interesting, they are far from being new, most of what she mentioned was part of my high school biology curriculum. Furthermore, her answers are insuficiente, sometimes contradictory, and a few times even incorrect.
And I do wish people would stop erasing Rosalind Franklin's scientific contributions, this was published in 2020, it's baffling that Challenger still attributes Franklin's findings to Watson.
In summary: I like the idea of this book but dislike the execution.
April 12, 2021
I so expected to thoroughly love this book. The author is a favorite (see On Extinction) and I’ve found myself deeply immersed in topic because of her writing style and expertise. This book captivated me in a similar way through the first third. But then I found myself feeling as if I was a skipping stone, touching down now and then to experience one message but then lifting off to another with little connection. Similarly, another reviewer mentioned a lack of flow.
The first third of the book was gorgeous and here’s a few take-aways. Having subjective consciousness has allowed us to view ourselves as different, separate and superior: ”obviously related...convincingly different”. And to imagine a linear existence for both ourselves and our species...the great march towards goodness and progress.
Finding ourselves part of the animal world, subject to natural forces, begets moral uncertainty and existential dread. It is so much easier to deny - hence the “psychology necessity” of religion. Personally this takes me to the bargaining one does within organized religion; the promise to make that all disappear “if…”
Yet we live as organisms in the world - breaking bread with friends, a loving touch, the smell of saltwater or cedar. “Which is the truest part of the human experience, the animal, bodily feelings or the mental flickers of a wilful, storytelling intelligence?” I sense this line every day now. I trust this sense more. (See Mary Oliver “You only have to let the soft animal of your body love what it loves.” in Wild Geese.)
The ordered appearance of life resulting from “eating” free energy and “pooping” entropy is a deceit conveying an immunity to natural forces. “The provenance of all we enjoy is a sequence of events and processes that have no obvious concern for what we now think of as the rightness or wrongness of something.” This thought is the shoehorn we need to detach from the value-laden view of being convincingly different. This may explain why I live by big water and mountains; I don’t kayak or hike but I so love the reminder of the proper scale of things.
The rest of the book consists of thoroughly researched and detailed supportive arguments and this is where I started to lose that flow. And while I believe in her work, it’s a tough, but necessary, sell. How will humans begin to accept a perceived “demotion”? It skewers our schadenfreude. And so I worry about that shift from narrative to presentation.
All in all, I would recommend the book. Once I had found the beauty in the early chapters, perhaps I expected too much from the followers. Challenger is a beautiful writer and thinker. And I’ve come away with much to consider and ponder.
I received a copy courtesy of the Good Reads giveaways and am grateful.
The first third of the book was gorgeous and here’s a few take-aways. Having subjective consciousness has allowed us to view ourselves as different, separate and superior: ”obviously related...convincingly different”. And to imagine a linear existence for both ourselves and our species...the great march towards goodness and progress.
Finding ourselves part of the animal world, subject to natural forces, begets moral uncertainty and existential dread. It is so much easier to deny - hence the “psychology necessity” of religion. Personally this takes me to the bargaining one does within organized religion; the promise to make that all disappear “if…”
Yet we live as organisms in the world - breaking bread with friends, a loving touch, the smell of saltwater or cedar. “Which is the truest part of the human experience, the animal, bodily feelings or the mental flickers of a wilful, storytelling intelligence?” I sense this line every day now. I trust this sense more. (See Mary Oliver “You only have to let the soft animal of your body love what it loves.” in Wild Geese.)
The ordered appearance of life resulting from “eating” free energy and “pooping” entropy is a deceit conveying an immunity to natural forces. “The provenance of all we enjoy is a sequence of events and processes that have no obvious concern for what we now think of as the rightness or wrongness of something.” This thought is the shoehorn we need to detach from the value-laden view of being convincingly different. This may explain why I live by big water and mountains; I don’t kayak or hike but I so love the reminder of the proper scale of things.
The rest of the book consists of thoroughly researched and detailed supportive arguments and this is where I started to lose that flow. And while I believe in her work, it’s a tough, but necessary, sell. How will humans begin to accept a perceived “demotion”? It skewers our schadenfreude. And so I worry about that shift from narrative to presentation.
All in all, I would recommend the book. Once I had found the beauty in the early chapters, perhaps I expected too much from the followers. Challenger is a beautiful writer and thinker. And I’ve come away with much to consider and ponder.
I received a copy courtesy of the Good Reads giveaways and am grateful.
August 23, 2022
I found it a really nice book , it makes you wonder and think deeply about how humans neglect their natural, animalistic side.
November 1, 2021
Dissecação do antropocentrismo e do racionalismo que define o Ocidente como uma impressão digital que longe de ser congénita é histórica e socialmente adquirida.
O conceito de dignidade, o especismo, a biotecnologia e os paradoxos concomitantes que enfrentamos no transumanismo tão próximo. A negação de sermos um animal e o separatismo inevitável, o divórcio com a natureza e a vontade de domínio e controlo.
É impossível avançar tecnologica e moralmente sem uma reflexão profunda sobre aquilo que somos e para onde vamos. Despidos de pretensões de superioridade de raça, talvez possamos comungar e acenar com respeito para todos os seres. Talvez fossemos melhores, se nos víssemos como animais. Sem repressão da vergonha de nos vermos nus, da senescência, da morte.
Com a empatia, compaixão, vulnerabilidade, hostilidade, medos e ansiedades.
Challenger escreve com paixão, com maestria, num estilo que ultrapassa a mera objectividade da divulgação científica, conseguindo a tónica sensível capaz de chegar não só à mente como ao coração do espírito. Impactante, surpreendentemente simples o tema mas com repercussões paradigmáticas na discussão ética do presente e do futuro da evolução humana.
O conceito de dignidade, o especismo, a biotecnologia e os paradoxos concomitantes que enfrentamos no transumanismo tão próximo. A negação de sermos um animal e o separatismo inevitável, o divórcio com a natureza e a vontade de domínio e controlo.
É impossível avançar tecnologica e moralmente sem uma reflexão profunda sobre aquilo que somos e para onde vamos. Despidos de pretensões de superioridade de raça, talvez possamos comungar e acenar com respeito para todos os seres. Talvez fossemos melhores, se nos víssemos como animais. Sem repressão da vergonha de nos vermos nus, da senescência, da morte.
Com a empatia, compaixão, vulnerabilidade, hostilidade, medos e ansiedades.
Challenger escreve com paixão, com maestria, num estilo que ultrapassa a mera objectividade da divulgação científica, conseguindo a tónica sensível capaz de chegar não só à mente como ao coração do espírito. Impactante, surpreendentemente simples o tema mas com repercussões paradigmáticas na discussão ética do presente e do futuro da evolução humana.
September 7, 2025
As a small kid, I was always correcting my parents and other adults and reminding them that ‘actually, humans ARE animals’, so I felt quite self-satisfied through this book. The author approached the subject matter from so many different perspectives and wove in broad themes, such as our fear of death (reminder to self to get a little memento mori for my desk). I very much recommend.
However - it’s very rooted in the Western tradition of philosophy, and the author only briefly acknowledges Eastern and Indigenous points of view to summarily dismiss them as fringe - yikes.
A bit too dense for audio format, but I really appreciated it nonetheless. I’d like to take a second go with a physical copy.
Oh! Another note. I loved the part about the body being an integral part of our humanness and spirit/soul/self/mind/personhood! It reminds me of Gabor Mate’s writings on healing our traumas. We are our bodies - there is no separate self.
However - it’s very rooted in the Western tradition of philosophy, and the author only briefly acknowledges Eastern and Indigenous points of view to summarily dismiss them as fringe - yikes.
A bit too dense for audio format, but I really appreciated it nonetheless. I’d like to take a second go with a physical copy.
Oh! Another note. I loved the part about the body being an integral part of our humanness and spirit/soul/self/mind/personhood! It reminds me of Gabor Mate’s writings on healing our traumas. We are our bodies - there is no separate self.
January 10, 2022
I adored this book.
Challenger's thesis is that our mental separation of ourselves from nature, our insistence that we are not animals, is the hierarchical basis for every other form of hierarchy, and that efforts to dehumanize would become ineffective if we no longer believed that the other-than-human was necessarily less-than and exists only to be used or exterminated.
Given that I already believed this, confirmation bias may play a role here--but I'd encourage you to read this book and think about it even if the idea of human equivalence to other living things offends you.
Challenger's thesis is that our mental separation of ourselves from nature, our insistence that we are not animals, is the hierarchical basis for every other form of hierarchy, and that efforts to dehumanize would become ineffective if we no longer believed that the other-than-human was necessarily less-than and exists only to be used or exterminated.
Given that I already believed this, confirmation bias may play a role here--but I'd encourage you to read this book and think about it even if the idea of human equivalence to other living things offends you.
August 31, 2021
Uma reflexão extraordinária sobre a natureza do homo sapiens e seu lugar no mundo, que diariamente nos esquecemos ou escolhemos ignorar. Ser Animal, Ser Humano apresenta-se como uma excelente oportunidade para revermos e repensarmos quem somos enquanto espécie e o valor que atribuímos às restantes formas de vida, bem como para reajustarmos as nossas relações com as mesmas. Assente numa bibliografia riquíssima, esta obra foi das melhores que li em 2021.
July 14, 2021
Libro completamente sesgado, me esperaba un libro más objetivo. El argumento del libro es el de que somos animales y no personas. Todo el libro gira entorno a esa idea, con curiosidades e ideas sacadas de otros libros y siempre llevadas a su terreno. Parece más un ensayo de fin de carrera que un libro científico.
Ah! Si crees que la vida de una gallina tiene el mismo valor que la de una persona lee este libro. Te gustará.
Ah! Si crees que la vida de una gallina tiene el mismo valor que la de una persona lee este libro. Te gustará.
May 5, 2022
There is a contradiction at the core of this book. Melanie Challenger says that humans should embrace the fact that they are animals and not pretend to themselves that they can transcend their animal nature. Very well, let us embrace the fact that we are animals and that our ancestors were meat-eating predators. For example, we still have canine teeth which are evidence of our predatory past. However, that conclusion is not what Challenger arrives at. Instead, she says that all species are equal and therefore humans have no right to kill any other species. So now, instead of embracing our predatory past, we are being asked to transcend it and to adopt a moral position which will outlaw meat-eating. Thus Challenger contradicts her earlier assertion that humans are only animals and nothing more. The contradiction is further emphasised by Challenger's repeated denunciations of humans claiming to transcend their animal status. But if transcendence is out, then we are driven back to accepting our predatory instincts, which Challenger does not want to do.
The muddle at the heart of the book is hidden by the plethora of side-issues which ramble over a wide range of topics from genetics to Humanism to Big Bang cosmology to AI. Some people enjoy that kind of beach-combing and the odd titbits of information which it throws up. Others, including myself, find it tiresome, like having a discussion with someone who keeps skipping off onto other topics instead of dealing with the subject in hand.
The muddle at the heart of the book is hidden by the plethora of side-issues which ramble over a wide range of topics from genetics to Humanism to Big Bang cosmology to AI. Some people enjoy that kind of beach-combing and the odd titbits of information which it throws up. Others, including myself, find it tiresome, like having a discussion with someone who keeps skipping off onto other topics instead of dealing with the subject in hand.
July 5, 2021
"El animal que somos" es un interesante ensayo a medio camino entre ciencia y filosofía, con un importante trabajo previo de investigación que nos recuerda nuestra naturaleza animal y nos invita a redescubrir la visión que tenemos de nosotros mismos y de nuestro lugar en un mundo que estamos destruyendo poco a poco.
En palabras de la propia autora:
"Pensamos en otros animales como algo separado de nosotros porque no pueden escapar de su naturaleza animal. Pero, ¿qué nos hace estar tan seguros de que hemos escapado de la nuestra?"
Melanie Challenger
En palabras de la propia autora:
"Pensamos en otros animales como algo separado de nosotros porque no pueden escapar de su naturaleza animal. Pero, ¿qué nos hace estar tan seguros de que hemos escapado de la nuestra?"
Melanie Challenger
May 29, 2022
I loved the idea of this book, however the execution left me disappointed. The book doesn't seem to have any type of structure, rather resembling a long essay. The author seems to jump from idea to idea and then come back to the previous idea, which leaves the reader confused.
I also find the title a bit misgiving. My expectations were of a book showing us "How To Be Animal". In reality, it discusses how unwilling we are to accept that we are animals. Of course, this discussion is necessary, seeing as most people are unwilling to accept this fact. However, I wish that this would have been a part and not the subject of the book.
I also find the title a bit misgiving. My expectations were of a book showing us "How To Be Animal". In reality, it discusses how unwilling we are to accept that we are animals. Of course, this discussion is necessary, seeing as most people are unwilling to accept this fact. However, I wish that this would have been a part and not the subject of the book.
October 25, 2021
Overall, I liked it, but the content is rather repetitive. The better title for this book would be “How to be Human” since it mostly spends time on distinction rather than the similarities.
December 3, 2023
Important issues, little substance
Challenger is appropriately drawing attention to some key questions and problems about how humans understand themselves in relation to the rest of the world. I understand her frustration with philosophical, religious, humanist, or transhumanist doctrines that make our animality into something awkward or problematic.
But she often focuses her critiques on naive representatives of those views, and/or fails to seriously engage their more sophisticated representatives. I don’t distrust her scientific credibility, but her understanding of several philosophers, and religious thinkers especially, seemed very shallow. This is most damning to her case when she briefly acknowledges thinkers like Aristotle and Alasdair MacIntyre, but never interacts with their accounts of human animality.
As other reviewers have noted, it’s not at all clear what she wants us to do in light of affirming our animal nature. She naturally thinks we over-privilege human ends, disregarding and abusing other life forms often into extinction. But this is very clearly a value-weighting problem, because we have finite resources. And she offers no concrete way to make the necessary judgments—e.g., how much effort should we spend on alleviating human poverty in comparison to how much we spend on conservation of animal species? Without specifics, the best this book can be said to do is “raise awareness”, not advance practical discussion.
If the title or premise of this books intrigues you, I’d suggest just reading Dependent Rational Animals or something by Martha Nussbaum, or Aristotle for that matter.
Challenger is appropriately drawing attention to some key questions and problems about how humans understand themselves in relation to the rest of the world. I understand her frustration with philosophical, religious, humanist, or transhumanist doctrines that make our animality into something awkward or problematic.
But she often focuses her critiques on naive representatives of those views, and/or fails to seriously engage their more sophisticated representatives. I don’t distrust her scientific credibility, but her understanding of several philosophers, and religious thinkers especially, seemed very shallow. This is most damning to her case when she briefly acknowledges thinkers like Aristotle and Alasdair MacIntyre, but never interacts with their accounts of human animality.
As other reviewers have noted, it’s not at all clear what she wants us to do in light of affirming our animal nature. She naturally thinks we over-privilege human ends, disregarding and abusing other life forms often into extinction. But this is very clearly a value-weighting problem, because we have finite resources. And she offers no concrete way to make the necessary judgments—e.g., how much effort should we spend on alleviating human poverty in comparison to how much we spend on conservation of animal species? Without specifics, the best this book can be said to do is “raise awareness”, not advance practical discussion.
If the title or premise of this books intrigues you, I’d suggest just reading Dependent Rational Animals or something by Martha Nussbaum, or Aristotle for that matter.
May 16, 2022
Was keen to read this book for a while and when I came across it in paperback by chance I had to grab it and dive straight in.
The book discusses and illustrates ideas I’ve felt for a while myself, regarding humans being a part of nature and we ourselves are a species of animal. The author also discusses a variety of aspects from which to view this, with a Pandora’s box of ideas unleashed. However, perhaps it it too many ideas, and it is this that I take one star down for.
There are so many points and ideas to fit into 232 pages that many of the points are only ever so slightly touched on, and this makes the book a bit haphazard to read. This causes to book to not read as smoothly as I personally would like, like a child telling a story with lots of tangents that often go unfinished. It also means that some of the ideas aren’t delved into deeper, which would have been interesting, but instead are only glossed over. Perhaps the author should have considered either making the book larger, or selecting fewer points explored much deeper.
The overall sentiment is, for me, great though and elements of my philosophy degree are touched upon in this book which has been a bit helpful. I would say it’s a mixture of science and philosophy, so will interest anyone with those dispositions. It also made me want to turn vegetarian and now see animals and nature in an altered light.
The book discusses and illustrates ideas I’ve felt for a while myself, regarding humans being a part of nature and we ourselves are a species of animal. The author also discusses a variety of aspects from which to view this, with a Pandora’s box of ideas unleashed. However, perhaps it it too many ideas, and it is this that I take one star down for.
There are so many points and ideas to fit into 232 pages that many of the points are only ever so slightly touched on, and this makes the book a bit haphazard to read. This causes to book to not read as smoothly as I personally would like, like a child telling a story with lots of tangents that often go unfinished. It also means that some of the ideas aren’t delved into deeper, which would have been interesting, but instead are only glossed over. Perhaps the author should have considered either making the book larger, or selecting fewer points explored much deeper.
The overall sentiment is, for me, great though and elements of my philosophy degree are touched upon in this book which has been a bit helpful. I would say it’s a mixture of science and philosophy, so will interest anyone with those dispositions. It also made me want to turn vegetarian and now see animals and nature in an altered light.
January 2, 2025
I liked this book, and would have given 3.5 stars if this was an option.
I agree with the main thrust of the book: humans are fundamentally animals; we have developed complex and contradictory narratives to convince ourselves otherwise; and this is significant for how we navigate the ethical challenges and material constraints of the future.
I like that it is illustrated with a diverse array of references from philosophy through to anthropology and the natural sciences. I've read and thought a lot on this topic, and Challenger's book has made me think differently about aspects of it.
My main criticism is that the argument is buried in a style and structure that feels unnecessarily hard to follow. I wasn't looking for academic writing, but I feel the points could be brought out more clearly without making it dull.
I also hoped there would be more said about what being animals means for our daily lives, system of morality, politics and the like, and how to embrace this truth productively. The book was strangely silent on this, despite the title including the word "how"...
To me, this was interesting, if slightly awkward to get through. Definitely better than Straw Dogs by John Gray.
I agree with the main thrust of the book: humans are fundamentally animals; we have developed complex and contradictory narratives to convince ourselves otherwise; and this is significant for how we navigate the ethical challenges and material constraints of the future.
I like that it is illustrated with a diverse array of references from philosophy through to anthropology and the natural sciences. I've read and thought a lot on this topic, and Challenger's book has made me think differently about aspects of it.
My main criticism is that the argument is buried in a style and structure that feels unnecessarily hard to follow. I wasn't looking for academic writing, but I feel the points could be brought out more clearly without making it dull.
I also hoped there would be more said about what being animals means for our daily lives, system of morality, politics and the like, and how to embrace this truth productively. The book was strangely silent on this, despite the title including the word "how"...
To me, this was interesting, if slightly awkward to get through. Definitely better than Straw Dogs by John Gray.
April 5, 2025
"No importa lo profundamente que nos adentremos en la sustancia física de los organismos, nunca encontramos el final. No hay ninguna línea divisoria entre nosotros y otros animales, nada que nos pueda ofrecer una categoría moral incuestionable. La ciencia nos enseña no solo que las vidas de otros organismos son mucho más complejas y sintientes de lo que habíamos querido admitir, sino también que nuestros propios rasgos, en menor o mayor grado, son aspectos que la naturaleza puede reinventar. Un golpe para Dios, quizá. Una amenaza aún mayor para un animal racional convencido de ser el centro de todas las cosas."
"No necesitamos acomplejarnos demasiado sobre si algo es natural o si nuestra comprensión de algo en biología es completa. Si observamos como el Homo Sapiens ha interactuado con el resto del mundo viviente, lo que vemos es la emergencia de una relación desequilibrada con la tierra y el resto de sus especies. Los bienes han fluido siempre en nuestra dirección -de una forma bastante directa- y semejante desequilibrio tiene consecuencias. Muchos de los dilemas a los que nos enfrentamos ahora han surgido de tal hecho. No obstante si no hacemos nada, no habrá ningún elemento externo que eche el freno."
Melanie Challenger
"No necesitamos acomplejarnos demasiado sobre si algo es natural o si nuestra comprensión de algo en biología es completa. Si observamos como el Homo Sapiens ha interactuado con el resto del mundo viviente, lo que vemos es la emergencia de una relación desequilibrada con la tierra y el resto de sus especies. Los bienes han fluido siempre en nuestra dirección -de una forma bastante directa- y semejante desequilibrio tiene consecuencias. Muchos de los dilemas a los que nos enfrentamos ahora han surgido de tal hecho. No obstante si no hacemos nada, no habrá ningún elemento externo que eche el freno."
Melanie Challenger
June 1, 2025
A beautifully written study of human exceptionalism, the human animal and the hidden complexity of the world around us and all its nature.
A book that centres empathy at the heart of its thesis, in “How to Be Animal” Melanie Challenger provokes us to think about the way we think of ourselves in relation to the creatures around us and challenges the narratives we construct of our distant animal cousins:
“Our attributes undoubtedly give us an amazing range of behaviours, but this versatility and resilience doesn’t bring our animal life to an end. Our proper place is with our fellow creatures. It’s time we told ourselves a new story of revolutionary simplicity: if we matter, so does everything else.”
- Melanie Challenger
‘Nuff said!
A book that centres empathy at the heart of its thesis, in “How to Be Animal” Melanie Challenger provokes us to think about the way we think of ourselves in relation to the creatures around us and challenges the narratives we construct of our distant animal cousins:
“Our attributes undoubtedly give us an amazing range of behaviours, but this versatility and resilience doesn’t bring our animal life to an end. Our proper place is with our fellow creatures. It’s time we told ourselves a new story of revolutionary simplicity: if we matter, so does everything else.”
- Melanie Challenger
‘Nuff said!
October 18, 2022
Not really down for this book. I agree that humans are animals but I'm not a fan of books of opinions. The author just went off on their opinion in so many different stories with the same theme. At least now I understand why Robin died in Bewilderment.
September 9, 2021
I ended up letting this one go. It just wasn’t holding my interest, and then I forgot to turn in a couple of things at the library, which caused a whole avalanche of other things that couldn’t be renewed and basically I ended up just turning in all 30-ish items rather than try to sort it all out or make one of my former coworkers sort it all out, soooo...I may try checking it out again someday? Maybe? But the small portion I made it through just didn’t hook me enough to make it any kind of priority.
February 5, 2023
“We and the earth and all its other life forms are made of the shrapnel of a dead star.”
An epic brew of the natural sciences, philosophy, cultural criticism and poetry. For me, it’s a book to be read and reread — and its message of kinship held closely pressed against my beating animal heart.
An epic brew of the natural sciences, philosophy, cultural criticism and poetry. For me, it’s a book to be read and reread — and its message of kinship held closely pressed against my beating animal heart.
June 16, 2021
In a poem written in 1980, Galway Kinnell writes of how living things must contain within them a kind of self-love for their own unique biological form. In a way, this is the principle of survival. But he recognises that ‘sometimes it is necessary/to reteach a thing its loveliness’. What follows is an attempt to make sense of the kind of being that we are. Yet it’s more than that. It’s an invitation to refresh in our minds the loveliness of being animal.
In geological terms, we’re an Ice Age, a huge metamorphic force. Our cities and industries have left their imprint in the soil, in the cells of deep-sea creatures, in the distant particles of the atmosphere. The trouble is we don’t know the right way to behave towards life. This uncertainty exists in part because we can’t decide how other life forms matter or even if they do.
Culture’s achievement is to store information outside the body. Ants have reached their global success by diversifying into more than fourteen thousand species, but humans have few environmentally specific adaptations. Homo sapiens have speciated their cultures. A population of more than seven billion of us sharing in cultural knowledge is what has allowed our generation to visit the Moon, while the men and women who painted the caves of Lascaux hadn’t even figured out the wheel. (links to Painting Time by the caves in a chain of coincidences I am enjoying and revelling in.)
Not quite sure the book convinced me of the loveliness of being animal, but I believe it and feel it anyways. Meandering and like a bulleted list of research and theories with little connection.
In geological terms, we’re an Ice Age, a huge metamorphic force. Our cities and industries have left their imprint in the soil, in the cells of deep-sea creatures, in the distant particles of the atmosphere. The trouble is we don’t know the right way to behave towards life. This uncertainty exists in part because we can’t decide how other life forms matter or even if they do.
Culture’s achievement is to store information outside the body. Ants have reached their global success by diversifying into more than fourteen thousand species, but humans have few environmentally specific adaptations. Homo sapiens have speciated their cultures. A population of more than seven billion of us sharing in cultural knowledge is what has allowed our generation to visit the Moon, while the men and women who painted the caves of Lascaux hadn’t even figured out the wheel. (links to Painting Time by the caves in a chain of coincidences I am enjoying and revelling in.)
Not quite sure the book convinced me of the loveliness of being animal, but I believe it and feel it anyways. Meandering and like a bulleted list of research and theories with little connection.
May 15, 2021
En este ensayo filosófico, con gran cantidad de datos biológicos y antropológicos, se nos traslada a los orígenes de la Humanidad para responder a las preguntas bases del relato: ¿Qué nos asemeja con el resto de animales? ¿Por qué nos creemos la cúspide de la evolución?
La primera hipótesis que desarrolla la autora está relacionada con la idea de que nuestra capacidad para pensar y la ética y moralidad con que nos conducimos nos hace más que animales, pero animales al fin y al cabo. Aunque bien es cierto que defiende la idea, la realidad biológica mejor dicho, de que somos animales a los que la evolución los llevó a ser el animal más poderoso de la Naturaleza.
Por otro lado, aunque no comparte esas ideas, nos hace llegar todos los puntos de vista y pensamientos filosóficos que existen y han existidos y han postulado sobre este tema, dando noticia extensa de las cuestiones por las que hay muchos científicos y demás personas que creen que no somos animales.
Después de esto nos adentra en los pensamientos que creen que los seres humanos son una especie de dioses capaces de crear y rediseñar la vida de su entorno a discreción porque se tiene la idea de que los animales no sienten, ni piensan ni tienen la misma conciencia de su existencia, mientras que los humanos si tenemos esa conciencia subjetiva que nos diferencia del resto de especies. Así nos previene de este peligroso pensamiento, haciendo hincapié en que somos animales que se han olvidado de esta condición.
Ahora bien, para conseguir esto nuestra reacción cognitiva más frecuente es deshumanizar a otras personas, por motivos económicos, políticos, religiosos o raciales, a las cuales utilizamos en nuestro beneficio sin ningún pudor. Sin embargo esta forma de actuar no impide para que los humanos, “Homo sapiens”, basemos nuestra forma de vida en la socialización al igual que hacen las demás especies de animales.
Y aunque muchos humanos no quieran otorgársela, los animales también tienen conciencia, aunque no tienen desarrollado una conciencia moral que indique que es lo que está bien o mal.
Durante todo el ensayo la doctora Challenger nos va guiando por las diferentes visiones que existen sobre el hombre para que a poco que reflexionemos nos demos cuenta que nuestro comportamiento es idéntico al de los animales, pues somos animales que gracias a la evolución desarrollaron una conciencia que nos hizo darnos cuenta de nuestra propia existencia, amén de una racionalidad que superó a las conductas instintivas que todavía conservamos.
También nos avisa sobre los peligros que supone fiarlo todo a la Inteligencia Artificial (I.A.) y a las máquinas, en querer convertirnos en máquinas para evitar la muerte, pues perderíamos nuestra verdadera esencia por mucho que nos creamos superiores al resto del reino animal. De esta manera nos revela y hace que pensemos en los problemas éticos y morales que acarrea este comportamiento.
Y aunque haya muchos humanos que no quieran aceptar el hecho de que somos animales, biológicamente demostrado, por el simple hecho de ser capaces de ir aumentando nuestro conocimiento a través de la acumulación del mismo, y ser capaces de pensar en cuestiones abstractas, lo cierto es que esto no nos hace diferentes a los animales cuando tenemos que reaccionar a algún estímulo que nos provoque ansiedad, miedo o pánico. Por ello, al igual que nuestros parientes animales, buscamos refugio y confort en el grupo ante estas situaciones.
Ni siquiera el comportamiento ante la muerte nos humaniza o nos hace excepcionales.
En definitiva, lo que creemos que nos hace únicos no es más que una creencia que nos hemos inventado para justificar nuestras acciones.
Bajo mi prima de opinión, este denso, por la cantidad de información y argumentos que aporta, no por su dificultad para entenderlo ni por su extensión, lo que hace es abrirnos los ojos hacía una realidad que ya hemos olvidado, o hemos querido olvidar, y que nos ha llevado a ir destruyendo nuestro planeta al pensar que estaba a nuestro servicio y no al contrario.
Leyendo sus páginas he vuelto a recordar de dónde venimos y he podido vislumbrar hacía dónde vamos, o iremos, si no cambiamos nuestra manera de pensar y actuar. Además de reforzar mi pensamiento de que no somos inmortales, ni lo seremos, pues aunque consigamos prolongar la vida de nuestro organismo, al ser un ente biológico tiende a morir para generar nuevas formas de vida. Al igual que ha hecho que reflexione sobre que lo que nos diferencia del resto de animales también hace que nos demos cuenta que somos hijos del mismo proceso evolutivo.
Finalmente tengo que decir que me encantó su lectura, altamente recomendable para ajustar nuestro comportamiento hacía el planeta, a la par que me ayudó a comprender mejor el mundo en que vivo y el devenir de nuestra propia especie, aquejada de un lento proceso de extinción provocado por nuestra intervención artificial sobre el ecosistema que nos rodea.
La primera hipótesis que desarrolla la autora está relacionada con la idea de que nuestra capacidad para pensar y la ética y moralidad con que nos conducimos nos hace más que animales, pero animales al fin y al cabo. Aunque bien es cierto que defiende la idea, la realidad biológica mejor dicho, de que somos animales a los que la evolución los llevó a ser el animal más poderoso de la Naturaleza.
Por otro lado, aunque no comparte esas ideas, nos hace llegar todos los puntos de vista y pensamientos filosóficos que existen y han existidos y han postulado sobre este tema, dando noticia extensa de las cuestiones por las que hay muchos científicos y demás personas que creen que no somos animales.
Después de esto nos adentra en los pensamientos que creen que los seres humanos son una especie de dioses capaces de crear y rediseñar la vida de su entorno a discreción porque se tiene la idea de que los animales no sienten, ni piensan ni tienen la misma conciencia de su existencia, mientras que los humanos si tenemos esa conciencia subjetiva que nos diferencia del resto de especies. Así nos previene de este peligroso pensamiento, haciendo hincapié en que somos animales que se han olvidado de esta condición.
Ahora bien, para conseguir esto nuestra reacción cognitiva más frecuente es deshumanizar a otras personas, por motivos económicos, políticos, religiosos o raciales, a las cuales utilizamos en nuestro beneficio sin ningún pudor. Sin embargo esta forma de actuar no impide para que los humanos, “Homo sapiens”, basemos nuestra forma de vida en la socialización al igual que hacen las demás especies de animales.
Y aunque muchos humanos no quieran otorgársela, los animales también tienen conciencia, aunque no tienen desarrollado una conciencia moral que indique que es lo que está bien o mal.
Durante todo el ensayo la doctora Challenger nos va guiando por las diferentes visiones que existen sobre el hombre para que a poco que reflexionemos nos demos cuenta que nuestro comportamiento es idéntico al de los animales, pues somos animales que gracias a la evolución desarrollaron una conciencia que nos hizo darnos cuenta de nuestra propia existencia, amén de una racionalidad que superó a las conductas instintivas que todavía conservamos.
También nos avisa sobre los peligros que supone fiarlo todo a la Inteligencia Artificial (I.A.) y a las máquinas, en querer convertirnos en máquinas para evitar la muerte, pues perderíamos nuestra verdadera esencia por mucho que nos creamos superiores al resto del reino animal. De esta manera nos revela y hace que pensemos en los problemas éticos y morales que acarrea este comportamiento.
Y aunque haya muchos humanos que no quieran aceptar el hecho de que somos animales, biológicamente demostrado, por el simple hecho de ser capaces de ir aumentando nuestro conocimiento a través de la acumulación del mismo, y ser capaces de pensar en cuestiones abstractas, lo cierto es que esto no nos hace diferentes a los animales cuando tenemos que reaccionar a algún estímulo que nos provoque ansiedad, miedo o pánico. Por ello, al igual que nuestros parientes animales, buscamos refugio y confort en el grupo ante estas situaciones.
Ni siquiera el comportamiento ante la muerte nos humaniza o nos hace excepcionales.
En definitiva, lo que creemos que nos hace únicos no es más que una creencia que nos hemos inventado para justificar nuestras acciones.
Bajo mi prima de opinión, este denso, por la cantidad de información y argumentos que aporta, no por su dificultad para entenderlo ni por su extensión, lo que hace es abrirnos los ojos hacía una realidad que ya hemos olvidado, o hemos querido olvidar, y que nos ha llevado a ir destruyendo nuestro planeta al pensar que estaba a nuestro servicio y no al contrario.
Leyendo sus páginas he vuelto a recordar de dónde venimos y he podido vislumbrar hacía dónde vamos, o iremos, si no cambiamos nuestra manera de pensar y actuar. Además de reforzar mi pensamiento de que no somos inmortales, ni lo seremos, pues aunque consigamos prolongar la vida de nuestro organismo, al ser un ente biológico tiende a morir para generar nuevas formas de vida. Al igual que ha hecho que reflexione sobre que lo que nos diferencia del resto de animales también hace que nos demos cuenta que somos hijos del mismo proceso evolutivo.
Finalmente tengo que decir que me encantó su lectura, altamente recomendable para ajustar nuestro comportamiento hacía el planeta, a la par que me ayudó a comprender mejor el mundo en que vivo y el devenir de nuestra propia especie, aquejada de un lento proceso de extinción provocado por nuestra intervención artificial sobre el ecosistema que nos rodea.
May 14, 2023
Thought Provoking / Interactive: 5 stars
Well researched / Informational: 5 stars
Prose: 3 stars–wants to be poetical, ends up just being academic (but oh, I sympathize!)
Theology: 0 stars
Philosophy: 1 star (Premises give no valid foundation for conclusions)
I don’t usually have many qualms about abandoning a book I’m not really into. It says something that I dragged this book around for most of entire school year, had to basically force myself to finish it, and yet felt utterly compelled to not just finish it, but write about it.
This is a book with a very distinct set of assumptions and beliefs, most of which I disagree with. However, those assumptions and beliefs hold a mirror up to my own and expose some things which I–and the Christian community–need exposed. This is a book that I believe needs to be reckoned with.
Before plunging into the content of the arguments, a few notes on other points that influence my review. As noted above, the prose in this book is a mix of beautiful and terrible. This is easy for an academic with a love of words to achieve. It’s not easy to read. Untangling the dense sentences and the denser ideas made for very slow going.
If the bog of wordage made it difficult to extract ideas at the sentence level, it was even harder at the paragraph and chapter level. A major reason for my low rating is even after reading and reflecting on the book, I’m not sure what it was trying to say. There are some major themes that Challenger circles, and a lot of information that she presents or comments on, but recognizable conclusions are either absent or so elementary as to not be worth the time invested.
Additionally, the themes and conclusions do not appear to me to actually logically follow each other and potential concerns are left entirely unaddressed. It’s as if Challenger had the themes that she wanted to explore and the conclusions that she wanted to come to, and then simply set them side by side while completely missing the fact that they might appear to be (I would say ARE) incompatible.
Moving towards specifics, then:
The book’s main premises as I read them (in no particular order)
Our animality and our humanity are inseparable
As humans, we are not exceptional (i.e., there is nothing that makes the human creature “more than” other life on Earth)
Indeed, we need to consider other life as potentially as valuable as ourselves
Exceptionality is a myth
Meaning is a myth – but we seem to need it for our psychological health
When we accept our animality and seek to live in harmony with it and with the earth, then . . . good. Not “true humanity” per se, because humanity is still evolving and I think she would deny that “humanity” is an apex at which we can arrive
All of the above should feel affirming and encouraging to us
The problem is that, as I see it, her various positions cannot logically hold together without a theology in place. She spends a lot of time asserting that humanity does not have a special place over above other species, that in fact nothing does or should get a “special” place. But if life is just an efficient energy dump for self-organizing matter, then on what basis do we say that life or not-life is superior? Challenger clearly wants us to appreciate beauty, experience wonder, and behave like nice people. I ask: Under your schema, why should we? If my life should not be valued above that of the pig that provided the bacon for my breakfast, why should we then value both rather than neither?
Challenger is right, however, that a certain brand of exceptionalism has resulted in some truly ugly fruit. She is correct that Christians have interpreted God’s instructions in Genesis to “Increase and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and rule” an excuse for the rape, plunder and looting of every natural resource. She also notes that historically “worth” has been all tied up with wealth and power.
Challenger then spends too many pages surveying the science that seems to indicate that consciousness, feeling, self-awareness and morality are all tied up with evolutionary survivalism and that additionally, they aren’t even unique to humans. Part of the purpose of these sections seems to be her desire to argue against post-humanist instincts. She makes a compelling case that even were we to be able to download our brains into machines, the result could no longer be called human. She is also correct that humanity has a long history of people treating body and mind as separate with the mind being seen as the “true self.” However, she does not acknowledge that in the Christian tradition, this is in fact a heresy. Yes, Gnosticism keeps rearing its head in various forms.
The Apostle’s Creed, that ancient Christian confession, has “the resurrection of the body” as one of the things that historical Christianity confesses. As people of faith, it should come as no surprise to us that science is increasingly demonstrating that our bodies and minds are inextricably interwoven.
Finally, Challenger examines the place humans have taken in the Earth’s ecosystems and and the place of death in the natural order. She recognizes that humans fight dying and then offers a vague, confused assertion that living is beautiful, dying is natural, and we’re all part of the universe. Or something. As noted above, it’s unclear.
This entire book is based on the premise that people fight their animality. But when I look around at our culture that’s not what I see. I see people using natural instinct and biology as an excuse to indulge every carnal desire. I see both the right and the left using and manipulating the impulses of survival, evolution, sex, procreation and belonging to serve pre-determined positions.
I agree with the Melanie Challenger that we need to reckon with our bodies and wrestle with our species’ relationship with our planet. I believe that the answers for this reckoning however have to come out of a coherent worldview, and I don’t see her offering one. Challenger thinks that we ought to reckon with things because . . . it’s true that we don’t matter as much as we think we do or as much as we want to? We can do better than that.
Well researched / Informational: 5 stars
Prose: 3 stars–wants to be poetical, ends up just being academic (but oh, I sympathize!)
Theology: 0 stars
Philosophy: 1 star (Premises give no valid foundation for conclusions)
I don’t usually have many qualms about abandoning a book I’m not really into. It says something that I dragged this book around for most of entire school year, had to basically force myself to finish it, and yet felt utterly compelled to not just finish it, but write about it.
This is a book with a very distinct set of assumptions and beliefs, most of which I disagree with. However, those assumptions and beliefs hold a mirror up to my own and expose some things which I–and the Christian community–need exposed. This is a book that I believe needs to be reckoned with.
Before plunging into the content of the arguments, a few notes on other points that influence my review. As noted above, the prose in this book is a mix of beautiful and terrible. This is easy for an academic with a love of words to achieve. It’s not easy to read. Untangling the dense sentences and the denser ideas made for very slow going.
If the bog of wordage made it difficult to extract ideas at the sentence level, it was even harder at the paragraph and chapter level. A major reason for my low rating is even after reading and reflecting on the book, I’m not sure what it was trying to say. There are some major themes that Challenger circles, and a lot of information that she presents or comments on, but recognizable conclusions are either absent or so elementary as to not be worth the time invested.
Additionally, the themes and conclusions do not appear to me to actually logically follow each other and potential concerns are left entirely unaddressed. It’s as if Challenger had the themes that she wanted to explore and the conclusions that she wanted to come to, and then simply set them side by side while completely missing the fact that they might appear to be (I would say ARE) incompatible.
Moving towards specifics, then:
The book’s main premises as I read them (in no particular order)
Our animality and our humanity are inseparable
As humans, we are not exceptional (i.e., there is nothing that makes the human creature “more than” other life on Earth)
Indeed, we need to consider other life as potentially as valuable as ourselves
Exceptionality is a myth
Meaning is a myth – but we seem to need it for our psychological health
When we accept our animality and seek to live in harmony with it and with the earth, then . . . good. Not “true humanity” per se, because humanity is still evolving and I think she would deny that “humanity” is an apex at which we can arrive
All of the above should feel affirming and encouraging to us
The problem is that, as I see it, her various positions cannot logically hold together without a theology in place. She spends a lot of time asserting that humanity does not have a special place over above other species, that in fact nothing does or should get a “special” place. But if life is just an efficient energy dump for self-organizing matter, then on what basis do we say that life or not-life is superior? Challenger clearly wants us to appreciate beauty, experience wonder, and behave like nice people. I ask: Under your schema, why should we? If my life should not be valued above that of the pig that provided the bacon for my breakfast, why should we then value both rather than neither?
Challenger is right, however, that a certain brand of exceptionalism has resulted in some truly ugly fruit. She is correct that Christians have interpreted God’s instructions in Genesis to “Increase and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and rule” an excuse for the rape, plunder and looting of every natural resource. She also notes that historically “worth” has been all tied up with wealth and power.
Challenger then spends too many pages surveying the science that seems to indicate that consciousness, feeling, self-awareness and morality are all tied up with evolutionary survivalism and that additionally, they aren’t even unique to humans. Part of the purpose of these sections seems to be her desire to argue against post-humanist instincts. She makes a compelling case that even were we to be able to download our brains into machines, the result could no longer be called human. She is also correct that humanity has a long history of people treating body and mind as separate with the mind being seen as the “true self.” However, she does not acknowledge that in the Christian tradition, this is in fact a heresy. Yes, Gnosticism keeps rearing its head in various forms.
The Apostle’s Creed, that ancient Christian confession, has “the resurrection of the body” as one of the things that historical Christianity confesses. As people of faith, it should come as no surprise to us that science is increasingly demonstrating that our bodies and minds are inextricably interwoven.
Finally, Challenger examines the place humans have taken in the Earth’s ecosystems and and the place of death in the natural order. She recognizes that humans fight dying and then offers a vague, confused assertion that living is beautiful, dying is natural, and we’re all part of the universe. Or something. As noted above, it’s unclear.
This entire book is based on the premise that people fight their animality. But when I look around at our culture that’s not what I see. I see people using natural instinct and biology as an excuse to indulge every carnal desire. I see both the right and the left using and manipulating the impulses of survival, evolution, sex, procreation and belonging to serve pre-determined positions.
I agree with the Melanie Challenger that we need to reckon with our bodies and wrestle with our species’ relationship with our planet. I believe that the answers for this reckoning however have to come out of a coherent worldview, and I don’t see her offering one. Challenger thinks that we ought to reckon with things because . . . it’s true that we don’t matter as much as we think we do or as much as we want to? We can do better than that.
June 13, 2022
This was not exactly what I was looking for. It’s funny how your expectations of a book can seem so obvious but then it turns out the writer has something different in mind. The book itself is no less for it, it just means you need to adjust to get the most out of it.
What I was looking for was a discussion of our difficult relationship with the “divine” or the “God’s eye view” in which we believe we alone have access to the “truth” about the universe and about morality. Our religions, our science carry such presumptions that we alone have that kind of relationship with the real and the true, and the divine. To hold those presumptions requires that we deny that we are “just” animals, yet we don’t have to try hard to find reminders that we are.
Challenger’s focus is a little bit different, more specifically aimed at our self-differentiation from “animals” than our tendency to liken ourselves to the divine.
Given that focus, she explores a number of different ways in which that self-differentiation troubles us and troubles the world around us.
We have a troubled relationship with the natural world as a whole. We regard it as something to be used, exploited — a resource. Forests, rivers turn to lumber, drinking water or hydroelectric power. Dangers — predators, natural disasters, drought, floods — are to be controlled or eliminated. Challenges — “pests,” scarcity, and the like — are to be tamed.
We create a distance between ourselves and the messiness of animal life — e.g., food production, whether animal or vegetable. As if somehow the distance raises us above such things (despite our reliance on those whose lot is to work in food production, or sanitation, or others of those messy businesses of life).
We have a troubled relationship with our own bodies. Our bodies are to be transcended by chemical enhancement, technological devices. Disease, age, infirmity require solutions to get us back on track. Ultimately death itself is to be conquered by either “curing” aging or by providing some way to transfer our living selves into artificial and eternal bodies of some sort.
Extinction itself may be avoidable, in this frame of mind, if we can just figure out, as is our destiny, how to cross interstellar space and colonize or even terraform planets around other stars. We could outlive the Sun and the Earth.
it’s not that we can’t do at least some of those things, it’s that we somehow act as though they really are our destiny as more-than-animal, as “posthuman” or ‘transhuman.”
What’s left behind is a plundered planet, exhausted resources, and rampant extinctions of other species whose habitats we’ve bulldozed to make room for our own rightful destinies.
i think what’s also left behind or denigrated are the sanities and pleasures of lives in which we are more at peace with our membership in the animal world — the pleasure of growing and eating our own vegetables, of throwing a ball and playing with a dog, the pleasures of in-person contact with our fellow humans and with animals outside of preserves and zoos. The sensations of speed, agility, relaxation, and skill we get from engaging our natural bodies.
Challenger’s over-riding theme is moral. And I believe she is right to trace what otherwise is a collection of abuses and depredations to an attitude we enact about ourselves, in our predominant cultures. That attitude is so entwined in our lives — our economics, our political systems, even our standards for personal success — it’s hard to see how to un-entwine ourselves. But a new ethic, or a revived ethic built on some of our non-predominant cultures, is called for.
If I'm to fault the book for anything, it's that the weight is much greater on the side of analyzing the problem than pointing us to such solutions. Work for all of us to do.
Challenger herself is not a scientist or philosopher, in the academic or professional sense. The book reads more like a writer outside those fields, researching what has been done, and putting it all into perspective. So you aren’t getting deep research or study into a specific aspect of her topic, but you are getting a sense-making view of the whole.
What I was looking for was a discussion of our difficult relationship with the “divine” or the “God’s eye view” in which we believe we alone have access to the “truth” about the universe and about morality. Our religions, our science carry such presumptions that we alone have that kind of relationship with the real and the true, and the divine. To hold those presumptions requires that we deny that we are “just” animals, yet we don’t have to try hard to find reminders that we are.
Challenger’s focus is a little bit different, more specifically aimed at our self-differentiation from “animals” than our tendency to liken ourselves to the divine.
Given that focus, she explores a number of different ways in which that self-differentiation troubles us and troubles the world around us.
We have a troubled relationship with the natural world as a whole. We regard it as something to be used, exploited — a resource. Forests, rivers turn to lumber, drinking water or hydroelectric power. Dangers — predators, natural disasters, drought, floods — are to be controlled or eliminated. Challenges — “pests,” scarcity, and the like — are to be tamed.
We create a distance between ourselves and the messiness of animal life — e.g., food production, whether animal or vegetable. As if somehow the distance raises us above such things (despite our reliance on those whose lot is to work in food production, or sanitation, or others of those messy businesses of life).
We have a troubled relationship with our own bodies. Our bodies are to be transcended by chemical enhancement, technological devices. Disease, age, infirmity require solutions to get us back on track. Ultimately death itself is to be conquered by either “curing” aging or by providing some way to transfer our living selves into artificial and eternal bodies of some sort.
Extinction itself may be avoidable, in this frame of mind, if we can just figure out, as is our destiny, how to cross interstellar space and colonize or even terraform planets around other stars. We could outlive the Sun and the Earth.
it’s not that we can’t do at least some of those things, it’s that we somehow act as though they really are our destiny as more-than-animal, as “posthuman” or ‘transhuman.”
What’s left behind is a plundered planet, exhausted resources, and rampant extinctions of other species whose habitats we’ve bulldozed to make room for our own rightful destinies.
i think what’s also left behind or denigrated are the sanities and pleasures of lives in which we are more at peace with our membership in the animal world — the pleasure of growing and eating our own vegetables, of throwing a ball and playing with a dog, the pleasures of in-person contact with our fellow humans and with animals outside of preserves and zoos. The sensations of speed, agility, relaxation, and skill we get from engaging our natural bodies.
Challenger’s over-riding theme is moral. And I believe she is right to trace what otherwise is a collection of abuses and depredations to an attitude we enact about ourselves, in our predominant cultures. That attitude is so entwined in our lives — our economics, our political systems, even our standards for personal success — it’s hard to see how to un-entwine ourselves. But a new ethic, or a revived ethic built on some of our non-predominant cultures, is called for.
If I'm to fault the book for anything, it's that the weight is much greater on the side of analyzing the problem than pointing us to such solutions. Work for all of us to do.
Challenger herself is not a scientist or philosopher, in the academic or professional sense. The book reads more like a writer outside those fields, researching what has been done, and putting it all into perspective. So you aren’t getting deep research or study into a specific aspect of her topic, but you are getting a sense-making view of the whole.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 117 reviews