The idea of the ‘Empathic Civilisation’ is as grandiose and idyllic as
the expression would suggest. It is a global cultural shift, described by
Jeremy Rifkin, characterised by the extension of human empathy to every other
person and living creature upon the planet, so that this empathy becomes
consistent with the profound and far-reaching impacts that our actions have
come to bear.
As ambitious as this shift may seem, if it can be realised, it could
prove to be a valuable step towards eradicating the daunting array of social
and environmental issues that persist throughout the modern world, and
facilitating the development of a fair and sustainable global society.
And the essential question is, if we can’t achieve this, does a global
civilization have any chance of surviving? Or will it simply implode under the
weight of perpetual social and environmental catastrophes, dissolving into
detached societies on a scale that we have the capacity to regulate?
Fortunately, despite the overwhelming nature of this transformation, his
argument arouses a far greater feeling of optimism (for me at least) than might
be expected.
‘Soft
wired’ for empathy?
His argument begins
with a discovery of modern brain science, namely that humans are ‘soft wired’
to feel empathy for others via the use of ‘mirror neurons’. These are the part
of our brains that allow us the capacity to feel the experiences of others as
we perceive them in particular situations.
Now this probably doesn’t come as much of a revelation, as most of us
have had fairly extensive personal experiences of this feeling, and are fully
conscious of it. So the next part of the argument is perhaps more interesting.
He points out that, throughout history, human empathy has already
extended dramatically in line with the increasingly connected societies that
have been formed. So from its initial confinement to within small tribes in
early hunter gatherer groups, empathy then extended along with the development
of increasingly complex societies: as theological consciousness developed it
came to exist throughout religious groups, and similarly as markets grew it
began to extend within the boundaries of the Nation State.
Given this historical context, he argues why stop here? Is it
unrealistic to strive for our empathy to extend throughout the human race, or
even to all other living creatures?
So
back to the fruit bats
It may still not be
entirely clear why the sexual adventures of fruit bats are mentioned in the
title, so I’ll now try to shed some light upon this.
Some time ago I stumbled upon what must be one of the most entertaining
scientific papers in existence, ‘Fellatio by Fruit Bats Prolongs CopulationTime’ (I seriously recommend reading the abstract). I’m pretty unfamiliar with
that particular branch of research, to say the least, so I couldn’t put my
finger on its intended practical application. However, I think if we have any
aspiration to increase our empathy and respect for other living things, it’s
hugely valuable to observe in animals anything that is typically considered to
be ‘human behaviour’.
Consider dogs, for example. In the UK at least, the animal receiving the
largest share of human empathy must surely be dogs, but why is this? I’d
conjecture that this is because we are so intimately interwoven with these
creatures that we come to recognise within them a wide spectrum of emotions and
behaviours that we can relate to ourselves: whether it is joy, misery,
excitement or anxiety. Through this experience we perceive them to live a
meaningful existence, and hence their lives become something worth respecting.
So what should we make of the discovery that fruit bats engage in a type
of sexual deed that we would typically consider to be uniquely human? Is this
not a delightful demonstration of how
the means and behaviours that we have developed to satisfy our own needs and
desires ‒those things that give us an appetite for life‒ may in fact be
mirrored within the lives of countless other living things, however primitive
they may seem? And if this is the case,
should we not also recognise the potential capacity of other living things to
suffer, and hence develop within us a universal sense of empathy?
Admittedly this would be quite a grand conclusion to draw solely from
oral sex in tiny flying mammals, but of course this is not the only relevant evidence.
Selfish
and selfless empathy
So the motivations to
develop an Empathic Civilisation appear to be twofold. Firstly, if civilisation
is to remain as extensive, and as heavily dependent upon the biosphere as it
has become, it surely requires a global consciousness and respect for this
system. An extension of our empathy to all other living things is perhaps the
most effective way of beginning this process. And secondly, in any case, if we
can recognise a capacity for joy and suffering laying within other creatures
then it should be our duty to respect this, given that it so often comes at
such an insignificant cost to ourselves.
So perhaps by extending our empathy throughout the biosphere we can
learn to protect it, putting an end to the mass species extinction human
activities are currently responsible for, and giving global civilisation a
chance of survival. And then, just maybe, one day the humble fruit bat will
undergo enough social development for a feminist revolution to emerge, giving
future zoologists the opportunity to continue the study of these intriguing
creatures and report their observations under the title ‘Cunninlingus by Fruit
Bats Prolongs Copulation Time’.
I’m certainly going to try to do my small part to help keep this dream
alive.
Some final pessimistic thoughts
Of course there are
some issues with the idea of the Empathic Civilisation, perhaps the most
obvious being the considerable gap between the formation of a globally empathic
culture and its practical capability of addressing problems. After all, it’s
one thing for me to feel empathy for a malnourished African child in a TV
commercial, but knowing exactly what I can do to help alleviate that suffering,
or perhaps more importantly, how my lifestyle may contribute to the
circumstances that facilitate it, is an entirely different issue. Although in
any case, the more genuine empathy I feel for the child’s situation the more
determined I will be to seek out some real solutions, rather than simply
offering a meagre financial donation.
But there is a more disturbing potential issue that comes to mind. What
if within groups or societies ‒be it tribes, religions, or nation states‒ the development of this
shared sense of empathy (or at least its magnitude) is dependent upon the
recognition of a common ‘other’? A perceptible enemy that is required to affirm
the group identity? And if this were to be true, for the Empathic Civilisation,
where would this enemy lie if not on earth?
