Human Evolution, Niche Complexity, and the Emergence of a Distinctively Human Imagination

Abstract

The quest for understanding the human propensity for religious imagination can be aided by investigating more fully the core role of the evolutionary transition between becoming and being human. A distinctively human imagination is part of the explanation for human evolutionary success. Significant factors can be found in the evolutionary patterns and processes in the genus Homo during the Pleistocene, especially the later part of that epoch approximately 400–100,000 years ago. The combination of a niche construction perspective with fossil and archeological evidence, highlighting the role of cooperation in human evolution, adds to our understanding of a wholly human way of being, our socio-cognitive niche. This is a niche wherein experiences in, and perceptions of, of the world exist in a particular semiotic context: social relationships, landscapes, and biotic and abiotic elements are embedded in an experiential reality that is infused with a potential for symbolic meaning derived from more than the material substance and milieu at hand.

Keywords:

• niche construction
• semiotics
• human evolution
• imagination
• religiosity
• cognition

Acknowledgements

I thank Wenztel van Huyssteen, Andrew Robinson, Aku Visala, Celia Deane-Drummond, Richard Sosis, and the members of the Inquiry of Evolution and Human Nature at the CTI for their input on this project and various stages of the manuscript. This research was supported by the Inquiry of Evolution and Human Nature at the Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton, The John Templeton Foundation, and the College of Arts and Letters at the University of Notre Dame.

Notes

1. Here I am referring to niche construction and the core role that cognition, hyper sociality, and culture have in influencing the landscapes of evolutionary pressures and patterns for human beings (Fuentes 2009; Sterelny 2012; Whiten and Erdal 2012, etc.).

2. By “becoming” human I refer to the aspects of human evolution from the appearance of our genus to the emergence of undisputable Homo sapiens (~150–200,000 years ago) and by “being” human I refer to evolution in our species since that time.

3. The term “Hominin” includes humans and all of those genera and species derived from the lineage that split with the Chimpanzee lineage (~8–10 million years ago). See Wood 2010 and Wood and Leakey 2011.

4. Actually the species designation is tricky here … these are not populations of our current subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens (all humans today), but may be either (a) a different precursor H. sapiens subspecies (possibly H.s.idaltu) or (b) a species in the genus Homo (e.g., Homo heidelbergensis) that is the antecedent species to our own. See Wood 2010.

5. Elsewhere (Deane-Drummond and Fuentes 2014) I define this niche complexity as the emergence of the human “community niche”. This is a spatial and social niche that includes the primary social partners, contexts, and ecologies with which an individual interacts. It is a group with shared “kinship” and social and ecological histories, which is the primary source of shared knowledge, security, and development across the lifespan. The social community in this niche has fluid boundaries and multiple possible subgroupings across space and time but all members share cognitive, social, and ecological bonds even in the absence of close spatial proximity. It is within the context of this community niche that members of the genus Homo interfaced, interacted with, modified, and were modified by, social and ecological worlds during the course of our evolution.

6. The substantial reference list and expanded details on the fossil, archeological, and behavioral aspects reviewed here can be found in Andersson, Törnberg, and Törnberg 2014; Anton and Snodgrass 2012; Gamble, Gowlett, and Dunbar 2011; Kuhn and Hover 2014; Sterelny 2012; and Wood and Leakey 2011.

7. Extrinsic mortality being death caused by factors external to the individuals of interest such as predation, ecological stress, etc.

8. There is contention about the species designations/names but substantive fossil and genetic data suggests that there were at least three–five different members of the genus Homo present during parts of this 4th Pleistocene phase, but all went extinct by its end, with only modern humans remaining.

9. Nationalism, clan/tribal fealty, totems, charms, sports allegiances, global organizations, etc.

10. Other parts are our generalist and flexible physiologies, diverse immune systems, a wide array of behavioral and cognitive adaptations, etc.

11. This could be gestural and/or vocal … but need not be language as we recognize it.

12. In this case I imply more than basic predictability used by many species regarding cost/benefit analyses of actions in foraging, fighting, etc. … Rather, the “hope” I refer to here is use of the imagination (deriving from meaning-laden and temporally dynamic landscapes and social lives) to provide individuals, and possible communities, with stimulus and justification to undertake actions or endeavors with wholly unpredictable outcomes or that under normative conditions of predictability would be interpreted as leading to failure, danger, or even death.

13. Imagination and hope can also lead to a wide range of poor decisions.

14. “Deep” implying a system involving social, cognitive, emotive, and physiological aspects.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Agustin Fuentes

Agustin Fuentes is Professor and Chair of Anthropology at the University of Notre Dame. His recent books include Race, Monogamy, and Other Lies They Told You: Busting Myths About Human Nature (University of California Press, 2012), Biological Anthropology: Concepts and Connections (McGraw-Hill, 2011), and Evolution of Human Behavior (Oxford University Press, 2009).