It is easy to look around at the modern world and think, as humans, we are different from all the other species on this earth. We have created a myriad of mechanical devices and devised various ways to cope with our need for food, housing, transport, education and security. We protect our health, raise and educate our children, support our old relatives, and are constantly looking for answers to social problems. We are different from the other species in our ability to think, plan, look ahead and learn from our mistakes. But underneath all of our cleverness, we are still animals. Nonsense you say, we are superior to ordinary animals. Let’s look at the evidence. What human features are similar to those of other animals?

Starting at the outside, we have similar skin structures and grow hair like other species

We can see, smell, taste, chew our food, salivate, swallow, regurgitate if necessary. Food passes down into our intestines, which comprise a stomach, small intestine, large intestine and anus. All structures with similar features and functions to other animals. We all burp, fart, defaecate and urinate, no matter who we are or how important, as these are normal animal activities.

We breath in through our nostrils and absorb oxygen through our lungs, and out to get rid of carbon dioxide. We have a voice box and can make noises; we communicate gently or with anger to show our emotions. So do other animals.

We are just as vulnerable to diseases and parasites.

And underneath it all, we have a skeleton, with bones, muscles and blood supplied by a heart and arteries, just like other species.

And then we could talk about behaviours. Are our sexual, educational, social, exploratory, safety and self-serving acts all that different from the animals we share the planet with?

But, as a single species, we differ from other animals in that we fail, or refuse, to accept that all humans have equal rights to exist. Because of religious or political beliefs, nationalism or skin colour, we deem certain other human animals as less deserving of our attention and support. On occasions, for various reasons, we attack and kill other humans. It is pertinent to ask, can we still claim to be the superior species?

We differ from all other animal species in not accepting and failing to nurture all members of our kind for a wide variety of reasons. If we are white skinned we are suspicious of and reject those people with black or yellow skins. Those who come from other countries, or societies, with different backgrounds or beliefs, are regarded as dangerous, perhaps inferior. To a horse, another horse is accepted as such no matter the size or colour. Dogs recognise other dogs and accept each other no matter the breed or age. Why do we need to behave differently?

In Australia, similar attitudes occur as elsewhere in the world. Many of us continue to regard indigenous people as somehow inferior and undeserving of support, despite their ancestors having survived and thrived in this country for as much as 60,000 years. We are suspicious of refugees, especially when they arrive by boat. We are suspicious of people with darker skins, especially when they come from Middle Eastern or African countries. We are suspicious of people who speak in languages other than English and those with different religions.

There is even suspicion within the population of white-skinned Australians – males for females, older citizens for the young, especially those with alternative genders. And there is still a class consciousness, inherited from Britain, which works to deprecate those in lower-paid jobs, and admire those who have ‘made it’ into the salaried professions.

However, despite all our prejudices, beliefs, biases and suspicion, we are all the same species, with similar bodies and brains, and therefore similar physical and mental potentials. We may differ in our personal characteristics, depending on where and when we were born, how we were raised and educated, and whether or not we have suffered personal losses or setbacks. Notwithstanding, we are all members of the human species and therefore all equally deserving of support and respect.

Biologically speaking, we are evolved, complex animals. We evolved from early apes, later from pre-human animals – hominims, who inhabited large parts of the World many million years ago, and survived using various strategies appropriate to their environments. Interbreeding occurred later between early Homo sapiens, and other humans – Neanderthals, and Denisovans, as revealed in our DNA. We are successful mongrels. During the long period of pre-human and human development we evolved a wide range of behaviours which enabled us to survive and develop as a species, and which we still retain beneath the veneer of civilisation. They persist despite the rules and habits imposed by all the various beliefs, religions, sects, and societies. Our basic behaviours took many millennia to evolve and will not be rapidly replaced. One example of a long entrenched behaviour was described previously – the tendency to seek and value membership of a tribe, perhaps an extended family. We do not thrive in isolation.

These basic human behavioural tendencies are common to all races, all societies, as we are all the same species. In the same way that a dog can recognise another dog, no matter the breed or size, and behave in a canine way towards it, we know who are human, no matter the colour of skin or individual dress or custom. We have allowed religion, politics, nationalism, beliefs and history to divide us. It is time to put aside our acquired differences and accept that as one species we should care about all the other humans in the World.

Horses don’t fight horses, sheep don’t kill other sheep. What is the benefit for our species if we fight and kill each other? Wars and other forms of persecution are not promoted by individual human animals, but by groups of humans who have been persuaded through religion and other beliefs to hate each other.

If one accepts the reality that we still retain the behaviours which evolved over millennia to enable and enhance the lives of our hunter gatherer ancestors (previous blogs), then a change is needed in our social interactions. The dysfunctional and isolating aspects of the nuclear family, compared with the benefits of living in a tribe or family group, create mental problems that feature highly in the current workloads of psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers. How many people these days would suffer from the common problems of isolation, depression and low self-esteem, sometimes unfortunately leading to suicide, if they had been part of a larger, caring tribe?

Which leads on to the questions: Are modern mental illnesses mainly the result of our retreat from tribal living and the creation of the nuclear family? Are the psychological and social services provided in modern society mostly a reaction to the outcomes of this change, and merely attempts to correct the deficiencies of living in nuclear families?

Which leads on again to the suggestion that instead of attempting to treat the mental illnesses and social problems of isolated individuals, it would be more effective to reestablish the tribal connections that are missing from their lives.

If you were a human animal several million years ago, how would you have behaved? You would have relied for your survival on a variety of foods which would have been available only occasionally. Not only would you have known what was edible, but also where and when these foods would be available. Hunter gatherers depended on a wide knowledge of the food items which contribute to their diets. This knowledge was acquired by children from adults and passed on through the generations.

As the food sources were scattered and uncontrolled, of necessity, humans lived in small and widely separated groups. Larger groups would have formed temporarily to take advantage of occasional bumper harvests. So our ancestors would have lived in small groups, let’s call them tribes. based on one or more families. There would have been no more than three generations present in the tribe, and the oldest generation – the elders, would have been respected and cherished as the source of the knowledge and skills that enabled the tribe to survive. An example of this culture is provided by indigenous Australians, whose culture has survived more than fifty thousand years.

So, given that we have not outlived our evolutionary heritage – we still retain many aspects of behaviour that were inherent in our ancestors for many millions of years, how does modern society compare?

A tendency to form small tribes for example? We are happiest when in a small group, especially when the other members have similar interests and beliefs. Many modern family problems, including marriage breakups and violence towards partners and children would have been ameliorated, even prevented, if the individuals had been part of a larger group. The isolated nuclear family in its private 2-3 bed home, with close relatives living elsewhere, and the elders in retirement homes, encourages and enhances conflict. Who can children turn to when offside with their parents? Where are the elders whom the adults can turn to for support and advice? What about all those single parents, mostly women, struggling to raise children on their own. They need their tribe.

Evolution shapes both the structure as well as the behaviour of animals. We are also animals and the result of evolution like other species. Our species was shaped over many millions of years during which we adapted and evolved to survive as hunter gatherers making use of the plants and animals in various environments. Despite the recent development of agriculture and a few thousand years of ‘civilisation’ we are still the same species that roamed the world as hunter gatherers for millennia, and we have not lost the appropriate features we evolved previously. So what does that mean for modern humans?

Let’s start with nutrition. Through the millions of years of human evolution our intestines evolved to cope with a varied diet comprising plants, seeds, fruits and, occasionally, meat from hunted animals. Human animals living near the shore would have also taken advantage of fish and shellfish. The human intestine has evolved to be able to digest this wide variety of foods. Easily digestible foods are dealt with in the stomach and small intestine; those components less easily broken down pass into the colon to be fermented by friendly bacteria. Through the activity of the colon ‘biome’ we have evolved to cope with otherwise indigestible foods such as seeds, fruit skins, nuts and plant fibres.

For the same reason that cows choose to eat grass and other plant materials because they have evolved to cope with this diet, we should eat the foods which we have evolved to digest. And, in particular, we need to eat foods that are best for all parts of the human intestinal system. Digestion provides us with a variety of substances – proteins, carbohydrates, minerals, vitamins etc that we absorb and which are essential to maintaining health. This includes the products of fermentation in the colon. To keep healthy, we need to feed the bacteria in the colon, and they will provide us with certain substances which we need for our health. We and the colon bacteria have evolved together: both of us thrive when fed correctly.

We seem to be the only species that relies mostly on leaders. What is a leader? A person, who by a variety of means, sets themselves up to tell the rest of us what to do. In the case of political leaders, they claim to know what is best for the state or country, and they are supported in their beliefs and actions by sycophants and wannaby leaders. And then there are the leaders in the sports, arts, media and finance who demand attention and adulation because they have been more successful than their rivals.

The other side of the coin is that we, the public, appear to need leaders who will tell us what to do; how to behave and what to believe. This is the basis of democracy and autocracy. The question is – why do we yearn to accept the thoughts and beliefs of one limited individual person, and then act accordingly? This is not the case with most other species. There are dominant individuals in groups or herds who may seize the initiative occasionally, but their position is usually temporary and continually subject to challenge. Most of the behavioural wisdom of other species lies within the group, and in many flocking species, within the female members of the group.

Take one important example of human leader worship, democracy. Why do we give political leaders so much power over society, when they are as limited in their thinking and flawed as the rest of us? The political parties which promote and support the leaders are also subject to the same narrowness of belief, and our elections demand we choose between predetermined sets of policies and behaviour, none of which may be appropriate in the unknown future. True democracy would regularly tap into the wisdom and ideas of groups/populations to decide the actions and policies to be implemented by those in authority. It seems the only example of this process in action is the committee, where there is no leader, only a chairperson with the responsibility to monitor the discussion and help elucidate the decisions of the group. We have much to learn from the other animals.

The first response of any adult animal to any other species is fear. Is this creature dangerous? Will it attack me? Until the contact proves to be harmless, the natural response is avoidance. This is the situation for wildlife as well as for untrained domestic animals. The fear can be overcome by familiarity and by careful training and this takes place more easily in early life. The foal gets use to a bridle, the calf or the puppy to being gently caught and handled. A delightful recent film on Netflix documented the developing friendship of a human diver with an octopus. The natural response of the octopus was to hide or jet away fast when an intruder came close. This natural reaction evolved to protect this soft vulnerable animal from attack by sharks and other predators. But slowly the diver gained the animal’s confidence so that at first they held arms, and later he was able to carry the octopus to the surface.

We are basically animals and no different in our responses. A stranger has to be viewed first as a threat, and only with familiarity does this basic response subside. Children develop this avoidance reaction as they age. At first all adults are trusted, later only those who are familiar. It is natural for children to be ‘shy’. The critical word here is ‘trust’. As in all animals, this takes time to develop and replace the initial basic fear. Trust can only be developed slowly, with gentle words and actions, and total avoidance of anger or pain. Animals and humans become mentally disturbed when they are subjected to adult behaviour that is a mixture of care and brutality. There is plenty of evidence of this unnecessary outcome from the inadequate training of dogs and horses, and from the incarceration of small children in institutions. The developing brain is easily and often permanently damaged by a betrayal of trust.

I’ll bet you were upset/outraged by the title of this blog! He’s finally lost it. But don’t forget I am a veterinarian and we vets deal with the basics of life. My question is: how did we get to be so paranoid about these normal, natural human animal activities and desperately avoid being seen to evacuate the contents of our bladders and colons? We watch all the other species of animals deposit their faeces and urine on the ground without embarrassment and, in the case of domesticated species and household pets we frequently examine the outcomes carefully in case they might reveal illness or injury.

But it is not just human excrement or urine that needs to be shunned, we also carefully avoid showing where they come from. We are obsessed about not revealing our ‘private parts’! Interestingly, there is an hierarchy of privacy: It is least serious for women to show their breasts in public (go in summer to a public beach in Sydney), and men are keen to reveal their chests. Anuses seem to need more coverage and genitals cannot be shown in public without risk of a fine. Although, surprisingly, men are not too worried at having to urinate in front of other men.

Has it always been this way? Did our distant ancestors cringe and look the other way if someone deliberately did the equivalent for us of removing a towel while changing from swimming togs into street clothes? I sense that any clothing covering the ‘private areas’ of humans thousands of years ago was more for preventing injury or sunburn. So who or what has been responsible for making us more precious and coy than our fellow animals? And what are the implications of this unusual behaviour for society?

Earlier civilisations were less prudish – there are side by side public toilets and public baths (I bet they didn’t wear costumes) in the excavations of the ruins of Pompeii for example. And nude male and female statues in the distant past were anatomically correct. So what changed? In my opinion there are at least a few possible causes. Firstly clothing. The need for full sets of clothes in the northern hemisphere prevents exposure of private parts and imagination took over from reality. Nudity was a rarity and the possibility of any exposure became a titivation (what an interesting word!). Another likely cause was religion and the drive of the church to control all aspects of human sexuality. And of course the modern knowledge that human effluents can spread disease means we are now careful where we deposit and dispose of our poo and wee. But, of course, we make exceptions for young children with respect to both genital exposure and the management of their waste products. They have yet to learn what the custom is.