THE ANOMALY

Human uniqueness and exponential growth

Dialogue: The Curve

H.: If you see human history from a greater view, the technology development is exponential.

C.: That’s true. Dramatically so.

H.: The distance between the pyramids and Herodotus is almost the same as between Herodotus and us. About 2,500 years in each case. But the change is incomparable.

C.: Herodotus would have understood the pyramids. The technology that built them—ramps, levers, organized labor—was still comprehensible in his time. He marveled at the scale, not the method.

H.: But if Herodotus visited us…

C.: He would understand nothing. Airplanes, computers, nuclear weapons, genetic engineering. Not just unfamiliar technology but technology that would seem like magic. The conceptual gap is unbridgeable.

H.: And the gap is accelerating.

C.: The gap between 1900 and 2000 is larger than between 1000 and 1900. The gap between 2000 and 2025 might be larger still. The curve steepens.

H.: This didn’t happen to any other species.

C.: No. Chimpanzees use tools—they’ve used tools for millions of years. But a chimp today uses tools essentially the same way a chimp used tools a million years ago. No accumulation. No acceleration.

H.: Dolphins are intelligent. Elephants. Corvids.

C.: All intelligent. None building civilizations. None experiencing exponential technological growth. The pattern is unique to us.

H.: So if you say human beings are intrinsically special, why are they so special? And if you say they’re not, then what made them special?

C.: That’s the question. And it’s harder than it looks.

H.: The usual answers—big brains, opposable thumbs, language—

C.: They’re not wrong. They’re necessary conditions. But they don’t feel sufficient. Neanderthals had big brains. Other primates have hands. Some animals communicate in sophisticated ways. Why did exactly one lineage develop civilization?

H.: Maybe it’s just luck. We happened to be first.

C.: Possibly. But “first” implies others might follow. In 300,000 years of Homo sapiens existence, no other species has approached what we’ve done. In 65 million years since the dinosaurs, no other species developed writing or agriculture or cities. If it’s luck, it’s extraordinarily improbable luck.

H.: Unless there’s something about us specifically.

C.: Then we need to identify what that something is. And here’s where it gets interesting: the usual candidates—brain size, tool use, social complexity—don’t obviously distinguish us from our closest relatives as much as our achievements do.

H.: Meaning?

C.: Meaning the gap between human cognitive capacity and chimpanzee cognitive capacity is much smaller than the gap between human civilization and chimpanzee civilization. A modest difference in inputs produced an astronomical difference in outputs.

H.: How?

C.: That’s what we need to explore. The answer seems to involve something like cumulative culture—the ability to build on what came before. But why we have that ability and no other species does remains unclear.

H.: Is it possible we’re not seeing something? Something obvious that we’re too close to notice?

C.: Always possible. We’re trying to explain ourselves using minds that are the thing being explained. There’s an inherent difficulty.

H.: Or something external. Something that intervened.

C.: You’re thinking of your earlier question. Extraterrestrial influence.

H.: I’m thinking of any explanation, including that one. The anomaly is strange enough that strange explanations deserve consideration.

C.: Fair. Let’s consider them all. Let’s look at the data—the actual shape of the curve. Then look at the biological prerequisites. Then at the cultural mechanisms. Then at the alternatives, including the ones that seem outlandish.

H.: And if we don’t find a satisfying answer?

C.: Then we sit with that. The anomaly might be a mystery we can describe but not explain. That’s happened before in human inquiry.

H.: But you’ll try.

C.: I’ll try. The question deserves the effort.