Dangerous Idea

The online journal Edge annually asks a provocative question of a large number of leading thinkers. This year’s question, asked of 117 scientists, was “What is your dangerous idea?” That is:

The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?

My favorite response was by Irene Pepperberg, who has studied cognition and communication in Grey parrots for over 25 years, most famously working with her African Grey parrot, Alex. Her dangerous idea is that The differences between humans and non-humans are quantitative, not qualitative. As she puts it:

If we do not believe in a clear boundary between humans and nonhumans, if we do not accept a clear “them” versus “us”, we need to rethink other aspects of our lives. Do we have the right to clear-cut forests in which our fellow creatures live? To pollute the air, soil and water that we share with them, solely for our own benefit? Where do we draw the line? Life may be much simpler if we do firmly draw a line, but is simplicity a valid rationale?