Connect with us

Africa

Juan Luis Arsuaga, Paleontologist: ‘Corruption Is Very Paleolithic, Very Chimpanzee-Like’

Published

on

juan-luis-arsuaga,-paleontologist:-‘corruption-is-very-paleolithic,-very-chimpanzee-like’

In his latest book, La respuesta (The Answer), 71-year-old paleoanthropologist Juan Luis Arsuaga, from Madrid, explores the pivotal moments of human evolution. There are the living — us — the extinct — like the Neanderthals — and those on the verge of extinction — the great apes such as chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas. Unlike his previous work, the co-director of the Atapuerca archeological site in northern Spain takes a firm stance: he clearly states his opinion on numerous theories that attempt to answer the most fundamental questions: Who are we? Why are we here? Where are we going?

Against all odds, it is an illuminating book, brimming with admiration for our own species (possibly the fastest, most surprising, and most formidable product of all evolution) and a love for nature. Despite our destructive actions, Arsuaga believes we have a future: “Something wonderful is going to happen,” he writes. He has also worked on a major exhibition on human evolution that opened in September in Burgos. He says he won’t retire until Bruce Springsteen, Spanish news anchor Matías Prats, and U.S. geneticist Mary Claire-King do so as well.

Question. In this book, you take on the role of the tribe’s elder to tell us a story by the fire. Which story?

Answer. The story of the tribe, which is all of humanity. There’s a story I’ve heard many versions of: the Black president of an African country is asked, in good faith, what tribe he belongs to. He answers: my tribe is humanity. But almost everyone tells biased stories. Our worst enemy is tribalism.

Q. Why?

A. It is closely linked to superstitious thinking and ignorance. When people understand how the world works, superstitious thinking and fanaticism disappear. Konrad Lorenz said that there are two remedies against violence, Nazism, and fanaticism: science and humor.

Q. Do you see progress in humanity today, when there is talk of national priorities?

A. National priority is a tribal expression. There’s a sense of tribalism and there are extreme cases of fanaticism, of dehumanization. I’m convinced that for many Jewish settlers, Palestinians aren’t people. There will also be many who think the opposite. We humans have a very curious thing about us. When we think of dictators, we don’t think of all of them. Everyone points to some, but justifies others. Everyone has their favorite dictators or their tolerated dictators. We lack people who say, “Trump is a buffoon, but Putin is appalling.”

Q. Have we improved as a species?

A. Generally speaking, yes. Asia was a continent where millions of people were starving to death. Now Asia, especially China, and South America have improved in terms of quality of life, education, and literacy; and Africa is making progress in that regard. If you ask me about the planet, then I’d say it’s terrible. People think artificial intelligence is the threat, but the real problems are tribalism and sustainability. And it doesn’t have to be this way.

Q. Does tribalism offer any benefits?

A. Agriculture and livestock farming are an inevitable consequence of it. Twelve thousand years ago, when we lived in caves, we were nobody. On the Iberian Peninsula, there were probably more lions than people. If an alien had landed here, it would have said, “Well, this is a species that has language and all that.” How curious. If it came back now, it wouldn’t believe the transformation. The species has changed the planet — you just have to look at it at night from space.

Q. Is there anything similar in the history of evolution?

A. Nothing comparable to us. That revolution wouldn’t have been possible without two things. The end of the ice ages and, before that, the fact that Homo sapiens — us — had already developed ethnic groups, tribes, with a very strong cohesion that allowed for organization. Then begins an increasing consumption of resources and energy that accelerates and accelerates.

Q. How do we stop it now?

A. We have no idea. Anyone who says they know is lying through their teeth. We’re burning more fossil fuels than ever before, and we’ve depleted the last frontier: the oceans.

Q. Even so, you believe, or want to believe, that “something wonderful is going to happen.”

A. You have to. And I believe that artificial intelligence is our salvation, not our nemesis. I don’t attribute any cognitive or reasoning abilities to it, because it’s just computing with zeros and ones, but it does a lot of calculations. It allows us to manage everything much better, including natural resources. It’s a blessing. Nobody misses the good old days before the Industrial Revolution.

Q. In your book, you say that either we accept AI as human, or we redefine what intelligence means. It’s the same thing that happened when we discovered that chimpanzees use tools.

A. Accepting it as human, no, because it has no feelings. But intelligence has always been the ability to solve complex problems. The more complex the problem, the greater the intelligence. So yes, intelligence needs to be redefined, because according to this, a computer or a piece of silicon is more intelligent than we are.

Q. You talk about a unique capacity of ours: self-awareness, having a kind of inner eye with which we analyze our mind.

A. There are biologists who think it arises in evolution by chance, as a consequence of something else, and that it serves no purpose, like your shadow, which is useless. I am convinced that it is an adaptation. It has to be good for something. I am 100% Darwinist. Most organisms can be explained as adaptations. I tend to see them in everything.

Q. Even in things like murder, rape or corruption?

A. Corruption is curious. Let’s think about [Spanish politician José Luis] Ábalos. What did he want? Prostitutes. His genes compelled him to reproduce and leave many Ábaloses around the world. Corruption is useful for getting money, and what do we want money for? To have power, status, hierarchy; and for men, women. It’s very Paleolithic, very chimpanzee-like.

Q. After years of studying human evolution, are you confident about our future as a species?

A. We are good by nature, that’s undeniable. We ride the subway with complete strangers and there’s no aggression. That’s impossible with any other animal, not even the most social species on the planet. Not with dolphins, not with ants, which would kill each other. Our ability to live in society is a marvel. As a rule, we are very reasonable, and that’s also an adaptation.

However, we are very easily manipulated by others, by other groups. That is our weakness. Moreover, we now kill remotely, which means all our biological inhibitions disappear. I can’t believe Donald Trump would be capable of killing 200 schoolchildren [in a bombing in Iran]. Neither he nor anyone in their right mind. That said, the bomb was dropped by mistake. Because we hadn’t fed the AI any information. What bad luck.

Q. You talk about the obsession with reversing aging and becoming a multi-planetary species.

A. Aging is not a disease. As a biologist, I believe it’s a set of degenerative processes. The argument I’m developing comes from a phrase that isn’t mine, but from an evolutionary anthropologist who said: the game of life is about transforming proteins into offspring. That’s the crux of the matter. Regarding the second point, there’s no reason why we can’t be happy. May this be a wonderful planet, with a sustainable economy. We can’t go to another galaxy, or even another planet. The only solution is to make global decisions here on Earth. I believe that AI can be a tool for humanity, if only to break free from the prevailing narrative. That’s what the dreamers of decades past were striving for. They longed for a technology at the service of humanity that would enhance our capabilities. This is the realization of that.

Q. Visionaries can be dangerous.

A. All dreamers throughout history dreamed of creating supermen. Now some want to do it through genetic modification. But that will happen over my dead body.

Q. You’re against it?

A. In college, I studied genetic improvement, and it was applied to tomatoes. I’m against genetically improving humans because I can have an ideal tomato, but not an ideal human being. And anyone who does should be locked up. The same goes for my three children. I have three, and all three are the same and different at the same time. Would you have manipulated the genome of your child, the one running around, to make them different? If so, you’re a monster.

Q. Your book is called The Answer, what is the question?

A. That’s the only one I can’t answer. You have to read it.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

Africa

For The First Time, Court Orders US Government To Return Migrant Deported To Africa

Published

on

for-the-first-time,-court-orders-us-government-to-return-migrant-deported-to-africa

“Hey, Honduras, why are you going to Africa?” an officer said to Bryan Omar Sánchez with a laugh on July 29, when neither his cries, his protests nor the fact that he had not given consent prevented him from being deported to the Central African Republic.

Almost two months after his expulsion, a federal judge has ordered the United States government to return Sánchez, release him and respect due process. If the Honduran man returns to his home in Colorado, he will be the first person returned out of the dozens of migrants sent to Africa by force after agreements were signed with nearly 14 countries on the continent.

“This court and many others across the country have determined that ICE’s policies of expelling people to third countries violate the constitutional right to due process when applicants are not given notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal before being transferred to a third country,” Judge Regina M. Rodríguez said in a federal court order dated September 18 before the United States District Court for Colorado.

Sánchez arrived in the United States a decade ago after crossing the border, and since then he had worked as a gardener and truck driver. Lately he ran a small pressure-washing business. After he was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and taken to a Colorado detention center this past May, his lawyers filed a habeas corpus petition. Still, Sánchez was moved to a unit housing dozens of African migrants at the Prairieland detention center in Alvarado, southeast of Dallas, Texas. He was later taken to another facility in Phoenix, Arizona.

“There I thought they were going to send us to Mexico,” Sánchez told EL PAÍS a few days after arriving at Maison Confort, an apartment lodging in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic. “I thought: ‘Mexico is fine, they speak our language, it’s not bad.’” But when the Honduran man asked where they were being sent, the center official replied: to Africa. “Africa? No, I can’t go to Africa,” he told them.

Sánchez told ICE authorities he had not signed consent to be deported to that continent, that he had an asylum application pending in the U.S. immigration system and that he even had protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Despite his pleas, he found himself on a flight with dozens of migrants of other nationalities, and after nearly 22 hours of travel he arrived in the Central African Republic.

In the court order addressing his case, the judge states that “all removals to third countries, that is, removal to a country other than the country or countries designated during the immigration proceedings as the country of removal in the noncitizen’s removal order, must be preceded by written notice to both the noncitizen and their attorney in a language the noncitizen can understand.”

EL PAÍS has interviewed nearly a dozen migrants in the Central African Republic, Liberia and Equatorial Guinea, and all of them confirmed they were deported without signing an authorization, and even learned they were being sent to Africa only after they had been in flight for several hours.

Now Judge Regina M. Rodríguez ordered not only Martínez’s return from the Central African Republic to the District of Colorado but that, once there, he be released immediately, along with all his personal belongings, “without onerous conditions on his release,” such as GPS monitoring, periodic check-ins or other restrictions on his freedom of movement.

The magistrate also demanded that Martínez not be re-detained “unless they prove, by clear and convincing evidence in a pre-deprivation hearing before an impartial judge, that there is a risk of flight or danger to the community.”

A call to end deportations to third countries

On March 15, 2025, when dozens of Venezuelans arrived at the massive Salvadoran prison CECOT, the U.S. government opened a new chapter in its migration policy: deportations to third countries, which have led to diplomatic agreements with at least 35 nations worldwide. According to the group Third Country Deportation Watch, more than 23,000 people have been deported in operations in which the U.S. government has spent over $49 million.

“These illegal deportations to third countries are part of the broader efforts by the Trump administration to undermine the global protection system and make countries around the world complicit in its campaign of mass deportations, which openly disregard due process and separate families,” said Savi Arvey, policy director for refugee and immigrant rights at Human Rights First, an organization tracking these deportations.

Once in these countries, many people have reported being victims of kidnapping and violence. They say they face a lack of care and remain in a legal limbo, without identification or the ability to apply for asylum or refuge.

The situation has escalated to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, where on September 18 three judges upheld the ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy, who on prior occasions has opposed deporting migrants to third countries without respecting due process. The current ruling states that the Trump administration cannot send a person to a third country without prior notice, thereby overturning a Department of Homeland Security policy that allowed this type of rapid removal.

“A person’s right to challenge their removal to a country on the basis of fear of persecution in that country means little if they do not receive prior notice of the intended destination for removal and a meaningful opportunity to contest that destination,” Circuit Judge Seth Aframe wrote.

Although the Trump administration is expected to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, the ruling against deportations to third countries brings hope for many who have been sent to completely unfamiliar places over the past nearly two years and who remain in a state of uncertainty.

“International human rights law does not allow states to create a protection vacuum of this kind,” Michael Gyan Nyarko, deputy executive director of the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA), told EL PAÍS. “A person cannot be moved from one jurisdiction to another until, eventually, no state is willing to accept responsibility for protecting the rights international law guarantees that person.” Nyarko’s main concern, he said, is whether these deportations to third countries “are being used in practice to indirectly achieve what the law prohibited the United States from doing directly.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Spanish Real Estate Agents

Tags

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Spanish Property & News