DeepSummary
In this episode, David Runciman interviews geneticist Adam Rutherford about the history and legacy of Linnaean taxonomy, a system of classification developed by Carl Linnaeus that organized the natural world into hierarchical categories. Rutherford argues that while taxonomy was useful for cataloging species, it stemmed from a pre-Darwinian, creationist mindset that viewed organisms as fixed archetypes rather than evolving over time.
Rutherford contends that taxonomy's discrete boundaries fail to capture the complexity and continuity of life, leading to problematic consequences like scientific racism and the false notion of distinct human races. He discusses how Linnaeus's categorization of humans into subspecies like "Homo sapiens europaeus" and "Homo sapiens africanus" with attached value judgments laid the groundwork for racist ideologies.
Rutherford also questions the merits of obsessively defining and classifying concepts like "life" itself, suggesting that understanding what something does is more scientifically valuable than rigidly defining what it is. He explores how taxonomic thinking permeates language, culture, and emerging technologies like AI, reinforcing human tendencies toward oversimplified categorization.
Key Episodes Takeaways
- Linnaean taxonomy imposed artificial hierarchies and boundaries on the natural world that enabled scientific racism.
- Taxonomy stems from a pre-evolutionary, creationist view that saw species as fixed archetypes rather than evolving over time.
- Rigid taxonomic classification fails to capture the true complexities and continuities of life and human cultures.
- Taxonomy is rooted in human impulses to categorize and define, which can oversimplify and distort reality.
- The legacy of taxonomic thinking persists in language, culture, AI/technology despite modern biological understanding.
- Challenging taxonomy's flawed assumptions is important, but human prejudices may persist in new forms.
- Focusing on what organisms do rather than defining what they are may be more scientifically valuable.
- Drawing boundaries between mutually-exclusive categories can erase intricacies and transitional states.
Top Episodes Quotes
- “So the key idea is that the system that he effectively sets up is a classification system where we have genus and species, we have latinates, names for all living organisms, which are genus being a category of shared characteristics, and species being specific to the individual types within that genus.“ by Adam Rutherford
- “Now, when you read the initial description in systemae naturae, where this first occurs, the categorization is determined, is written as the first characteristic is skin colour. Homo sapiens americanus are red skinned, homo sapiens europaeus are white skinned, Asiaticus yellow skinned, and Africanus black skinned.“ by Adam Rutherford
- “Bigotry is permanent, right. Bigotry exists in all cultures and world, presumably continue to exist until we reach a sort of Star Trek level of human happiness.“ by Adam Rutherford
- “I think that it is the tendency to make discrete categories rather than to reflect complexity, which is where the problem lies.“ by Adam Rutherford
Entities
Person
Company
Concept
Book
Episode Information
Past Present Future
Ben Walker
5/9/24
For the latest episode in our series about the hold of bad ideas, we welcome back the geneticist Adam Rutherford to talk about Linnaean taxonomy, a seemingly innocuous scheme of classification that has had deeply pernicious consequences. From scientific racism to social stratification to search engine optimisation, taxonomy gets everywhere. Can we escape its grip?
Sign up now to PPF+ to get ad-free listening and bonus episodes to accompany every series. Coming soon: two bonus bad ideas just for PPF+ subscribers www.ppfideas.com
Next time on The History of Bad Ideas: Helen Lewis on women against the enfranchisement of women.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.