So Human an Animal, published in 1968, is a historical artifact worth reading for its documentation of the transition from the idealism of the 1950s and '60s into the skepticism of the 1970s and the cynicism of the 1980s. While the book is an impressively sustained argument, it does include a lot of repetition of the same points and some dated assumptions. For example, his very bleak assessment of urban life is no longer as merited because cities are actually cleaner, better maintained, and safer than they were in the late '60s.
René Dubos was a microbiologist and pathologist who discovered an early antibiotic, but was drawn to social concerns for much of the second half of his career. He has a mitigated faith in science; he realizes what most people think of as science is really just technology and engineering. The spirit of science—to always question and to never expect there to be a final, correct answer, but only the next question—is still as foreign to lay people now as it was in 1968, to our collective peril.
Dubos structures So Human an Animal somewhat like a traditional scientific paper. His hypothesis, advanced clearly at the outset, is that human beings are a product of our total environment, and because our environment is changing through time, so will we. He spends the first two chapters giving you background information; what have earlier writers thought regarding his topic. Who has embraced it and who has rejected it, and why?
In some senses his perspective is dated. For example, he is entirely unwilling to believe that human beings can ever live anywhere except on Earth. This is in keeping with his thesis that our nature is inextricable bound to physical environment in which we have evolved and to which we have been and still are continually adapting ourselves as a collective, what we call culture. In 1968 I don't think it was feasible to make or continuously recycle air and water. Dubos is similarly innocent of technologies like CRISPR or any sort of genetic modification other than that proposed by eugenicists.
Even with some of this historically artifactual assumptions, Dubos still has a lot of good things to say. He is one of the people, for example, to whom the phrase "Think globally, act locally" is attributed. Perhaps the most compelling chapter in the book, "The Pursuit of Significance," begins with Dubos quoting at length from Henry Smith's version of the famous speech by Chief Seattle. What impresses Dubos most is the tribal leader's expression of an "organic unity with their ancestral lands." While the tribal peoples seem to remember what he considers to be a proper relationship between human beings and their environment, Western peoples have forgotten it. Writing six years after the publication of Silent Spring, Dubos's message is much the same as Rachel Carson's: by destroying our physical environment, we are destroying ourselves. And we aren't just poisoning our bodies, we're poisoning our minds with monotony and a scarcity of stimulation.
In his chapter on significance Dubos, a native French speaker, faults the popular translation of Antoine de Saint Exupéry's The Little Prince. The fox tells the eponymous prince "One only understands the things one tames." Dubos insists that the French word Saint Exupéry uses apprivoiser does not mean "tamed" but instead conveys the idea of a shared experience of understanding and appreciation. This is the crux of his argument against most so-called scientific solutions for human problems. We should not be trying to tame our environment. Rather, we should be attempting to understand and appreciate it in order to further the development of our culture and thereby ourselves.
This injunction falls somewhere between the then mainstream—but sadly still prevalent—attitude of subjugating Nature through technological means to further our specious and materialistic way of life, and the countercultural approach of retreating from technological innovation in order to get "back to Nature." Fifty-six years after the publication of So Human an Animal, Dubos's middle way remains a minor path taken by few. If anything, the lay public is more suspicious of actual science than they were the year before humans landed on the Moon.