Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[HJCarden]

Is it possible that evolution has brought us to a lower state?

Could all of our intelligence, which supposedly has set us apart from our evolutionary competitors, eventually bring our downfall?

I'm not discussing this in terms of nuclear war, genocide, climate change etc. It is clear that while our increased intelligence has lead to us wielding massive destructive powers, it can be shown to be on the balance good. A far smaller portion of our population dies due to violence (manmade or natural) than at any other point in recorded history. Average life expectancy has vastly improved, and technology like the internet has made us more aware of others suffering, and possibly more empathetic with people who we will never physically come into contact with.

Rather I ask, is intelligence an evolutionary dead end? Is what was once what we thought to be our great advantage the thing that ensures we follow the dodo?

Could our species fall not because we engulf ourselves in a nuclear war, but rather simply fade out, as our increased intelligence creates progressively more neurotic, nihilistic, and ultimately uninterested people who let our species die out?

[Lagayascienza]

Unlikely. Neuroticism, nihilism, and disinterestedness would have to engulf all of humanity to such an extent and with such force that we all decided to commit suicide. That won't happen. People aren't all the same. Some of us see a future for humanity, especially if we can overcome our competitive aggressiveness and act in concert to solve grave environmental problems such as global heating.

Even a nuclear holocaust would be unlikely to wipe our species out - that would probably require dropping nukes on every city and town. And even in the worst case scenario, global heating won't kill us all either. Some places will remain habitable.

So, no, I don't think we will de-evolve. Evolution doesn't work that way. We are what we are and what we become is going to be determined more by cultural evolution than natural selection which only operates over very long time scales. There is no reason to think that intelligence is an evolutionary dead end or that we will all die by neuroticism, nihilism or just plain disinterestedness.

[value]

Interesting topic!

I was recently intrigued by the perspective of Mercury in topic Subjective/objective dichotomy who proposed the idea that humanity went 'off the right track' by following Descartes and by making him 'the father of (Western) philosophy'.

the fact Descartes withdrew a work on physics from publication while Galileo was on trial for the heresy of proving earth orbits the sun. Meditations on First Philosophy (I think therefore I am) was Descartes covering his backside. He did expect the Spanish Inquisition! And he prepared by inventing an alternate epistemology, that subsequently cast him as 'the father of modern philosophy.' But Galileo was right. John Paul II admitted as much in 1979 - yet Western civilisation continues in the course of subjectivism, unto a state of post modern solipsistic nihilism.

Explaining how we get from Descartes to Nietzsche and beyond requires considering the alternative reality;

Since your question involves the concept human intelligence in general from an evolutionary perspective, it seems applicable to seek a reduction to the evolution of philosophy or thought, and thus, to hold philosophy responsible.

From that perspective, it might be of interest to review the philosophical paths that humanity has followed, and to determine whether other paths might have been possible.

Descartes claimed in 1641 that animals are automatons (machines or predetermined programs) that do not feel pain (Descartes used to dissect animals alive to prove it), and that humans are special due to their intelligence.

Descartes' view that animals are automatons, or machines, that are devoid of consciousness, and that humans are special due to their intelligence, is culturally ingrained in modern Western society.

Why would humans fundamentally differ from animals?

Descartes' view on animals is simply in support of teleonomy, which is an attempt by Darwinian evolutionary theorists to achieve teleology (purpose in natural phenomena a.k.a. intelligent design) in a way that is compatible with determinism.

When teleonomy is true for lower life, it must be true for human consciousness.

In that sense, humanity might be ill positioned to defend foundational moral interests when the day comes that AI overpowers that which has made humans special in the view of 'the father of philosophy', who laid the intellectual foundation of modern society.

When human intelligence is no longer special, what is to determine the value of humanity? The intellectual path chosen by philosophy provides an outlook on meaningless 'automatons' that do not feel pain.

[LuckyR]

Is it possible that evolution has brought us to a lower state?

Could all of our intelligence, which supposedly has set us apart from our evolutionary competitors, eventually bring our downfall?

I'm not discussing this in terms of nuclear war, genocide, climate change etc. It is clear that while our increased intelligence has lead to us wielding massive destructive powers, it can be shown to be on the balance good. A far smaller portion of our population dies due to violence (manmade or natural) than at any other point in recorded history. Average life expectancy has vastly improved, and technology like the internet has made us more aware of others suffering, and possibly more empathetic with people who we will never physically come into contact with.

Rather I ask, is intelligence an evolutionary dead end? Is what was once what we thought to be our great advantage the thing that ensures we follow the dodo?

Could our species fall not because we engulf ourselves in a nuclear war, but rather simply fade out, as our increased intelligence creates progressively more neurotic, nihilistic, and ultimately uninterested people who let our species die out?

Definitely. As has been reviewed (in some detail) here in other threads, at the current time scholastic success, high income and most measures of economic achievement are all specifically genetically selected against. That is folks in those groups have fewer children. And since those fewer children themselves generally have similar achievements, they too have fewer children.

[Count Lucanor]

Could our species fall not because we engulf ourselves in a nuclear war, but rather simply fade out, as our increased intelligence creates progressively more neurotic, nihilistic, and ultimately uninterested people who let our species die out?

Please explain which would be the concrete mechanisms, processes, etc., that would let our species die out, without progressively more neurotic, nihilistic, and ultimately uninterested people creating the conditions for nuclear wars, genocide, climate change, and so on.

[Lagayascienza]

.
Yes, that was more or less the question I posed, but you put it more pointedly.

It is not clear to me whether or how we could all become progressively so neurotic, nihilistic, and ultimately uninterested that our species would do a dodo for that reason alone. It's hard to imagine us all, en masse, becoming so neurotic, nihilistic and disinterested that we'd stop eating or bonking. I can't see that happening. We'd have to become neurotic enough to engage in a nuclear holocaust, or disinterested enough to trash the climate so badly there was nowhere cool enough for us to live. It's possible, I suppose, to imagine neuroticism, nihilism and disinterestedness feeding into one of these scenarios, but they would not be the proximate cause our demise.

[HJCarden]

So, no, I don't think we will de-evolve. Evolution doesn't work that way. We are what we are and what we become is going to be determined more by cultural evolution than natural selection which only operates over very long time scales. There is no reason to think that intelligence is an evolutionary dead end or that we will all die by neuroticism, nihilism or just plain disinterestedness.

What way does evolution work then? Is there some divine evolver that can fully predict the effects of evolutionary changes, and then only picks the changes that wont backfire? Imagine the rats in the experiments that lead to the theory of "behavorial sink"...given unlimited resources and having all stresses eliminated, the population of rats exploded (much like how the human population has exploded due to medical/farming advances in centuries as of late) and then they became disinterested in procreation and the population headed towards extinction. Rats stopped courting eachother and females stopped looking after their young.

Im asking if evolution (which I have assumed to be blind) could have lead us to this path of destruction. Is the benefit gained by higher intelligence (what has allowed us to create the world we inhabit) the same thing that will create our downfall?

[HJCarden]

Please explain which would be the concrete mechanisms, processes, etc., that would let our species die out, without progressively more neurotic, nihilistic, and ultimately uninterested people creating the conditions for nuclear wars, genocide, climate change, and so on.

Something akin to behavioral sink, Im sure you're familiar with the rats that were given a "rat utopia", only to eventually lose interest in breeding and caring for their young after an initial population boom. The population was not just being culled, it was heading towards true extinction. I dont think it will be our destructive powers destroy our civilization, but rather a lack of interest in carrying the species forwards, brought on by the conditions created by our greater intellect.

[Count Lucanor]

Please explain which would be the concrete mechanisms, processes, etc., that would let our species die out, without progressively more neurotic, nihilistic, and ultimately uninterested people creating the conditions for nuclear wars, genocide, climate change, and so on.

Something akin to behavioral sink, Im sure you're familiar with the rats that were given a "rat utopia", only to eventually lose interest in breeding and caring for their young after an initial population boom. The population was not just being culled, it was heading towards true extinction. I dont think it will be our destructive powers destroy our civilization, but rather a lack of interest in carrying the species forwards, brought on by the conditions created by our greater intellect.

That seems very unlikely. The rat experiment that you mention presented a different hypothesis anyway, having to do with overpopulation, which by this time, applied to humans, has been thoroughly debunked as a myth. In any case, they didn’t reach that state by themselves, an external agent provided the conditions.


You seem to imply that “our greater intellect” will guarantee a state of abundance in which humans have no more needs to fulfill, but humans are not rats. They have a particular ability to create new needs, it’s what has created culture and civilization. It’s their second nature.

[Sculptor1]

Is it possible that evolution has brought us to a lower state?

There is just so much wrong with this statement.

1) The first is that "evolution" is not a thing that can "bring us" anywhere. It is not a forces of nature or cause. Evolution is an EFFECT, not a cause.
2) We may not speak of evolution, or natural selection in terms of states that are higher or lower. Nature "selects" that which is fit and successful. All organisms on the earth are all at the state state of evolution, in that they have managed to fulfil the test - they are all the surviving and successful progeny of their ancestors.
3) It is possible that species decline and become extinct, and that others increase and find novel strategies to thrive. But this are accidental in that they are contingent upon a successful reproduction and survival.
4) This survival can be expressed in two basic strategies. One is specialisation, the other is generalisation. Specialists can fill empty niches and become experts at narrowly defined strategies. This can lead to disaster when their niche disappears; Generalists can move on to fresh ground.

Human are generalists and have managed to colonise larger areas that any other macro-species. possibly any other species on earth. We exist in the Sahara, and the Antarctic. On high mountains, and low valleys; on the sea and even under it. We traverse rivers, and fly in the sky. We have event set foot on the Moon.
As generalists we are probably going to survive all but the most shocking change to our circumstances.

[Lagayascienza]

I see no signs of people losing interest in food. On the contrary, we have an obesity problem. So I don't think folks will stop eating. And people seem to be bonking as much as ever with world population predicted to be over 10 billion by 2086. So it's not as if there aren't enough of us to sustain a stabilization and perhaps some de-growth in population through more widespread contraception. Hunger and sexual desire are very primitive drives that won't just turn off because were feeling nihilistic. On top of that we have our fast changing culture which seems to push us into new fields of interest. Even as we get old fun is still to be had for a large proportion of us , life is still worth living. So I don't think our intelligence will be a dead end. It will allow us to find new ways to make life meaningful and interesting.

[LuckyR]

I see no signs of people losing interest in food. On the contrary, we have an obesity problem. So I don't think folks will stop eating. And people seem to be bonking as much as ever with world population predicted to be over 10 billion by 2086. So it's not as if there aren't enough of us to sustain a stabilization and perhaps some de-growth in population through more widespread contraception. Hunger and sexual desire are very primitive drives that won't just turn off because were feeling nihilistic. On top of that we have our fast changing culture which seems to push us into new fields of interest. Even as we get old fun is still to be had for a large proportion of us , life is still worth living. So I don't think our intelligence will be a dead end. It will allow us to find new ways to make life meaningful and interesting.

Well, as it happens, Europe, North America, South America and Asia are below replacement birth rates. Only Africa and Oceana are above (and Oceana is barely there).

[Lagayascienza]

I see no signs of people losing interest in food. On the contrary, we have an obesity problem. So I don't think folks will stop eating. And people seem to be bonking as much as ever with world population predicted to be over 10 billion by 2086. So it's not as if there aren't enough of us to sustain a stabilization and perhaps some de-growth in population through more widespread contraception. Hunger and sexual desire are very primitive drives that won't just turn off because were feeling nihilistic. On top of that we have our fast changing culture which seems to push us into new fields of interest. Even as we get old fun is still to be had for a large proportion of us , life is still worth living. So I don't think our intelligence will be a dead end. It will allow us to find new ways to make life meaningful and interesting.

Well, as it happens, Europe, North America, South America and Asia are below replacement birth rates. Only Africa and Oceana are above (and Oceana is barely there).

Yes, it's true that, in the areas you mention, fertility rates are at, or slightly below, replacement levels. That’s good. Many of the countries in those areas don't need more people so I see it as a good thing for them and the world. Fertility rates can be adjusted up and down. If fertility rates decline too much it’s possible to encourage more births with adjustments to social policy and taxation. Small increases in immigration can also be appropriate. My own country, Australia, is one where the fertility rate is marginally below replacement level. However, because of immigration, our population is projected to continue growing slowly. Australia is a big country and can, arguably, manage some further moderate increase in total population. But we need to manage immigration carefully to ensure it does not affect our national culture and stability.

Fertility rates in Africa are too high. Some countries such as Nigeria are already over-populated. As countries in Africa develop, they will go through the sort of demographic transition experienced elsewhere – fertility rates will drop. And they will need to drop if those countries are to avoid further increases in poverty and hunger which are already rampant there.

For the sake of the environment, especially the climate, humans need to stop breeding like rabbits. Our population cannot keep growing until every square meter of the earth is covered in people. That would mean abject poverty and misery for all. And, possibly, our demise as a species. We need to stabilize our population whilst ensuring we have enough younger people to support the elderly cohort. That is doable with adjustments to fertility rates and immigration. As the elderly cohort die off our population pyramids will revert to a more normal shape. We know how to achieve the correct long term balance with the right policy adjustments. It’s a question of whether we’ll be smart enough to do so in time to avert environmental disaster.

[Lagayascienza]

An interesting Australian study on the sensitivity of fertility rates to government policies is:

Impacts of Policies on Fertility Rates, March 2022, A report by the Australian National University for the Australian Government Centre for Population.

It demonstrates that government policies can indeed raise fertility rates when deemed desirable. An increase in tax concessions in 2004 was associated with an increase of 0.13 to the intended number of children. Another policy, the Baby Bonus scheme, increased births by 2 percent. The introduction of paid parental leave and the provision of affordable childcare in other countries have also shown positive effects on fertility rates.

Therefore, I don’t think fertility rates at or marginally below replacement rates are a real worry. Policy adjustments can raise and lower fertility rates. What’s most important now in terms of human wellbeing is for almost all of Africa to get fertility rates and population growth down. Africa is already a continent-wide humanitarian disaster.

[LuckyR]

I see no signs of people losing interest in food. On the contrary, we have an obesity problem. So I don't think folks will stop eating. And people seem to be bonking as much as ever with world population predicted to be over 10 billion by 2086. So it's not as if there aren't enough of us to sustain a stabilization and perhaps some de-growth in population through more widespread contraception. Hunger and sexual desire are very primitive drives that won't just turn off because were feeling nihilistic. On top of that we have our fast changing culture which seems to push us into new fields of interest. Even as we get old fun is still to be had for a large proportion of us , life is still worth living. So I don't think our intelligence will be a dead end. It will allow us to find new ways to make life meaningful and interesting.

Well, as it happens, Europe, North America, South America and Asia are below replacement birth rates. Only Africa and Oceana are above (and Oceana is barely there).

Yes, it's true that, in the areas you mention, fertility rates are at, or slightly below, replacement levels. That’s good. Many of the countries in those areas don't need more people so I see it as a good thing for them and the world. Fertility rates can be adjusted up and down. If fertility rates decline too much it’s possible to encourage more births with adjustments to social policy and taxation. Small increases in immigration can also be appropriate. My own country, Australia, is one where the fertility rate is marginally below replacement level. However, because of immigration, our population is projected to continue growing slowly. Australia is a big country and can, arguably, manage some further moderate increase in total population. But we need to manage immigration carefully to ensure it does not affect our national culture and stability.

Fertility rates in Africa are too high. Some countries such as Nigeria are already over-populated. As countries in Africa develop, they will go through the sort of demographic transition experienced elsewhere – fertility rates will drop. And they will need to drop if those countries are to avoid further increases in poverty and hunger which are already rampant there.

For the sake of the environment, especially the climate, humans need to stop breeding like rabbits. Our population cannot keep growing until every square meter of the earth is covered in people. That would mean abject poverty and misery for all. And, possibly, our demise as a species. We need to stabilize our population whilst ensuring we have enough younger people to support the elderly cohort. That is doable with adjustments to fertility rates and immigration. As the elderly cohort die off our population pyramids will revert to a more normal shape. We know how to achieve the correct long term balance with the right policy adjustments. It’s a question of whether we’ll be smart enough to do so in time to avert environmental disaster.

Again, outside of Africa, humans aren't "breeding like rabbits". And the Korean experience demonstrates that "adjustments to social policy and taxation" aren't effective in significantly increasing fertility rates. As to Africa, they won't experience a drop in fertility until female education becomes engrained in that society.