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

[Zhan]

I suggest that Intelligence is a subjective theory created by human kind itself. Yet human kind only maintains its theoretical measure of intellegence by comparing its very own being with other living types surviving on this planet. A genetic mistake might cause the human species to think in this manner. Yet where is there any Cosmic truth to be found that can verify the human species is the most intelligent ? The animal and insect world has an equilibrium which, despite its apparent ruthlessness and cruelty in human terms, works efficiently for the benefit of all to prevent an over crowding of any given species; plus an elimination of the weaker species of any type to eliminate substandard reproduction. And it all appears to work very efficiently. Whereby the human animal chooses to ignore these rulings; preferring to breed continuously without due regard to food resources, habitat, or spacial comfort. And it perpetuates it's ever regard for human survival by ensuring it's old and unproductive types survive as long as they are able through medication and care where in a balanced animal world the old and infirm would be allowed to die naturally or be eliminated by natural means. However the human 'intelligent' way is to preserve human life at all costs thus creating insurmountable problems totally unrelated to the efficient survival of the fittest and productive of the human race. In due course this so called ' intelligent ' approach to survival must surely lead to a form of mass human catastrophe unknown in the animal ' unintelligent' kingdom. A genetic mistake in the human being animal ?

[Sy Borg]

I suggest that Intelligence is a subjective theory created by human kind itself. Yet human kind only maintains its theoretical measure of intellegence by comparing its very own being with other living types surviving on this planet.

Intelligence is a means to do better than trial-and-error. Intelligence appears in most species and is significant in a number of mammals and birds.

A genetic mistake might cause the human species to think in this manner. Yet where is there any Cosmic truth to be found that can verify the human species is the most intelligent ?

All life is the result of efficacious genetic mistakes. Evidence for humanity's highest level of intelligence is in our brain's physiology. The human brain is the most complex integrated structure in the known universe, more complex than that of other animals. Humans have developed technology that can take us to the stars.

The animal and insect world has an equilibrium which, despite its apparent ruthlessness and cruelty in human terms, works efficiently for the benefit of all to prevent an over crowding of any given species; plus an elimination of the weaker species of any type to eliminate substandard reproduction. And it all appears to work very efficiently.

This is simply because no species was capable of domination, unless you count relatively ubiquitous organisms like bacteria and tardigrades. The issue is human capability and relative immaturity, having only eschewed nomadic life for 10,000 years.

Whereby the human animal chooses to ignore these rulings; preferring to breed continuously without due regard to food resources, habitat, or spacial comfort. And it perpetuates it's ever regard for human survival by ensuring it's old and unproductive types survive as long as they are able through medication and care where in a balanced animal world the old and infirm would be allowed to die naturally or be eliminated by natural means. However the human 'intelligent' way is to preserve human life at all costs thus creating insurmountable problems totally unrelated to the efficient survival of the fittest and productive of the human race. In due course this so called ' intelligent ' approach to survival must surely lead to a form of mass human catastrophe unknown in the animal ' unintelligent' kingdom.

This is not a genetic problem but a social one, largely caused by the anthropocentric and mystical teachings of ancient religions. Nobody wants to live in a Logan's Run world where those over thirty are "retired", but assisted suicide for the terminally ill who request it, with proper checks and balances, would be a good start.

No matter what, catastrophe has always awaited humanity. Given our dominance it's only ever been a matter of time. The tragedy of the commons will ensure that our steering controls are inadequate to protect the most vulnerable. Regression to the wild is no answer, just a recipe for needless suffering and a waste of progress. Life in the wild is far harder than most people imagine. They just see the beauty and forget that you have a conflict of interest with a huge number of organisms, many of which would love to eat a small piece of you and, especially, your soft, juicy and vulnerable kids. That's why humans sterilise our environments.

Key point: humans are empowered and dominant so, given the tragedy of the commons, overbreeding and trouble is inevitable. We are not a mistake, just the next step.

[Zhan]

Intelligence is a means to do better than trial-and-error. Intelligence appears in most species and is significant in a number of mammals and birds.

A genetic mistake might cause the human species to think in this manner. Yet where is there any Cosmic truth to be found that can verify the human species is the most intelligent ?

All life is the result of efficacious genetic mistakes. Evidence for humanity's highest level of intelligence is in our brain's physiology. The human brain is the most complex integrated structure in the known universe, more complex than that of other animals. Humans have developed technology that can take us to the stars.

The animal and insect world has an equilibrium which, despite its apparent ruthlessness and cruelty in human terms, works efficiently for the benefit of all to prevent an over crowding of any given species; plus an elimination of the weaker species of any type to eliminate substandard reproduction. And it all appears to work very efficientl
This is simply because no species was capable of domination, unless you count relatively ubiquitous organisms like bacteria and tardigrades. The issue is human capability and relative immaturity, having only eschewed nomadic life for 10,000 years.

Whereby the human animal chooses to ignore these rulings; preferring to breed continuously without due regard to food resources, habitat, or spacial comfort. And it perpetuates it's ever regard for human survival by ensuring it's old and unproductive types survive as long as they are able through medication and care where in a balanced animal world the old and infirm would be allowed to die naturally or be eliminated by natural means. However the human 'intelligent' way is to preserve human life at all costs thus creating insurmountable problems totally unrelated to the efficient survival of the fittest and productive of the human race. In due course this so called ' intelligent ' approach to survival must surely lead to a form of mass human catastrophe unknown in the animal ' unintelligent' kingdom.

This is not a genetic problem but a social one, largely caused by the anthropocentric and mystical teachings of ancient religions. Nobody wants to live in a Logan's Run world where those over thirty are "retired", but assisted suicide for the terminally ill who request it, with proper checks and balances, would be a good start.

No matter what, catastrophe has always awaited humanity. Given our dominance it's only ever been a matter of time. The tragedy of the commons will ensure that our steering controls are inadequate to protect the most vulnerable. Regression to the wild is no answer, just a recipe for needless suffering and a waste of progress. Life in the wild is far harder than most people imagine. They just see the beauty and forget that you have a conflict of interest with a huge number of organisms, many of which would love to eat a small piece of you and, especially, your soft, juicy and vulnerable kids. That's why humans sterilise our environments.

Key point: humans are empowered and dominant so, given the tragedy of the commons, overbreeding and trouble is inevitable. We are not a mistake, just the next step.[/quote]

[Sy Borg]

Zan, there's some issues with the use of quotes in your post that makes it hard for me to understand the tread of conversation.

[LuckyR]

A couple of things.

Humans are humans because of a genetic "mistake" in the sense that a mutation that stunted the jaw muscles allowed the underlying skull to not have to be so thick to support the standard primate bite musculature, thus the cranial cavity could be much larger. The enlarged brain flowed from that "mistake".

Humans in fact do slow their reproduction as populations rise, Italy and especially Japan are on a relatively steep negative growth rate.

[Jackson1982]

It depends on the criteria we use to define what constitutes a mistake. Humans have conquered their environment but in doing that threaten the environment that we still depend on to survive. If not being able to survive is what constitutes a mistake then yeah it sure looks like a mistake. But if you ask any other lifeform on this planet whether they think we're a mistake they won't know what we're asking and won't care. It depends on how much value is placed on the big picture. An ant lives maybe a month and just walks for a while and lives a pretty simple life. I'd rather be what I am now than an ant.

[Steve3007]

I think referring to a "genetic mistake" suggests that a common misunderstanding about the Theory of Evolution, and about theories of Nature in general, has been made. The word "mistake" implies some sort of mis-step or wrong-turn on the road to some sort of goal. The laws of Nature do not propose goals. One can argue as to whether there is or isn't a goal to the Natural world (possibly a divine goal) but the Theory of Evolution does not propose one.

[Rederic]

If there's no plan, there can't be a mistake.

[Steve3007]

Rederic:

If there's no plan, there can't be a mistake.

Exactly. And much more succinct than the way I put it in my post.

Going back to Zhan's OP:

The theme running through the OP appears to be "intelligence". And the implication throughout the OP is that intelligence is always the attribute which most ensures the survival of a species, and that therefore if the human race does things that look as though they might lead to us not surviving this means we must not have that attribute. This is exemplified by sentences like these:

Yet where is there any Cosmic truth to be found that can verify the human species is the most intelligent ?

In due course this so called ' intelligent ' approach to survival must surely lead to a form of mass human catastrophe unknown in the animal ' unintelligent' kingdom.

Note the scare quotes in that second sentence, implying that the writer believes himself to be making the argument that human beings do not, after all, have the intelligence that we thought we had.

In my view, a mistake being made here is assuming that intelligence is always the attribute which most ensures the survival of a species. It is not. It's just one of numerous attribute that may or may not confer survival advantage. It does happen to be the attribute that our own species, more than any other, has used to become successful, in evolutionary terms.

Another mistake is in thinking that a value judgement can be made about the human race by stating that we are not intelligent.

The definition of "intelligence" is, roughly speaking, the ability to process and analyse information coming from our senses in complex ways that don't simply amount to "IF stimulus A THEN reaction B". It's the ability to work things out. Clearly, the human race possesses a great amount of this ability compared to any other known living thing. This is not a value judgement. It's not a way of saying "aren't we humans great!". It's just an assessment of the meaning of the word "intelligent" and the observed development and behaviour of the human race. If it turns out that we use that intelligence to destroy ourselves then clearly it is an attribute that doesn't always confer survival advantage.

[Mark1955]

I think it can be argued that for "Man the wise" intelligence is a large part of our fitness. Our less intelligent cousins are not, in evolutionary terms, on a par with us or many other species, but when you look at the success of the predominant species on the planet, the more populous bacteria, we are nothing but a short lived interruption.

[Atreyu]

There is no "genetic mistake", lol.

Nature has Its reasons for creating such a strange species, hence our existence. In fact, all the other species could be said to be experiments in the process of creating homo sapiens. Homo sapiens is the pinnacle of Nature's experiment with life on Earth.

For Nature wanted to create a species that could "stand on its own two feet"....

[Steve3007]

Atreyu: I presume you're being ironic there and are not really suggesting that Nature somehow had a goal in mind from the beginning, and that the goal was homo sapiens sapiens?

[Blake 789]

A mistake made by who according to what genetic plan? We would need to know this part of the question first.

[Atreyu]

Atreyu: I presume you're being ironic there and are not really suggesting that Nature somehow had a goal in mind from the beginning, and that the goal was homo sapiens sapiens?

Well, let's just say that at some point in time, Nature decided that homo sapiens would be a good idea, i.e. it was determined that a self-evolving being was necessary. At least in this corner of the Universe (Earth)....

[Steve3007]

Atreyu:

Well, let's just say that at some point in time, Nature decided that homo sapiens would be a good idea, i.e. it was determined that a self-evolving being was necessary. At least in this corner of the Universe (Earth)....

Necessary for what?