Are humans too smart for their own good?

ETA

Student
E
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
44
Now I know many of you will laugh at the thread's title because of all the non-intelligent people you see on a daily basis, but I was wondering why human beings have evolved to the point where they can destroy the environment in which they were created and ultimately lead themselves to self-destruction.

It seems to me that the ability to live in a symbiotic relationship with your environment would be more advantageous for survival and reproduction. Now obviously, we have the capability of doing this, but it comes at a great cost to our natural hedonistic tendencies and requires a conscious effort that I just don't see in the "natural world". Other animals, by their very nature are greedy, they seek only to survive and reproduce and yet human beings seem to be the only ones capable of inflicting great harm onto their environment and dooming themselves in the process.

So, back to the topic of the thread, is this inability for humans to live naturally in symbiosis with the Earth a result of having too much intelligence? Are we able to perceive, adapt and control too much of our environment? Is the mutation that caused us to be so intelligent in fact a huge mistake of nature, and if so, why did this mutation even come about in the first place?
 
The idea that a single mutation is responsible for human intelligence is incorrect, as is the idea that it was all the result of a mutation. I believe variation is a better term. Variation in genetics that control cognitive abilities (and that is a very large, vague concept as is intelligence) resulted in better survival odds for some. Survival odds seem to have stayed better for those with better cognitive ability for a long time, resulting in a long-term move toward smarter apes, and eventually, us.

Humans are not the only animal that can destroy its own environment. Grazing animals will breed and eat themselves out of food if something happens to disrupt the population of their predator species, but the predator species will do the same if the situation is reversed. Humans may be the only animal capable of realizing that they can/are/could make their environment unsurvivable.
 
"The survival value of human intelligence has never been adequately demonstrated."

Michael Crichton ~ The Andromeda Strain

That's taking the wide view, but largely true, in my opinion. Cockroach intelligence, shark intelligence, among others, has done pretty well. As for humans -- like Ho Chi Minh said when asked to discuss the importance of the French Revolution: "It's too soon to tell."
 
ETA said:
Now I know many of you will laugh at the thread's title because of all the non-intelligent people you see on a daily basis, but I was wondering why human beings have evolved to the point where they can destroy the environment in which they were created and ultimately lead themselves to self-destruction.
Click to expand...

Can we? How do you know? Has it ever been tested?

In principle, the human race could destroy itself just by everybody deciding to commit suicide. But it's not going to happen. Similarly, under what realistic scenario would we doom ourselves by destroying our environment?

It seems to me that the ability to live in a symbiotic relationship with your environment would be more advantageous for survival and reproduction.
Click to expand...

What counts as a "symbiotic relationship"? And why is it better than being able to manipulate your environment to suit your survival needs?
 
In the stages before there were humans, there were all kinds of hominid apes around and they (mostly) all died out. It was us, the ones who can engineer our environment, who survived.

So, no. Probably not.

I also don't think we're in a position to kill our entire species off. Mass deaths, sure, but the entire species? I think it would take an enormous asteroid or something like that to make it happen.
 
ETA said:
Other animals, by their very nature are greedy, they seek only to survive and reproduce and yet human beings seem to be the only ones capable of inflicting great harm onto their environment and dooming themselves in the process.
Click to expand...

This looks to me like you're assuming that answer to the question you're asking.
 
Homo sapiens haven't been around long enough to determine whether or not we're successful yet, imo. I don't think whether we are "too smart" for either our good or bad is therefore determinable. But if I had to place my bet on one or the other, I'd say that the idea is that we pretty much suck.
 
ETA said:
Now I know many of you will laugh at the thread's title because of all the non-intelligent people you see on a daily basis, but I was wondering why human beings have evolved to the point where they can destroy the environment in which they were created and ultimately lead themselves to self-destruction.
Click to expand...

Because evolution has no foresight.
 
I suppose I am making many assumptions about a science I am only casually familiar with.

It is pretty clear that humans are a very unique animal on this planet, and I was only asking if intelligence is detrimental to the long-term survival of a species.

I suppose the best answer anyone can come up with at this point is "it's too early to tell."
 
Trent Wray said:
Homo sapiens haven't been around long enough to determine whether or not we're successful yet, imo. I don't think whether we are "too smart" for either our good or bad is therefore determinable. But if I had to place my bet on one or the other, I'd say that the idea is that we pretty much suck.
Click to expand...

I disagree. We dominate the world because of our intelligence.
 
bpesta22 said:
I disagree. We dominate the world because of our intelligence.
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by "dominate".

In one sense, we ARE dominant because we are the only species able to take proactive measures to prevent our own extinction.

In another sense, we are not dominant because bacteria are much better at physical survival in extreme conditions.
 
Complexity said:
Don't be silly. There aren't enough even moderately-intelligent people.
Click to expand...

I'd like to add - and I probably picked this up somewhere else, but can't remember where - that scientists still have not found any proof of intelligent life in this universe.
 
Evolution doesn't have a goal; it only reacts to the environment - it has no thought for what it is or how to handle it in any way, it is simply there, and evolution tries to build creatures that will succeed. Red of teeth and claw is the general solution it has followed, apparently being nice to your environment doesn't have much traction when there are others completing for the resources.

It did "decide" that hardwiring some basic ethics and social behavior was useful, apparently. Beyond that, the environment is as much a competitor as the other species around us.
 
bpesta22 said:
I disagree. We dominate the world because of our intelligence.
Click to expand...
.
There's that pesky volcano in Iceland that gives no shrift to intelligence, and that oil leak in the Gulf that is a result of applied intelligence.
 
I Ratant said:
There's that pesky volcano in Iceland that gives no shrift to intelligence
Click to expand...

And who does the volcano threaten more: local animals who don't know what's going on and can't flee far, or people who can set up seismic equipment to detect the eruption before it hits, use satellite imagery to track its effects, plan evacuation routes, bring in relief supplies if necessary, etc?

and that oil leak in the Gulf that is a result of applied intelligence.
Click to expand...

That's not threatening our survival to any significant degree.
 
Plenty of animals destroy their environment and suffer for it.
 
7 billion of us, average height 5 foot something. That's a lot of space. I'd call that domination.
 
The fact that we are intelligent enough to recognize the potential threat of destroying our own habitat, is enough to reduce the actual danger of destroying our own habitat.. at least somewhat.

Better than ignorantly destroying everything, at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom