Humankind Possesses Superior Intelligence–But There’s a Catch
It’s the birthday of primatologist Jane Goodal, who pointed out, “Chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans have been living for hundreds of thousands of years in their forest, living fantastic lives, never overpopulating, never destroying the forest. I would say that they have been in a way more successful than us as far as being in harmony with the environment.”
It really is remarkable that the human species, with its superior intelligence, behaves so poorly in so many ways.
It certainly is possible, as other minds far keener than mine have speculated, that we could be simply in an evolutionary cul de sac, one like the millions of flash-in-the-pan species that just didn’t work out. Let’s suppose for a moment that this does turn out to be the case, i.e., we annihilate one other with nuclear weapons or destroy our environment to the point that the whole planet is one big Easter Island. Won’t the last survivors want to know what did us in?
Here’s a piece of idle speculation; it’s a take-off on the aphorism: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Maybe that’s the case with intelligence as well: Homo sapiens evolved to have some of it, but not enough, and thus fell in a chasm; i.e., if a species is going to have intelligence, it needs significantly more of it than we came to possess.
Yes, it’s speculation, but it’s not as if there is no evidence to support this hypothesis. We live in a post-factual world in which pathological liar Donald Trump reigns as the planet’s most powerful person. He’s cheered on by 50+ million enthusiastic Americans, largely poor, elderly, uneducated white people who are seeing the quality of their lives reduced a little further each day by policies that are clearly designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
I hope you’ll check out this essay comparing what’s happening now in the U.S. to the experiences of the people of Venezuela during and following the 14-year reign of Hugo Chávez, where the dictator misappropriated uncountable billions of dollars of oil money and left the vast majority of his people destitute. The punch line: because of the world of alternative facts in which the Venezuelans lived through those years, Chávez is now remembered as being successful, honest and generous, even by these starving masses, some of whom have formed a religion around the man and his memory. The author begins: “I grew up surrounded by Chávez’s alternate reality. Now I’m watching one consume the United States.”
Here, the same author writes: Donald Trump is an avowed capitalist; Hugo Chávez was a socialist with communist dreams. One builds skyscrapers, the other expropriated them. But politics is only one-half policy: The other, darker half is rhetoric. Sometimes the rhetoric takes over. Such has been our lot in Venezuela for the past two decades — and such is yours now, Americans. Because in one regard, Trump and Chávez are identical.
I.e., they both came to power by taking advantage of people for whom facts had long ceased to matter. Maybe this is how extinction happens.
Craig you make some great points. Some of it is the traditionally conservative standard environmentalism and particularly the flavor that calls for not changing or interfering with nature.
There is another perspective that would look down on other primates because they have done nothing to go beyond what the environment has to offer. They are subject to and limited by the energy and materials of their environment. The only adaptation available to them is evolution over many generations. A change in environment would lead to their extinction. This was a more liberal position until taken over in recent decades by conservatives and those who favor corporate exploitation.
How much intelligence do we need? For thousands of years various thinkers, students of philosophy, and religious leaders have said we need more thinking of ourselves as a society and not individuals. We can have fantastic intelligence in many individuals. However when those individuals seek to concentrate power in themselves especially to seek security against all others, out of fear of every other person, then we have modern society. We glorify intelligence but socially we could do with a lot less intelligence if we would only work together rather than separately and against one another.
That is a great second story to the Easter Island saga. But it is interesting that both versions come down to the same problem. No one sounded the alarm. No one or collectively did they say, “We are losing it…” The just adapted and made do. Will that happen to us? There is a strong argument that it already has. Personal privacy and freedom are being eroded almost it seems daily, some say the world cannot continue indefinitely with a growth economy based on borrowing, minerals are becoming harder to find, the oceans are being fished dry, potable water reserves are being depleted and the climate is changing yet when something does appear it is generally absorbed in the cycle of daily activities rather than eliciting a plan for action. If anything people are reacting by trying to ignore the news and pretend life will continue for them as usual forever.
Craig,
No matter how successful the human race becomes in acquiring knowledge, technology, science, including advancements in medicine etc, there will always be those crying “doom” ” destruction’ etc.
“The End is Nigh” , has been a common catch cry among doomsday prophets throughout the ages.
So too have been romantic myths about “mother Nature” , “Noble Savages” ” Living with Nature”.
Why is it so hard to accept that humans “are, what the are”?
We are an amazingly creative, curious, courageous, adaptive, tough,determined species. We have taken control of our own evolution, and learned to accept there are no benefits without the risk of loss.
Humans have no interest in being passively “in harmony with the environment” , we are the environment ! Other species are not “in harmony with the environment’ from philosophic choice, but because they have no option !
It’s a very human trait (but a fantasy) to attribute deep philosophic rationales and attributes to primitive cultures or creatures they simply don’t possess.
Yep, it hard belonging to such a contrary, aggressive species, but that’s the price we pay for creative intelligence.